(EOTC) and the Ethiopian Evangelical Churches (EEC): Possible
Mekelle: 15 March 2024 (Tigray Herald)
Christological Conceptions within the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church
(EOTC) and the Ethiopian Evangelical Churches (EEC): Possible
Christological-Soteriological Unity between the EOTC-EEC
By
Esckinder Taddesse
Woldegebrial
A thesis submitted for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
At
The South African Theological
Seminary
Date December 2013
2
Structure and Chapter Outline
Chapter one: Introduction/Problem………………………………………………3-40
Chapter Two: Christological sense of the New Testament
Texts……………………………………………………………………………….41-134
Chapter Three: Christological Thought Progressions in Church
History……………………………………………………………………………135-169
Chapter Four: EOTC and EEC Christological Literatures and
Traditions…………………………………………………………………………170-201
Chapter Five: Reflective Epistemological Critique………………………….202-242
Chapter Six: Moving Towards Unity………………………………………………….243-289
Chapter Seven: Conclusion…………………………………………………. 290-298
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………299-319
3
Chapter One
I Introduction/Problem
Christological debates have been all through the history of the church. Different
exegetes responded differently towards the issue of Christology. All the
responses seem to be responses for the doctrinal/theological uncertainties within
their own historical context. For instance, the responses of Nestorius and or
Eutyches or Cyril or Chalcedon with the philosophical difficulties of the “two
natures in one person” led to a hypostatic controversy of the human and the
divine or the vice versa.
Before we step into the detailed discussions of our own quests, let’s re-enforce
the gist of this research by reviewing a little bit of Christological quests from the
past. In practice, trying to examine all enigmas of the past is an unfeasible task.
Therefore we would be selective in our approach of dealing with seeming puzzles
of the past.
For this very purpose this research will mainly focus on Nestorius, Euthyches,
Cyril and Leo. Then we will try to see how these frameworks have influenced the
Christological doctrine in church history, mainly Ethiopian church history.
Rationale behind our selection of them is because we see that these are more or
less primary and extremes on the continuum. Even though, this thesis will not be
silent concerning recent Christological developments in the western world
contributed by Scholars such as; debates from Schillebeeckx, DJ Dunn etc.
Nestorius a presbyter at Antioch, and later patriarch of Constantinople (428-435
A. D.) distinguished between the two natures; (Schaff 1910 :714, 717, 729) see
also (Rochie :346). He was actually against the description of Mary as the
Mother of God (theotokos), (Harnack 1961 :181) therefore very careful either
not to call Mary theotokos, as he said no one can give birth to anyone older than
herself ( Jurgens :200-202). Nestorius seem to hold on to the idea of Christ who
is constituted of two persons, as he emphasized the relation between the two
natures in terms of a moral ‘conjunction’ or a merging of wills rather than that of
4
an essential union. In actuality he did not divide Christ into two ‘sons’ but he
refused to attribute to the divine nature to the human acts (Dowley,1977 :172).
Nestorius preferred the Christotokos title to Saint Mary as God cannot have a
mother (Kelly,1980 :311) and finally resolved the case saying Mary the “mother
of Christ” (Jedin,1980 :100). His first letter to Cyril, as was translated into English
which says;
it is no small error, but similar to the corruption of Apollinarius and Arius, blending
together the Lord’s appearance as man into a kind of confused combination…and openly
blaspheme God the Word consubstantial with the father, as if he took his beginning from
the Christ bearing virgin (Rochie :347).
Nestorius reinforced his argument saying, the two natures (ousia) conjugated
voluntarily, than hypostatically/natural (Kelly,1980 :315). It is true that Nestorius
made a distinction between the human and the divine natures in Christ which he
didn’t say this of the persons as Nestorius speaks of a prosopon of union or a
hypostasis of persons not natures (Ousia). Nestorius was very clear in
distinguishing the two natures yet the union of his prosopon was not clear that it
amounted to almost separation of the two persons, at least by his followers
(Jurgens :203). He said Christ Himself was not born, but only the man Jesus.
Hence, Mary was not to be called the mother of God. Only to the man Jesus,
could birth, suffering and death be ascribed. As a result certain acts of the Lord
were ascribed, to His Divine and certain to His human. All his arguments are
more or less to protect the divine immutability from the Human acts in which
more will be said later concerning this issue (Grillmeier 1979 :462).
As was hinted in the above discussion, Nestorius continues saying, we should
not attribute the acts of the humanity to the deity; the divine LOGOS is not fed
with milk or grow. The union in Nestorius is more of a moral union which so
separates the two natures, therefore the becoming in John 1:14 seems to be
ignored. The “becoming” is not indwelling, as if the Divine was just inside but not
part of the flesh.
Nestorius’s justification that the beginning of God the Son is not the incarnation is
5
acceptable with no question. But it seems very obscure for what category
Nestorius argued. Is it about the age of God? Or is it about the person of God or
the nature of God or what? We don’t also see anywhere that Cyril made God to
begin during the virgin birth, as the age or eternality of the Son was not so much
a question. His frustration with Arius who so denied the divine, his frustration with
the ideas from Apollinarius who so denied the human element also his fear of
Cyril’s esteem who so dignified Mary the Mother of the divine (theotokos), seem
to make Nestorius to free his thoughts from all the three by making a clear
distinction between the divine and the human. If the two natures share a
common person, where the person referred here is not from Mary but the eternal
person, the divine Son, this person could be enhypostasized into the flesh from
Mary, through a dynamic flow of life into both natures. Then right after the
incarnation, what belongs to the divine also belongs to the human. The question
is, how much of the empowerment is live in the two natures? But if the two
natures are so divided as in Nestorius, these may lead that the two natures have
their own independent person, independent acts as well.
As far as this conversation is concerned the only point supposing discussion from
Nestorius is the immutability issue when it comes to a reconciliation of the
incarnation in human terms. Therefore, a challenge to Nestorius Christology may
be that, if God has not suffered for the cause of human salvation, all purposes of
the incarnation would seem futile and fairy-tale. Why incarnation after all? Who is
incarnated after all? These questions are basic which Nestorius doesn’t seem to
consider in his Christological treatments.
As Nestorianism is the result of a dispute at the Synod of Ephesus in 421, hence
the church condemned Nestorianism as heresy at the third general council
(Ephesus 431), (Qualben: 122). The Synod decided against Nestorius in favor of
the Alexandrian theology that he was declared as heretical, accused of taking the
Antiochene School to the extreme of creating two ‘Christ’s ’, up until being driven
to exile. This is where the Antiochene theology separated itself from the
Alexandrian theology. Anyways, in 428, Nestorius became the patriarch of
6
Constantinople and Cyril continued as the patriarch of Alexandria.
This discussion incurs a bit treatment of mutability/immutability issue. It is true
that the divine is impassible, but impassible in what sense? It is true that the
divine is impassible when it comes to what is uncreated. Whereas God’s essence
(including the incarnate one) and God’s decree is very natural which is there
eternally but has somewhat manifested itself in time and space like creation,
incarnation, salvation, etc…. These occurrences appear mutable yet not
necessarily implying mutability but actualization of the eternal decrees of God.
Having this thought as an option to comprehend passibility/impassibility issues,
for the time being, let’s see more comparison of Nestorius and Cyril.
While Nestorius favored a moral union as if the divine stands off the human,
implying duality, Cyril went for a perfect union, as in the union of the soul and
body in human nature, one entity out of duality (Weinandy 2003 :182–92), where
the soul and body coexist under one entity but keep their identity. This argument
of Cyril actually stands as a strong case for soteriology than Christology. The
becoming denotes a shift towards a new functional composition, denoting a
perfect union, according to Cyril, or a union with no losing of identity or retaining
its former nature, at the same time without separation, according to Chalcedon.
When we study Euthyches in this line of discussion; against Nestorius, he
favored a total mix with total assimilation of one by the other to the point of losing
former peculiar qualities, as far as total confusion of the identities. Euthyches
explanation made the human nature mythical; He therefore asserted that the
divine swallowed everything to bring a totality of one nature. This was also done
away as Monophysite heresy (Haggland,1968 : 98). Historically Euthyches was
taken as presenting the docetic form of Monophysitism (Kelly,1968 :331), simply
refusing that Christ was consubstantial with us.
The relation between the divine and human natures of Christ was actually a set
up for early Christian theologians like Augustine in a sort of philosophical
framework. The Platonists formula-union without confusion-(they actually used
7
this formula for the union between the soul and body), is made present in the
definition of the union of the two natures in one person which was issued by the
counsel of Chalcedon (451), (Diogenes :57). Details of philosophical correlations
of the body and soul with the attempts of the parallel understanding of the two
natures of Christ will be dealt in chapter five.
Therefore, we may say that Cyril’s position, though very far from Nestorius,
seems a little bit close but not exactly similar to Euthyches. Schaff said: “the
Monophysite dispute was a partial reaction towards the Eutychian theory” (Shaff
vol III 1919 :705-708) and Cyril was with an enthusiastic zeal for the honor of
Mary, where he piled upon her predicates beyond the biblical limits; yet Cyril did
not, like Augustine, exempt the Virgin from sin or infirmity (Schaff Philip1910 :
946-47); Schaff adds; apart from Cyril’s partisan excesses, he powerfully and
successfully represented the important truth of the unity of the person of Christ
against the abstract dyophysitism of Nestorius (Schaff,1910 :948). Cyril’s
theological talent was devoted to preserving Christ’s person as a living unity
against Nestorian ‘dualism’. He advocated an acknowledgement of the
completeness of Christ’s human nature as the two natures were virtually resolved
into one (Dowley,1977 :174).
Therefore, it seems fair to say that meanings must refer to what Cyril meant than
what we or others outside of him might have understood as the Christological
/soteriological terms of Cyril to be. A clarification of a natural union in Cyril’s
treatment states that the union is ‘natural’ (ἕνωσις φυσική) or ‘according to
nature’ (κατὰ φύσιν), not in the sense that the divine and the human natures are
compositionally united forming a third nature but in the sense that it brings about
the one ontological entity of Christ. Just as the union of soul and body is ‘natural’
forming the one entity of man, so the union of the divinity and the humanity is
natural bringing about the one Christ . (C. Nest. 2, 1 and 13; Ad Nest. 3, 4–5 and
Anathema 3; and Expl. XII Cap. 3).
When Cyril said the scriptures refer to only one nature we must not forget that he
8
believed God the Son became man and has done everything according to man
not according to God. This is where we see extreme views between Cyril and
Nestorius. While Nestorius thought that part of the activities of God the Son
during the incarnation were done through divinity and part of the activities were
done with the human nature, against Nestorius, Cyril thought that all were done
according to humanity in one perfectly united nature.
According to Cyril, the natural union during the incarnation gave way to one
nature (becoming man), just for the soteriological purposes, where the divine
person is still there as an identifying mark of ‘who’ the incarnate Christ is, with no
change to the divine identity but a temporary restraint from his power, so as the
human may be presented as a ransom for humanity.
If Cyril may be right in identifying all the actions in humanity, this argument still
begs for the justification of impassibility of God. It is good to notice that this
discussion never implies a change of the divine, as the divine is obviously
immutable, but this attempt proposes that God can act as He wills anytime; at the
same time God restrains His power as if none, as both acts are possible for Him.
This is why Cyril could write: ‘accordingly all the sayings contained in the
Gospels must be referred to a single person (ἑνὶ προσώπῳ), to the one incarnate
subject of the Word (ὑποστάσει μιᾷ τῇ τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένῃ).’(Wickham: 25).
Here the customary term physis has been substituted by the terms prosopon and
hypostasis which acquire the more Chalcedonian sense of person or subject.
The reason Cyril can make such a substitution is that, for him, the one entity of
Christ (physis) is none other than the one divine person/subject
(prosopon/hypostasis) of the Son existing as incarnate.
Clarifying this concept of Cyril, Thomas G. Weinandy in his Chapter 2 of Cyril
and the Mystery of the Incarnation, elaborated this saying;
Bearing on this point, Cyril actually has two readings of the mia physis formula. The more
prevalent one is: μία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. The other, less common rendering,
ends in σεσαρκωμένου. Is there a difference of meaning between the two? In the light of
the soul/body comparison, which accompanies both, I believe that the two versions of the
9
mia physis formula denote that Christ is one entity. However, this is most clearly seen
within the σεσαρκωμένου rendering where it modifies the τοῦ λόγου. The translation
would be: ‘The one nature (entity) of the incarnate Word’. The one entity of Jesus is the
Word existing as man. Where the σεσαρκωμένη modifies the μία φύσις the formula is
translated: ‘The one incarnate nature of the Word’. This too specifies that Christ is one
entity—one incarnate entity—but now the one incarnate physis is that of the Word, and
so hidden within the use of the term physis is the notion of one subject or person as well.
Cyril used ‘natural’ to emphasize that the union establishes Christ as one entity, and he
used καθʼ ὑπόστασιν (‘according to person’ or ‘personally’) to designate the distinctive
and singular type of substantial union it is. The incarnational act does not bring about a
union of natures, but rather it is the act by which the humanity is united substantially to
the person (ὑπόστασις) of the Word. Moreover, when Cyril spoke, as quoted above, of
‘the one incarnate subject (ὑποστάσει μιᾷ σεσαρκωμένη) of the Word, Wickham interprets
ὑποστάσει μιᾷ as equivalent to μία φύσις. While the ὑποστάσει μιᾷ is contained within the
μία φύσις, the nuance is quite significant. The μία φύσις is emphasizing the one entity of
Christ. The ὑποστάσει μιᾷ is highlighting who the one subject is within the one entity of
Christ—the one Word/Son.(Wickham in Weinandy 2003 :6 and 25).
Mutability issues may again appear as we discuss either Cyril’s or Nestorius’s
terminologies. This seems the concern of Chalcedon. To clarify probable
confusion here, it may be better to argue from a different angle.
The shift of Divinity to humanity appears mutability but the mutability during the
incarnation is an actualization of a divine decree rather than a change as we
might term it “mutability”. As God is an eternal God every deed and decree of
God is eternal with nothing sudden. Therefore we may say that as the Son-ship
of the second person of the Trinity is eternal the historical union of the Son with
humanity is also essentially part of the eternal decree, which was later actualized
in time, and appears passibility/mutability, but in reality is a process of realization
of the eternal decree.
For Cyril this is the marvelous truth of the Incarnation. God from all eternity may have
known, within his divine knowledge, what it is like for human beings to suffer and die, and
he may have known this perfectly and comprehensively. But until the Son of God actually
became man and existed as a man, the Son of God, who is impassible in himself as God,
never experienced and knew suffering and death as man in a human manner. In an
unqualified manner one can say that, as man, the Son of God had experiences he never
had before because he never existed as man before—not the least of which are suffering
and death. This is what, for Cyril, a proper understanding of the Incarnation requires and
affirms, and this is what the communication of idioms so remarkably, clearly, and even
scandalously safeguards, advocates, and confesses(Russell in Weinandy 2003 :105).
Additional caution is that, this argument is not implying that the ‘Son’ brought
down flesh with him like what was said by Apollinarius. The flesh is a flesh from
Mary but made one with the divine through ontological union (Russell :106),
10
(borrowing hints from Cyril) eternally, and functional union in time, which we
theologically call the incarnation. However, since Cyril understands the
incarnation as radically different—being a personal/existential understanding—
we may boldly say he was not illogical at all. The person of the Son, within his
existence as God, is impassible. Within his existence ‘as man’, the ‘Son’ is
passible. While not fully comprehensible, this is the rational, intelligible, and
coherent logic, that the mystery of the Incarnation demands (McGuckin 1995 :
117). As Cyril explicitly stated,
He (the Son) suffered without suffering…. If we should say that through conversion or
mutation of his own nature into flesh, it would be in all ways necessary for us even
against our will to confess that the hidden and divine nature was passible [Hallman’s
wish]. But if he has remained unchanged albeit he has been made man as we, and it be
a property of the heavenly nature that it cannot suffer, and the passible body has become
his own through the union: He suffers when the body suffers, in that it is said to be his
own body, he remains impassible in that it is truly his property to be unable to suffer
(McGuckin :117).
As a conclusion to the above flow of argument let’s move to the Johannine
terming. The Johannine “God became flesh”(Jn 1:14), is a human terming to the
divine decree, in the historical occurrence. Still, God having this eternal decree
has also experienced the limitation, loss, emptiness, wound and death, in
humanity, historically, which was predetermined in the divine foreknowledge.
God didn’t cease to be God in the Human Jesus, as the historical occurrence
was part of the eternal decree in some way, but God needed to actualize His
decree in humanity, in time, in limitation, in death, yet still remaining divine in His
person.
If we see this analysis in such terms we may find Cyril very relevant and also free
Chalcedon from the confusion of logic while it tried to keep the two natures
together, in unity and in their own identity (Russell in Weinandy 2003 :106-108).
The fully divine Son of God did indeed suffer and die. This is precisely what
Nestorius wanted to deny and Cyril wanted to vindicate. Nestorius only focused
on the impassibility of God but never treated the possibility of passibility in God
the Son, in the nature of man. This is exactly why Cyril asserts that he who is
impassible as God actually is passible as man therefore the impassible suffered.
11
To say, in accordance with Cyril, that ‘the Impassible suffers’ is not, then, to be
incoherent, but to state the very heart of the incarnational mystery. Firstly, the
term ‘the Impassible’ guarantees that it is actually God, in all his wholly
transcendent otherness as God, who suffers, and not ‘God’ in some mitigated or
semi-divine state. The fact that God does not lose his wholly transcendent
impassible otherness in suffering enhances the identification processes Cyril well
knew, the import of the suffering, for it means that the Son who is incapable of
suffering as the wholly other God is precisely the same one who is actually
suffering as man.
In his Ad versus Anthropomorphitas, Cyril asserts that Christ not knowing some
things (eg MK 13:31) was not the ignorance of Christ’s humanity but the
pretending of His deity. This research on this point differs from Cyril and more will
be added in chapter five. The reason of picking Cyril as Christological reference
basis of the EOTC doesn’t necessarily imply that everything of Cyril is right
Christology and should be defended. But this research has a strong assumption
that there are lots of inputs from Cyril towards the Chalcedonies Christology, also
Miaphysite Christology.
Harnack defines Cyril’s Christology to include the LOGOS taking the humanity “
into His substance”. First of all, what could we say about the human Jesus? Can
we say he is not God while human? No, He was, but we should say that His
divine power was not freely let in Humanity, so as God may be able to save
humanity exposing Himself to limitations of his divine power. This doesn’t imply
change but a non-action for a limited period of time. If Cyril is properly read “Man
becomes God” doesn’t imply man can do everything as God or man’s nature is
changed to be God. We have seen that, primarily, Cyril’s concern is soteriology,
making human beings as partakers of salvation and therefore be granted eternal
life. What humans became is that they are partakers of the divine eternity, not
Godness, but made positioned in the abundance of eternity. Yet it is God who
became man, then acted as man in everything. Cyril’s terminology of “God
becoming man and man becoming God” was customary even in the theology of
12
Irenaeus and Athanasius ( Robertson Archibald on Athanasius: De Incar 1885
:54).
What makes Cyril different from Monophysites? In contrast to Cyril, Euthyches
doesn’t make a difference between the natures after the union but the
Christology of Cyril clearly referred the union of the two natures making a
comparison of the natural body and soul, not to be confused and not to be
separated under one person. Therefore Cyril’s analysis is totally different from
the concept of Monophysis and should rather be termed as Miaphysis.
What Harnack thought in his History of Dogma, IV, against Cyril, may be a
misreading of what Cyril really believed? Kyle rather seems right saying that Cyril
believed in one nature after the union but Cyril was totally different from what
Euthyches thought and also a bit different from what was said in Chalcedon.
As a result it seems fair to assert that Chalcedon is born with such antecedent
Christological thoughts. Nestorius, Euthyches, Cyril and even Arius were referred
either negatively or positively. So the genesis of Chalcedon was in any of the
forerunner Christological analytic attempts. For example, three times the Council
employs the Cyrillian phrase ‘one and the same’ (ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν) and five
times speaks of ‘the same’ (τὸν αὐτὸν). Who is who? is concerning the ‘one and
the same’ and ‘the same’ is none other than the person of the Son. It is one and
the same Son who is ‘perfect in Godhead’ and ‘perfect in manhood, truly God
and truly man … consubstantial (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father in Godhead, and the
same consubstantial (ὁμοούσιον) with us in manhood’. The thought evolution led
to Nicene Creed 431 A.D., which both the East and West repeated as standard
and actually a theory held to the Chalcedonies theology (Latourette 1953/2003
:573).
Having this background, the attempt here is to find out Cyril’s contribution to
Chalcedon, to the point that his Christological analysis may have more logic,
presentable than even Chalcedon. Logically speaking, it seems easy to take the
natural union of the two natures towards a “perfect” unity of ONE out of TWO,
13
than to try to understand two natures united, still retaining their natures, without
separation. So it may be said that Chalcedon (451 A D), is simply a
metamorphosis of the Christological dynamism avoiding extremes of Eutyches
and Nestorius with a bit rejection of Cyril who actually fed most of the basics to
Chalcedon before he died in 444 AD.
Chalcedon tried to balance the above plays by respectfully recognizing the two
natures avoiding the extreme of separation in Nestorius (which made Nestorius
to be banned at 451 A.D decision (Haggland 1968 :98) and, the notion of
perfect union in Cyril, and also the notion of assimilation in the thoughts of
Euthyches.
The concern of this research is not to justify or modify what Cyril said measuring
it against Chalcedon or so. The aim here is to see roots of EOTC Christology and
get options where we may clear some misconceptions about Cyril’s
Christology(Lilles: Faculties Catholiques, 1951), so as to identify some crucial
uniting lines between Cyril and Chalcedon with the Christology and soteriology of
the West and East and lastly but not least, the Christological soteriological uniting
lines between the EOTC and the Evangelicals in Ethiopia(Crestwood St Cyril of
Alexandria, :198–207, his Introduction to Cyril’s On the Unity of Christ: 1995,
:38, 40). For a similar understanding of the above passage, we may refer to H.
Chadwick, ‘Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy’, Journal of
Theological Studies NS 2 1951, 159–62. B.).
Anyways, it seems better to say that Cyril was never trying to be against
Chalcedon, as he died before it, yet he was responding to Nestorius, who was
banned by Chalcedon. Cyril’s conceptual response was more soteriological than
Christological for the salvation of humanity will be true, only and only, if God can
be human (Heb 2:14; 2 Pet. 1:4 ;). In Cyril’s thought, discussion of the nature
serves more human concerns of soteriology than philosophical concerns of
Christology.
The incarnation for Cyril is the son of God as man, indeed acting as man in his
14
entire earthly ministry, with full dependence upon the Holy Spirit yet still person
wise, the son of God, one and same Son who was homoousion with the Father
and who was born, suffered, died, and rose as man. This is most evident in his
championing the mia physis formula, that is, Jesus is ‘the one nature of the Word
incarnate’ (μία φύσις τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). The Miaphysis formula in Cyril
never echoed mixture or confusion like in Euthyches but a one reality or one
person/entity (Petersham :46–58); (Weinandy :59-66; Coptic church
analysis…). The Saul and body in any human are governed under one entity
though the soul is not the body or the body the soul.
When we pick Cyril here, it should be noted that his secret successor Timothy as
well, was leading this movement, up until Timothy was alleged for the murder of
Proterius who was then the patriarch of Alexandria. (Grillmeier 1996: 10).
Timothy’s statements go like saying, Christ was consubstantial in flesh with us
and that he was not different nature (Grillmeier :17). The above queries and
responses more or less targeted on the nature of Christ.
Cyrillian Christological framework has a far reaching impact in the Ethiopian
Orthodox Tewhado Church till this time, therefore against the chalcedonies,
Cyrillian followers in Ethiopia call themselves as Miaphysite not Monophysite,
lining up with Cyril (at least on the official position) rather than with Eutyches.
This will be treated in detail in the fourth chapter where there will be a discussion
of possible Christological-Soteriological unity between the Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewhado Church and the Ethiopian Evangelical Churches.
What basically separates Nestorius, Euthyches, Cyril and Chalcedon, as far as
this research is concerned, is on the way the two natures are composed and how
should the person of Christ be thought?
Therefore, there really is no need of unnecessary divinization to the flesh. Still no
need of unnecessary denial of the preexistent nature of Christ, yet affirming that
Christ’s virgin birth and humanity was a natural possibility, against ancient
Apollinarian Alexandrian philosophy and the undefined Anthiochene abstract.
15
Lastly, Leo’s Christological treatment with others spoke much about nature in its
substantiality. While his contemporaries dwelt much in numerical plays as; 1 or 2
or 1 from 2 natures or so, Leo emphasized much on the nature (natura) of the
substance. We may borrow Grillmeier’s own statement saying; “in the confession
of one nature, Leo sees the assertion of a ‘mixed nature’ in a strict sense.
Therefore, Leo always presupposed that what the word received from Mary (a
true body with a human soul) merits the designation nature” (Grillmeier :25). This
analysis goes a little deep into the compositional nature of the will.
As a result, the Miaphysites labeled the Chalcedonies, saying; Leo’s position was
adopted at the Chalcedonies decision (451 A D). They also say whether Leo’s
position or the chalcedonies decision is against the Eucharistic effect (salvation):
the two natures in a way that eclipsed the Hypostatic Union, thus making the Christ as if
He had two different wills resulting in two different kinds of acts. One suitable for the
Divine, and the other for the human. This will have a very detrimental impact on the
Salvation of mankind. For His acts that are not related to the Logos Incarnate would not
be effectual in the Salvation of mankind. The Churches that refused The Tome of Leo
adopted in the council of Chalcedon, were persecuted by the Byzantine Emperors. Those
Churches are: Alexandria, Ethiopia, Syria, Armenia, and India. The other Churches that
accepted the Tome of Leo are: Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. (Gebru 2010 :34)
The Main Problem
EOTC is represented by more than 40 million people and Evangelicals in
Ethiopia are more than 15 million. Each group stands for its own sect to the
extent of dying for its claims. This research seeks to answer the main question:
Can the Christological- soteriological rift between the EOTC and EEC be
minimized through establishing dialogue links? ‘Is there a meaning in the EOTC-
EEC literatures, worthy to die for, to the extent keeping us disunited?
Key Questions
1. Are there exegetical insights, particularly those concerning issues about the
nature of Christ between the incarnation and the resurrection, which can
influence the answers to the Main Problem?
2. Where do the Ethiopian Evangelicals stand in their theoretical conceptions of
16
the nature of Christ in between the incarnation and resurrection? East or West?
3. What was the substantial nature of the incarnate Christ, just in between the
incarnation and resurrection? What are the justifications?
4. Who took flesh (Sega Nesto/Amharic)? The Holy Spirit or the Pre-incarnate
Christ Himself? This helps to clear the ‘theotokos-anthropotokos’ confusion.
5. How has this fourth question influenced the EOTC-Evangelical Christological
dialogue?
6. What could be the possible dialogue links between the EOTC-EEC so as to
bring them together on the same flat?
7. Are the existing Christological-Soteriological differences between the EOTC
and the EEC worth dying for?
Hypothesis
The assumption behind this thesis is that we see no indispensable difference
worthy to die for, between the so called Diaphysite / Miaphysite camps in the
existential religious practice of Ethiopia, as far as dissecting Christians.
Therefore, a delivery of a mature proposal for a Christological soteriological
dialogue between EOTC and EEC opens the door to reunite the Christian church
of Ethiopia.
Delimitations
As is mentioned above, this research never tries to repeat past queries which
had saturated responses. Rather it tries to pick one persisting problem,
anticipating a possible bridge between the rifts, optimistically bringing Ethiopian
Christians back together as one family of Christ.
Repeating what others have done on Christology will not be the main focus of
this research except to do a literature review of Christology such as Kelly,
Chemntz, Schaff, Grudem, Calvin, Erickson, Feinberg, Charles Hodge and
17
Berkhof with the ‘20th Century Theology’ by Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E.Olson,
so as to trace lines of recurring thoughts in the Christological family. At the same
time details of Kenotic theories will not be part of this document.
Main focus here will be the common Christological-soteriological heritages crept
in the EOTC-EEC dialogue on the way envisioning possible unity.
Definition of key terms
Chalecedonians – The Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians put emphasis
on different specific issues some times leading to unfortunate mislabeling and
misunderstandings. Chalcedonians underlined the distinctness of the divinity and
humanity in Christ, therefore they were considered by the non-Chalcedonians as
Nestorians and the advocates of dyophysitism.
Diaphysite Theology- Two separate natures of Christ, two natures in one
person as of the Chalcedonies decision.
EOTC- Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church.
EEC-Ethiopian Evangelical Churches.
Incarnation-/Mistre Segawe-Amharic/- Solidarity of the divine with human, in
human limitations, experiencing the full range of human experiences.
Monophisite Theology- is concerned about the person of the incarnate Christ
with only one nature (Monos- single, Phisis nature)’. This is confounding of two
natures into one.
Miaphysite Theology- miaphysite Christology highlights the one-perfectly united
(tewahedo) nature of the Word of God incarnate.
Non-Chalcedonians- Since the non-Chalcedonies highlight the union of the
natures in Christ, though without the mixture of the natures, the Chalcedonies
described them as if they agreed with Eutyches who said, in Christ there is only
18
one nature, indicating that one of them was absorbed by the other.
‘Tewhado’- is a term with the mystery of the perfect union of the divine with the
human according to elaboration within EOTC literatures; very much lenient to
Cyril’s explanation.
Theotokos- as far as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s unpublished literatures
explain theotokos means; the divine nature (God the Word), was united with the
human nature which He took of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to
whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the original sin; the flesh formed of
her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This unity took place from the
first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s womb. As a result of the unity
of both natures-the Divine and the Human, inside the Virgin’s womb, one nature
was formed out of both: which makes Mary the mother of God “The One Nature
of God, the Incarnate Logos” as St. Cyril called it.
Presuppositions
This research proceeding assumes that there are common Christological-
Soteriological heritages, which may be used as a foreground for the unity
anticipated also elemental supportive inputs, which have crept in within the
current stance of the EOTC-EEC.
Scholarly knowledge of Christ’s nature doesn’t necessarily serve for
soteriological purposes, rather may serve for apologetic purposes; what
saves us is knowing and believing Him as the exclusive savior.
Knowledge of our particular theology with more dialogues towards
prioritization of what should come first, setting aside what is secondary or
tertiary for each one denomination helps to get the common ground. Then
the common Christological/soteriological ground should be endorsed
officially by parishioners of each denomination.
This research optimistically envisions bringing Christians together back to
19
their eschatological commanding position, where the church was
practicing over the political spectrum, one way or the other, in the
foundational 3-4 Centuries.
With all this, as far as this research is concerned, Authority, Inerrancy and
Infallibility of the scriptures should be the determinant factor wherever,
whenever. Additionally we see that just ‘Believing Christ’, saves.
Soteriological dialogues in the practical field mostly present Jesus with no
complication or apologetic rationale such as one of his nature.
Jesus saves, not necessarily the articulate knowledge of His
person/nature.
Dyophysite/ Monophysite/ Miaphysite Christology is not the concern or the
head-ache of the actual beneficiaries of the offer of salvation.
Therefore an issue in this study is: is there a meaning in the EOTC-Evangelical
literatures, worthy to die for? Is Christ divided one for the EOTC and the other for
the EEC, as far as keeping us in our own denominational lines?
II Defining Ethiopians and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC)
Ethiopia is a country situated in the eastern horn region of Africa with a population
number of 73, 918,508. The people of this nation are not homogenous but
composed of minimum 85 nations and nationalities.
2:1 Composition of the People- As I have tried to explain in the above treatment,
it is not easy to trace the composition of the people for the reason that the ethnic
nationalities are so diversified. As Ethiopia is a nation composed of more than 80
people group or nations and nationalities, the heterogeneity dominates that it
makes the composition difficult to identify. Actually the current way of identifying
these people group is through the mother tongue they currently use and through
their Geographical boundary.
The majority group-the “Oromo” tribe speaks “Oromifa” language and their major
concentration is in the west, west south and west central region of the country. The
20
Oromo tribe holds the major share- of 27, 158, and 47. This counts 36.7 % out of
the total composition according to the Dec 2008 official statistics (www.csa.gov.et).
The next major group is the “Amhara” tribe who are 17,214,056. These people
group speaks “Amharic” language as their nativity. The geographical boundary
where these people group are living is partly in northeastern, north central and part
of North West Ethiopia.
The third largest group is the Southern People Nations and Nationalities “SNNRP”
which counts 15,042,531 in south Ethiopia, then the Somali, which count 4,
439,147 and have dominated the eastern region. The next major group are the
Tigrians which count 4,314,456, who speak Tigrigna, who also claim to be Semitic
and descendants of Queen of Sheba (around 950 B.C);(This tale is retold in The
Second Book of Chronicles, 8:18 (Pankhurst :16). Then we find the “Afar” who
mainly are scattered over the regions of North east and Northern geographical
region. This group is 99% Moslem and basically nomads.
(www.ethioembassy.org.uk//archive)
The “Tigrians” with the “Amhara” were politically alert; therefore have been royals
alternatively for the most part in the past and even to the present. These people
live in the northern part of the country called “Tigray” and Amhara.
(www.ethiopian.history.com). The southern region is currently called as Southern
People Nations and Nationalities. These name is given to them politically, may be
for the reason that they are composed of multiple minor nations and nationalities
which may be counted as close as 60 minor groups. They don’t share the same
language but they only share the southern region with almost similar cultural
elements.
This explanation doesn’t necessarily represent compositions in the cities because
cities are mostly melting pots, so much heterogeneous in nature. For example the
capital city of Ethiopia- Addis Ababa has 2,738,248 which is 3% of the total
population but this number holds all people groups not necessarily one or two
people groups. Having multi ethnic languages, the country has so far only one
21
federal working language-Amharic.
2.2 History- Ethiopia is one of the ancient countries with rich ancient history. The
name Ethiopia is mentioned 45 times (www.hti.umich.edu/bin/kjv-idx?) in the Bible
which is an evidence for the antique status of the nation with the Ancient
Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians and the Jew. History tells us that the original people of
the land are Cushitic who dominated the area of Nile civilization down from Egypt
known as Nubia, land of the sun burnt faces. At the time of Isaiah Nubia ruled over
Egypt and sent a military expedition to Palestine (Isa 18:1; 20:3; 37:9). At the time
of Christ, the kingdom was ruled by queens, called kandake, (Acts 8:27), (Baur:
31). It is controversial whether this Nubia refers to the people of the current
Ethiopia or people who were somewhere in North Sudan or whether the Biblical
Cushitic people refers to the current geographical Ethiopia or the current
geographical north Sudan. If we see this from its ancient biblical and Christian
heritage it refers more to the current geographical Ethiopia as there is vast
historical ancient religious and Christian heritages in the current Ethiopia. Yet Paul
Bowers in his article on East Africa Journal of Evangelical Theology under the title
“Nubian Christianity” referred it more to north Sudan(Bowers :1985). Therefore it
seems fair to say that as there were continuous boarder shifts from time to time we
may not be able to point out the exact geographical site but as the way of people
relations in the then was more determined by the power of monarchs, it seems that
this refers to a monarch from somewhere in East Africa-North Ethiopia, who had
his/her control all over the Nile Corridor. So the name Nuba-Aetheiopia-Cush
refers more to powerful people of the then with strong trade relations up to north
Egypt, south Arabia, the Middle East and particularly Israel ( Spain Jerry 1985
:77).
Following this history, it also seems that some Semitic group have also descended
to the land probably from the middle east and east central, that the original
Landers are no more dominant in the north, north east and north west. The current
people who dominated this area are the “Amhara” and the “Tigrians” who claim to
have Semitic blood. Yet, except for the most part of the Southern People Nations
22
and Nationalities, most part of the nation shares almost similar facial structure and
a variety of shades with a gloomy or burning type color which gave them the name
“Habesha” or “Abyssinia” -meaning people with a kind of burning face.
2.3 Religion- Still, the diversified nature of Ethnicity in Ethiopia reflects back in the
Religion, culture, and values. We may pick only the dominant ones as a sample for
this research. As the nation had more than 3000 years antiquity and ancient
diplomatic relations of the Abyssinian Monarchs like, ‘queen of Sheba’(1 Kings
10:1-13), with the people of the Middle East and particularly the nation Israel, a
substantial number of people in Abyssinian land-(currently Ethiopia), happened to
be observers of the Mosaic Law with the law of circumcision. Currently those who
follow Jewish religion are minority, statistically insignificant and most of them live in
the north western part of the country. Though this group is minority, they still follow
the Jewish religion and they mostly consider themselves as Jews who might have
descended to those places, most possibly following the diplomatic relations with
queen of Sheba, some 2900 years ago. These people are called by the native
Ethiopians as the “Felasha” which literally means ‘the Diaspora’ who dispersed
from Israel to North and North western part of Ethiopia (Baur 1994 :35). Now
these group are unnoticed and are almost disappearing with most of them called
back to the nation Israel under the programs of habitations, Israel does to its race
from everywhere in the world.
The next blow to religion came after the 1 C. A.D Pentecost in Jerusalem. Here
the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) may have some contributions seedling Christianity in
Ethiopia but history doesn’t know much about the exact contributions of this man to
this land, after his conversion. History rather has retained other four historic
moments which characterized the religious forms in Ethiopia.
2.3.1- Frumentius (Abuna Selama)-The entrance of Christianity to Ethiopia is
documented in many accounts. Actually the accounts may hint variable historicity.
Many accounts agree that Frumenties was responsible to bring Christianity into
Ethiopia ( Baur 1994 :35). This incidence is related with the well known story of
23
the shipwreck in the Red Sea in which Meropius of Tyre and his two companions,
Frementius and Aedesius, also from Tyre were the only survivors, where Meropius
escaped, but Fremintius, the older of the two, and Aedesius were taken before the
king of Ethiopia, on the way introducing Christianity to the then king of Ethiopia,
whose capital was Axum, a city in the northern and more mountainous part of the
country (Wondimagegnehu and Motovu 1970 :4). Others say it was Theophilus
who is some way connected to Frumentius, as his successor or so, responsible for
evangelizing Ethiopia. Early Christian mission into Ethiopia was closely tied with
the conversion of Royalties in the then (3rd C A D), (Twin Kings; Ezana-
Shaizana/Abreha- Wo- Atsbeha 357 A.D, where the later nomination might be a
Christian name).
The Abyssinian tradition says these individual kings were twin brothers who
inherited kingdom from their father in the northern part of Ethiopia-Axum. But
Yemeni traditions say there were two competent kings, one in Axum (Ella-Asheba)
(Baur : 36) and the other in South Arabia-Yemen, and both were Christianized that
legends just connected them as twin brothers. The second option doesn’t seem
factual for there is no Christian indication in Yemeni. Yet early and wide influence
of Christianity is still evident in the current Ethiopia. Any ways, our purpose here is
not to trace into these variety of documentations.
Fortunately enough, Ethiopia is one of the ancient nations to accept Christianity as
an empire religion. This has happened starting from almost during the birth of
Christianity through a mission by the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) and a little
later during the reign of twin kings in Ethiopia Ezana/Sizana 4rth C.A.D.
2.3.2-The Nine Monophysite Monks (Saints)- The early 5th century
Monophysites, having been chased away at the council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. ,
faced persecution and found refuge in Ethiopia. It is also reported as the East-
West or Catholic-Orthodox Or Anthioch-Alexanderia Or Rome-Byzantine divorce
(Sebhat Le ab Meseret 1996 :19). The migrants were from Syria and Egypt.
Nine monks out of these migrants were aggressively involved in multiple
24
missionary activities that they were accorded the title as ‘teseatu qedusan’
meaning ‘the nine saints’. Establishing monasteries, applying translations into the
then Ethiopic language (Geez), and developing the liturgy was their main duty with
the propagation of the monophysitic theology which they were abandoned by their
own people (Metzeger 1977 :221).
Following this line, tradition celebrates the ascent to the throne in 1270 of Yikno
Amlak as the restoration of the Solomonic line and the beginning of the golden
age of Ethiopia. It is reported that Yikuno Amlak was the only surviving
descendant of the last Axumite king. He had been educated and protected by the
then Monks and with his movable tent thrones from Axum-Shoa and Gondar (Baur
:38). Yikuno Amlaks grandson, Amda Tsiyon(1314-44) took the challenge of
expanding Christianity as far as Islamic Adal into south west Ethiopia. The national
Epos- the Glory of kings (Kibre Negest), was also written during his reign.
As far as history tells, the seat of the kingdom in Ethiopia was at Axum in Tigre in
4rth C A.D and until the middle ages (1270 A.D.). Little by little the seat of the
kingdom moved towards the south, first to Lasta Lalibela some 150 miles away
from Axum. This was during the greatest of the Zagwe kings in the early 13th C
A.D., outdoing Axum, with a replica of Zion at Lalibela. Then the kingdom moved
more to the south, 400 miles from Axum to Shoa-Debra Mitmaq, during the reign of
Zara ya’ iqob in 1449 A.D. who was more or less promoting political theology
(Hastings 1999 :4, 34). The Zenith of Ethiopian Christian culture came a century
later under king Zera Ya’ iqob (1434-68) which gave way to a truly Ethiopian
kingdom and Ethiopian Christianity (Baur 1994 :38). Zera Ya’ iqob was said to set
himself to unify and reform both Church and State, applying to Cairo for two
bishops, whom he set to work in separate parts of the country (Hastings 1999 :34-
35).
Side by side to the religious political reforms by the monarchs, kings and bishops
were seen parallel as two sacred centers. With this, there was a monastic rival led
by influential monks like TeklaHimanot , the greatest Ethiopian saint, 1215-1313
25
who built Debre Libanos, the country’s leading Monastery, in Shoa, near Addis
Ababa. After him Ewostatewos (Ewostatewos, c. 123-1352) also built another
monastery known as Debre Mariam, in Tigre (Baur :38).
2.3.3 The Ethiopian Orthododx Tewhado Church (EOTC)
Age wise, the second organized religious group after the Jewish religion of
Diaspora (Felasha), are the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC). The
religious view of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) is a long
awaited monotheism influenced by ancient Judaism also later Christianity, 3-4
hundred years after the New Testament Pentecost.
The nature of Christianity in Ethiopia is different from the nature of western
Christianity in Christological and soteriological details. Their concept of God is
monotheistic and salvation view of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church
(EOTC) is more of syncretistic emphasizing Christ, Mariology, Saints and Angels.
Having this as a general background of who the Ethiopians are, what religious
background they had, and how Christianity came to Ethiopia, we would then try to
see little details of the substance of Christianity and Christology in the theology and
practice of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) with exact
contemporary images of the church.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC), is a Christian church with
almost similar confession of Monotheism and Trinitarian beliefs compared with the
rest of Christians in the west, be it Catholic and Evangelical. It is true that
influences of the East-West Schism during and after the time of Constantine with
immense influence of the nine saints described above, and historical alienation
from the western Christianity for the last 1400 plus years, gave the EOTC a
different picture from the kind of Christianity in the West. For example, Trinitarian
analysis in the EOTC is defined as not ‘twin divisibility’ among the three persons
but a multiplication into three (Chief reverend Dereje Haile and Dekmezmur Beza,
Mekdes Yegebu Menafiqan/Heretics inside the Temple 2008:1-2).
26
Christological stance of the EOTC is strictly against Aryanism (Gorgorios/Abba;
Church History in the Forum of the World, :114), against Euthychianism, but more
of Cyrillian and a bit sympathetic to chalcedonies. Gorgorios referred to church
history and said that, as Arius has believed in the saving power of Jesus but
denied Christ’s eternal deity, it is illogical to believe in His saving power and deny
his eternal deity as these notions are extremely contradictory issues. Gorgorios
also argued saying “how can a created being be able to save created beings (
Gorgorios 1999 :110). As a result it may be fair to say that the EOTC bases its
doctrinal stance of Christology on the Nicene 325 A D, against Arius, and the
Constantinopolitan, against Macedonian, and the Ephesian (331 A D), councils.
The EOTC recognizes Cyril as the formative master mind of the council of
Ephesus but rejects the decision of Chalcedon (451).
Sadly enough, little by little, syncretistic tendency has crowded the EOTC, to the
point that the church practically remained with no standard doctrinal frame. EOTC
has been sympathetic to at least two fictitious but contradictory traditions as truth;
(Fictions of the Arch Angel Michael, the Hidar No 74, 75 :44).
The faithful conservative confessional fathers may teach, preach and live
according to the biblical doctrinal standards and may be considered as saints; the
same time those who somewhat write fictitious stories of saints against the biblical
doctrinal standards will also be considered as saints.
For example, there was once a true reformation movement in the EOTC, which
actually happened just before the Lutheran reformation in the 15th C. History knows
it as the martyrdom of the “Stefanites” as detailed in the book describing the
hagiographical history of the Stefaniete Martyrs (Deqiqe Estifanos-Behig Amlaq,
originally written in Ge’ez then translated into Amharic, by Professor Getachew
Haile, 2010). The Stefanites preached, thought and lived the same way the
apostles lived and were strongly against the harlotry practices of the then monarch
(King Zera Ya’ iqobs ,1434-68), where the church was very surprisingly tolerant.
The stefanites were against the mixing of state and the church, which was getting
27
done under King Zera Ya’iqobs unitary policies. On the good side his reading
enforcement of a spiritual book-Meshafa Birhan, and an order for Christians to be
branded, with an attempt of reforming the declining of spirituality, superstition,
ignorance, pagan practices, pastoral laziness of the clergy, should be commnded .
As his theology was politically motivated his reform made the church large but was
unsuccessful in true spiritual reformation (T. Tamirat 1972 :103-108).
Idol worship during Zara Ya-iqob, like the cults of the cross and Mary, application
of Sabbath, were very distasteful to the Estifanites, as such practices were highly
important for the political theology of Zara Ya’iqob and the monks every where in
the then (Hastings 1999 :37-38). Estefanites chose to confine their theology with
the worship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rejecting anything beyond this
which annoyed the royalties and monks in the then. The Monarch was not happy
by the resistance of the Stefanites, that he fabricated syncretistic teachings such
as, the mediatory roles of Angels and saints, Mediatory role of Mary against the
direct access to God, permission for himself to have two wives, one on his right
hand and the other on his left hand and so on. The church accepted his religious
/philosophical options. Being encouraged by this, he then has brutally persecuted,
murdered the Stefanite reformers. The startling response of the then Church was
to nominate him as one of the saints. On the other hand the northern wing of the
same church accepted the Stefanite Martyrs as saints. This is how the church
became the owner of two fictitious yet contradictory stories and so syncretistic
(Gedle Abune Estefanos Ze Gundagundi: Legacy of Abune Staffen Ze-
Gundagundi, 2004 :11).
Baur added saying, the development of the church in Ethiopia was characterized
by deep political and doctrinal divisions, eventually healed by emperors Theodore
and John IV. In the decisive period from 1840-1860, the influence of protestant and
Catholic missions on political and ecclesiastical events was quite considerable, but
their roles have to be reviewed separately.
After the middle of the 18th Century the Solomonic Dynasty declined. The region
28
south of the Abbai (Blue Nile) was lost to warrior Oromo, and the governor of Shoa
separated his province from the rest of the kingdom by inviting the Wallo group of
the Oromo to establish themselves on his northern frontier. The princes of the
other provinces were in a continuous state of rebellion, each one claiming the
throne either for himself or for his puppet. 1770-1855, there were said to be no
fewer than six emperors (princes/mesafint) living, no one enjoying any authority
beyond his province. In the years 1830-1850, when renewed contacts with Europe
took place, the rivalry of leadership had been reduced to three chief provinces,
Begemeder-the central Amhara region around the capital Gonder, which had a
control over the titular emperor and the Province of Gojjam; Then Tigre-the
northern province with the ancient capital Axum, its prince residing in Adwa; and
the recently established south-eastern province of Shoa(Showa), the power of the
future for its prince Menelik II would create the modern Ethiopia and build Addis
Ababa near his provincial headquarters at Ankober, toward the end of the century
(Baur :154).
Orthodox Christianity was a unifying factor in as much as majority of Ethiopians
found in it their national identity. Core problems of the EOTC as outlined in the
book “heretics inside the temple” p 12 are firstly Bible Phobia; which says, if one
reads the Bible, he or she may lose his/her religious practices. Secondly, if one
reads the Bible at all, it must be a simple and shallow reference with no deep
examination. Third, too much dependence on extra canonical literatures than the
Bible with the 66 books. Fourth, the theology of mediators and mediatorship; the
case here is intercessory roles of one for the other ( Grammar and Dictionary; By
Chef Kidanewold Kifle).
On mediatory roles, the book outlines that a mediator must be one who is free of
any criminal activities ( Rom 3:11), and he/she must be one who is free of debts of
any kind, of his own or from his/her parents so that he/she may be considered as
competent guarantor (Derje and Deqemezmur 2008 :23-33).
Referring to the above criteria’s the EOTC gives the answer for who can be a
29
mediator. Following this line, Saint Mary could be competent, “Holy Angels” could
be competent; Saints who have been heroes in the History of Christ’s church
anywhere, anytime, could be competent; and of course Christ could be competent.
The book “Heretics inside the temple”, argues against such logic saying most of
the above except Christ could not be competent for mediatory roles. The right
reason for this according to the book is that; firstly all except Christ are created
beings. Secondly, all cannot be everywhere at the same time, except the risen
Christ. Third, Angels act only and only if they are sent by God not by men. Fourth,
mediatory roles of Saints are developed in the traditions of the EOTC, following a
wrong interpretation of Matthew 10:40-42 and Luke 16:18-31. Fifth attribution of
mediatory role to Virgin Mary has developed out of a wrong interpretation of John
2:3.
In EOTC’s incarnational analysis, the flesh and the divine word- the Logos, are
perfectly united without confusion, retaining their identity, like the unity between the
Soul and Body, in humanity under one person. This process is mandatory in the
incarnational analysis of the EOTC, in order for the salvation need might be met as
God surely becomes man. “Unity” according to the EOTC never implies the two
former entities lost their former natures, yet it tells us that the two have been united
not to separate, not to remain two, but to be one, retaining their former individual
qualities (Heretics inside… :127). EOTC’s Christological analysis also underlies
that, in order for the needed perfect unity to be effectual, there needs for some
elements to be eliminated. For example, sinful nature is surely a scandal for the
unity, therefore should be eliminated. The logic here is that the son of God cannot
be a savior at the same time hold sinful nature from the human part. This must be
done away for soteriological purposes, so as the innocent lamb may be sacrificed
as a ransom to remove the sin of humanity ( Heretics…127). Therefore
incarnational analysis of “Unity/Tewhado” is the central key to understand EOTC
Christology.
The Chalcedonies Creed (451 A D) sees a united duality without separation,
30
retaining their individual natures, getting united through a process of the
conquering role of the person of Word/Logos, with no confusion or mix and with no
losing of the former qualities.
But just before Chalcedon, Cyril has articulated the “union”, a little bit differently
from Chalcedon, Saying; “two natures”, coordinated to leave back duality and/or
twinity and became “Unity” towards one, but not to remain two. Against Euthyches,
the unity is without confusion or mixture but just like the unity of the Soul and Body
under one person in a Human being united not to be two, not to separate anymore,
not to be seen divided.
Therefore we may say the EOTC Christological formula follows Cyril than
Chalcedon. “Unity/Tewhado” in the EOTC teaching, means that the divine took the
nature of humanity making it its own and the human also took the divine nature
(only in the case of Christ), leaving back its former duality, towards oneness (not
necessarily implying one nature, as the natures are united but not assimmiliated).
This incarnational explanation of the EOTC is called Mia-Physis, not Monophysis
(Heretics inside…:128).
This analysis, according to the EOTC, has Biblical bases. It is true that God is
eternally God not to be man and also man is created man not to be God. Yet, the
EOTC elaboration says, against the natural law, Isa 9:6 affirms that, a child is born
unto us and this child is with a mighty name. This prophesy is against the natural
law of “man be man: God be God”, and also seemingly contradictory as a
“sovereign God” and “a child” are seen in the text woven together.
The EOTC says this seeming contradiction or paradox gets resolved only and only
in the EOTC “Unity/Tewhado”, explanation , where the Christology of Unity gives
chance for God to become man (John1 :14), and for man to become God (only in
the person of Christ)(Isa 7:14). This is the ancient and confessional Orthodox
incarnational analysis, underlying that the Son of God, while getting united with
man during the incarnation, twinness has disappeared and the son became “one
Son”, not “two Sons”, “one person” not “two persons”. This will be true only and
31
only through the mystery of “Unity/Tewhado”.
This logic seems to have a lot with monophysitism everywhere but the EOTC
never identifies itself with Monophysitism; rather calls herself as Miaphysite which
the council of Chalcedon had condemned as heretical anyways. Following Cyril’s
articulation, the EOTC confesses that the divine took only the flesh, not soul and
spirit, which has directly come down with the Word/Logos. This analysis helps to
avoid the “sin inheritance” disjunction, as the divine soul and spirit is free from any
taint of sin (Heretics inside the Temple :136).
Sadly, this Christological analysis in the EOTC has remained only confessional
among few intellectual clergies and is facing worse degeneration in the process of
History through the unguided practices of the mass under the influence of state
men like the Zera Ya’ikob (1434-68) , Monk Teklehaimanot (1706-1721) etc (Atiya
Aziz S.,1968 :148)
We may say there were three antithetic forces in the formation of EOTC
Christology. One is the confession of the faithful fathers, under Cyril’s formula as
we discussed above and the other two traditional interpretations from lay group
who are simultaneously backed up by state officials.
For example, a group called “Qibat /Annointing” believed and thought that the
“Word/Logos” was changed to be man to the point of losing everything from the
divine, but got fully united by the unction or the anointing of the Holy Spirit, to keep
intact with divinity while he was on earth. Against this teaching the faithful fathers
reacted saying, if we say “the Word was changed”, this is against the basic
impassibility of the divine Word/God and opposes the continuous distinction
between the divine and the human natures in Christ, therefore, charged the “Qibat”
group as heretics. But since the group was backed up by the followers of the
Monks like Ewostatewos, their teaching flourished dominating the Orthodox
Christological understanding, particularly in Gojjam area, northwest Ethiopia.
After this, another group of monks developed the “Sost Lidet”/Three Births, theory.
32
This group was from Debra Libanos Monastry, the monastery of Tekla Haimanot.
The three births are his eternal birth from the Father; His temporal birth from the
Vergin Mary and his third birth through the unction of the Spirit. According to this
group, it was during the third birth Christ earned the redeeming grace, either given
to him in the womb of Mary or during his baptism, therefore called as “Yetsega Lij”/
Son of Grace.
Through time, any resistance of new teachings was getting backed by armed
forces that, the “anointing” and the Tsega (Grace) group were somewhat replaced
by another group call “Kara”, implying that they were slaying their contenders.
Therefore, the conservative Cyrilian Christology got somewhat swallowed by
heretic groups under the political covers from the then state men like emperor
Theodore II 1855-68, Emperor Yohannis IV 1872-89, Menelik II 1889-1913,
Menelik’s grandson Lij Eyasu who embraced Islam, Menelik II’s daughter Zawditu-
a crowned empress with the then 25 years old grandnephew Ras Teferi Mekonnen
as her regent at the beginning but later ruled the country as the last emperor Haile
Sillassie I from 1930-1974 (Baur :157).
The current position of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) and
scholarly articulations evolving from within will be examined against others who
see the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) differently. More analysis will
be done in the fourth chapter which focuses on the official literatures of the
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) and the Ethiopian Evangelical
Churches (EEC).
2.3.4 The Ethiopian Evangelical Churches (EEC)
The history of the Evangelical churches in Ethiopia is comprehensively treated by
Tibebe Eshete in his recent book “The Evangelical Movement in Ethiopia:
Resistance and Resilience” which directly deals with the evangelical movement in
Ethiopia, referring to the first three centuries of reformed missions; The war years
and the Restoration(1936-1959) and post war mission impulses.
33
When we see the first three centuries (16th
-19th C) of reformed missions we get the
Germans as the earliest protestant missionaries with Peter Heyling, who arrived in
Gondar 1634-1635 during the reign of Emperor Facil (1634-1669). Peter’s strategy
was to revitalize the Ethiopian Orthodox church through literatures and attempts of
translations of some parts of the Gospels (John), but unfortunate as he was killed
by the Turkish Pasha in 1652.
In 1825 the Church Missionary Society(CMS) sent five missionaries to Egypt
where two of them, Samuel Gobat and Christian Kugler came to Ethiopia, to the
Tigrai region in 1829 (Tibebe 2009 :66). According to Atiya, protestant missions in
those days were a mixed affair; German, Polish, Swedish, French, British, and
Swiss names keep flickering on the scene of events from the middle of the century
without concrete results (Atiya 1968: 156).
Baur highlighted more saying; it was the internal division in the EOTC which
facilitated to the 19th Century missionary enterprises from Europe. The German
Protestants sent by the British Church Missionary Society (CMS) were the first
ones with the missionary attempt. Right after this there was a Bible translation task
from Ge’ez to Amharic done in 1824 and 1840 by Samuel Gobat and Christian
kugler . The missionary attempts were done in Tigray-North Ethiopia then in Shoa
(Johann Krapf, 1837) and then in south west Ethiopia. In 1866 a new missionary
group from Sweden arrived through an invitation by Gobat and Krapf-former
missionaries, which had an attempt into the Hamasen near Asmara, one of the
cities of Eritrea which is no more part of Ethiopia at this particular time.
Johann Krapf was appointed as a missionary to Ethiopia by the CMS in 1837. As
he arrived in Ethiopia he found mighty and expanding people whose true identity is
‘Oromo’ who were scattered people from east to west part of the land, militantly
expanding to the other parts of the nation as well. This group were essentially
pagans with a little bit of Muslims and a menace to the Christian empire in northern
part of the country. Sadly enough, Krapf had left only vision of reaching this group
to other follower missionaries but unable to access himself due to health reasons
34
(Anderson :3-5).
Missionaries continued to come to Ethiopia sometimes welcomed sometimes
resisted by the successive monarchs/princes. Emperor Tewodros 1855-1868, for
example, welcomed protestant missionaries, provided that they train his people in
handicrafts and technical assistances. Martin Flad could be mentioned as one
whose mission targets were the Felasha- Ethiopian Jews. However Flad’s
extended attempt was blocked by Emperor Yohannis IV in 1874, as the emperor
was resistant towards any alternative forms of Christianity.
Advised by Krapf the Swedish Evangelical Mission (SEM) begun mission work in
Eritrea-the Red sea coast and along the Sudan corridor with the hope of reaching
the Oromo inhabiting the area south of the Abbai River (Tibebe 2009 :70).
During the attempt of missions from the red sea coast into the west south, the first
convert of the Swedes was a redeemed Oromo slave, Onesimus Nesib (1904),
during the reign of Emperor Menelik II who was partially willing, partially resistant
to mission endeavors. Onesimus was able to translate the whole Bible into his
mother tongue after he got education in Sweden.
There was also a high government official by the name Aleqa Taye, who was
advisor to Emperor Hailessillasie. This man was evangelical by conviction and has
done much in the facilitation process for evangelicalism. He with the missionaries
like Eriksson was able to form the first evangelical Congregation in Addis Ababa
(Aren Gustav :192). Aren says 23 March 1922 constituted a milestone in the
history of Evangelical Christianity in Ethiopia. Qes Gebre-Sillasse TesfaGabir, who
travelled primarily to Najo and Neqamte in a four months trip from Eritrea together
with his family, was then installed as the first indigenous pastor of the newly
formed Evangelical congregation in Addis Ababa (Aren Gustav 1978 :197-199).
Such missionary expeditions finally got admirable success particularly in Oromo
lands, which then has been the base for the Lutheran mission and the native
Evangelical Church in Ethiopia, under its first leader Qes Bademe Yalew in 1941
35
and has officially established under the name Ethiopian Evangelical Church of
Mekane Yesus (EECMY) in 1959.
Missionary expansion got massive success during the reign of Haile Silassie
(1916-1975) who wisely led the mission posts to the south and western part of the
country as the northern part of the country was spared for the EOTC. Dr Lambe
could be mentioned as one who got favor of the Emperor in 1919-1926 (Aren
Gustav :178). Sadly enough, colonization attempts by the Italians 1936-1941 led
to a complete reversal as the Italians were forcing the nation to be under the
Roman faith. Even though, postwar mission attempts revitalized the reunification,
strength and expansion of native Christian churches in which the SIM churches set
up a consortium called Yewongel Amagnoch Andenet Maheber (Consortium of
Evangelical Believers) from which the Qale Hiwot church, which is now one of the
leading largest evangelical church, evolved.
Then initiatives of interdenominational cooperation begun in 1977 up until forming
the current Ethiopian Evangelical Churches which are officially called as
Evangelical Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia (ECFE)(Tibebe :76-100).
Currently the Ethiopian Evangelical Churches are around 35 denominations united
under a consortium known as Evangelical Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia
(ECFE).
ECFE is the umbrella in which most evangelicals are represented formally through
it, in a simply stated ‘credo’ as those who share the same faith in one God who
revealed Himself in trinity; who believe that Christ is the only way to salvation and
affirms that believers have never contributed to their salvation whereas are all
expected to persevere in faith.
Evangelicals in Ethiopia confessionally believe in one Holy Catholic Apostolic
Church and therefore are organized to foster unity in diversity. The ECFE has also
Para church associates, some of them Christian ministries and some of them Para
church Christian organizations. Since there are also denominations which are not
36
formally linked to the ECFE but are by default members, for the faith they confess,
for the purpose of this thesis we prefer the abbreviation EEC than the ECFE.
The EEC Christological conception is cofessionally Chalcedonian. This is because
many can easily articulate the nature of Christ as with two natures and one person
all through the incarnation and the resurrection and after. Yet, deep examinations
imply another fact.
When we try to uncover the wrapping, Christological conceptions among EEC
seem standing neither chalcedony nor non chalcedonic but somewhere within the
spectrum. This we say, as a result of a survey made in a written interview
questions made to some 120 representatives of the EEC.
Therefore setting aside the confessional Christology of the EEC for the time being,
the practical Christological conception of Christology among representative
Evangelicals so to say, is neither clearly east nor west, nor in between but a third
view of some type which should be left for further study.
As we can see from the above analysis, when it comes to Christology issue,
Evangelicals are as diversified as their nature. Majority of them confess
chalcedonic but our research has proved that deep inside, they are somewhere in
between the chalcedonies and the non-chalcedonies. Therefore, we cannot say for
sure the Ethiopian evangelicals are clearly lining in the Chalcedonies (451 A. D)
formula.
This discussion leads us to say that, over a long period of time this whole process
resulted in dividing the universal church of Christ as Coptic; Greek; Orientals;
Catholics; Protestants; Eastern; Western; etc. This course of action finally led to
the great rift between the Chalcedonies and non-chalcedonies which almost lasted
the past 17 hundred years. There were trials of reconciliation time and again but
doesn’t seem to succeed, for the reconciliation trial was unable to convince one of
the camps to revert their identity. The impact of this rift was and is striking in the
course of history where the church obviously lost its eschatological position over
37
the world’s socio-politics, therefore has been a hunt and prey to Islamic and liberal
invasions. Here, one thing is very clear. Majority of current Ethiopian evangelicals
do not believe that these Christological theories are worthy to die for, as far as
dissecting Christians as EOTC and EEC, so tangible hope for unity.
2.4 Quests of now and here
Fundamental question here is that what if Christological meanings in either
Monophysite or Miaphysite or Chalcedon are influenced by the sociopolitical
contexts of their time? A survey of Christological theories in reference to what we
have seen so far tells us that modern Christology seeks to be more aware of the
inter subjectivity and self-awareness of Jesus’ personhood (Diogenes Alen 1985
:57). With this, Monophisite or Miaphysite interpretation of either the Coptic’s or the
Ethiopian Orthodox views were and are very much intertwined to the Monophysist
and/or Myaphisite’s own historical milieu and were responses to the queries of
their own settings. However, searches for clarity are still persistent.
Recent studies of New Testament history and New Testament Christology hints
that the pre Christian Gnostic redeemer myth or the previous literatures such as
the Pseudopigripha, or the Qumran texts or the Targums (Forestell, 1981) or
studies of 1st Enoch (Milik, 1976; Knibb, 1979), might have set the frame work for
the later Hellenic New Testament theology and so for Christology (Bousset 1970,
Bultmann 1955, Cullman 1963, and Fuller 1965).
Having this as introductory discussion, we might temporarily say that pursuits for
Christological truth, either in the then or now were not trying to respond to
questions before or possible questions which may be raised somewhere,
sometime in the future, but tried to respond to their own contemporaneous doubts.
In addition to this, as the Bible was a central tool, most responses, one way or
another, were also getting a reference from the Bible. Still, it must be underlined
that theological and socio-political tendency has obviously influenced
understanding and interpretations of each age (Schaff Vol III :47), as there were
severe clashes to the extent of assassinations here and there, and therefore
38
political interventions, to ease the case on one side and settle the doctrinal
conflicts on another side.
Therefore, we may say, at times former responses were made for the quests of
their own historical context. If so, responses made so far, may not fully satisfy
existential inquiries everywhere and are difficult to use them so easily, fully,
universally and timelessly. A simple prove to this is that Christological controversy
continued all through the time of the renaissance, the reformation and to the
modern enlightenment ages, even though the chalcedonies framework seems to
settle the case and dominate the scene. That is why the Eastern Orthodox
churches still remained isolated in their camp even though the chalcedonies
decision was there at the outset of the western Christological framework.
Nonetheless, an attempt here is not trying to throw away everything from the past;
we affirm the tribute to the orthodoxy protected for us in the past. At the same time,
we should not be ignorant of the distinctions between ages because of their
religious and socio-political derivatives. With all this, this research holds the
assumption that Authority, Inerrancy and trustworthiness of the Scriptures is the
determinant factor wherever, whenever.
This therefore leads to Christological questions which actually are slanting in
Ethiopian historical and sociological milieu. These questions are not even
necessarily global and timeless but predominantly very local and time bound.
Searches as we have seen them so far, are first of all largely time bound and very
local in nature. Generations during the successive years have had their own
Christological debates and have also responded accordingly to their time inquiries.
Christological studies seem still left open as our generation has its own
Christological interests. Methodological questions in the Christology of Hans Küng,
Walter Kasper, and Edward Schillebeeckx(School 1973; Hebbleweite 1980; School
1974) could be taken as few examples. In fact, it seems better to follow the theme,
“Christology is moving in the direction of a ‘field approach; ” (Crossan :202–3) or
“multiplex methodology” (Hasel, 1978). With this, some approaches by recent
39
scholars like D J Dunn who underlined that “Christology is in the Making” (CIM) will
be considered. CIM underscored the following account;
fresh approaches to Christology must be developed which succeed, on the one hand, in
recognizing the fluidity of both geographical and chronological boundaries, and still allow
for penetrating beneath “titles” to investigating other kinds of claims made about Jesus
which may not have taken the form of attributing titles to him, claims, for example, which
may be implicit in the narrative itself. (Dunn 1980:8)
This flow of thought leads to the conclusion that this generation should mind its
own enquiries. The rift between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the catholic
west, for example is yet an unresolved problem in the Continuum. The rift is also
more than east-west, because it has dissected countless local African ethnic
villages. Ethiopia is one of these localities affected by such a rift, and this rift
presents the opportunity to re-examine the Christological stance of the Ethiopian
Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) Versus the Ethiopian Evangelical Churches
(EEC), including identifying the possible Christological-Soteriological dialogue
links. These links may help bridge the long awaited gap that eclipsed the saving
gift-Christ, to those in need.
2.5 Preview of the Structure
Chapter one: Introduction/Problem: Chapter one will be a preliminary
introduction to the Christological differences and their resulting rift between the
EOTC and the EEC briefly comparing and contrasting these differences with
selected church fathers.
Chapter Two: deals with exegetical study of NT Christological texts, divided into
two parts; part one will focus on the Johannine writings, the Christology in the
synoptic Gospels and then part two will focus on Pauline Christology. For this
process variant readings of the texts concerned will be analyzed. We will also
employ some lexical, syntax and discourse analysis, conducting word, grammar,
and discourse features. In this chapter the writer will interact with the rationale for
or against the view that the nature of ‘God the Son’ was not changed after the
resurrection since God is immutable.
40
Chapter Three: Primarily deals with ancient, very ancient, documents as the
Didache- written in the second half of the 1st C.(50-100 AD); Origen, Justin
Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Athanasius, Apollinarius, Gregory
of Nazianzus, and of Nyssa from-the book, Creeds, Councils and Controversies,
by J Stevenson :85-74; additionally; Apostolic and Post Apostolic, Ante-Nicene
Fathers(Vols 1-5) etc, will be referred as much as possible; early creeds will also
be referred. Rational following this logic is that, this documents yield the
foundational mind frames behind the later ecumenical confessions. In addition to
this, this chapter will also look forward to the historical developments with
emerging Christological outlooks. There will be a comparison of different views
analyzing their similarities and differences with their effect on current mind
frames.
Chapter Four: EOTC and EEC Christological literatures and traditions with
scholarly works will be measured analytically against objective outlooks from
outside and meanings from the New Testament and the thoughts of Orthodoxy.
Chapter Five: Reflective epistemological critique, polemically arguing for or
against and contextual response to the readings and crucial contextual
questions.
Chapter Six: Principles and proposals where we may suggest some directives.
Chapter Seven: Conclusion.
41
Chapter Two
Part I
I Introduction
1.1 Christological sense of the New Testament Texts
How much has scholarship used the life, teachings and preaching’s of Jesus
Himself during His earthly years for the sake of analyzing the substance of
Christ’s nature or person? It is obvious that we always read Gospel history for
some reason, may be devotional and the like issues.
As far as surveys so far are concerned Christological studies most of the time
give due emphasis to creedal theological developments like the Nicene 325, the
Constantinople I 381, Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451 and also post creedal
historical-theological developments, rather than a primary focus on Biblical facts.
Paul Barnett who somewhat returned back to the first twenty years of Christianity
through his historical literary piece, approached this issue a bit differently
(Barnett 2005 :22). In his search into the early Christian literatures he said “we
might expect a gradual divinization of Jesus over many decades”. Barnett as well
implied that close mates of Jesus came to understand who he was little by little
(Barnett 2005 :22).
The apostle John in (Jn 1:1-14), introduced Jesus from the Logos point of view.
Successive chapters follow such a flow insisting that the faith on the divine
nature of Jesus has come gradually. Even His own family was in doubt of His
divine origin though not to the extent of denying it, as it cleary says, “…for even
his own brothers did not believe in Him” (Jn 7:5).
1.2 Delimitations
The challenge to us here is the ambiguity of where to begin. It may not be proper
to follow the current structure of the New Testament flow which is more or less a
simple structure, set from the point of view of the ones who composed it. Current
42
scholarship agrees that Pauline letters are the earliest to be written and
circulated before the gospels but the arrangement we now have seems to follow
the nature of the material rather than the age of the documents. Simple example
here is referring to the date of the earliest Gospel (Mark), which scholars agree
that it was the first of the Gospels most possibly written A. D. 65-70. This tells us
that the rest Gospels were written after Pauline letters were written as Paul is
believed to have died before late 60’s. But this doesn’t imply that Paul’s writings
predated Jesus tradition or the early church karygma, as Paul had to base his
teaching, preaching and writing in them (Arthur 2005 : 49).
Another task is that it would have been easy if we could find a complete
Christological pattern in one text or book. But, Christological concepts are widely
scattered everywhere in the New Testament, in disorganized manner, in actuality
not necessarily entertaining 21th C. Christological questions.
As we have seen it in chapter one our Christological challenge to the most part
comes from our existential situation. This was not the search of the New
Testament existential scenario in which we are demanding a complete
Christological pattern. The New Testament beholders had Jesus himself with
them with limited material about his nature. This obviously would make this task
difficult. Having this justification, we would just pick books from the New
Testament which we believe have high Christological emphasis and apply
exegesis which will be used for the consumption of this study.
It is therefore better to treat this issue in two parts where part one will focus on
the Johannine writings, the Christology in the synoptic Gospels and then part two
will focus on Pauline Christology.
With this, we would like to pick the Gospel of John and other Johannine letters as
our first focus for this research, following the assumption that these letters were
written down and circulated almost last, compared to other New Testament
literatures (Keener 2003 :140).
43
II Christology in Johannine writings
This research on John’s Christology attempts to show the Christ whom John
portrayed in his Gospel, in the 1st Letter of John, and the 2nd letter of John. The
3rd letter of John has nothing on Christology but it is someway included here for
it has the same tone of pastoral care hinted within the rest Johannine letters.
Though it is the assumption of this research that the book of revelation was
written by the same John, this research will not use this book for Christological
study for one or two reasons. First of all, it would be too much to make it
manageable for the purpose of this research. Second, its apocalyptic nature may
not allow one find out Christological doctrines very easily.
2.1 Understanding John as Authority
Contemporary interpretation primarily demands any exegesis to settle the issue
of Author and date, in order to prove its trustworthiness. This we will do first,
because we have to have satisfactory answer which crosses over the doubts. In
addition to this, our findings must be able to pass the test of criticism, questions
from liberal thoughts, and be presentable in a factual and reasonable manner.
In the interpretation of the Gospel of John, especially studying it for Christological
dialogues, what naturally comes first is its Authorship. Extreme ends compared
and contrasted hereafter, are not necessarily the position this theses holds on,
but for the sake of analytical review we will try to make a survey of some of these
ideas.
19th century critical scholarship presented extremely divergent view about the
authorship of this Gospel rather than what was conservatively believed before.
This perception is reflected in some literatures saying; all early church fathers
from Clement to Papias never quoted John as an author although they frequently
quoted from the literatures as we now call them Johannine. The argument is
trying to proof if taking John the apostle as an author is right or if another John or
somebody else has written the Gospel of John. That is what is meant by
44
difference between quoting John as an author and quoting the literature probably
under any ones authorship. Critical scholars say quotations are from John as
literature but not John as the author. The seemingly missing of the name from
the quotations (as of these critical scholars) of early church fathers made critical
scholars to doubt John-son of Zebedee, as the author and also rejected
Johannine Authorship altogether (K Aland 1967 : Unpublished Document). Is this
really true?
On the other end there are also scholars like (‘De Ogdoade’; ‘the Epistle of
Irenaeus to Victor Bishop of Rome’; ‘Sermo de Fide’; etcetera… but all fragments
quoted from the lost writings of Irenaeus) (R Alexander& J Donaldson 1995:
568-570), who firmly believe copies of Irenaeus writings with a quotation of John
were already in existence at the beginning of the second century; therefore
believed that the Apostle John wrote the Fourth Gospel in his old age.
Additionally, Alexander Roberts, D.D., & James Donaldson in the book “Ante-
Nicene Fathers Vol I” provided more than 86 evidences for a direct quotations
and also any extra quotations of John by Irenaeus in his defense against
heresies, starting from his introductory note all through his (Irenaeus) five books
(Alexander & Donaldson :309-567).
Yet, this doesn’t seem to satisfy the doubt of the critical scholars that they still
ask; if so why the apostolic Fathers are so persistently silent about it? Why is a
literal phrasing of “the son of Zebedee” not seen as its author? The question is
not on the literature but on the author of the literature. Critical scholars ask why
there are no verbatim quotations of the Fourth Gospel.
Are there traces of John to be found in early Christian literature, as some
scholars claim? Yes indeed. There are good evidences in Irenaeus especially
that John lived to the age of Trajan: Haer II.22, 5; John lived at Ephesus: III.1, 1;
John and Cerintus: III.3, 4. with Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome etc… (Schaff
Vol I : 408). Also in the Letters of Ignatius to the Smyrneans, III; Trallians X,
Magnesians, VII, and others (Schaff Vol II: 656). James M. Robinson, one of the
45
Authorities regarding the Gospel of John reinforced this. His exact words are;
John the son of Zebedee and beloved disciple of Jesus had written it. It was accordingly
taken into the circle of canonical gospels. Clement of Alexandria formulated the matter
thus: The three synoptic gospels wrote τὰ σωματικά (literally, “bodily,” but often translated
“the outward facts”); the fourth Evangelist, however, composed the εὐαγγέλιον
πνευματικόν (“spiritual gospel”).One could then interpret the Gospel of John as a
supplement to the Synoptics (Bernard J. H. 1928: 3).
The case seems fluctuate to sides, some supporting John’s Authorship, others
rejecting John’s Authorship. Scholars are still divided differently; some saying the
author is another John, who is an eye witness to the deeds of Jesus but not part
of the inner circle of the apostles. This John is the one entitled as John the
presbyter. Others say the author is another evangelist; with some actually
making the same presbyter as the evangelist. To list some, E. Evans in his book
The Dissonance Of The Four Generally Received Evangelists, Gloucester, 1972;
K.G. Bretschneider in his book Probablia de Ev.et Ep. Joh. Ap. Indole et
Origine,Leips.1820, refuted by Schott, Eichhorn, Lucke, and others; retracted by
the author himself in 1828; D.F. Strauss in his book Leben Jesu, 1835; withdrown
in the 3rd Ed. 1838 but renewed in the 4rth,1840; F CHR.
Baur in the Theol. Jahrbucher of Tubingen,1844,1847,1848, 1853, 1855,1859;
should also be in this list as he represents the fourth Gospel as a ripe result of a
literary development, or evolution…according to the Hegelian method from
thesis, to antithesis and synthesis, or from Judaizing Petrinism to anti-Jewish
Paulinism and (pseudo ) Johannean reconciliation. Baur was followed by the
whole Tubingen School with dating from 110-170 A.D. . . .
On the other end Jos Priestley (1793), Schleiermacher and his school, De Wette;
Weisse(1836),Schweitzer (1841),Weizsacker (1857,1859,1862,1886),
Hase(1875) and others too defended the genuineness of the Gospel of John,
though differing among themselves about its extent (Schaff Vol I 1910 : 694).
All proposals above have their own strong arguments and the argument has still
more to go. J H Bernard who studied the case of the author has done an
extensive search on the extant remains of the Gospel manuscripts, and said they
46
were written in Egypt on papyrus. Out of these he said, the fourth Gospel was in
a form of codex, made up of some twenty five sheets and not in the form of rolls
of papyrus. This is one of the indications for the late writing of the material.
Another discovery of Collection in the Washington MSS. of the Four Gospels, by
(H. A. Sanders 1912: Purpureus Petropolitanus ε 19: 557) shows that even the
orders were like Matthew, John, Luke and Mark which is different from the orders
we have today. These studies are done on the ancient Unicials, Cursives and
Minuscules then the study goes on to check for the ancient versions.
Another related challenge is the one proposed by J. P. Norris, (Bernard J. H.
1928: 18) and was later accepted by scholars. He said dislocations are very
evident in the book of John, particularly in Chs 5, 6, 7 where the actual
geographical sites do not match to what we have today in the Gospel, either
eastern side of the lake or western side, and it seems ch 7:1 is naturally
connected within succession to the narrative in Ch 5. Ch 7:1-24 fits with Ch 5
very naturally than the order we have it today in the traditional one.
Next we will proceed to consider the difficulties presented by the traditional order
of cc. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; and reasons given as a better optional order for the 4rth
gospel, viz. 13:1–30, 15, 16, 13:31–38, 14, 17, which is believed, more nearly
represents the intention of the original writer. This leads to a change of the
structure of the whole Gospel for John, in a different set than the order we have
today; The Gospel falls into three parts, preceded by a Prologue and followed by
an Appendix.
Thus according to Norris, John 1:1–18, is said to be primarily a Hymn on the
Logos, interspersed with explanatory comments by the evangelist (Bernard J. H.
1928: 22) . Part I. (cc. 1:19–4:54 with ch. 6) begins at Bethany beyond Jordan,
goes on to Galilee, hence to Jerusalem, and back to Samaria and Galilee. It
deals with the ministry of a little more than one year. Part II. (cc. 5, 7, 8–12) has
to do with the Jerusalem ministry of Jesus, and extends over a second year. Part
III. (cc. 13–20) is wholly concerned with the Passion and Resurrection.
47
Against rearrangement and displacement, Raymond Brown , proposed five
stages of the development of the Gospel of John towards its last form; 1-Prior
existence of traditional material about the works and words of Jesus, which is
independent of the synoptic Gospels. 2-the development of this material into
Johannine patterns over decades, sifted and molded probably through preaching
and teaching or “the oral tradition”. This preaching teaching is obviously the work
of more than one man. 3- Distinct first edition as the work of ‘him” or the
evangelist, most probably the Greek edition, but basic cohesiveness evidences
rather than mere collection. The evangelist was paraphrasing the words of Jesus
while he was preaching over the years to different contexts or audiences in
circulation. 4-Second edition by him, introduction of new material to tackle new
problems, example relating the excommunication of the blind man from the
synagogue into a new situation in the 80’s and 90’s (ch 9:22-23). 5-a final edition
by a redactor other than the evangelist who may have been either a close friend,
disciple, in the same school of thought (Brown :34).
Generally speaking there are strong evidences for the authorship by John the
apostle, or the beloved disciple, son of Zebedee. To list some of the evidences;
first of all Irenæus, Polycartes, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus,
Tertullian, and others are clear as to this (Shaff Vol I: 406), as we shall see; and
most of them ascribed, the authorship to John the apostle, the Apocalypse and of
the Johannine Epistles as well (Haer II.22, 5); John lived at Ephesus: (III.1, 1);
John and Cerinthus: (III.3, 4). with Tertullian in his De praescr, Eusebius in his
Hist Eccl., III, chs 18,23,31; IV.14; V.24, Jerome: Ad Gal. 6:10 etc…( Schaff Vol I
1910 :406).
Papias frequently mentions his hearing and learning from the early elders who
were first and second generation elders (Presbuteroi). As Papias was said to
have lived starting before the end of the first century; he is taken as the first
witness of the church fathers. It is also said that he had chance to see the
apostle John himself in his old age, as it is believed that the apostle John has not
died until the close of the 1st C A. D. Irenaeus takes Papias as the one who heard
of John the apostle referring Papias’s very words “the words the Elders” (Schaff
1910 :694).
2.2 Evaluation
While we try to evaluate the above proposals, we must first set the witnesses,
and then weight the evidences. Whose witness is more valued; those who were
close to the event or those who are far apart from the event? Naturally and
rationally those who were very close to the event should be taken as true
witnesses. Here, the early church fathers during the 2nd and 3rd C A.D. are to be
compared with other late witnesses of any age, coming up with researches and
findings. This line tells us that even the researches of those who reject the
apostle John as the author, leads to a conclusion that the early church fathers,
agree that the apostle John was the author. Therefore to value their witness than
any other one is logically acceptable.
Second, when we see the weight of the witnesses; Irenæus, Polycartes, Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Papias clearly supported the
apostle’s authorship and this is very clear even in the researches of those who
reject. From the evidences of rejection themselves it seems that the ratio is 6 to
1; 6 in support of John the apostle as the author but 1 with somewhat vague
position. Therefore the weight tells us John the apostle as the author of the fourth
Gospel.
Third is internal evidence: Internal evidence is much dominated by the absence
of the mention of the name of John as the son of Zebedee, but we should say
that, first of all absence entails many other reasons than a blatant denial of him
as the author. It may be shyness which may be done not to cover the glory of the
main actor, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the habitual nature in the experience
and tradition of the early church which is in contrast to our edge, with a quest for
evidences such as the date, author etc… and also a gut feeling to spell ones
name in history as a scholar or so.
49
Internal evidences do not deny the authorship of John the apostle because the
narratives of fourth Gospel give a weighty evidence of a Palestinian eyewitness,
with a closest relationship than even the rest of the disciples in the inner circle of
the apostles, who clearly, mentioned him as the beloved disciple.
Another reason to reject the rejection is the notion of presenting a presbyter John
itself. John the presbyter is a hypothetical figure. Therefore it is rational to pick
the historically true than the hypothetical assumption.
However, there is a good common point where the traditional may share a
common line with the critical views. When we try to understand the real quest of
the critics, authorship is initially needed to weight the evidence rather than to find
out the one who penned it. If that is so, we may agree on this point that having
taken John the apostle as the authority and seal behind the fourth Gospel, a
helper may be there writing and editing. This is a possibility for many reasons,
yet will never let us question that John the apostle is the authority, who was the
eye witness to all the events as recorded in the fourth Gospel. Therefore the
question ‘who penned it’? is irrelevant, because even today, some histories are
penned by a secretary, yet this doesn’t make the secretary the owner of the
substance.
After all the cause of rejection of the authors has its root in the enlightenment
unbelief, which is said to be the age of reason. The rejection is more or less a
rejection of most of the contents which seem difficult for a modern man to
swallow. Therefore all doubts have come as a result of unbelief of reason against
faith. So, there is no middle way here to seek for a different author than John the
apostle- son of Zebedee but accept the content as truth. If we accept the content
we equally accept the authority behind. If we reject the authority we equally reject
the content. Therefore rejecting the proposal of rejection, we affirm that the fourth
Gospel is written by the apostle John, son of Zebedee, the beloved disciple, at
the end of his age, during the close of the first Century.
Establishment of the trustworthiness of the author would then give us the
50
freedom of using the whole material of the 4rth Gospel for our Christological
analysis. All in all the traditional belief however is; John the apostle himself was
responsible for the writing of the most part of the Gospel but he may also have
had a helper, for some of the parts, yet all in all under his own seal and approval.
2.3 Christological analysis
Brown has outlined a good deal of references to use for Johannine studies
(Brown 1972 : 22). A preliminary concept one should have before putting an
exegesis of John is that, since many scholars agree that this literature is lately
composed, almost after six decades of Christianity, much better matured views
and Christian traditions were at hand. The same principle works for the
Christological outlook John might propose. First of all and most likely, whatever
Christology John might have suggested is naturally geared by his post
resurrection scenario. Secondly our cause was not necessarily the problem of
the New Testament community in the first two hundred years that we might find
very little concerning the nature of Christ in between the incarnation and the
resurrection.
Most possibly, John was more concerned with deeper Christology, because of
an interest to affirm Jesus’ Deity, presenting Jesus evangelistically to the gentile
community, be it anti or receptive, so that they might believe in him and have life
(Jn 20:30). Yet still, John was also mindful of the incarnate Christ as he was an
eyewitness. Many scholars even say that John’s high Christology was very much
influenced by Hellenistic thoughts. Brown actually rejected such idea outright
saying John was not!
a popular form of Greek philosophy, Philo and the Hermetica. The Logos concept is right
Greek philosophy but it is difficult to argue just from terminological parallels, thus there is
no reason to suppose the Gospel was influenced by Greek philosophy. In addition, there
seem some parallels between John and Philo because both draw from OT wisdom
literatures, but the similarity or dependence is far apart, for there is no extant philosophy
and allegory in John as we see them in Philo. The higher form of Philosophy in
Heremetica is also somewhat reflected in John but Dodd says the similarities should not
be over emphasized (Brown :58).
A tension between divinizing and humanizing seems evident in the whole
51
analysis of the book. The background for divinization might have something to do
with the Greeks custom of divinizing heroes or philosophers ( Keener :299). The
humanizing force might have come from the conservative Jewish resistance of
refuting Jesus’ positional glory (Deut 6:4). Therefore John had to deal with these
two antithetic forces, doing away both and introducing the right nature of Jesus.
This presupposition of John never affects inspiration issue as his response to the
tension will ultimately and automatically be the output of inspiration; it is also true
for all the New Testament writings, which were primarily occasional responses
but ultimately inspired literatures for every generation.
2.4 Structure
As far as our line is on the same plane with those who believe that authority and
authorship of the whole Gospel goes to John the apostle, son of Zebedee, the
whole content is to be treated as his own treatise rather than an addition of
somebody else.
For example, there is an argument which says the prologue is a hymn in the
early ages of Christianity which was then added in the final edition of John‘ s
Gospel by an editor. Reasons for this are that the prologue seems to have
nothing to do with the rest part of the Gospel, and also the Logos mentioned in
the prologue is never mentioned outside of the prologue and so on (Brown 1972
:24). However, if we are able to turn our mind the other way round ‘the Jesus’ we
see in the pages of the 4rth Gospel’s series of successive chapters gets its origin
and ground only and only in the prologue. It is the prologue which lays the
ground about ‘which Jesus’, John wants to tell us. Was he some ordinary human
being whom his origin was just humanity from Joseph and Mary yet who
accidentally became a hero for reasons even unknown to him? Has he changed
dynamically from the human person to the divine? Is it possible to get a savior
Christ in whom anyone should believe, by omitting the prologue?
Let’s also raise another question. What was the source of the hymn? What was
the hymn all about? The only way we can think of the source of the hymn is a
52
belief about who Jesus is and was. This even makes the hymn a strong theology
which existed even before a written document about the words and works of
Jesus was produced. There may be a question that the “Logos” concept is
peculiar to John but not the synoptic Gospels and Paul. Why? The main reason
for the rare mention of the logos in the other synoptic Gospels and even in Paul
is most possibly as he was lately (during the close of the 1st C A.D) documenting
his case for Christ, as it is argued above.
The hymn behind John1:1-14 if at all it is hymn, is obviously a result of the
preaching and teachings of Jesus himself while he was on earth and the
successive preaching and teachings of the apostles about ‘the Christ’ whom they
have seen, heard, touched and known. Therefore, this research assumes that, a
belief or theology and tradition about Jesus was there, as a source for the hymn.
This source is most possibly an independent source for John to compose his
Gospel, which was part of their belief, part and parcel of the theology of the New
Testament Christian community, part and parcel even to John himself; therefore
he began his content by the hymn.
An argument for an omission of the prologue is very hazy as the Greek or any
Greek MSS or ancient versions do not omit the prologue. Additional argument is
that, say someone believes the prologue should not be part of the rest of the
Gospel; what Kind of Jesus will one see in the next series of chapters? In what
kind of Christ are we expected to believe at the end of the narration (Jn 20:31) or
may be we don’t have to believe in anything but just leave the material as simple
trash of the 1st or 2nd Century myth.
The fact that it is never repeated in any of the rest of the narration shouldn’t lead
one to avoid it all in all, at the same time no mention of it by itself may be a
different wisdom, telling stories to hearers by leading them from the climax to the
bottom and then the climax. If we are really interested to know more about the
nature of Jesus, the prologue, be it in a hymn form or a detailing of the things in
the beginning, leads us to another line of thought which we are ready to explore
53
hereafter.
What if John’s main content in the whole book deals with the nature of Christ in-
between the incarnation and resurrection? We will deal more on such matters in
our fifth chapter. But as a foretaste, it may be said that John told us things of the
origin in 1: 1-14, but was not replicating this theme in the next narrative, at least
directly; as there may be an indirect reference (Jn 14:9-10;15:1), therefore, his
intention might be to show us the other face of his nature, while still affirming his
pre-existent nature. The fact that the logos of the prologue is not mentioned in
any of the rest of the narrative doesn’t change the basic nature of Jesus,
borrowing words from Ridderbos, ( Ridderbos, 1975 : 68-9), yet his Son ship, his
deity, leads the reader through a different focus concerning the nature of Christ.
A response to doubts about the prologue will be a logical ‘no’, because omitting
the prologue will automatically make the rest narration of Jesus empty and leave
us in our doubts than leading us to believe in him. Therefore, the prologue should
be part and parcel of the rest of the narration, for it gives firm ground and basic
frame to the belief expected from the addressees in the then and now (Jn 1:1-14
and Jn 20:31). Having this frame as a view through which we should see the
Gospel of John, we would then move to details of arguments for this position.
2.5 Content
The apostle John in Chapter 1:1-14 introduced Jesus from the Logos point of
veiw, so as to make Jesus an aspect of God Himself, still insisting that faith on
the divine nature of Jesus has come gradually. This we may see right in the next
successive chapters where John contrasted the understanding of the people
about the real nature of Jesus.
In contrast to ‘kurios’ interpretation, which is understood to imply either just
human-God relations or to refer to Jehovah in the OT context, John’s Logos
refers to Elohim who was and is responsible for creation issues. This is
evidenced in the ESV English Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament as “ the verse”
54
makes it clear that it was Yahweh-Elohim (the Lord God), rather than Yahweh.
This is not necessarily to make Elohim bigger and Yahweh lesser but to magnify
the functional tone in Elohim while the Logos came out to create (Gen 2:4) and
again to save (Jn 1:1).
As Bullinger also reinforces this saying; Elohim in the OT or the Logos of John
Ch 1 is more of a functional title connected with the work of creation rather than a
title of Deity; which is a visible manifestation of the invisible Deity either in
creation acts or in the human flesh to redeem humanity (Bullinger :896).
The function here depicts the God who took creation as a task and also taking
redemption as a specific task. Therefore the Logos-Elohim of Jn 1:1 is about the
‘Word-God’ coming out of God to create first and to redeem next, in contrast to
the understanding of the ‘Lord-Jehovah’ which speaks more about the nature of
the Deity rather than the function. Yet we would also like to affirm that, the
second person of the Trinity, coming out of the trinity, in a functional aspect not
ontologically , is still deity: though Ch 1:1-4; 14, talks about the God in Action. A
little more exegesis of the beginning verses of John Ch. 1 tells this fact.
John 1:1 The phrase “in the beginning” echoes the opening phrase of the
Hebrew Bible (Gen. 1:1) and establishes a canonical link between the first words
of the Old TestamentScriptures and the present Gospel. “Beginning” points to a
time prior to creation ( Brown 1966 : 4; Beasley-Murray 1999 :10;
Schnackenburg 1990 : 1. 232). Yet while John’s first readers would have
expected the phrase “In the beginning God,” the evangelist instead speaks of
“the Word” (Beasley-Murray 1999 :10). The focus of this verse is to show the
Word’s preexistence (Ridderbos 1997 : 25 ; Schnackenburg 1990 :232),
preparing for the later reference to a new “beginning,” the incarnation of the Word
(cf. 1:14) (Morris 1995 :64; Carson 1991 :114).
Besides “beginning,” the Greek term ἀρχή can also mean “first cause.” It is possible that
John here seeks to convey both meanings, “in the beginning of history” and “at the root of
the universe” (Morris 1995 :65).
The designation “Word”—used in a Christological sense only in the prologue
55
(1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1 ) conveys the notion of divine self-expression or speech (cf.
Ps. 19:1–4).
Calvin (1959 :7) remarks, “I think he calls the Son of God ‘the Word’ … simply because,
first, He is the eternal wisdom and will of God, and secondly, because He is the express
image of His purpose. For just as in men speech is called the expression of the thoughts,
so it is not inappropriate to apply this to God and say that He expresses Himself to us by
His Speech or Word.”
The Genesis creation account establishes the effectiveness of God’s word: he
speaks, and things come to pass (Gen. 1:3, 9; cf. 1:11, 15, 24, 30). Psalmists
and prophets alike portray God’s word in close-to-personal terms (Ps. 33:6;
107:20; 147:15, 18; Isa. 55:10–11). Yet only John claims that this Word has
appeared as an actual person, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13). As a
comprehensive Christological designation, the expression “the Word”
encompasses Jesus’ entire ministry, placing all of Jesus’ works and words within
the framework of both his eternal being and existence (Michaels 1989 :21) and
God’s self-revelation in salvation history.
the allusion to the tabernacle in 1:14 and the reference to God are giving the law through
Moses in 1:17 (see also 5:46). As Behr (2000: 94 [cf. M. Edwards 1995]) notes, for the
second-century church fathers, including Justin Martyr, “The revelation of God in the
incarnate Logos is the last, even if the most important, in a series of discrete revelations.”
According to Irenaeus, “[t]he pre-existence of Christ, the Word of God, is inextricably
connected with his seminal presence in Scripture, the word of God” (inseminatus est
ubique in Scripturis ejus Filius Dei; Behr 2000 :98).
The term “Word” appears to have been used by the evangelist at least partly in
order to contextualize the gospel message among his Hellenistic audience.
Keener (2003 :339–41) provides thorough discussions of the Gnostic Logos; the
Logos of Hellenistic philosophy (pp. 341–43); Philo (pp. 343–47); wisdom, word,
and Torah (pp. 350–60); and John’s Logos and Torah (pp. 360–63). Three
primary backgrounds have been proposed: (1) Greek philosophy (Stoicism,
Philo); (2) the personification of wisdom; and (3) the Old Testament.
E. Miller (1993: 448–49), lists as many as nine different theories: (1) the Old
Testament dbr; (2) Wisdom (R. Harris 1917); (3) Greek philosophy (Stoicism);
(4) Philo (Evans 1993: 100–145; Tobin 1990); (5) the Aramaic mmr˒ (Hayward
1978); (6) rabbinic speculation on the Torah; (7) gnostic sources, such as the
56
Hermetic literature, especially Poimandres (Pagels 1999); (8) the Hellenistic-
Gnostic redeemer myth, Mandeans, and the Odes of Solomon (Bultmann 1923;
1973; 1971); and (9) the breaking of divine silence (Jeremias). Some, such as
Epp (1975), combine two or more of the above (in Epp’s case, Wisdom and
Torah).
Miller himself (1993: 452), building on his earlier work (1989), advances the
thesis that the uses of λόγος in the Gospel proper, while not a Christological title,
are invested “with a certain Christological transparency” (B. Reicke’s term). Thus,
startlingly, Miller, who believes that the prologue was written not only after the
Gospel proper, but even after John’s first epistle, finds the origin of the prologue’s
λόγος in the Fourth Gospel itself: “The one of whom it was said in John 7:46,
‘Never has a man spoken like this!’ eventually came to be called, appropriately,
‘the Word.’ ” He said “I find this thesis entirely unconvincing (Miller :1999)
attempts to make the same case for ἀρχῄ”. It is quite a tour de force to brush
aside the massive Old Testament substructure pervading the entire prologue.
Not surprisingly, Miller’s thesis has found only few followers.
In Stoic thought, logos was Reason, the impersonal principle governing the
universe. A spark of universal Reason was thought to reside within people (at
least the best and wisest of them), who must live in keeping with it to attain
dignity and meaning. Yet while John may well have been aware of the Stoic
concept of the logos, it is doubtful that it constituted his primary conceptual
framework (see the three reasons given in Köstenberger 1999a :52).
Another candidate is the personification of wisdom in wisdom literature (see, e.g.,
Talbert 1992 :68–71). In Prov. 8 (esp. vv. 22–31), wisdom is called “the first of his
[God’s] works,” “appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world
began.” Wisdom was “the craftsman at his side” when he marked out the earth’s
foundations, “rejoicing always in his presence.” A whole corpus of apocryphal
wisdom literature built on these notions (Sir. 1:1–10; Wisdom of Solomon). At first
sight, the parallels between the characterization of wisdom in Prov. 8 and John’s
57
logos seem impressive. Wisdom, like John’s logos, claims preexistence and
participation in God’s creative activity. Like the logos, wisdom is depicted as a
vehicle of God’s self-revelation, in creation as well as the law. Yet despite these
surface similarities, John’s logos differs from personified wisdom in several
significant respects, and the term σοφία (sophia, wisdom) is absent from this
Gospel (Schlatter 1948 :43; see the three differences noted in Köstenberger
1999a :53).
Finally, the third proposed background is the depiction of the Word of God in the
O.T. There are several reasons why this option has the most to commend it: (1)
the evangelist’s deliberate effort to echo the opening words of the Hebrew
Scriptures by the phrase “in the beginning”; (2) the reappearance of several
significant terms from Gen. 1 in John 1 (“light,” “darkness,” “life”); (3) the
prologue’s OT allusions, be it to Israel’s wilderness wanderings (1:14: “pitched
his tent”) or to the giving of the law (1:17–18); and (4) the evangelist’s adaptation
of Isa. 55:9–11 for his basic Christological framework (Köstenberger 1999a :
54),(Viviano 1998 :182).
As far back as man can think, in the beginning . . . the Word was existing. The
term “Word” is the common Greek word logos, which meant “speaking, a
message, or words.” “Logos” was widely used in Greek philosophical teaching as
well as in Jewish wisdom literature and philosophy. John chose this term
because it was familiar to his readers, but he invested it with his own meaning,
which becomes evident in the prologue.
A/The Word was with God means in a special relationship of eternal fellowship
in the Trinity. The word “with” translates the Greek pros, which here suggests “in
company with” (cf. the same use of pros in 1:2; 1 Thes. 3:4; 1 John 1:2). John
then added that the Word was God.
B/ The Word has always been in a relationship with God the Father. Christ did
not at some point in time come into existence or begun a relationship with the
Father. In eternity past the Father (God) and the Son (the Word) have always
58
been in a loving communion with each other. Both Father and Son are God, yet
there are not two Gods.
2.5.1 The Deity of Jesus Christ
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The New World translation against other translations, used “god”
rather than “God” as the translation mainly stands for the “Jehovah Witness”
doctrine. This translation is basically motivated by theological persuasion rather
than by true grammatical construction and therefore such translation is wrong as
it denies the deity of the Son. Some syntactical rules are suggested below to
settle confusions alike partly from the book (A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament, Second Edition) and partly from other references.
Jn 1:1–14. THE WORD MADE FLESH.
1. In the beginning—of all time and created existence, for this Word gave it
being (Jn 1:3, 10); therefore, “before the world was” (Jn 17:5, 24); or, from
all eternity was the Word—He who is to God what man’s word is to
himself, the manifestation or expression of himself to those without him.
(See on Jn 1:18). On the origin of this most lofty and now for ever
consecrated title of Christ, this is not the place to speak. It occurs only in
the writings of this seraphic apostle. was with God—having a conscious
personal existence distinct from God (as one is from the person he is
“with”), but inseparable from Him and associated with Him (Jn 1:18; Jn
17:5; 1Jn 1:2), where “THE FATHER” is used in the same sense as “GOD”
here. was God—in substance and essence GOD; or was possessed of
essential or proper divinity (Jamieson, Robert; Fauset A.R; Brown David:
1997_).
2. Was the Word eternal? It was not the eternity of “the Father,” but of a
conscious personal existence distinct from Him and associated with Him.
Was the Word thus “with God?” It was not the distinctness and the
59
fellowship of another being, as if there were more gods than one, but of
One who was Himself God—in such sense that the absolute unity of the
God head, the great principle of all religion, is only transferred from the
region of shadowy abstraction to the region of essential life and love. But
why all this definition? Not to give us any abstract information about
certain mysterious distinctions in the Godhead, but solely to let the reader
know who it was that in the fullness of time “was made flesh.” After each
verse, then, the reader must say, “It was He who is thus, and thus, and
thus described, who was made flesh.” ( Fauset A.R; and David: 1997).
Reinforcing this, other scholars also add in 1:1 “Beginning” points to a time prior
to creation (R. Brown 1966: 4; Beasley-Murray 1999: 10; Schnackenburg 1990:
1.232). Yet while John’s first readers would have expected the phrase “In the
beginning God,” the evangelist instead speaks of “the Word” (Beasley-Murray
1999: 10). The focus of this verse is to show the Word’s preexistence (Ridderbos
1997: 25; Schnackenburg 1990: 1.232), preparing for the later reference to a new
“beginning,” the incarnation of the Word (cf. 1:14) (Morris 1995: 64; Carson 1991:
114).
The designation “Word”—used in a Christological sense only in the prologue
(1:1, 14)—conveys the notion of divine self-expression or speech (cf. Ps. 19:1–
4). (Calvin 1959 :7). The Genesis creation account establishes the effectiveness
of God’s word: he speaks, and things come to pass (Gen. 1:3, 9; cf. 1:11, 15, 24,
and 30). Psalmists and prophets alike portray God’s word in close-to-personal
terms (Ps. 33:6; 107:20; 147:15, 18; Isa. 55:10–11). Yet only John claims that
this Word has appeared as an actual person, Jesus Christ (cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev.
19:13).
…“was God”. Not “a god,” for the lack of the Greek article here does not make
“God” indefinite but determines which term (“Word” or “God”) is to be the subject
of the linking verb “was”. The literal order of the Greek words here is “and God
60
was the Word” (kai theos een ‘o logos), the subject “Word” follows the verb and
the predicate nominative “God” precedes the verb, the reverse of English word
order. Since this clause uses a linking verb, both the subject and the predicate
nominative are in the nominative case, so case endings do not serve to identify
the subject in this construction; rather, the article “the” points out the subject of
the clause. Greek uses the article “the” to accomplish what English does by word
order. Thus, if John had placed the article “the” before “God,” the meaning would
be “and God was the Word;” if he had placed the article “the” before both “Word”
and “God,” the meaning would be convertible or reversible: it would mean equally
“God was the Word,” and “The Word was God,” but this John did not do. By
placing the article “the” before Word, “Word” must be the subject of the linking
verb was and the statement can only be rendered “the Word was God.” Just as
mistaken is the rendering “the Word was divine,” for “God,” lacking the article, is
not thereby an adjective, or rendered qualitative when it precedes a linking verb
followed by a noun which does have the article.
Translators and translations which choose to render this phrase “a god” or
“divine” are motivated by theological, not grammatical, considerations. The
phrase “a god” is particularly objectionable, because it makes Christ a lesser
god, which is polytheism, and contrary to the express declaration of Scripture
elsewhere (Dt 32:39). For clearly if Christ is “a god,” then he must be either a
“true god” or a “false god.” If “true,” we assert polytheism; if “false,” he is
unworthy of our credence. John’s high view of Christ expressed throughout his
gospel, climaxing in the testimony of Thomas, who addressed Christ as “my Lord
and my God,” is asserted from this opening statement, “the Word was God.”
There is no legitimate basis for understanding his declaration in any lesser sense
than affirming the full deity of the Word. Jn m5:18. 8:+*35, 58, 59. +*10:30, 33,
61
p+34. 14:7. +m20:28. Dt +*32:39. Jb +*19:26. Is *43:10. m44:6. Je m23:5, 6. Mi
+*5:2. Ac p12:22. m20:28. Ro 9:5. 2 Co p*4:4. Ep 5:5g. Ph 2:6n. 2 Th 1:12g. Ti
m2:13g. He +*1:8. 2 P m1:1g. Re 21:7.
Just to add a little bit of articular use in Greek grammar, let’s see Colwel’s article
published in 1933. In 1933, Colwell published an article entitled, “A Definite
Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” in JBL 52 (1933)
12-21. Ever since, his rule has been known simply as “Colwell’s rule.” This rule
treats syntax either articular or anarthrous making the predicate nominative
definite or indefinite. He said articles indicate the definiteness or there may be a
shift of order in the sentence construction. To put it rightly Colwell’s rule is as
follows:
“Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article … a predicate
nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’
noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the
predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun… .”1 (Colwell 1995 :20).
Almost immediately many scholars (especially of a more conservative stripe)
misunderstood Colwell’s rule. They saw the benefit of the rule for affirming the
deity of Christ in John 1:1. But what they thought Colwell was articulating was
actually the converse of the rule, not the rule itself. That is, they thought that the
rule was: An anarthrous predicate nominative that precedes the verb is usually
definite. This is not the rule, nor can it be implied from the rule.
For the most part, they either quote Colwell without much interaction or they read
into the rule what is not there. For example, Nigel Turner argued: “[In John 1:1]
there need be no doctrinal significance in the dropping of the article, for it is
62
simply a matter of word-order” (Turner : 17). This means that θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
meant the same thing as ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός.
Colwell’s research casts the most serious doubts on the correctness of such
translations as ‘and the Logos was divine’ (Moffat, Strachan), ‘and the Word was
divine’ (Good speed), and (worst of all) ‘and the Word was a god’ (… New World
Translation)” (Metzger 1951-52 :125-26). Actually, Colwell’s rule does not
address this issue at all. Walter Martin goes so far as to say: “Colwell’s rule
clearly states that a definite predicate nominative … never takes an article when
it precedes the verb … as in John 1:1.” Although Martin states the rule rather
than the converse (though too dogmatically, for Colwell did not say “never”), he
assumes the converse of the rule in the very next breath! (Martin 1968 :75).
The point here is that Colwell’s rule has been misunderstood and abused by
scholars. By applying Colwell’s rule to John 1:1 they have jumped out of the
frying pan of Arianism and into the fire of Sabellianism. So what?
In his article Colwell overstates his case: “Loosely speaking, this study may be
said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb
without the article. …” (Colwell: 21). Further, he was inconsistent elsewhere
when he said: “[The data presented here] show that a predicate nominative
which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’
noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the
predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the
absence of the article.”(Colwell: 20).
This is an accurate statement in that he recognizes that contextual factors need
to be brought in, to argue for a definite Predicate Noun. But this is followed on
the next page with: “The absence of the article does not make the predicate
[nominative] indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; (Wallace : 257).
63
Therefore in John 1:1 the back up for affirming the “Deity of the Word” and which
makes some translations wrong is more from the context. So the contextual
meaning comes as we go down to the next successive verses.
2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him,
and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4In Him
was life and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness did not comprehend it. 9 There was the true Light which,
coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the
world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.11 He came to His
own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to
those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of
the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (All Bible quotations from New
American Standard Version, 1995)
2.5.2 The Word Made Flesh
A grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament reflects the following on
John 1:14. ἐ-σκήνωσεν aor. -νόω pitch tent; dwell in a tent (σκηνή); more
generally, dwell; either inceptive aor. took up his abode (incarnation), or
constative (global) aor. §253 dwelt among us (earthly life). The latter favored by
the following ἐ-θεασάμεθα aor. θεάομαι behold, observe; see. ὡς as (in the
capacity of), or causal, in as much as, because. μονο-γενής neut. -γενές (<
μόνος + γένος) only (child). παρά w. Gen. of pers. From, indicating the origin of
64
the Word and of his glory. Πλήρης often indecl. In HGk: nom. (Ref. ὁ λόγος) or
acc. (Ref. δόξαν), or even gen. (Ref. μονογενοῦς) §11. χάρις καὶ ἀλήθεια
rendering a very freq. O.T. Expression ref. God’s merciful love and fidelity to his
promises. ἀλήθεια truth, here that revelation of divine reality communicated by
Christ’s words, deeds, and life (Zerwick, Max; Grosvenor, Mary 1974 :286).
“Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament” puts it saying ‘and the Word
became flesh, Cf. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (Jo. 1:14). σάρξ, σαρκός, ἡ sarx flesh.
1. This noun occurs 147 times in the NT (only 8 times pl., the balance sg.) and is
among words with the largest NT frequency (among the anthropological terms
σάρξ stands in third position behind ἄνθρωπος and καρδία). It is one of Paul’s
favorite words (72 occurrences, 26 of those in Romans, 18 in Galatians) and is
also common in the post-Pauline tradition (25 occurrences, including the
Pastorals and Hebrews). It occurs only once each in 1 Timothy, Philemon,
James, and 2 John. 1 / 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy, Titus, and 3 John do not use
the word.
The range of meaning extends from the substance flesh (both human and
animal), to the human body, to the entire person, and to all humankind. This
variety is already seen in the LXX, where σάρξ translates Heb. Bśr (ca. 265
times), though where the reference is to flesh as food, the LXX usually uses
κρέας, which occurs in the NT twice with the same meaning (Rom 14:21; 1 Cor
8:13). The New Testament reflects and maintains the Old Testament view of the
human being as an undivided whole almost without exception (far from any
notions of dichotomous, trichotomous, or dualistic perspectives such as that in
65
Greek philosophy, Hellenism, and Gnosticism). This is shown inter alia by the
infrequent occurrence of the Pl. (Jas 5:3; Rev 17:16; 19:18 [5 occurrences], 21,
where the reference within the context of judgments is to the eating of human
flesh).
2. An examination of the use of σάρξ must be based not on its use with other
terms (flesh and blood, in the flesh, according to the flesh) but on objective
criteria, since some word combinations can have widely diverging meanings in
different contexts. (1) Σάρξ refers, first, to the bodily substance, the flesh of
circumcision, then the human body itself (frequently with a closer qualification,
e.g., ἀσθένεια), and finally the whole person or humanity (in the universal sense:
all of humanity; in the partial sense: the people Israel, σάρξ referring to physical
lineage and expressing genealogical membership in Israel). (2) In a further group
σάρξ refers to earthly and natural existence and then to the merely worldly
existence of human beings (κατὰ σάρκα in combination with a vb.). (3) Finally,
and ESP. In Paul, σάρξ implies a theological understanding of mankind subject to
the power of sin. The theological implications emerge above all from use with
ἁμαρτία, νόμος, and θάνατος and from the contrast σάρξ — πνεῦμα. Here
statements about flesh come into direct contact with those about anti-divine
powers of perdition. We see that the becoming into the flesh is for the Word,
neither excluding the divine not swallowing the human, indivisibly also
unmixingly.
3-Flesh is also a term — again under OT influence — for the human body (1 Cor
6:16; cf. 2 Cor 7:5; Eph 5:31) as well as for the whole person. Other substantives
specify more closely that the person in view is threatened and endangered:
Reference is made to weakness (Gal 4:13; Rom 6:19), troubles (1 Cor 7:28),
destruction (1 Cor 5:5), and defilement (2 Cor 7:1) of the flesh. Qualified by an
adj. the human being is portrayed as mortal flesh (2 Cor 4:11), though flesh to
which even now the life of Jesus is revealed. “All flesh” refers, as in the Old
Testament, to all human beings, all humanity (Gal 2:16; Rom 3:20; both
66
influenced by Ps 142:2 LXX: πᾶς ζῶν). Paul twice uses the phrase “flesh and
blood” (1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; cf. Sir 14:18; 17:31; 1 Enoch 15:4–6), referring
thus to those who are excluded from the kingdom of God or whose authority is
insufficient.
Life “in the flesh” (Gal 2:20; 2 Cor 10:3; Phil 1:22, 24; Phlm 16) expresses the
normal manner of earthly existence (without any special qualification). Although
the phrase sounds slightly Hellenistic, in substance it nonetheless agrees with
the Old Testament view of human beings, since according to Greek
understanding the soul can indeed be in the body, but not the human being “in
the flesh.”
c) Paul’s statements using σάρξ of human beings subject to the all-
encompassing power of sin are ESP. Important (Rom 7:5 [14], 18, 25; 8:5, 6, 7,
8). Mankind so considered is bound to a sinful existence hostile to God and is
incapable of attaining redemption on its own. But Jesus’ death and resurrection
robs sin of its power. God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” for the
sake of sin and in order to condemn sin “in the flesh,” i.e., in precisely the “place”
where it set up its power: in the worldly-physical sphere to which all human
beings belong without exception (8:3).
4. The post-Pauline tradition to a large extent follows Paul’s understanding of
mankind while setting its own new emphases. Col 2:1 uses σάρξ in the sense of
“visible corporeality” (Schweitzer 1968 :136); the use of κατὰ σάρκα in 3:22 also
corresponds to Pauline usage: The (worldly) master exercises his lordship in the
earthly-worldly realm (so also in Eph 6:5). According to Col 1:24 Paul suffers in
his own earthly-physical existence what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions (cf. 2 Cor
4:11; Gal 6:17). The “indulgence of the flesh” in Col 2:23 (a difficult phrase; cf.
BAGD s.v. πλησμονή) probably refers to the over satiation of a person not
67
oriented toward the order of God (on the attempts at syntactical correction see J.
Ernst, Col [RNT] 213f.).
5. The OT formula πᾶσα σάρξ also occurs (apart from O.T. quotations in Mark
10:8a par. Matt 19:5b: Gen 2:24; Luke 3:6: Isa 40:5) in Mark 13:20 par. Matt
24:22: No human being could be saved in judgment if the Lord did not shorten
the days. “Flesh and blood” (Matt 16:17) follows OT terminology and refers to
those incapable of proclaiming what alone is of value. Σάρξ and πνεῦμα stand
over against one another in Mark 14:38 par. Matt 26:41; one cannot, however,
speak of “anthropological dualism” (contra Schweizer 124; H. Braun,
Spätjüdisch- häretischer und frühchristlicher Radikalismus [1957] II, 115 n.4
views the passage as a secondary parented insertion); the weakness of the σάρξ
and the willing spirit correspond rather to the OT understanding of the conflict
between good and evil in human beings (cf. Ps 50:14 LXX). “Flesh and bones”
(Luke 24:39) refer to the actual corporeality (appearance in person) of the
resurrected Jesus in contrast to an incorporeal and unreal spirit. Acts cites the
OT twice with the phrase πᾶσα σάρξ, “all human beings” (2:17: Joel 3:1 LXX;
2:26: Ps 15:9 LXX). Acts 2:31 concludes from the incorruptibility of Jesus’ σάρξ
that of the human σάρξ (cf. 2:26f.); this refers to the resurrection body of Jesus
(ψυχή in v. 27 is not repeated in v. 31), (Robert and Gerhard, 1990-1993c:230-
232).
6. a) The Gospel of John, in which σάρξ appears with relative infrequency (13
times), uses this term in a unique fashion. The phrase “all flesh” (John 17:2) is
traditional: The Father gives the Son sovereignty over all mankind. In 8:15 the
formula κατὰ σάρκα is used with the art.; Judgment “according to the flesh” is
another expression for human incomprehension (cf. v.14) and refers to judgment
68
according to (superficial) appearances (cf. also 7:24), which cannot recognize
who Jesus truly is. Similarly 3:6: Whoever is born “of the flesh” is (only) flesh, i.e.,
belongs (only) to the worldly sphere having no part in the kingdom of God. Only
through birth within the πνεῦμα does one come into the kingdom of God. Flesh,
however, does not characterize human beings as subject to the power of sin; a
person becomes sinful only by rejecting πίστις. The meaning is similar in 6:63;
the contrast between σάρξ and πνεῦμα is not that found in Paul, but expresses
rather that the understanding of Jesus’ speech (v. 60) is possible only in the
Spirit.
In the Johannine prologue flesh (1:13) refers to physical lineage (cf. the
interpretative αἷμα and θέλημα ἀνδρός) — contrasted with birth from God. Σάρξ
is thus thought of as having a will — as does a human being: The birth willed by
the physical human being corresponds to the conception desired by the person.
John 1:14 asserts that, like every person, the Logos, too, took on physical form; it
chose the same earthly existence that every human being has, it set up its tent,
and it dwelled among us. So the becoming is neither mysteriously spiritual nor
just symbolic but the becoming of the ‘Word’ into ‘human’, neither excluding the
divine not swallowing the human, indivisibly also unmixingly.
b) According to 1 John 4:2 (some mss. Repeat ἐν σαρκί in v. 3) and 2 John 7 the
confession that Jesus came “in the flesh,” i.e., as a human being, separates the
true believers from the prophets of lies. Faith (or its absence) is now revealed not
only in relation to God, but also in relation to the one sent by God.
7. a) In Heb 5:7 σάρξ is used of Jesus’ earthly existence; the “days of his flesh”
are his days on earth. During this time he took on “blood and flesh” (2:14b; → 4),
as does every person (v. 14a). This comparison prohibits the assertion that “the
‘substantial’ character … is now much more prominent” (contra Schweitzer 141).
The “fathers of our flesh” (12:9) are our earthly fathers to whom we were
obedient. “Regulations (δικαίωμα) of the flesh” (9:10) are cultic requirements of
69
the law (food, drink, and purity regulations) that only effect a preliminary
“purification of the flesh” (9:13), i.e., of the external person. In contrast, Christ’s
blood purifies the human conscience (v. 14). This dichotomous-sounding
statement corresponds to early Christian tradition (Mark 7:15 par. Matt 15:11; cf.
Heb 10:22).
According to Heb 10:20 entry into the sanctuary is gained “through the flesh” of
Jesus; this text does, however, present some difficulties. Is σάρξ here a
metaphorical designation for Jesus’ death? Vv. 5 and 10 show that σῶμα would
have to be used. Is διά locative (with the “curtain”) or instrumental (with σάρξ)?
Or does διά even have a consistent meaning here? Σάρξ could refer to human
nature; then the question arises whether this nature must be destroyed (as the
curtain was torn) to open access to the sanctuary; “nature,” however, is not really
an adequate rendering of σάρξ. The excellent attestation of the text here makes
it impossible to assume the presence of a later gloss that might be eliminated.
The context suggests the direction our solution must take: Jesus’ blood was
spilled at the cross (v. 19); thus the death on the cross made access to the
sanctuary possible. This led through the curtain, and this symbolic event is then
interpreted concretely through the term flesh: Jesus opened the way once and for
all through (instrumental) the sacrifice of the “body of flesh” in death.
b) 1 Pet 1:24 (quoting Isa 40:6 LXX) uses πᾶσα σάρξ in accord with O.T. usage
to mean “every person,” “everyone.” 3:18 speaks of Christ, who suffered (the v.l.
ἀπέθανεν, while well attested, is not the preferred reading; cf. NTGand
UBSGNTwith NTG) and was killed in the flesh (cf. 1:18f. 2:24). Σάρξ refers to “the
mortal human condition” (L. Goppelt, 1 Pet [KEK] 245 with n.27) or earthly
existence in general (but not to the body as a soteriological category, contra N.
Brox, 1 Pet [EKKNT] 168; K. H. Schelkle, 1 Pet [HTKNT] 103f. is ambiguous)
contrasted with pneumatic existence (cf. Rom 1:3f.). This contrast is also a factor
70
in the difficult text 1 Pet 4:6, though in reference to the dead: They receive the
good news that though in their earthly existence they will be judged as humans,
they will then live in the spirit like God (cf. Rom 8:27; 2 Cor 7:9, 10, 11).
In 1 Pet 4:1a, too, σαρκί (dat. Of respect, as in 3:18) refers to earthly existence
characterized by πάσχειν as the sphere in which Jesus’ Passion was manifested
historically (cf. 3:18a; there as always in 1 Peter ἁμαρτία is Pl.). The statement in
4:1b can best be described (with Goppelt, 1 Pet 268) as a general parenthetical
justification; it refers in a general sense to the human σάρξ as the “place” where
sin rules, but where a person through suffering (probably threats, persecution,
and mortal suffering, not bodily harm [contra Brox, 1 Pet 181]) has ceased from
sin (cf. Rom 7:6; BAGD s.v. 2) so as for the rest of the earthly time no longer to
live by human passions (4:2).
The “dirt of the flesh” (3:21) is contrasted with the good conscience (cf. Heb
9:10f.; the contrast is not, however, strictly carried through): baptism does not
effect an external and physical cleansing, but rather “a promise to God for a good
conscience” (ἐπερώτημα, literally “question, appeal,” is to be rendered here
“promise, vow”; → ἐπερώτημα). The background here is the determination of a
person according to (unimportant) external and (decisive) internal criteria.
The statements concerning σάρξ in 1 Peter stand fully within early Christian
tradition and also take up in part Paul’s anthropological-theological conception,
though no longer with his linguistic exactitude and conceptual consistency; this
becomes esp. clear in the new understanding of sin.
71
c) According to Jude 7 Sodom and Gomorrah (and the surrounding cities)
indulged in “unnatural flesh.” This probably refers to sexual lust; the pejorative
sense is expressed ESP. Through ἕτερος and suggests perverted desires. The
historical perspective recalls particularly Gen 19:4–25: Like the cities mentioned
there, the false teachers in Jude engage in fornication with unnatural flesh (v. 8).
V. 23 is probably to be interpreted in this way as well. 2 Pet 2:10 picks up Jude 7,
though without the adj. ἕτερος; instead, it adds “the lust of defiling passions,”
thereby rejecting the σάρξ, the human body, as an object of sexual gratification
(cf. Also 2:18). 1
(Balz, Horst Robert; Schneider Gerhard 1990-c1993:232-234).
And 1cdwelt among us, and dwe saw His glory, glory as of 2
the only begotten.
All the analysis so far leads us to conclude that he flesh Jesus had is the same
as any human being has, which confirms the full humanity of Our Lord Jesus
while he was on earth.
John 1:18. There is a question as to whether the original reading here is
μονογενὴς υἱός (monogenēs huios, one-of-a-kind Son) or μονογενὴς θεός
(monogenēs Theos, one-of-a-kind [Son, himself] God). With the acquisition of P66
and P75, both of which read μονογενὴς θεός, the preponderance of the evidence
now leans in the direction of the latter reading. M. Harris (1992: 78–80)
expresses a “strong preference” for μονογενὴς θεός, for at least four reasons: (1)
it has superior MSsupport; (2) it represents the more difficult reading; (3) it serves
as a more proper climax to the entire prologue, attributing deity to the Son by
way of inclusio with 1:1 and 1:14; (4) it seems to account best for the other
variants. Most likely, then, μονογενῆς υἱός represents a scribal assimilation to
3:16 and 3:18.
72
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God… 1:18. At the
conclusion of his prologue to the Gospel, the evangelist states emphatically,
“God [first in the Greek word order] no one has ever seen.” The present verse
constitutes an inclusio with 1:1 (Keener 2003 : 335 [with reference to Boismard
1957 :76–77], 338). There it was said that the Word was with God and the Word
was God. Here in 1:18 it is similarly said that the “one-of-a-kind Son” was God
and that he was with God in the closest way possible (Louw 1968 :38). This
relationship, in turn, is presented as the all-important reason why Jesus, the
enfleshed Word, was able to overcome the vast gulf that had existed between
God and humankind up to that point—despite the law. For God no one had ever
seen—not even Moses (1:17; cf. Num. 12:8) (Hofius 1989 :170). If there is a
polemic here, it is not against the law itself (true also of Paul [e.g., Rom. 3:31]),
but against the revelation contained in the law. As Jesus asserts later in the
Gospel, anyone who has seen him has seen the Father (14:9; cf. 12:45), and no
one can come to the Father except through him (14:6). Although the law is God’s
gracious revelation, it is not adequate as a vehicle of the “true, ultimate grace”
(1:17) that came only through Jesus Christ.
The lack of a coordinating conjunction (asyndeton) indicates the causal
relationship between 1:18 and 1:17 (Hofius 1989: 163 n. 4). Importantly, this
theme is reiterated in the body of the Gospel during the course of Jesus’ ministry
in relation to the Jews (5:37; 6:46; cf. the close verbal parallel 1 John 4:12). In
the O.T. , God had stated clearly that no one could see his face and live (Exod.
33:20) (Mowvley 1984 :137). Moses received a glimpse of God’s “back” (Exod.
33:23), as did Hagar (metaphorically; Gen. 16:13). The saints of the OT usually
were terrified of seeing God (Exod. 3:6b; Judg. 13:21–22; Job 13:11; Isa. 6:5).
The reason for humankind’s inability to see God is twofold: first, God is spirit
(John 4:24); second, humankind fell into sin and was expelled from God’s
presence (Gen. 3; Isa. 59:2). Jesus surmounted both obstacles: he, himself God,
73
became a human being, so that others could see God in him (John 1:14; 14:9–
10; cf. 20:28); and, being sinless, he died for people, so that their sinfulness no
longer keeps them from entering into fellowship with God (John 1:29; cf. Rom.
5:1–2, 6–11). By way of inclusio, the phrase “the one-of-a-kind Son, God [in his
own right]” provides a commentary on what is meant in 1:1c, where it is said that
“the Word was God.” The Word was God, and so Jesus is “unique and divine,
though flesh” (Mowvley 1984: 137). Rather than functioning attributively (“the
one-of-a-kind God”), μονογενής probably is to be understood as a substantive in
its own right as in 1:14 (“the one-of-a-kind Son”), with θεός in apposition (“God [in
his own right]”; Hofius 1989: 164). The phrase “one-of-a-kind Son, God [in his
own right],” which John here uses with reference to Jesus, is both striking and
unusual (though note the equally clear ascriptions of deity to Jesus in 1:1 and
20:28). If this is what John actually wrote, it would identify Jesus even more
closely as God than the phrase “one-of-a-kind Son.” Judaism believed that there
was only one God (Deut. 6:4). As John shows later in his Gospel, Jesus’ claims
of deity brought him into increasing conflict with the Jewish authorities. In the
end, the primary charge leading to his crucifixion was blasphemy (19:7; cf.
10:33), (Keener 2003 :426).
The phrase “in closest relationship” (εἰς τὸν κόλπον, eis ton kolpon) refers to the
unmatched intimacy of Jesus’ relationship with the Father (Wallace :360), which
enabled him to reveal the Father in an unprecedented way (cf. the contrast with
Moses in 1:17; R. Brown 1966: 36). Literally, John here says that Jesus is “in the
Father’s lap,” an idiom for greatest possible closeness (cf. Prov. 8:30) (Hofius
1989: 164–65, following Gese 1981). This is the way the term is used in the OT,
where it portrays the devoted care of a parent or caregiver (Num. 11:12; Ruth
4:16; 2 Sam. 12:3; 1 Kings 3:20; 17:19; Lam. 2:12; cf. b. Yebam. 77a) (Hofius
74
1989: 166 nn. 19–21). The most pertinent NT parallel is the reference to
“Abraham’s side” (TNIV) in Luke 16:22.
These parallels show how deeply intimate John considered Jesus’ relationship
with the Father to be. The evangelist later uses a closely similar expression (ἐν
τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ; lit., “in Jesus’ bosom” [13:23]) with regard to himself, “the
disciple Jesus loved,” indicating that his closeness to Jesus during his earthly
ministry made him the perfect person to write this Gospel. Access to divine
revelation was also prized in the pagan mystery religions and Jewish
apocalypticism and mysticism. Yet here John claims that Jesus’ access to God
far exceeds not only that claimed by other religions, but even that of Judaism.
This is why Moses’ system was inferior: under it, no one could see God (Morris
1995: 100).
John here does not use the more common term for “to make known,” γνωρίζω
(gnōrizō [15:15; 17:26]), but the rare expression ἐξηγέομαι (exēgeomai; found
only here in this Gospel). In its Lukan occurrences (Luke 24:35; Acts 10:8; 15:12,
14; 21:19), the term regularly means “to give a full account” in the sense of
“telling the whole story,” the probable meaning here also (Louw 1968; Morris
1995: 101; contra Beasley-Murray [1999: 16], who likes the thought of the Logos
“exegeting” the Father). (Harris 1994 :109,115) . As he concludes his
introduction, John therefore makes the important point that the entire Gospel to
follow should be read as an account of Jesus “telling the whole story” of God the
Father.
If so the sameness of the Word with the father is asserted but the Word’s
becoming into flesh also not denied. The flesh nature of the Word at this Juncture
75
is not of the same kind with the father as the father has no flesh. Then the phrase
of-the-same-kind refers to only the nature of the Logos in his former divinity and
his unequalled/unique relationship with the father. The Textus receptus use of
the word “Son” has nothing wrong in this case as the “Son” is truly the “unique
Son” of the “unique God” but this doesn’t imply a denial of the “Son” stepping out
from God to man which we theologically call as the incarnation. It is a process of
limitation or the infinite willing to be finite, the Logos willing to be on the level of
man. Yet it is the unique Son of God, the Son/Logos who became man not any
body else.
2.5.3 The Testimony of John
Since the Word existed in the beginning, one might think that either the Word
was God or the Word was with God. John affirms both. What is expressed is “not
simple co-existence, but rather the idea of active relationship or intercourse
‘with’ ” (Pollard 1977: 364).
Seeking to combine the notions of “with” indicating accompaniment and “toward”
signifying relationship, R. Brown (1966: 4–6) translates, “The Word was in God’s
presence”; A. T. Robertson (1934: 623 [cited in MacLeod 2003: 57]) glosses, “face to
face with God.” 65).
In terms of relationship, not only does πρός establish a relationship between God
and the Word, but also it distinguishes the two from each other (R. Brown 1966:
5).( Köstenberger, Andreas J 2004 :25).
In the beginning chapters, John made a descriptive narrative of the reactions
from those who were meeting with Jesus in an eye breaking contact with Him.
Those who were positive towards Jesus, most possibly only knew the prophetic
utterances about Jesus as far as labeling Him as the messiah (Jn 1:45).
Nathanael’s confession “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of
Israel” (Vs 49), seems a sudden utterance which might have come out of just a
surprise in what Jesus said about him, rather than a clear understanding of the
divine nature. The same was the case when Peter uttered similar statement
about Jesus, during Jesus’ interrogation to the disciples ‘who do you say I am?’.
76
Peters answer was not premeditated, let alone to the extent of understanding the
real nature of Jesus. That seems the reason for Jesus to discourage Peter’s
confession, not to publicize this incident before the time (Mark 8:29-30).
A Commentary Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak
Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. gives the following
analysis of Jn 5:26.
Does this refer to the essential life of the Son before all time (Jn 1:4) (as most of the
Fathers, and OLSHAUSEN, STIER, ALFORD, &c., among the moderns), or to the purpose of
God that this essential life should reside in the Person of the Incarnate Son, and be
manifested thus to the world? [CALVIN, LUCKE, LUTHARDT, &c.] The question is as difficult
as the subject is high. But as all that Christ says of His essential relation to the Father is
intended to explain and exalt His mediatorial functions, so the one seems in our Lord’s
own mind and language mainly the starting-point of the other(Jamieson, Robert ;
Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; 1997)
The Believers Bible Commentary puts it a little bit deliberatively saying;
This verse explains how a person can receive life from the Lord Jesus. Just as the
Father is the Source and Giver of life, so He has decreed that the Son, too, should
have life in Himself and should be able to give it to others. This again is a distinct
statement as to the deity of Christ and as to His equality with the Father. It cannot be said
of any man that he has life in himself. Life was given to each one of us, but it was never
given to the Father or to the Lord Jesus. From all eternity, they have had life dwelling in
them. That life never had a beginning. It never had a source apart from them.
(MacDonald, William ; Farstad, Arthur , 1995,1997)
Yes, it looks that God does something on God. It is not a problem for the Jews to
see God as one following the “Shema” Deut 6:4. But when the Trinitarian nature
begun to get disclosed through the incarnation of the Son, such experience was
difficult and a mystery for the Jews and similarly for us. Life is a provision of the
One God. Obvious and almost a saturated theology for the Jews during the time
of Jesus. Jesus initially came to give life for us also for those who are already
dead (Vs 28-29). The question is who is this Jesus who has authority to give life
and where did he get that authority. It seems Jesus’ addressed it in a twofold
manner. The first one Trinitarian and the second one missional. When we say
Trinitarian, the life that Jesus is to give is a life always originated in God. When
we say in God it encompasses the Triune God. So, it may have been a shock for
Jesus hearers as Jesus announced about giving life (as they know that the
77
source of life is the one God only) that he had to refer to God, as giving the
power and authority to the Son so that He might give life on Himself. Any human
being can have life sourced out from God but no human being is able to pass
“this life” to others because the life passing prerogative is a Trinitarian task.
The second thing is the missional nature of Jesus’ statement. What is the Son’s
incarnation all about? Is it not to die and have victory on death therefore we and
those who are already dead may have life? As the Son is already God, God
doesn’t give life to God and then make God another God or giver of life. This has
nothing to do with eternal generation or a God giving life to God.
Still Jesus went on doing miracles, in Chapters, 2, 3, 4,5,6,9 and 11. What were
the reactions from the people’s side? The texts clearly testify that there was a
split situation among the crowd, making some to stand for Him and some against
Him, with none of them grasping quite clearly who Jesus was. This is evidenced
in Philip’s ignorance while he was still insisting to see God Himself (Jan 14:8).
Jesus’ response to Him was very strange and complicated.
What does “I am in the father and that the father is in me“, mean? None of the
disciples seem getting a clear view about this utterance of Jesus. Was it that the
divine was there hidden in the material Jesus, as some might infer or that Jesus
was sometimes in the divine dimension and another time in the physical
dimension? Or Jesus Himself is materially divine and materially human at the
same time?
If we say that the divine was there materially in Him it must have been very
visible as far as the disciples and others who see him could identify, and this
would also be in contradiction to the functional fact that Jesus had in his earthly
life, which was clear in his own utterance of Himself about His physical condition
elsewhere in this book.
In John Chapter 17. the word glory is mentioned more than five times within only
this chapter. Glory or ‘doxa’ here refers to a bright radiance or splendor which
78
attracts attention (Brown 1966 :23) to the knowledge of the real
matter/substance behind something. From this meaning it was clear that there is
no visible divine radiance over the flesh of Jesus as cause of attraction. Jesus
clearly narrated his former glory “Glorify me in your presence with the glory I had
with you, before the world begun” Vs 5., stating that He has now missed/limited
himself from the glory or the divine quality, therefore he came out of that glory Vs
8., to this imperfect world to be in the limitedness.
If it is that Jesus was shifting up and down sometimes in the divine and
sometimes in the human, this is just incongruous with no proof anywhere in the
New Testament. This is not to deny that the incarnate Lord is God. However,
we don’t have to forget that we are discussing about incarnation, in which it is the
action of the infinite willfully becoming finite for the sake of the salvation of
humanity. If we are talking about the incarnational context, the very purpose and
essence is in limitation.
Well, how far is the limitation? also the where about of the divine in the former
infinity may be a question. Some texts of the New Testament like Col 1:17 which
speak of the Son holding the universe is very clearly a post resurrection act than
an act during the incarnation. Paul was discussing the pre-present and post
resurrection scenarios in one context. So let’s not confuse such texts with acts
limited within the incarnation context. Luke 2:40,52 exactly talks the change in
the nature of the incarnate Christ. This affirms the human nature and there is no
talk of the divine enabelent here, therefore no argument about God changing or
growing etc.
Why are church fathers as Tertullian and John of Damascus, reformed
theologians as Calvin, Shedd, and Hodge , Arminian theologians as Wesley, and
Lutheran theologians as Chemnitz wrong to say that each nature in distinction
from the other acts, wills, and experiences? This is not the place to answer the
question above as we are trying to see backgrounds in the New Testament yet
the analysis given above is the stand at the table here which will surely be
79
discussed in detail within the next chapters. We will try to see more arguments in
chapter three, on the analysis of the development of Christological theology in
church history, where we may also see a little bit of the opinions of: Grudem,
Clark, Baille, Dorner, Hodge, AB Bruce, Shedd, Wiley, Warfield, Chemnitz, John
of Damascus, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Calvin, either arguing for or against
their evidences.
The only incident of a different substance now seem to be visible, which is very
literal in the text is when Jesus was about to be with God in the divine dimension
late after His resurrection discourse with Mary Magdalene. His statement to her
was; “do not hold on to me for I have not yet returned to the Father … tell them I
am returning to my father and your father, to my God and Your God” (Jn 20:17).
We may still be dragged into the same question of the nature of Christ again and
again as John 20 :17, comes into the picture here.
It is true that in our simple reading of the pages of the Gospels we never see the
incarnate Christ being able into all places at the same time during the incarnation
as the resurrected one does. We never see the incarnate Christ entering into a
house behind the closed doors except in few cases after the resurrection.
Doesn’t this imply that the resurrection put on something to the nature of the
incarnate Christ? That’s why we say He was in the not yet, until this moment that
we cannot say He sometimes was in the divine and sometimes in the human
unless otherwise one denied this scriptural evidences. It does not even signify
that Jesus was materially divine and materially human for there is no material
divinity. The material world with humanity and flesh is a created substance rather
than a divine substance unless otherwise we are again trapped in Apollinaire
cults of divinizing the flesh. Still, details of this will follow in our successive
chapters.
When we come to Jesus’ answer to Philip’s question in the next successive
verses of ch 14:10 “the words I say to you are not just my own, rather…. the
Father in me”; this means the words of the Father in me which is the divine
80
message from the Father through Christ to us, as this is true of the context. He
came out of the father and He was sent by the father. Yes, His mission and
message was from the father. Yet that message was accomplished in the
physical world in the midst of humanity to humanity; that’s all we get in the text.
These are gospel records of the Apostle John about the Historical Jesus, where
the human limitation was gloriously true in his ministry in between the incarnation
and the resurrection.
But these are not the only texts we should rely on for the study of Christology in
the Gospel of John. Texts like John 5:18; 19; 26 clearly speak of Jesus equality
with God the Father. This is not an evidence of divine power as far as nature is
concerned though that may be implied but it is all about authority. Jesus said I
can do nothing without the father…(paraphrase mine). Does this conflict with the
analysis coming down so far, where we have emphasized the human limitation of
Jesus during the incarnation? In order to understand the texts above better, we
must first try to see what caused Jesus to utter His equality with God the father at
this very juncture.
While we read the context, we see that two things which may be unusual have
happened. The first is the healing of a man who had been ill for 38 years,
secondly the fact that the healing was done during the Sabbath. What caused the
rioted argument mainly was not the healing, as Jesus had repeatedly done so,
also healing might happen even by the water in Bethsaida as many sick, lame
etc were there to get a healing, as the water was rushed by an angel or so
outside the presence of Jesus. The unique thing is its occurrence on the
Sabbath. Verse 10 says “So the Jews were saying to the man who was cured, it
is the Sabbath, and it is not permissible for you to carry your pallet.” The
immediate response of the man who was refused of carrying his pallet, was
redirecting the case to the one (Jesus) who said “carry your pallet”.
81
A question of authority is very evident here. Who has more authority on Sabbath?
On whose authority is such activity to be done or undone? So the question is not
about the substantial component of Jesus but on the authority Jesus had; so is
the response from Jesus. Authority wise Jesus is equal with God, yesterday,
today and forever. Function wise, pre-incarnate Jesus has surely changed during
the incarnation and has changed more during the post resurrection. This is the
basic meaning implied in verses 18, 19, and 26 as the next boundary (Vs
27 says “and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son
of Man).
In the functional reality of Jesus, humanity and incarnation is limitation which was
the functional reality of the Son only (not of the father and of the Holy Spirit)
during the incarnation. Details will come later in chapter five. Verse 28 adds
something interesting here. Jesus seems to shock the surprise of his opponents
by hinting what the future would look like. He said in Vs 28 “Do not marvel at this;
for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
Vs 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of
life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment”. What
does this tell us? Firstly ‘a time in the not yet’ and ‘an event in the not yet’. So the
resurrection has surely changed the substantial nature of Jesus, from a
temporary limitedness during the incarnation to infiniteness after the resurrection.
Vs 30 says “I can do nothing on my own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and my
judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent
me”. Still here, we see Jesus’ will in coherence with the will of the Father, and
also the need of his dependency on the Father during his incarnate stage.
Another text is John 14:28. It says; “You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and
I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the
Father, for the Father is greater than I. (All verses used above are from the New
82
American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995,
S. Jn 14:28).
According to John 14:28 we may ask, is God greater than God? No but in line
with the above flow, Jesus is referring to his temporary humiliation as man. It is
good to assert that God is greater than man. This may be against what Grudem
has said as the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Human nature is
never the nature of the Father or the Holy Spirit but has been in the nature of
Jesus during his incarnation as he willingly limited Himself for the sake of saving
us.
III The Christology in the Johannine Epistles
As we are aware of the disputes concerning the authorship of these epistles
either by the same author or a redactor/copyist, it would be good to give a little
introductory note, of the disputes reinforcing our former position. Canon A. E.
Brook, in his exegetical commentary on 1, 2, and 3rd John (Brook 1912 :2),
made a careful and detailed comparison between the epistles of John and the
Gospel of John. His goal was to stress the identity of Authorship, which we think
needs bit overview. Brook first listed scholars who are against the traditional
authorship thinking. His list includes men of widely divergent views, among whom
Eichhorn, Credner, De Wette, Lücke, Ewald, Keim, and Huther may be
mentioned. Brook said similarity of phrasing in Baur’s view, is that the
explanation of the obvious connection between the two writings is to be found in
imitation rather than in identity of authorship (Brook :3).
Therefore we may say that, scholars who are supporters of imitation by an editor
or copyist at least admit obvious and close similarity between the epistles and the
Gospel. The notion is either to say it is an imitation or repetition of usage by the
same author. A scholar who is almost with a foundational document for a copyist
rather than the same author according to Brook is (H. Holtzmann in his article in
the Jahrbuch für Protestantische Theologie, 1882,:128). To quote what brook
83
presented;
The attempt has been made to show how each phrase is used in the Gospel and the
Epistle. The connection is obvious. In explaining it the choice has to be made between an
imitator and a writer repeating, not without significant variations, his common phrases
and methods of expression. The usage of these phrases seems on the whole to support
the latter hypothesis. But the question can only be determined after considering the other
evidence (Brook :5).
In Brook’s analysis more than 144 verses are selected from both the Gospel and
the epistles in the original Greek, just for comparison and contrast. It would be
easy to make the list a long one. But these examples serve as illustrations.
Brook then concluded that, the usage suggests a writer who varies his own
phrases, rather than a mere copyist. If it is a question of copying, there has at
least been intelligent use and not slavish imitation. To site few examples: The
following points of similarity of style have often been noticed (Brook :7);
(1) The infrequent use of the relative. The thought is carried on by means of
(a) Οὐ… ἀλλά. This use is very frequent. Cf. Jn. 1:8, 13; 1 Jn. 2:2, 16, 21.
(b) Disconnected sentences. Cf. 1 Jn. 1:8 (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν), 9 (ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν),
10 (ἐὰν εἴπωμεν); Jn. 3:18, ὁ πιστεύων… ὁ μὴ πιστεύων Frequent in Gospel and
Epistle.
(c) Positive and negative expression of a thought. Cf. 1 Jn. 1:5, ὁ θεὸς φῶς
ἐστὶν καὶ σκοτία οὐκ ἔστιν ζἐν αὐτῳ οὐδεμία: Jn. 1:3, πάντα διʼ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
3.1 Christology in 1st John
If we affirm the authorship of John- the son of Zebedee, as basic frame for our
thought, for all Johannine writings, the flow of Christological outline we attempt to
expose will surely follow this basic frame.
The purpose of this letter has two faces; first, to encourage his readers reinforce
their fellowship with God and his Son; second making them alert of the false
representation of the nature of Christ blowing from the either Gnosticism or
84
dualism (Brown :54). We are not sure whether the false teaching highlighted is
from Gnosticism or from ancient dualistic remnant thoughts. If we say it is
Gnosticism it would make this epistle a late document in the 2nd C A.D. On the
other hand if we say it is about dualism it will still make this literature very
ancient, may be back to some 500 years before Christ rather than a 1st C A D,
document.
It may be fair to say that the heresies in view are from remnants of ancient
dualism which might have been recurrently appearing either in Gnosticism or just
a simple dualistic interpretation of nature. All in all the intention seems a pastoral
care underscoring the right type of fellowship with God through the true
knowledge of the nature of Jesus Christ.
Having this as a foreground, we can say that the purpose of first John partially
treats the cause of Christology by featuring the human nature of Jesus Christ
while he was on earth. This response from John was needed to protect the
wrong conception of those who try to make Jesus void of the physical world. As
we obviously know, dualistic outlook so divides between spirit and matter openly,
making the matter issue evil and the spirit holy or good. Such a notion is a trial to
present a pure uncontaminated sort of Christ for believers. Yet, such a motive
cannot make the error right. Therefore John responds strongly against it.
The very beginning verses of this book introduce Jesus Christ in a tangible
measurable form as any scientific evidence might demand information
substantiating it through the five senses. 1st John Chapter 1:1-4 follows a parallel
prelude we have seen in the beginning of the Gospel of John above. The first
verse tells about the word of life which has existed from the very beginning (Vs
1), affirming its preexistence or eternality. Then the “Word” in approachability to
the ‘eye’, the ‘ear’ the ‘hand’ and so on.
Reinforcement to this idea is in Vs 22 of the same chapter which talks about the
enemy and his followers who were formerly professing believers but now
revealed as side trackers. Their character is elaborated as they are enemies of
85
not only Christ but also the Father. In rejecting Christ, they also have rejected the
Father. Here is an implication that any misrepresentation of Christ ends in total
animosity to God (Vs 22) and a love to the Enemy of Christ (Vs 18).
All in all a true understanding of the nature of Christ lies in the acknowledgement
that Christ came as a human being. Anyone who denies this Jesus does not
have the spirit from God (1Jn 4:2-3). In general, both the Gospel account and 1st
John, having been written by the same author, we may assuredly say that both
focused on the nature of Christ in between the walls of incarnation and
resurrection. We may borrow Brooks analytical comparison as reinforcing
evidence to our argument (Brook 1912 :9). (1) The general ideas which form the
basis of the Johannine teaching are common to both.
The incarnation of the Son of God:
1 John. 4:2. Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα.
John. 1:14. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο.
The life which has its source in Him:
1 John. 5:11. αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.
John. 1:4. (ὃ γέγονεν) ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν.
6:35. ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς (cf. ver. 48).
6:33. ζωὴν διδοὺς τῷ κόσμῳ.
3.2 2nd John
When we come to 2nd John, though this letter is addressed to an individual and
most possibly through her to many who deserve the message (2nd Jn 1:1), the
same tone of pastoral care is reflected still asserting that, deceivers have gone
out over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus Christ came as a
human being (Vs 7). The third letter is more personal yet with almost the same
86
tone of pastoral care.
Therefore these are Johannine records of the Apostle John about the Historical
Jesus, where the human limitation was gloriously true in his ministry in between
the walls of the incarnation and the resurrection.
IV Conclusion
We have tried to see the Gospel of John and additional Johannine writings as
sources of Christological discussion. Preliminary step in our argument was fixing
the authorship. Though there are still who doubt attribution of the authorship of
the Johannine writings to John the Apostle-son of Zebedee; our line of argument
goes for accepting the traditional belief affirming the authorship of John the
apostle, son of Zebedee. If not, our argument will lose foundation making us
tempted to rely on just hypothetical author, who may not even be an eye witness,
and therefore leading us to compromise or reject the content all in all.
Having this as groundwork, we have seen how we should frame the Gospel of
John and the other Johannine writings, without violation of the intention of the
author. Then we tried to trace Christological line of developments all through the
books.
All in all a true understanding of the nature of Christ lies in the acknowledgement
that Christ came as a human being. Anyone who denies this Jesus does not
have the spirit from God (1Jn 4:2-3).
V. Christology in the synoptic Gospels
Trying to get Christological formula laid by the synoptic Gospels is not an easy
task. First of all these literary types (genres) were not set to answer the 21st C.
Christological questions. Secondly, as McKnight suggested in his book
interpreting the Synoptic Gospels (McKnight 1988 :13), each genre is distinct;
consequently, applying the same method to different genres will often lead to
serious misunderstandings.
87
The synoptic Gospels are written based on events in the life of Jesus and his
sayings and were written long after his death, while they were in a process of
transmission which the oral tradition takes the major part. For example a
comparative reading of the synoptic Gospels may lead one to question their
authenticity, while he/she can see the same narration but a varying and
contradicting setting and chronology. Therefore McKnight warns (McKnight :14)
that the transmission process and the phases of development should be
considered in any exegesis.
Therefore, due consideration to the relationship between the individual parts of
the three (Matthew, Mark and Luke) will be the preface for the details of
Christological study.
As this research is for the major part about the Christology in the synoptic
Gospels, we would not attempt to make the author, date, and provenance and
occasion issues main part of our discussion.
Scholarship has made us aware that, the names of authors for each part of the
synoptic Gospels are a later addition by a copyist or redactor rather than the
original writers themselves. This entails something about the date of composition
which might tell different phases through which they were getting matured. Yet
getting the occasion and the relationship between the three is a fundamental task
in the process of exegesis towards finding Christological thought out of all.
A face value reading tells that Mark has a very condensed treatment in contrast
to Matthew and Luke. Some narrations have additional details in Matthew and
Luke in contrast to Mark. What was the common source for all the three is still
hypothetically presented in current scholarship. Trying to make Matthew as
source for both Luke and Mark seems an outdated mode; rather there is now an
insistence for Mark and another “Q” as basic source for both Matthew and Luke.
Luke in his beginning chapter, very clearly mentioned his use of sources plus
eyewitness evidences for his documentation. This would lead to the possibility
that Mark antedates both Luke and Matthew. Anyways, a minimum of 90%
88
dependence is very evident; therefore a synoptic study is justifiable.
5.1 Christological Content
The exegetical challenge here is trying to grasp the real substance of the nature
of our Lord Jesus during His earthly ministry. It is good to trace to more other
New Testament records and apply some word study in order to get clear
explanation of the issue at hand. For example the word Lord is very often used to
designate divinity when it was used specifically for God. Does this apply to the
nature of the incarnate Jesus?
The word Curios ‘Kurios’ an adjective from of ‘kuros’ meaning ‘mighty’ refers to
the one who exercises power, one who has power (Bullinger 1971 :466). But
while Kurios is used as a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament Jehovah in
the New Testament texts such as Matt 22:43-45 and Mk 12:36-37,the name
Jehovah was never applied to the incarnate Christ. Let’s see how the term was
applied in the New Testament texts.
As keener has clearly treated this search from its application within the rabbinic
literatures and the LXX, he said Lord was quite usually used as a title of God
sometimes distinguished from “Elohim” in most of the rabbinic literatures, but as
an equivalent to “Adonai” in which both were translated as “Kurios” in the LXX.
The distinction between ‘Kurios/Lord’ and ‘Jahovah/ Elohom’ is at least clear in
Keener’s treatment. Keener even goes to mention the vocative case ‘Kurie‘,
where it may also mean ’Sir’ (Keener 2003 :297). How does this serve our
cause, meaning the nature of our Lord in between the walls of the incarnation
and the resurrection? How was this terminology applied to Jesus by the disciples
while he was on earth?
The disciples were addressing him as ‘Kurie’ meaning ‘Sir’ meant to respect him
whatever his very nature is, rather than ‘kurios’ which is more or less applied as a
divine title. But this limitation of the nature of Jesus doesn’t seem likely, right after
the resurrection (1Cor 8:5-6; 16: 22). The disciples seem to have a hazy picture
89
of ‘him’ till their post resurrection scenario, therefore, they were addressing him
with just a respect than with the full understanding of who he is.
5.1.1 Matt 22:42-45.
Jesus asked the Pharisees “what do you think about Christ?”(vs. 41). The
Pharisees answered in relation to David, saying ’son of David’ (vs. 42). Jesus
was still persistently digging into the issue and therefore the Old Testament
context (Ps 110:1) is differently understood by Jesus than the traditional
understanding of the Pharisees. Both the Pharisees and Jesus seem to be on the
same line, while they referred to the relational concept as both sides referred to
the Lord in relation to David.
Yet the ‘Christ’ the Pharisees referred to, seems accountable to David but the
‘Lord’ referred by Jesus is the Christ in which David is accountable to. That
lordship surely belongs to Him in a positional manner but it is not there with him
in a practical manner. Let’s try to see this verse by verse;
41 aNow while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a
question: 42 “What do you think about 1
the Christ, whose son is He?” They *said
to Him, “aThe son of David.” 43 He said to them, “Then how does David 1a
in the
Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44 ‘
aThe Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,
until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet” ’?45 “If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’
a Matt 22:41–46: Mark 12:35–37; Luke 20:41–44
1 I.e. the Messiah
a Matt 9:27
1 Or by inspiration
a 2 Sam 23:2; Rev 1:10; 4:2
a Ps 110:1; Matt 26:64; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34f; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:13; 10:13
90
how is He his son?” 46 aNo one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone
dare from that day on to ask Him 1another question.
A little grammatical analysis deem necessary here. δυσίν dat. Of δύο. κρέμαται
pass. κρεμάννυμι hang, pass. intr. met. depend. συν-ηγμένων pf ptc pass. -άγω
v.34, gen. abs. for concordant (w. αὐτούς) ptc §49. ἐπ-ηρώτησεν v.23.
τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; v.17. τίνος; v.20. τοῦ perh. inserted to show gen. case of Δαυίδ
(indecl.), cf v.43. ἐν πνεύματι: ἐν of concomitant circumstances (associative)
§116, connoting the influence of the Spirit. κάθου impv κάθημαι. ἐκ δεξιῶν 20:21
a Mark 12:34; Luke 14:6; 20:40
1 Lit any longer
dat. dative
pass. passive (voice)
intr. intransitive
met. metaphorical(ly)
pf perfect (tense)
ptc participle, participial
v. verse
gen. genitive
abs. absolute, standing (syntactically) on its own
w. with
perh perhaps
indecl. indeclinable
cf Lat. confer, compare
impv imperative (mood)
91
at the right hand. ἕως ἄν w. subj. until. θῶ aor, subj. τίθημι. ἐχθρός enemy. ὑπο-
κάτω w. gen. under §83. εἰ οὖν introducing a “real” condition §305. ἐ-δύνατο
impf δύναμαι. ἀπο-κριθῆναι aor. inf. dep. -κρίνομαι v.1. ἐ-τόλμησεν aor. -μάω
dare. ἐπ-ερωτῆσαι aor. inf. v.23. οὐκ-έτι after a neg. any longer, any more. (
Zerwick, Max ; Grosvenor, Mary 1974 :73).
From the above grammatical analysis we see that, Jesus was asking a question
to the Pharisees and the question was about “who” the Lord is and in what
sense? To whom was David referring while he said “the Lord… my Lord…? And
the second question will be in what sense is this Lord be the Lord of David?
There we see a clue which says ἐν πνεύματι “in the spirit”, which is most
possibly in the influence of the spirit, or under a prophetic influence, David was
able to hear the divine talk between the two Lords. This affirms the Lordship of
Christ or the deity of Christ which makes him the Lord of David, of course the
Lord of all humanity. But the timing goes backward than forward while David was
uttering this prophecy through the spirits influence. He was able to see the pre-
existent Christ not necessarily the incarnate one. If one takes this as if talking
about the incarnate Christ, this confuses the date that David lived with the time
the incarnate Christ revealed himself in time. So it is all about Him as Lord but in
his pre-incarnate state. Mainly the ἐν πνεύματι- in the spirit, could also be taken
to mean that what David said was said in the spirit not in day to day market talk,
therefore should not be taken literally.
subj. subjunctive (mood)
aor aorist (tense)
impf imperfect (tense)
inf. infinitive
dep. deponent
neg. negative, negation
92
Does this make our Lord lesser than a full Lord/ deity. No way! but while the
Pharisees and other people do not in any way understand his preexistent nature
in his humanity, Jesus was hinting concerning his preexistent nature which he is
having it now, only positionally than practically, which we usually say he is
functionally man but ontologically God. The function is a measurement of time
and space, physical limitedness, but the ontology is trying to understand Jesus
beyond time and space from eternity, which is now condensed in time and space
in flesh, just to the level of only positional potential than practical potential.
This leads us to say, the Lord is truly son of David when it comes to his humanity
but Son of God when it comes to his Deity. Son doesn’t necessarily refer to
divine enablement but a protocol or position.
5.2 Mk 12:36, 37
According to McKnight the book of Mark is structurally divided as: 1:1-13
Introduction, then ch 1:14- ch 9:50 his ministry in Galilee and the neighborhood,
then ch 10 his journey to Jerusalem, ch 11:1- 15:41 last work in Jerusalem and
15:42-16:8 conclusion. This is a little hint towards the occasion where Mark is
spinning.
The same thought recurred in Mark that it is David himself Calling him ‘Lord‘ still
indicating the relational arrangement between David and his Lord. Christ’s
Lordship in His pre incarnate nature is depicted in Ps 110:1, because he is not
yet born as human in time and space, still letting Him stand by himself apart from
the person of Jehovah; yet this retrospective reference of Jesus in Mk 12:37 or
Lk 20:41-45, never denies Christ’s humanity magnifying only his pre incarnate
superiority.
αὐτὸς γὰρ Δαυίδ for D. himself. βίβλος ἡ (= βύβλος papyrus) book. ψαλμός psalm, hymn.
93
κάθου impv -θημαι be seated. δεξιός right (opp. left), ἐκ δεξιῶν at the right hand. ἕως ἄν
w. subj. until, ref. future. θῶ aor2 subj. τίθημι. ἐχθρός enemy. ὑπο-πόδιον pred. Footstool,
construct state of Hebr. original accounting for absence of art. §183. κύριον pred. καὶ
τῶς…; so how…? §459. (Zerwick
, Max; Grosvenor, Mary 1974:265)
The -θημαι be seated. δεξιός right in the above text gives a good clue to what
we are trying to assert. Who is said “to sit by the right side of the other Lord
until….”? When was Jesus being seated by the right side of the Lord? The other
clue is the ἕως ἄν until. It is true that it was Jesus who was said to sit by God’s
right hand. Christ is still truly the son of David, but How? Mark 12:35 And Jesus
began to say, as He taught in the temple, “How is it that the scribes say that the
Christ is the son of David? 36 “David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord
said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies beneath Your
feet.” 37 “David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; so in what sense is He his son?” And
the large crowd enjoyed listening to Him.
12:32-34a. These verses are unique to Mark but neither Mark nor Matthew gives
us any answer to the question of ‘whom’ or the ‘timing’.
The answer was left for time to rejoin it. For this question to be answered Jesus
must be crucified, and die and buried and be resurrected. It may be easy for us
who may see it relating all incarnation, death, resurrection and post resurrection
together as we may infer all these in the recorded history of the Gospels and the
94
rest of the New Testament. Yet it was not easy for those who were attending
Jesus during his earthly years. That may be the reason for Jesus to live the issue
like open ended, for them to synthesize it through time.
Had they have a good answer they would have been fast to articulate their
theology and say something to Jesus. They were not even understanding the
question let alone prescribing an answer. Was Jesus expecting them to say
something about his preexistent nature? This doesn’t seem so. If so why need
such a question. We are not sure and we cannot be assertive here but we may
suggest that he was opening their mind to a new theological understanding,
which should revolutionarily grow in time.
What the scribes said about Christ’s son-ship to David has truth in it because it is
true that Christ is the son of David in his humanity. But this statement is partial
unless otherwise the preexistent nature of Jesus, which David was able to
visualize in Spirit, is added.
Yet, the incarnate Jesus was limited in space in his condensed state and has
never been to the place of his father, while he was on earth, except through the
Spirit and prayer. Here is where the ἕως ἄν comes in. The time element changes
our exegesis, may be upside down. Context tells us that Jesus has never been at
the right side of God during his incarnation up until his resurrection (Jn 20:17).
The “Until” element also speaks the interim time between his first resurrection
and his second coming. This leads us to say that Jesus in between the imaginary
walls of incarnation and resurrection has never been at the right side of God, but
is being at the right side of God, right after his resurrection up “until” his second
coming.
Therefore the Lord of David was ‘the Lord’ in his preexistence, meaning in a
practical manner, but was only a Lord in a positional manner during his incarnate
state, and of course not Lord during the incarnation- meaning in a practical
manner, and happened to be Lord again after his resurrection up until his second
coming, which this all will be summed up by his enemies made under his feet
95
and his submission to the Lord who will lay his enemies under his feet( Mk
12:37).
The scribe (cf. 12:28) recognized the accuracy of Jesus’ answer and voiced his
approval, viewing Him as an excellent teacher (cf. vv. 14, 19). He restated
Jesus’ answer, carefully avoiding mention of God (not in the Gr. text but supplied
in the NIV) in keeping with the typical Jewish practice of avoiding unnecessary
use of the divine name out of great respect for it. The words, There is no other
but Him, come from Deuteronomy 4:35. He also substituted the word
understanding for “soul” and “mind” (cf. Mark 12:30).
The response of the scribe in the above text implies that there was no tangible
evidence of who Jesus was in his nature, except to see and testify that Jesus is
an excellent teacher but just a man.
Thinking of Jesus here as God, is a theological truth which is true and clear for
Jesus and Jesus only but not for the scribes, not for the Pharisees, or any
scholar of that age, not even the closest disciples and not also for his own blood
family.
He had responded wisely, and Jesus probably stimulated further thought by
declaring, you are not far (“not far” is emphatic in Gr.) from the kingdom of God
(cf. Mark 1:15; 4:11; 10:15, 23). This man had the kind of spiritual understanding
(cf. 10:15) and openness to Jesus that brought him near to embracing God’s
kingdom, His spiritual rule over those related to Him by faith. Whether he entered
into this relationship or not is not known (12:34b). Jesus had effectively thwarted
all attempts to discredit Him and had exposed the hostile motives and errors of
His opponents so skillfully that nobody else dared ask Him any more questions.
12:35. Later while teaching in the temple courts (tō hierō; cf. 11:11), Jesus asked
what the Law teachers meant when they said that the Christ, the expected
Messiah, is (“simply” is implied) the Son (Descendant) of David, who would be
the triumphant Deliverer (cf. 10:47). The Davidic son-ship of the Messiah was a
96
standard Jewish belief (cf. John 7:41-42) firmly based on the Old Testament
Scriptures (cf. 2 Sam. 7:8-16; Ps. 89:3-4; Isa. 9:2-7; 11:1-9; Jer. 23:5-6; 30:9;
33:15-17, 22; Ezek. 34:23-24; 37:24; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11). Jesus added that it
is equally true that the Messiah is David’s Lord. The Law teachers’ view was
correct but incomplete (cf. similarly, Mark 9:11-13). The scriptural view held far
more than just their narrow nationalistic hopes.
12:36-37a. To prove that the Messiah is David’s Lord, Jesus quoted what David
himself spoke long ago by (under the controlling influence of) the Holy Spirit
declared in Psalm 110:1. This clearly argues for both the Davidic authorship and
the divine inspiration of this psalm. He said: The Lord (Heb., Yahweh, God the
Father; cf. Mark 12:29) said to my (David’s) Lord (Heb., ’Ădōnāy, the Messiah):
Sit at My (the Father’s) right hand, the place of highest honor and authority, until
(or “while”; cf. 9:1; 14:32) I (the Father) put Your (the Messiah’s) enemies under
Your (the Messiah’s) feet, bringing about their subjugation (cf. Josh. 10:24; Heb.
10:12-14).
The unassailable fact was that David called the Messiah Lord. This raised a
problem: How then, or in what sense, can (estin, “is”) He (the Messiah, David’s
Lord) be his (David’s) Son? Jesus’ rhetorical question pointed His listeners to the
only valid answer: the Messiah is David’s Son and David’s Lord at the same time.
This strongly implies that the Messiah is both God (David’s Lord) and man
(David’s Son; cf. Rom. 1:3-4; 2 Tim. 2:8). He will restore the future Davidic
kingdom on earth (2 Sam. 7:16; Amos 9:11-12; Matt. 19:28; Luke 1:31-33).
No doubt Jesus deliberately raised this issue so that His listeners might relate it
to Him. It carried a bold yet veiled reference to His true identity which the Jewish
leaders probably caught but did not accept (cf. comments on Mark 12:12; 14:61-
62). (Interestingly the NT has more references and allusions to Ps. 110 than to
any other single OT passage [cf., e.g., Acts 2:29-35; Heb. 1:5-13; 5:6; 7:17, 21].)
12:37b. In contrast with the Jewish leaders who had been trying to trap Jesus
with subtle questions (cf. v. 13), the large Passover crowd was listening all along
97
to His teaching with delight, though not necessarily with comprehension
(Walvoord, John F.; Zuck, Roy B. 1983-c1985:164-165).
The scribes had always taught that the Messiah would be a lineal descendant of
David. Though true, this was not the whole truth. So the Lord Jesus now posed a
problem to those gathered around Him in the temple court. In Psalm 110:1, David
spoke of the coming Messiah as his Lord. How could this be? How could the
Messiah be David’s Son and his Lord at the same time? To us the answer is
clear. The Messiah would be both Man and God. As David’s Son, He would be
human. As David’s Lord, He would be divine.
The common people heard Him gladly. Apparently they were willing to accept the
fact, even if they might not have understood it fully. But nothing is said of the
Pharisees and scribes. Their silence is gloomy (MacDonald, William; Farstad,
Arthur 1997-c1995).
He is the son of David in His humanity because he is a descendent of David, but
the son of Jehovah in his divinity for he is eternally born not created from the
father.
The ‘Son of God’ terminology also needs a little treatment here. In the ancient
Greco-Roman world any hero was thought to have a sort of divine element in him
or her. Such heroes or some philosophers of the ancient world were considered
as having a divine seed sprung up from the divine world or some way nurtured by
the gods. Emperors were also considered as ’Sons of God’ with the same
consideration to their siblings, be them Kings or just in the royal family (Keener
:293). Therefore the Hellenistic way of using the term ’Son of God/gods, is just
soft with no deep theological or philosophical explanation. This kind of
explanation comes out as a result of ignorant idolatry with cultic assumptions.
The Jewish way of applying ‘it’ in the Old Testament was a little different in that it
was used for those who belong to the true God, the righteous, to the nation Israel
and also the Angels( Keener 2003 :295).
98
In the Gospel traditions Jesus was depicted as “the unique Son of the unique
God” which is in complete contradistinction from the Hellenistic way of
understanding it. Yet the ‘Son of God’ in the Gospel traditions was never
understood to be as ‘God the Son’. No divinity is hinted, no biological relation
hinted (Keener 2003 :297). If this was so it will be the same with the Hellenistic
way of thought which said a sort of divine seed sprung up in the material or
similar to the way some current religious fantasists superstition.
This is clearly set in Keeners exegesis;
But granted that Deity is neither a necessary nor the usual sense of the term in the
synoptics (where it usually bears the sense ‘Messiah’), the fourth Gospel reflects a
background not only in Judaism, but in six decades of early Christian teaching… The
expression in the fourth Gospel means far more than “Messiah” although the expression
itself is never made to bear the weight of Christ’s Deity provided by other components of
the narrative (Keener : 297).
VI Synthesis
In all the above New Testament Texts it seems that Christ was rectifying the
misconception of the Pharisees who were letting down Jesus on the level of
humanity only. The Pharisees were right saying Christ is the son of David for
Christ is a descendent of David, in his humanity. This nature of Christ is never
shared by the Father or the Spirit.
The name ‘Jehovah’ was quite often applied in the New Testament narratives but
it was used in reference to God the Father than the ‘person of Christ, in between
the imaginary walls of the incarnation and resurrection‘. Applications of the word
‘Lord’ in the Old Testament were more or less of two types. One when it was
referring an autonomous master (Jehovah) who assumes and exercises
unlimited power ( Keener : 466). Secondly when individuals claim the master in
His relation to them as their shield saying ha-adhon or adoni, who is there to
protect and provide. The first explains his autonomy the second explains his
relational quality. The Lord to Lord conversation in Ps 110:1 is a good example
here which should be read as a dialogue between Jehovah and the Lord.
This process leads us to one or two assumptions. Firstly this obviously indicates
99
the separate persons in their respective autonomy eternally; secondly Jehovah
refers still to the Father be it in the Old or New Testament and still to the father
during the time of the human Christ making the human Christ dependent on
Jehovah for any of the powers he exercised, rather than to the issue of divinity of
Christ.
Therefore the word ‘Lord’ applied to Christ in the New Testament shows the
relational nomination ‘my lord’ who is there to protect and provide me’ rather
than to divinity issues or Jehovah himself. Who is then crucified? The son of
God or the Son of David?
6.1 Mark 15:35-38; Matthew 27:37; Luke 23:36
The crucifixion details are recorded for us in all the four Gospel narrations (Matt
27:37, 40; Mk 15:30, 31, 32; Lk 23:36, 38; Jn 19:19). The challenge here is
‘What?’ was crucified? The reason here to ask ‘What’ rather than ‘Who?’ is that,
this is a question of nature or substance rather than a question of person. Person
wise it is very clear that it was the person in both the lord and the servant.
However the crucified substance must be examined. Which nature? the divine or
the human?
All the texts above except for John 19 reported similar facts concerning the
crucifixion event. Mark’s record with other synoptic narrators presented the
Lordship with servant hood intermingled. This may raise strong exegetical
challenges. For example the crucified Jesus was labeled as the ‘king of the Jews’
in Mark 15:26; Matthew 27;37; Luke 22:38. Kingship is totally a different scenario
than servant hood. But this is first of all referring to the person than his nature;
secondly a simple court case accusation or labeling than affirming Christ’s divine
nature.
Yet all the above texts similarly pick a phrase saying;
“…destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the
cross, if you are the Son of God!” Luke stressed on the fact saying “let him save himself if
he is the Christ of God, the chosen one“(Lk: 23:35).
100
What do these phrases in Matthew, Mark and Luke tell us concerning the
crucified substance? The where or what about of the divine matter?
All the temptation from the crowd and the soldiers; “…destroy the temple and
build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the
Son of God!”, were all to test Jesus’ divine element in the human substance
yielded to the cross. Would he escape pain, suffering and death through his
positional divine Son-ship?
A wider contextual analysis tells us that Jesus has squeezed himself to the level
of humanity and servant hood so as to bear all possible limitations (Matt 20:25-
28). In order for all abuses and public mockery to happen and the mission of
saving humanity so to come, no divine power should be vested as a protection.
Therefore it seems fair to say that Jesus was with full submission on the level of
any ordinary human, on the level of a servant and on a shameful death upon the
cross (Mk 15:39). All other New Testament texts coherently affirm this nature of
Jesus while on the cross and actually all through his human stage in between the
walls of incarnation and resurrection (Phil 2:11). Keener said, “Jesus possibly
refused a narcotic meant to dull the pain: he came to embrace the worlds pain:
he would accept nothing less than the full impact of his bloody death (27:34)
(Keener 1999 :674).
No divine empowering element was tangibly exhibited in the flesh of Jesus on the
cross. The historical fact is that Jesus never retreated to refuse suffering through
divine power, from his very incarnation (Matt 4:3-10) up until his crucifixion (Lk
23:35) or has never used any anti pain or narcotic (Matt 27:48) to get relief from
the pain . His humanity was real and complete, his suffering and pain were real
and deep with no mythical cover or hidden empowerment to avoid all these.
Part II
Paul -Christological notes
101
We may not need spend our energy proving matters of authorship and the likes,
but just follow the assumption that the letters outlined as Romans; Corinthian
letters (Two), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians
letters (Two), Letters to Timothy (Two) and Titus belong to Paul. Out of this list
we would like to pick the Thessalonians letters (Two), The Corinthian letters
(Two), the Book of Galatians, and Philippians for this research.
Thessalonian Letters
Authorship and dates of the Epistles are not treated in this discussion; as such a
discourse is dealt enough in other litraturs. There may be a place where
“occasion” issues are treated as it somewhat helps clarifying the Christological
meanings.
Our main reason to choose Paul’s writings is that it is Paul who is most possibly
chronologically the first Christian theological writer. Borrowing the words of Paul
Barnett, (Barnett 2003 :22) ‘his (Paul’s), Christology is as advanced and
developed as any within the pages of the NT’. Therefore we would put our
preliminary focus in the letter to the Thessalonians, which was written from
Corinth most possibly in 50-51 A.D. . . . Donald Guthrie makes this letter the first
epistle ( Guthrie 1964 :180).
Therefore, it would be sensible to trace the routes from the second missionary
journeys of the Apostle with a plausible date between A.D., 49 and 53 (Metzger
:180). As Paul was accompanied by Silas and Timothy (Acts 15:4-20:2), following
the Macedonian call (Acts 16), then a reference of the city in the first part of Acts
17. Then he visited the place in company with Silas and Timothy, after they had
just left Philippi, where Paul and Silas had been imprisoned; next to
Thessalonica, then to Athens and Corinth because of persecution to Berea.
During his stay in Corinth Paul received his first news from Thessalonica through
Timothy (1 Thess 3:1). This may be a good report of the health of the young
church but also some questions (1Thess 4:9,13;5:1,12), about the date of
102
parousia and the second coming, which needs Paul’s answer (Metzger :219) ,
therefore, it seems that the letter emerged out of a report coming from Timothy
about the Thessalonians.
Gordon Fee adds saying, all the ways that Paul will speak of Christ in the
subsequent letters are already in place in this letter (Fee, 2007 :34). Coming
back to our main concern of Christology in Pauline letters, Barnett raised
profound question saying ‘does the letter portray Jesus as a prophet or holy man
or “Lord”? We borrowed his statement as an introduction to analyze the
Christological elements in the letter to the Thessalonians.
Paul here repeatedly referred to Jesus as Lord in the portrayal of the post
resurrection events (1st Thess 1:10). The reason to say ‘post resurrection is that
this research has assumed that these letters are first of all products of post
resurrection reflection. The second assumption is that the post resurrected Lord
is physically unlimited, also true that if His body is unlimited, then His body is
God, in contrast to the pre-resurrected one who willfully made himself weak, so
as to bear our infirmities. But this never implies that Christ ceased to be God.
Christ only limited himself in the management of his power. Fee connected
Christological ideas in this letter (1:9) to the Old Testament text (Ps 110:1),
referring to Jesus as the exalted Lord. Here Jesus is referred a ‘Son from
Heaven…raised from the dead’. The phrase ‘from heaven’ may imply a unique
nature of Jesus. Designation of Him as either ‘Lord’ or ‘Christ’-the messianic
name, or ‘Jesus’ his human name or ‘Lord-Jesus’ combined are carefully
counted comparatively in their application within these Thessalonians letters.
Fee’s (Fee :34-35), comparison tells that the full name’ Lord’ and ‘Christ’ are
used less than the combined name ‘Lord-Jesus’ .
The ‘kurios’ reference is seen dominating much like 13x in 1st
Thessalonians
and 22x in 2nd
Thessalonians, while other ways of naming are less than 5x.
What does this imply when it comes to the nature of Christ as portrayed in
Thessalonians letters? In anticipating the development of a Christology which
103
does not separate Christ into two loosely connected parts, we should ask, “Does
this tell only the divinity ignoring the humanity side”? If we consider the
contextual background of the Thessalonians themselves, it may have a different
implication than the extreme of magnifying the divine properties only. Even Fee
partially agrees that the Thessalonians affirmation of Christ as Kurios has
something to do with their persecution, as there couldn’t be two Lords (Fee :34-
35). As the word ‘Lord’ was simply an allusion to anyone thought to be ‘lord’, be it
kings or so, how and in what sense did Paul use such allusions? Paul’s
insistence to a rival king as ‘Lord and savior’ who is the risen Lord Jesus Christ in
this case, may pull danger to him and to his audience at Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-
10).
Then the definite article ‘ho’ attached to the word usages of kurios in
Thessalonians, may tell us that Paul had in his mind the Septuagintal way of
using them (1st Thess 3:13 Vs Zech 14:5; 1Thess 4:16 Vs Ps 46:6),(Fee 2007
:34-44).
To answer the question we raised earlier about the Christological picture in
Thessalonians, it may be right to say, it looks that Jewish background is fresh in
Paul’s mind in synthesizing the letter. His message is sandwiched between his
Jewish cultural expectations of the future issue and the Thessalonians hurry to
know the nature of the future, which is either eschatological wrath or
eschatological peace.
Therefore, key in Paul’s answer was the Christ who was dead to save from the
eschatological wrath and who has been raised, still to save from the
eschatological wrath. The letter is more of encouragement to the Thessalonians
who were under severe persecution. The apostle has reminded them that they
are sharing the suffering for the reason of their faith in the Lord Jesus.
The Jews who persecuted and killed Jesus, the prophets and then also the
Apostles, were doing the same to the Thessalonians (1:15). The Thessalonians
will therefore naturally fellowship with Jesus and other Christians through their
104
suffering. The suffering will cause the natural fellowship and will be
consummated in the phrase ‘Lord Jesus when he comes’ (2:19; 3:13). If we may
take this phrase as the key to Paul’s analysis of the second coming event, we
may then easily pick the very early Christological developments.
Jesus is here portrayed from the position of post resurrection scenario. Jesus
Died (past because he is no more dead) and rose (present as he is still alive)
again and God will bring with Jesus… (future, from the point view of human
dimension) ;( 4:14).
The one who was dead (5:10) was Jesus. He must die in order to save and he
must become human in order to die. Of course His body is God, therefore God
died, but a when one says his body is God, this should affirm that God willfully
became weak, and limited in order to be able to bear human misery. The death
of God tells the death of God, not anybody else’s death, but the God who limited
Himself in the flesh.
The nature of the divine has nothing to do with the nature of the physical world
except in that one is the creator and the other is the created. Jesus is the link line
between the divine dimension and the created dimension for He is the Elohim-
God in His preexistent situation and the incarnated God-man in his historical
death and the resurrection; also God-man in His post resurrection existence.
One might ask a question like, was Jesus God during the incarnation? For this
question a response shall be proposed in the fifth Chapter of this research.
Actually the answer is yes; in a positional manner, for He was not robbed of His
divine position yet the divine qualities were saved or in non action for the purpose
of saving through dying. This view that our Lord could not use some divine
qualities as omnipresence and omniscience during His time on earth- is denied
by many including Calvin, Hodge, and Grudem whose positions we will evaluate
below. But the tenet that the earthly Christ had limited usage of some divine
qualities is held as well by some Evangelicals as Millard Erickson (Erickson, God
in Three Persons, 223,224); and also in his Christian Theology, Grand Rapids:
105
Baker, 1985). Erickson also affirms the position that Jesus never exercises only
His humanity or deity; it is always the “human-divine” that acts (Ericson, 1983,
735).
This is never denying the co-equality of our Lord with God. God the Son became
less, as he became human because of his humanity and because of his
willingness “not to use” his divine enablement, temporarily, for the sake of tasting
weakness and death and the saving mission.
Now, the future holds the assurance of the second coming of the risen Lord. No
one is able to say Jesus was man before incarnation and no one could also say
Jesus was raised before he died. No one could also deny the second coming
event is a post resurrection scenario which is neither past nor present (when it
comes to its material accomplishment) but future from our point of view
dimension. This tradition was there among the apostles in the very early year of
Christianity (1st Cor.15:1-3; 15:5-7, 11).
What will be then the answer to the question; does the letter portray Jesus as a
prophet or holy man or “Lord”? Clearly Paul proclaimed Him as the Lord, but truly
from a post resurrection scenario where the Lord Jesus Christ is now
manipulating His full power of God-man. This understanding- that Christ
reactivated some powers after His resurrection- is not in line with chalcedonies
tradition and may also be in sharp contrast to what major proponents of
Chalcedonies Christology as Calvin, Charles Hodge, and Grudem have taught.
So, a critique of the argumentation and evidence advanced by these three
notable theologians will follow letter.
Corinthian Letters
As we continue our search for Pauline Christology, the same tone of ‘Kurios’
echoes in his letters to the Corinthians. Fee’s statistics show that ‘kurios’ occurs
64x here, but ‘Christos’ has also occurred almost equally like 63x. Other
compound references are ‘Christ Jesus/Jesus Christ’ over against ‘the lord
106
Jesus’. (Fee 2007 :87).
The Christological arguments have actually risen out of the ethical and moral
odds the Corinthian believers had, not necessarily out of epistemological
demands on Christology like the one we might have it today. The same time
main concern in 1st Corinthians is Soteriology than Christology as the crucified
God is portrayed in 1Cor 1: 23-24 within the context of 1:10-4:21 where true
meaning of wisdom is in weakness of the crucifixion than the Greek folly. Calvin
or Grudem may not agree but more will be said about the approaches of Calvin
and Grudem which may make this research stand different.
Additionally true salvation, according to this text, comes as Christ is willing to
become weak, as far as getting crucified (Vs 23). Which Christ is signaled 63x in
the books of Corinthians? It should be the Christ who was crucified and was
buried and was raised on the third day. We cannot speak of the Lordship without
laying the foundation first. The foundation is ‘the Christ crucified’ within the
frames of incarnation and resurrection. Christ crucified means that he willfully
abandoned/restrained from his empowered lordship and became a servant for
the sake of saving humanity. Servant hood implies stepping down from the power
of Lordship, the power of divinity to the level of humanity, which is a new
soteriological philosophy against the wisdom of the Greeks, which attributes
divine elements to heroes of whatever. Which Christ has saved us? It is the
Christ crucified (Vs 23), the Christ revealed in weakness than in power.
1Cor 15:1-49
A dramatic contrast of the weakness scenario we have seen in chapter 1:23 of 1st
Corinthians generally, may be the writings of the same Paul to same addressees
in 1st Corinthians chapter 15: 44-49.
The Gospel I preached …15:1-2: First of all, the details under, presuppose the
Gospel as the boundary. Unless the death of Christ is preached with the
resurrection of the same Christ yesterday, today and until Christ comes, the
107
Gospel would not be complete. Unless the resurrected Christ presupposes the
man Christ, the Gospel preaching would be meaningless. This is the frame for all
the details coming hereafter.
According to the scriptures Christ has died for us and was buried 1
Corinthians 15:3:
Death: What are we asserting while we say Christ is died? What was the level of
emptiness in Christ as He experienced death? The Bible is clear that the death
experience of Jesus was a complete abandonment by God (Mark 15:34) which
tells us that the death of Jesus was true human death with complete agony.
Therefore there was no way of escape through divine enablement. His death was
not a kind of fainting and was approved by Pilate Himself, so no disguise or trick
in the process (Mk 15:44). Next “Death” is defined in detail to show the
magnitude of limitedness of God during the incarnation.
Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/death/#1)
(First published Wed May 22, 2002; substantive revision Tue May 26, 2009), puts
the criteria of death; asking questions like what constitutes death? It is clear
enough that people die when their lives end, but less clear what constitutes the
ending of a person’s life. Second, in what sense might death or posthumous
events harm us? To answer this question, we need to know what it is for
something to be in our interests. Third, what is the case for and the case against
the harm thesis, the claim that death can harm the individual who dies, and the
posthumous harm thesis, according to which events that occur after an individual
dies can still harm that individual? Fourth, how might we solve the timing
puzzle? This puzzle is the problem of locating the time during which we incur
harm for which death and posthumous events are responsible. A fifth controversy
concerns whether all deaths are misfortunes or only some.
Of particular interest here is a dispute between Thomas Nagel, who says that
death is always an evil, since continued life always makes good things
accessible, and Bernard Williams, who argues that, while premature death is a
108
misfortune, it is a good thing that we are not immortal, since we cannot continue
to be who we are now and remain meaningfully attached to life forever. A final
controversy concerns whether or not the harmfulness of death can be reduced. It
may be that, by adjusting our conception of our well-being, and by altering our
attitudes, we can reduce or eliminate the threat death poses us. But there is a
case to be made that such efforts backfire if taken to extremes. Raising these
controversial issues the dictionary goes to explain the substance of death which
is our concern here.
Death: Death is life’s ending. Let us say that vital processes are those by which
organisms develop or maintain themselves. These processes include
chemosynthesis, photosynthesis, cellular respiration, cell generation, and
maintenance of homeostasis. Then death is the ending of the vital processes by
which an organism sustains itself. However, life’s ending is one thing, and the
condition of having life over is another. ‘Death’ can refer to either.
Let us add that ‘the ending of life’ is itself potentially ambiguous. On one hand it
might be a process wherein our lives are progressively extinguished, until finally
they are gone. On the other hand it might be a momentary event. This event
might be understood in three ways. First, it might be the ending of the dying
process—the loss of the very last trace of life. Call this ‘denouement death’.
Second, it might be the point in the dying process when extinction is assured, no
matter what is done to stop it. Call this moment ‘threshold death’. A third
possibility is that life ends when the physiological systems of the body irreversibly
cease to function as an integrated whole (defended, for example, by Belshaw
:2009). Call this ‘integration death’.
Thus death can be a state (being dead), the process of extinction (dying), or one
of three events that occur during the dying process. Death in all of these senses
can be further distinguished from events—such as being shot with an arrow—
that cause death.
Death for you and me is constituted by the irreversible discontinuation of the vital
109
processes by which we are sustained. This characterization of death could be
sharpened if we had a clearer idea of what we are, and the conditions under
which we persist. However, the latter is a matter of controversy.
Criteria for Death; Defining death is one thing; providing criteria by which it can
be readily detected or verified is another. A definition is an account of what death
is; when, and only when its definition is met, death has necessarily occurred. The
definition offered above was that a creature is dead just when the vital processes
by which it is sustained have irreversibly ceased. A criterion for death, by
contrast, lays out conditions by which all and only actual deaths may be readily
identified. Such a criterion falls short of a definition, but plays a practical role. For
example, it would help physicians and jurists determine when death has
occurred.
In the United States, the states have adopted criteria for death modeled on the
Uniform Determination of Death Act (developed by the President’s Commission,
1981), which says that “an individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible
cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of
all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination
of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.” In the
United Kingdom, the accepted criterion is brain stem death, or the “permanent
functional death of the brain stem” (Pallis 1963 :1982).
These current criteria are subject to criticism. Animalists might resist the criteria,
since the vital processes of human beings whose entire brains have ceased
irreversibly to function can be sustained artificially using cardiopulmonary
assistance. Mindists and personists might also resist the criteria, on the grounds
that minds and all psychological features can be irretrievably destroyed in human
beings whose brain stems are intact. For example, cerebral death can leave its
victim with an intact brain stem, yet mindless and devoid of self-awareness.
With any of the criteria’s either Biblical or scientific Christ has died. This tells the
level of his descending into humanity must come as a starting point of the Gospel
110
message.
And he was raised on the third day (15:4): Yet for the message to be complete
His resurrection must be the embodiment to all the details. So talks here from
Paul are ‘Death’, the highest level of disempowerment or weakness; ‘Burial’ that
the death of Christ was proved practically and ‘raised’ that he is Lord now over all
enemies after he passed through all levels of humiliation during the incarnation
and death.
For death comes through a man and the resurrection of the dead also comes
through a man 15:22: Still in order for the complete soteriology to come into
reality, Christ should be man, so as to die, so as to be buried, so as to be raised
from the dead as the first fruit for those who will also share in his resurrection.
Our assessment in Thessalonians letters surely applies here; firstly the position
of such tone is post resurrection, where the Lord Jesus Christ is unlimitedly
empowered God-man at this stage, and secondly, as far as he will see all his
enemies under his footstool (1Cor 15:27 Vs Ps 8:7 and Ps 109:1). See 1
Corinthians 8: 6) as Lord, right after he passed through complete humiliation.
Galatians
It would be good to borrow the phrase “a Gospel other than one we preached to
you…” (Gal 1:8), in order to link the flow of our argument with the above analysis
in the Corinthian letters. The book of Galatians is all about justification by faith in
Jesus Christ. Paul here is against any supplement to the Gospel preached
before. What Gospel was he talking about? The book gives short and down to
earth answer. It is Jesus Christ who was clearly portrayed as crucified before the
eyes of the “Galatians” (Gal 3:1), who are now described as foolish. What is
foolish of them is that they switched to a different Gospel, than the Christ who is
crucified. F.F. Bruce said Paul genuinely accepted the manhood of the one
whom he called Lord. As Paul had made it clear in Galatians 4:4 Jesus was truly
born of a woman, and has also descended from Abraham (Gal 3:16),( Bruce ,
111
1974 :81).
Still the humiliation of Christ, His death and crucifixion makes up the nature of
Him and also the nature of the Gospel, which reinforces the argument so far.
Philippians
Scholars suggest many things as the purpose for which the book of Philippians is
written. Many argue that it is a thanks response letter for the gift the Philippians
sent to Paul upon his detention (4:10-19); others say it is an encouragement for
them to stand firm in the face of persecution and cultic, legalistic temptations
(1:27-30; 3; 4:4); or, to commend ministers to the Philippians Church; it is to
exhort them to unity and humility (2:1-11; 4:2-5). The last frame will be picked for
our Christological discussion.
For the purpose of Christological research we will concentrate on the exhortation
towards unity and humility which in turn gets its foundation in the humility of
Christ (2:5-11). Here is also awareness of the agreed conclusions, that this text
reflects the liturgical life of Christians in Paul’s time which in turn was a resource
for Paul’s theology reflected here. The analysis of the poetic insistence and so
the possible first draft in which, some scholars like Lohmeyer (Lohmeyer :141-
142) and C Brown, demonstrated that Paul has developed on that poem (Martin
:2), may some what help to the lexicography seeing how the words might have
been used to mean. Before trying to revisit commentaries let’s put our attempt of
stating the possible meaning of the text with a particular emphasis to Verse 7-8.
Then after we will compare what commentators have on this text.
7ἐ-κένωσεν transl. He stripped himself, aor. -νόω empty. λαβών by taking, aor2
ptc λαμβάνω take. ὁμοίωμα7
likeness (Rom 8:3) indicates simply that in every
2 A superior figure 2 denotes strong or 2nd aorist (or future or perfect).
ptc participle, participial
112
respect he was like a man. γενόμενος aor 2 ptc γίνομαι be born; (v.8) Become.
σχῆμα7
refers to his ‘at hand’ appearance, dat. Of respect §53. εὑρεθείς aor. ptc
pass. εὑρίσκω, pass. be found to be. With μορφή, ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα note the
different vbs: ὑπάρχων (divine nature), λαβών (human nature), γενόμενος
(likeness of man), εὑρεθείς (appearance).
The translators here gave the literal meanings of the words “e kenusen-stripped
off and genumai- became or be born”. But I doubt they tried to soften the
meaning of genumai which literally means “became” rather than just an outward
appearance or of some kind of addition of nature to. The translation seems to
mean that the Son was ‘stripped off’ his divine prerogatives if we take the word
he kenusen and the same Son became a full man, if we take the meaning of
Genumai literally to mean “become”.
In the first place there is no one assertion in this research saying that Christ is
not God. This research affirms that Christ is the same yesterday, today and
forever. But His immutability doesn’t mean that His power would not be restricted
for the actuality of suffering and death. God is immutable at the same time able
to limit His power. What is at this venture is the whereabouts of the divine
enablement or as to practicality of the divine enablement. It may be implied that
the verbs tell ‘not using’ the divine enablement for his own advantage, which
actually means the enablement were not in practice. That is very consistent with
the gist of our research here. Whether literal or idiomatic the verbs tell that divine
enablement was in non use, during the incarnation as Christ was made man up
7 neut. nouns ending in -μα
v. verse
dat. dative
pass. passive (voice)
113
until the crucifixion. Gordon Fee seems also in this line as he suggested the
following.
We begin our investigation, then, with the two major Christological passages in the letter,
2:6-11 and 3:20-21, in which Paul’s (typical Krios Christology finds ultimate expression;
but in the former case we also have the clearest and strongest expression of Paul’s belief
in Christ as preexistent— fully divine and equal with the Father—who in his incarnation
became fully human for the salvation of humankind (Fee. 2007 :372).
A simple reading of the Philippians Text in Chapter 2 verse 5-11, looks to have a
structure like; 1-Vs 6; Christ’s being in the very nature of God: 2-Vs 7-8: Christ’s
becoming new form (incarnation): 3-Vs 9-11;His exalted form. Fee adds saying “it
was the preexistent One who “emptied himself” at one point in our human history
“by taking the ‘form’ of a slave, being made in the likeness of human beings.”
(Fee 2007 :375). Actually, Fee believes this argument cannot have definitive
answer, except that he believes the context is all about “mind set” Christ
exemplified, rather than losing something out of the former pre existent form; also
the mind set the Philippians should follow against any dissension (Fee 2007
:383-385).
As the interest here is to find out the nature of Christ during the incarnation
before the resurrection, our exegesis will focus on Vs 7-8. What do the words
“emptied”; “humbled” imply? As we may see in various versions above, variants
from the base text are very visible. But the variants look like only on emphasis
rather than on meaning, except in the King James Version which added a wholly
other word to the ‘emptied’ saying ‘taking no reputation’. This doesn’t bring any
difference as far as meaning is concerned. When we see the next statements,
the degree of variance is more as the phrase “being found in human form” is also
said “in human likeness” and an extension of a word “in appearance” in the New
American Bible version. What confuses may be the meaning of “appearance”.
Does this imply that Jesus was not really in a human likeness, in the form of a
servant, as this is measured in reality?
114
If we follow the Greek ὁμοίωμα7
likeness (Rom 8:3), it denies nothing of the
content of μορφή but of itself indicates simply that in every respect he was like a
man. When the outward appearance of Jesus is measured in content and
likeness ( μορφή, ὁμοίωμα), Jesus never missed any of the organs which any
human being could have. F. F. Bruce adds that such expressions as “born in the
likeness of man” and “found in human form” in Vs 7 should not mislead us; apart
from the from the consideration that they may belong to a pre-Pauline
confession, there is a high probability that they represent alternative Greek
renderings the Aramaic phrase kebar-‘enash (“like a son of man”) in Dan 7:13(
Bruce :81-82).
But other scholars seem not to agree to such interpretation and have also
extensively invested on this very text. Ralph P. Martin has summarized the
literatures from 1900 through 1963 in his exhaustive study entitled Carmen
Christi. But Martin has admitted that the text is still the occasion of much debate
with lack of agreement to a precise nuance in modern commentaries from
Dibelius to Fee (Martin :1-2). In this list D. G. Dunn has began from the poetic
nature of the pretext so as to show the theocentric points coming out of the
worship than Christology matters; Ernst Käsemann regarded it as mythological
hymn, therefore difficult to argue on and he chose to focus on the kerygmatic
dimension of the text (Martin :43)
As we try to get the meaning of the word “humbled” in Vs 8, all versions measure
the ‘humbling’ process to the point of death and a death on the cross with no
variance. As the death of Christ was backed up with data’s from history; Bible
and Science in our research of the Corinthian letters, this would again go into the
line of argument we have done so far, that Christ willfully has stripped off his
divine enablement, “functionally”, within the imaginary walls of incarnation and
resurrection. Fee said, in two of the “preexistence” passages (2 Cor 8:9; Phil
7 neut. nouns ending in -μα
115
2:6-8) Paul speaks of the incarnation with extraordinarily strong metaphorical
language, where the emphasis of the metaphor is on the “impoverishment” that
Christ experienced in becoming human. Impoverishment is in line with the above
flow of argument except that Fee understands the wordings of the texts more of
metaphorical than functional (Fee 2007 :506). This research strongly underlines
the wordings to be more of literal as Christ cannot be said died metaphorically.
Does this humbling clearly talk about the ‘God’ part or the ‘Man’ part? If we are
talking about one person, then it is God who was humbled. But if we are talking
about two persons, then may be the God part has never experienced humbling,
which doesn’t seem to mean that way in Phil 2:8; but one person, who was
eternally in the image of God but displaced into an image of man and a slave.
Such a stand naturally differs from a classical view or the tradition so far which
generally underlines that God can never experience change, therefore no change
of God during the process of incarnation. In addition to this, the classical view
affirms that the Son added human nature, which this research is with a complete
separation to such assertion, saying God the Son has not added but “become” as
it is very clear in the genumenos of pages of John 1:14 and Phil 2:6-7.
So we would like to respond to possible questions arising against such
assertions in this research. The first question is; who died on the cross? God the
Son or Jesus the human? If we say God the Son died; we may be trapped in the
snare of passibility-impassibility cases. If we say only the human nature faced
death we still have to resolve the two person-one person controversy of
Nestorius and Chalcedon. How can this be reasoned out without erasing the
immutability of God and a preservation of one person Chalcedonies concept?
As we try to make a survey study of Christological developments, particularly
within the last 100 years, the discussion on Philippians 2, has a diverse
interpretation with still open ended conclusions. Let us see how it goes and then
this research may suggest a middle road.
116
The discussion more or less starts quoting few verses before Phil 2:6 “Have this
attitude among yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the
form of God . . .” Traditionally at Westminster, as elsewhere, Philippians 2:6ff.
has been considered in systematic class at the point where a kenotic
understanding of the Incarnation is being refuted. On the other hand Macquirrie
admitted that there is some evidence of renewed interest in kenotic Christology
(Macquarrie 1996 :77). But he also said that more typical of contemporary
theologians is J. A. T. Robinson’s dismissal of kenotic theories as “fruitless
expenditures of theological ingenuity” because they assumed the pre-existence
and the deity of Christ (Robinson :208). The non kenotic theologians also add
that, whether a theologian is favorably disposed toward kenotic speculation or
not, there is little inclination today to seek support for such a theory in the
exegesis of Philippians 2. Accordingly, the approach to the interpretation of this
passage which is the gravest threat to orthodox Christology at the present time is
that which refuses to recognize the presence here of any reference to such
supernatural categories as pre-existence and the incarnation of deity.
Again, this might seem a most surprising development. In his study R. P. Martin
made brief reference to what he termed the nineteenth century Lutheran
“dogmatic” view which saw the subject of verse 6 as the historical Christ. Here
the time of the verbs are located not in some pre-temporal existence but in the
course of his earthly life, when he was faced with the decision whether to seek
his own exaltation or to obey the Father’s will (Martin 1998 :63).
In 1964 Martin could dismiss such an interpretation as virtually defunct, but today
it is very much alive. John Harvey calls the “traditional exegesis” an
“embarrassment” to contemporary theologians who “are discarding the two-
nature theory of the Incarnation;” (Harvey :337-338) and therefore he proposes
that we understand verse 6 to be stating that, like Adam, Christ was a man,
made in the image of God, and thus the divine nature was his, from the first even
as it is ours from the first. But unlike Adam, and indeed all of us except Jesus, He
did not seek equality with God, but rather gave up all concern for himself and so
117
knew that end which “simply carries on to its logical conclusion what should
happen to a life which is lived entirely for God and other people — death on a
cross.” (Harvey :338). Such an interpretation may seem singularly unconvincing,
but N. K. Bakken, writing asks that Harvey’s position be taken seriously.
Philippians 2:6 teaches that Christ “emptied himself of the aspiration to ‘be God’,”
thus becoming “the man whom God intended, and to him and through him man is
again given dominion. . . .” (Bakken :76). C. H. Talbert’s argument is on this line
as he said that ‘because of the parallelism of stanzas 1 and 2, stanza 1 like
stanza 2 refers to the decision of the human Jesus “to be God’s servant rather
than to repeat the tragedy of Adam and his sons.” (Talbert :153).
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor’s lengthy article in Revue Biblique argues that,
nothing in the language of verse 6 demands the notions of pre- existence or
divinity, and that appeal to the wider context of the Pauline epistles is invalid
because Paul did not write the Philippian hymn. Murphy, however, insists that the
reference to likeness to God refers to something unique to Jesus. But since he
also insists that “methodologically” a “‘minimal hypothesis” which will explain that
uniqueness (one which will not posit more than humanness of Jesus) must be
preferred to.” That the hymn sets forth the Incarnation of Christ in His humiliation
and subsequent enthronement is universally agreed.” (Harvey : viii). A “maximal
hypothesis,” the hypothesis which he favors is that it was Jesus’ sinlessness
which gave him the right to be treated as if he were God, that is, the right “to
enjoy the incorruptibility in which Adam was created,” an incorruptibility he was
willing to forego in order to obey God’s will even unto death; even though he
admits that the heart of that hypothesis, the sinlessness of Jesus, is never
referred to in the hymn itself.
Murphy underlines that despite the tour de force displayed in some of these
suggestions, one must agree with Reginald Fuller that “the attempts which have
been made to eliminate pre-existence entirely from this passage . . . must be
118
pronounced a failure.” (Murphy-O’Connor :49). As Howard Marshall also notes:
“It is impossible to make sense of numerous phrases in verses 6–8, if they are
understood solely against the background of the earthly life of Jesus.” (Marshall
1992 :116). Most importantly, what would be the force of the aorist participle in
7c, genomenoj, “being made in the likeness of men,” and what would be the
meaning of verse 8a, “being found in appearance as a man”? Jack Sanders
convincingly argues that “the presence of genomenoj, in verse 7 . . . would seem
to indicate that this would have to be the first appearance of . . . Anthropos in the
hymn, or, in other words, that the redeemer here first becomes Man ” (Sanders
1993 :66).
The interpretation which begins with Christ in verse 6 as merely a man like other
men simply cannot do justice to the following description of his humiliation and
subsequent exaltation. As Hamerton-Kelly puts it: “The hymn demonstrates a
Christological interest in affirming the protological preexistence of Christ. This
affirmation secures the divine nature of Christ and provides a foil against which
the significance of the humiliation of the Cross becomes fully evident.” D. F.
Hudson notes that: “There is a clear pairing of ‘the divine nature,’ and ‘the nature
of a slave,’ and any fair exegesis of the passage which tries to avoid the full force
of the first cannot lay any weight on the second. . . . Jesus was not merely the
man who became the Man for Others, but he was the God who became the Man
for Others.” (Hudson :29).
The question is if we must do justice to the full force of en morfy , what is the full
force of that expression? For years said Hudson “I tried, like Warfield and
Murray, to maintain the view of Lightfoot that Paul here uses morfy with the
sense it had acquired in Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotelian, and which
Murray speaks of as “existence form . . . the sum of those characterizing
qualities that make a thing the precise thing that it is.” Light-foot wrote: “though
morfy is not the same as or ousia, yet the possession of the morfy involves
119
participation in the ousia also for morfy implies not the external accidents but the
essential attributes.”(Light foot 1989 :110).
But Hudson says, I have had to conclude that there is really very little evidence to
support the conclusion that Paul uses morfy in such a philosophical sense here
and that my determination to hold on to that interpretation was really rooted in its
attractiveness theologically. Hudson added saying, “I believe Calvin was quite
correct in pointing us to John 17:5 for the meaning of en morfy — “and now,
glorify thou Me together with thyself, Father, with the glory which I ever had with
thee before the world was.” Such a description of the eternal Son as in the form
of God, sharing God’s glory, reminds us of Hebrews 1:3 (“the radiance of His
(God’s) glory and the exact representation of His nature”) and of his title, Logos.
As Johannes Weiss wrote: “in the Pauline sense, Christ was from the beginning
no other than the Kabod, the Doxa, of God himself, the glory and radiation of his
being, which appears almost as an independent hypostasis of God and yet is
connected intimately with God.” (Weiss :478)
Herman Ridderbos writing his outline of Paul’s theology at the same time that
Martin was producing Carmen Christi, (Martin, :119), greatly expands an idea
that Martin presents as follows: “Adam reflected the glory of the eternal Son of
God who, from eternity, is Himself the ‘image’ of the invisible and ineffable God. .
. . What Paul had learned at the feet of Gamaliel about the ‘glory’ of the first
Adam . . . he transferred to the last Adam as He had revealed Himself, to him in
a blaze of glory.”
Let us try to make a synopsis of the discussions above. The concern of all
hermeniuts above seems to respond to the quest of the form of the pre-existent
Christ in view of the Humbled one as narrated within Vs 6-8 of the book of
Phillipians. Having agreed that Christ is the radiant of God’s being from eternity
the quest of this thesis rather responds to the who of Christ in between the
imaginary walls of the incarnation and the resurrection. So, it should be noted
120
that the thesis of the exegetes like Martin, Hudson, Harvey, D.G Dunn,
Kassemann, Fee etc etc… is different from the thesis here. Theirs is a response
to the liberal tendency of minimalists who try to see Christ as only man; but the
thesis of this research is a full focus on the nature of Christ, who is God from
eternity, but who so humbled himself in humanity within the frames of the
incarnation and resurrection.
The text of contest here is Phil 2:5-11. Some scholars read beyond this boundary
to get meaning but the boundary within 5-11 is quite mostly taken together very
often. Questions for the debate are: was this text truly Pauline or borrowed from
an original Hymn, which just shows the liturgy of that community than any
Christology? What do the terms he kenusen; genomay-genumenos and morfy
within the text, actually signify?
Lohmyer and Martin agree that the text trusts a pretext showing the liturgical life
of Christians that time, therefore, Paul has developed on that (Lohmeyer 1928
:141-142; Martin 1998 :2). This doesn’t bring any difference as long as both
agree on the authorship of Paul from any source pre-existing.
The other argument is concerning the meanings of the terms he kenusen;
genomay-genumenos and morfy . Some may favor idiomatic sense than literal
sense of such words. But even though we may go for idiomatic sense, it still
cannot escape the literal meaning in the language game.
Literally speaking, he kenusen is stripped off himself; Vow is made empty;
Laboon is taking, Omiooma is meant in every respect was like man; and
genomenos means ‘become’ not ‘added’. Being in the very nature of God means
that Christ is God (Phil 2:1-6). He then become man is affirming his full humanity
in every respect (7-8). Then God exalted him from humility, in a guise of a slave
and human to His former glory, back up over the ladder towards immeasurable
height (9-11).
121
As we have seen above, Martin and D. G. Dunn don’t agree to such argument as
they believe that the text depends on pretext and has nothing on Christology but
just Theo-centric liturgy. Ernst Kasemann even goes further setting the text as
mythological. The Westminster reinforces such argument by counting Philippians
2:6 as only interested with attitudinal focus than any Christology. J A T Robinson
dismissed any kenotic notions as fruitless, for the text is all about history and
present state and begs no supernatural or pre-forms of deity. As the verb in
verse 6 tells only the present, Past or future view is totally avoided in Lutheran
Dogmatic view (Martin :63).
Some late scholars of this debate like John Harvey , N.K. Bakken, C.H Talbert, J
Murphy O’Connor went far against Lutheran exegesis and against Martin also
dismissing the two nature Christology, but counting Christ on the level of “the
Adam” before the fall. Murphy even tells that Jesus achieved divinity because of
his obedient and sinless nature, in which the text says nothing on sinless nature.
Against all the above line of arguments, Reginald Fuller and Howard Marshal
said that eliminating the pre-existent Lord, for just the ‘present tense’ in the text,
is a great failure. They argued that the genomai simply tells the pre-form
becoming to human likeness.
One last thing of this discussion is the language game of ‘Morfy’. Lightfoot
Warfield and Murrey prefer the Aristotelian meaning telling the sum of qualities
making a thing to be a thing. D F Hudson declined from such interpretation
saying this approach has only theological attraction than real exegesis. Hudson
quoting Calvin (John 17), minimized the pre-form to just a glory or radiance, then
a full substance.
All arguments so far in the exegesis of the Gospel of John, the Synoptics, and
Letters of Paul cohere in one thing. Christ who is God and the radiant of God’s
being (Jn 1:1) has become man (John 1:14), descended to the level salve, to the
122
point of death as crucifixion details are recorded for us in all the four Gospel
narrations (Matt 27:37, 40; Mk 15:30, 31, 32; Lk 23:36, 38; Jn 19:19), 1
Corinthians 15; Gal 3; and Phillipians 2:7-8. Therefore, the degree of the divine
enabelment in the human Christ was limited to zero level in between the walls of
incarnation and resurrection so as the soteriological mission may be meaningfull.
The hypostatic union of the divine with the human in all the process was a perfect
unity, like the soul and body as in the analysis of Cyril where Ciril is not basically
far from Chalcedon as he asserted that the two natures have preserved their
identity with no mixing or confusion but in perfect unity which is not in Nestorius
or Eutichus.
As we are about to close the Biblical analysis concerning Christology, let us add
reflections on crucial approaches done referring the New Testament by scholars
like Calvin, Hodge and Grudem.
Calvin
The following reflection is on the Christological summary of Calvin from his book
“ Institutes of Christian Religion, Book II, Chapter xiii, paragraph 4 through Book
II, chapter xiv, paragraphs 1-3.
What is the reflection of Calvin concerning the nature of Christ, particularly in
solving the two nature –one nature controversy and communication of the
properties of these two natures in one person Christ? Calvin, in his book,
Institutes of Christian Religion, Volume II, Chapters 13 and 14, extensively
discussed this matter, in a way responding to former and rival heresies. In
Chapter 13, Calvin referred to Romans Chapter 9:5 and Galatians 3:16 as a
proof for Christ’s true descent from David, meaning his human nature. So
Christ’s humanity is not something mythical or mysterious, but real as the flesh of
any human being. Calvin, asserting the genealogy as concrete, by a reference
from (Mt. 1:5, 16) adds to this fact saying Christ was fully nourished by his
mother until maturity. So Christ’s human nature was not mythical or symbolic but
123
true, according to the analysis of Calvin. Then Calvin moved on to the exploration
of the way the two natures were handled together and communication to each
other.
Having said this, it seems inescapable for Calvin to deal with how Christ could be
exempted from the effect of sin which looks the fate of all humanity? To solve
such a dilemma, Calvin said, Christ though true human, as a second Adam, he
was not from earth but from above, Christ is pure not because he was from the
seed of the woman but he was man, at the same time lord, and he descended
from heaven to earth without abandoning heaven. Calvin referred to Romans
5:12; 18, and 1 Corinthians 15: 47 as a proof for his arguments.
Well there is complete agreement as to the sinless nature of Christ. This is very
clear in John 17 and no objection to this as far as this research is concerned. But
proofs referring to either Romans 5:12; 18 or 1Corinthians 15:47 seem to hint
something else other than purity or sinless nature of Christ as a human.
Concerning Christ’s sinless discussion, to say, Christ was born of the woman not
from the man or to say the Holy Spirit sanctified everything to make the
generation free of any taint is not an argument which bases itself on a
established text. However, this never detracts this research for the main issue is
yet to come in Calvin’s next discussion about the ways the two natures might
communicate.
Calvin in chapter 14, the very first three paragraphs, discussed the
communication of these two natures referring to scriptural proofs. He said some
texts are assigned to his divinity, some to his humanity and some to both
natures. His argument goes like; “that the entire properties of each nature remain
entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ”. Referring to John
3:13, Calvin argues that, the son of man is the one who ascended and Calvin
took this as comprehending the two natures at once. It is very true that what is
“attributed to the ‘One’ properly belonged to the ‘Other’ ”. Well, comprehending
of the two natures in one person is not a problem but the text citation referred
124
above still has another concern rather than telling the communication of the two
natures.
May be Calvin is more following his assumptions than the clear meaning of the
text. Reservation here is not on the position of Calvin but on the scriptural proofs
given for his assertions.
Christ’s authority to forgive sins, still part of Calvin’s argument as a proof for the
divine act under one person, raises more fire again. Did Christ really forgive the
one who was said ‘his sins are forgiven’? What was the case there in the
context? Wasn’t it that the man needed healing and he got his physical healing
but Christ used that opportunity to reorient his audience that the son of God has
authority to forgive sins than an immediate offer of forgiveness? How does this
be a proof for the communication of two natures at once?
Arguing against Christ’s two natures under one person is not an issue here, but
the scriptural proofs given are completely away from what Calvin meant. What
Calvin has said in his beginning pages of chapter 14, is completely coherent with
the assumption of this research which says, Christ’s divine power was
temporarily limited during the incarnation. Calvin’s words are like;
but because he was hid under a humble clothing of flesh, and took upon himself the form
of a servant, and humbled himself (Phil. 2:8), and, laying aside the insignia of majesty,
became obedient to the Father; and after undergoing this subjection was at length
crowned with glory and honor (Heb. 2:7), and exalted to supreme authority, that at his
name every knee should bow (Phil. 2:10); so at the end he will subject to the Father both
the name and the crown of glory, and whatever he received of the Father, that God may
be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).
What does humble clothing mean? Simply, God’s humiliation in flesh, or God’s
limitation of Himself; what does laying aside the insignia of majesty mean?
Laying aside is laying aside, no other meaning implied even in Calvin’s
argument. How did Calvin use Hebrews 2:7 “at “length’ crowned with glory and
honor” …and 1 Corinthians 15:28 after his exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11? Most
of these are in agreement with the presupposition this research is attempting to
present.
125
While Jesus died on the cross, if the same person represents both natures, it is
very true that suffering and death worked on both natures, but not as far as
annihilation of these natures. The change applied on God through the incarnation
is not mutability, rather a movement of God within the dimensional boundary of
Himself.
Hodge
Next comes reflection on Hodge. From his book of “Systematic Theology, vol II,
part II. ch III, pages 387-418 ; 433-440.
Hodge’s discussion of the substance of the nature’s of Christ as to their
communication encompasses a wide range of references from Chalcedon up
until our time. Under his topic of the Hypostatical union he first put the principle
“that which is divisible cannot be indivisible; that which is finite cannot be infinite”.
He also reinforced this principle saying, “the attributes of one substance cannot
be transferred to another”. Following the frame of this principle Hodge said that
‘the two natures , human and divine in Christ are two distinct natures, also
affirmed that such has been the belief of the church universal. The Creeds, key
church fathers and theologians, the reformation Creeds coherently assert this
thought to be true and Orthodox, according to Hodge.
Christ is not one person and another but one nature and another. As to the
communication of these two natures, Hodge said, firstly they operate under one
person; secondly they are united but not mingled or confounded. Mingling or
confinement, Hodge said, is impossibility, because the properties in question are
incompatible. We cannot mingle mind and matter so as to make a substance
which is neither mind nor matter, but spiritual matter, for that would be a
contradiction. It would amount to unextended extension, tangible intangibility, or
visible invisibility. In all Christian creeds therefore, it is declared that the two
natures in Christ retain each its own properties and attributes.
Hodge also underlined that the union happened as a personal union not through
126
a transfer of attributes of one nature to the other. He said, if divine attributes be
conferred on man, he ceases to be man; and if human attributes be transferred
to God, he ceases to be God. The Scriptures teach that the human nature of
Christ remained in its integrity after the incarnation; and that the divine nature
remained divine. It was a divine person, not merely a divine nature that assumed
humanity, or became incarnate.
If so, what really occurred upon to the nature of Christ after the hypostatic union?
Hodge said the natures communicate through one person, meaning what ever
may be affirmed of either nature may be affirmed of the person. What ever deed
or whatever says is a deed or a say to the ‘theanthropos’ (God-man).
Right after this Hodge went on to discuss the scriptural passages. In his
discussion he has seen that all passages speak about one common person but
sometimes in a divine predicate like when its says “before Abraham was I am…”,
or sometimes in a human predicate when it says “god died” or “God poured his
blood, ate, slept etc” or a theontrpic predicate when the acts are the acts of God-
man.
Acts of Christ, be it divine or human is performed under one person. There is no
confusion of nature while Christ acts as it is the same one person who is acting in
any circumstance. The two natures still retain their identities but operate under
one person. For example, when Christ suffered, the divine person suffered but
not the divine nature. This principle equally applies to worship. When he receives
worship the “he” refers to his person not to one of his natures.
With this stance Hodge’s analysis affirms the creeds and the reformed theology
against the errors in the early Church such as; the Arian, the Ebionitic, the
Gnostic, the Apollinarian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, and the Monothelite, as
well as the peculiar Lutheran doctrine introduced at the time of the Reformation.
Generally, after doing holistic evaluation of the development of the doctrine of
Christ, Hodge re-asserted the orthodox doctrine, saying; the whole Christian
127
world has believed, and still does believe, that Christ was a true man; that He
had a real body and a human soul. The Council of Chalcedon in formulating this
article of the common faith, declared that Christ was, and is, God and man in two
distinct natures and one person forever; that according to the one nature He is
consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with us, and according to the other He is
consubstantial with the Father.
Christ’s one person in two distinct and never confused natures, acting under one
person, never inter-affected nature wise, but inter-affected through the union of a
person is something which should be nailed in this research also. But this
research hints a step further than this foundation without denying the facts given
above.
During the incarnation some acts of the divine should necessarily be terminated
in a non- action manner, without being changed or without being affected
attribute wise. A simple case here is when Christ was on this earth, he has never
been to heaven and earth at the same time as his limited movement within the
boundary of Galilee, Judea and Samaria is very true in the Gospels but no
evidence for his travel to heaven. His ability to be everywhere is not changed but
temporarily non-activated, so as to accomplish the goal of soteriology through
suffering and death. The same principle applies to his knowledge where he
clearly said ‘the Son doesn’t know the end of the ages’. Some passages seem to
hint that Christ was crossing the boarders of the human dimension towards
heaven even during his incarnation time (Jn 3:13). But the whole New Testament
teaches us that during the incarnation Christ has never been beyond the
boarders of Jerusalem, Judea, Galilee, leave alone crossing space to heaven or
so except through his dependence or prayer to the father, during his incarnation.
Hodges stand is basically for what he calls “the first principle”. He said, any
theory, therefore, which assumes that God lays aside his omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnipresence, and becomes as feeble, ignorant, and
circumscribed as an infant, contradicts the first principle of all religion, and, if it be
128
pardonable to say so, shocks the common sense of men.
This assertion of Hodge is faithful to what is just believed rather than being
faithful to the New Testament incarnation story where Christ was practically
limited as any human being, obviously with no change to his divine power, except
temporarily locked in non-action. If God’s unlimited power was actively working
during the incarnation, instead of limitedness, then the suffering of Christ and His
death was simply fake. That is where this research has extended to. This never
implies that Christ ceased to be God. He was, He is and He will be. But Christ
willfully made some of his divine powers to be switched off temporarily for the
sake of effective soteriology.
Hodge asserted that attributes cannot be transferred, added or lost, without
changing nature. Well, very true that attributes may not be lost, added but could
be transferred and changed but not as far as mutability as the argument above
sees change and mutability separately. Hodge believes God cannot assume
human attributes. Why not or why he can’t? Is Jesus humanity a fake?
Grudem
Our final evaluation will be Grudem referring his commentary of “Systematic
Theology, pages 549-562. Grudem refers to John 10:17-18 on the saying of
Jesus about his body as telling the power in him either to give his life or take it
back. The saying “in three days I will raise it up is a clue for the power Jesus
could release to return himself back to life through the resurrection. Another
argument from Grudem is the attestation to the deity of Christ as the fact that he
is counted worthy to be worshiped, something that is true of no other creature,
including angels (see Rev. 19:10), but God alone” (Phil. 2:9–11; (Rev. 5:13).
According to Grudem, Christ is here called “the Lamb who was slain,” and he is
accorded the universal worship offered to God the Father, thus clearly
demonstrating his equality in deity. Then Grudem straightforward asks the
question “Did Jesus Give up Some of His Divine Attributes While on Earth?” (The
Kenosis Theory), and goes on explaining the kenotic theory (Phil. 2:5–7) or
129
“kenotic theology.”
The kenosis theory basically holds that Christ gave up some of his divine
attributes while he was on earth as a man (agreeing that there are several sorts
of Kenoticism). (The word κενόσις is taken from the Greek verb κενόω, G3033,
which generally means “to empty,” and is translated “emptied himself “in Phil.
2:7.) According to the theory Christ “emptied himself “of some of his divine
attributes, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, while he was
on earth as a man.
This was viewed as a voluntary self-limitation on Christ’s part, which he carried
out in order to fulfill his work of redemption. Grudem reacts to this stand saying;
“does Philippians 2:7 teach that Christ emptied himself of some of his divine
attributes, and does the rest of the New Testament confirm this? The evidence of
Scripture points to a negative answer to both questions.
Then Grudem said, we must first realize that no recognized teacher in the first
1,800 years of church history, including those who were native speakers of
Greek, thought that “emptied himself “ in Philippians 2:7 meant that the Son of
God gave up some of his divine attributes. Second, we must recognize that the
text does not say that Christ “emptied himself of some powers” or “emptied
himself of divine attributes” or anything like that. Third, the text does describe
what Jesus did in this “emptying”: he did not do it by giving up any of his
attributes but rather by “taking the form of a servant,” that is, by coming to live as
a man, and “being found in human form he humbled himself and became
obedient unto death, even death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8).
To put Grudem’s discussions shortly;
1-Jesus himself has implied that he is in full control of his power even during
his humanity (Jn 10:17).
2-Jesus is worthy of Worship (Rev 19:10).
130
3-Jesus as the Lamb was slain (Rev 5:13).
4-Jesus Emptied himself means “not emptied”.
5-Grudem said, Philippians 2:7 meant that Christ did not give up by emptying
but putting on a form of a servant.
6-Grudem tried to argue referring to Paul’s purpose in writing Philippians to
persuade them to imitate Christ than to emphasize on Christ’s emptying or so.
Grudem position is very clear in that the emptying includes change of role and
status, not essential attributes or nature. Having said this: Grudem summarized
his stance as follows “Therefore, the best understanding of this passage is that it
talks about Jesus giving up the status and privilege that was his in heaven: he
“did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (or “clung to for his own
advantage”), but “emptied himself “or “humbled himself “for our sake, and came
to live as a man. Jesus speaks elsewhere of the “glory” he had with the Father
“before the world was made” (John 17:5), a glory that he had given up and was
going to receive again when he returned to heaven.
As we evaluate Grudem’s analysis in the six points above; first of all; narration of
the New Testament tells that Christ as man was not in full control of his own
omnipotent power therefore depended on the father or the Spirit for his dealings
during the incarnation. Grudem’s single reference from John 10:17 may even tell
Christ willful humility and service than Christ’s power management thing or so,
against Gridem’s exegesis.
Second, Jesus is worthy of worship, no argument about that, but what does that
have to do with Christ’s power management? This case is irrelevant for the
argument of the whereabouts of Christ’s ‘Omni’ power during his incarnation and
suffering.
Third, what does the lamb slain in Revelation really tell? Christ giving up his
power for the sake of saving humanity or something else. Grudem seems to beg
131
irrelevant issue out of its context.
Fourth Grudem said, emptied means not emptied. Where in the text does it say
the way Grudem interpreted? Even the clause ‘taking’ cannot hold both the
‘emptying’ and ‘not emptying’ together. Grudem’s facts here are external than
internal. He said “no one recognized teacher believed that way for the last 1800
years”. Still, this is an argument from history than the text.
Fifth, Grudem contradicted himself saying Christ emptied himself by taking up a
form of a servant. First of all, Grudem doesn’t seem faithful to the text as the text
is very clear saying “emptying.” Second Grudem seems to contradict himself
saying Christ did limit his power by taking a form of a servant. ‘Limiting’ is
‘limiting’ either through ‘omission’ or through ‘putting on’ or through a temporary
non-action. Whether he gave up or put on is not the case here. The case is that
Christ limited Himself.
Grudem assertively said ‘Christ Is Fully Divine’. The New Testament, in hundreds
of explicit verses that call Jesus “God” and “Lord” and use a number of other
titles of deity to refer this fact. Grudem’s position on the divine nature of God is
very clear. The thesis here equally affirms. The difference may be is on the
management of that divine power for the soteriological agenda.
Shortly, the gist of the debate over Philippians 2:5-11 is one of either the two
natures Christology or a one nature full human Kenotic view. Classical
Christology maintains the two nature Christology with full divine enablement and
no change to God but humility to the human part only. In this argument one
person in two natures is underscored. However the full divine qualities in the
human thing are just left abstract. Resisting this view another extreme is taken,
capitalizing on the human and emptying of the divine enablement. Can there be a
middle road? Where does this research stand?
No fight here as it is true that the Son exists as God forever and ever. This is
Ontological fact. But the functional and relational aspects of him during the
132
incarnation, shows a clear form of man and slave which is a later becoming
which was not there with him while he exists with a full form of God during his
pre-incarnate state.
Has the son of God in any way changed by the incarnation and/or the
resurrection? The change is not on the Son as God but the change is on the
restrictive use of the divine enablement while the Son should be man. So, no
change on the Ontological fact.
Here is a middle road not so far as denying impassibility but affirming
Chalcedonies one person theory. God cannot change! But God can limit himself.
There is no change in his divine attributes and there will be no change at all
forever and ever. But God’s Omni nature can make him able to act both ways in
action and in non-action without changing or annihilating Himself. So, as there is
no dissection in the nature of God there will be no change in nature whether
within the Father or the Son or the Spirit. But the same nature in all the three may
either be manifested in action or in non-action as it moves from the Ontological to
relational-functional state through the movement from creation to redemption and
consummation.
In this case we see that this nature was functionally manifested in non-action,
with the Son, for the sake of the saving mission, when God the Son was willing to
become human and die on the cross. Simply, the incarnation is a temporary
limitation, non-activation of God the Son’s divine enablement, for the sake of a
true experience of human suffering and death. This is realized while God was
coming out of God and became man for a limited period of time from the
incarnation up until the resurrection (John 1:14).
That is how the saying God’s nature did not die on the cross becomes feasible.
No one has so far argued that the Son had a human nature from eternity. Rather
he became man later during the incarnation. No one has so far convincingly
argued that the Son had the divine enablement during the incarnation, but was
133
truly in action right after the resurrection as for example his entrance through fine
walls, in a closed room etc.
The question is not whether the Son is God or not during the incarnation. The
Son remains God all through eternity, during the incarnation and after the
resurrection, but positionally not functionally. The divine enablement was limited
to be in non-action for the sake of real experience of human misery and death.
It is not only the human person who faced suffering and death if we agree that
one person conquers both the divine and the human natures following
chalcedonies stand. The same Son/person from eternity, the same son of
man/person in humanity faced limitation (incarnation) therefore suffered and died
on the cross.
Can we say that God has stepped down from His divinity? The Son has stepped
down, not from his divinity, but from his divine enablement, while He was willingly
taking the form of a slave and the form of man. How can he suffer if He still exists
in a form of God as his nature was able to resist suffering or death because of
divine enablement in him?
Does this position conflict with Feinberg’s or Martin’s view of exegesis of Phil 2:6-
8. Oh yes, this stand is neither denying a two nature Christology nor affirming a
one human humiliated kenotic nature (which Martin falls in either of the two) but
sees two natures perfectly united in one person, and the divine is temporarily in
non action, for the sake of the saving mission.
It is very true that the participle “existing” is in present tense denoting no
interruption of God the Son’s condition as fully God. The Son exists as fully God
but his divine enablement is temporarily switched off.
Being God in the assumption here does not require actively using God’s powers.
Unlike those theologians as Frame (The Doctrine of God, Phillipsburg: P&R, m
134
2002), (Frame : 226) who asserts that “nothing can be removed from Him”, this
thesis differs that the attributes of God, as omniscience and omnipresence, which
the Christ pre-resurrected gave up the use of, are essential to the nature of God!
God can “switch off” and “switch on” His powers yet still remain God. For
example, God has the attribute of sovereignty, but it is commonly accepted
,particularly by Armenian scholars, that He allows men to have some freedom of
will holding men accountable for wrong choices they make (Josh 24:15; 1 Kings
18:21; Mt 23:37).If God limits His sovereignty, then why not His omnipresence?
That seems what we get from Philippians 2:5-11.
135
Chapter Three
Christological Thought Progressions in Church History
Introduction
As the focus so far is to single out the uniqueness of Christ and Christianity from
pluralistic tendencies and mixed thoughts of the incarnation in Ethiopia, it seems
better to search for a Christian thought developments with countermoves against
the orthodox view of the nature of Christ. To make this tangible we would first
see the patristic period thought interactions over the issue of Christology. Reason
for of following this route has its own profound causes. First of all ideologies from
this period are taken as measuring road of orthodox thought by most of the
mainline churches (McGrath, 1998 :17). Secondly this way we may trace back to
the main layers behind and find out the possible reality.
There were different schools of Christian thought, such as the Western Asiatic,
and the African Alexandrian (Qualben Lars P. 1953, :105). Differences in
doctrine appeared early especially with reference to the holy trinity, and the
divinity of Jesus Christ. For example the Monarchians tried to eliminate the
mystery of the trinity in one of two ways. One group denied the divinity of Christ,
but ascribed to him a certain divine power or “dynamis” as a supernatural
endowment. The Supreme Being simply worked upon or influenced the man
Jesus Christ which is called dynamistic Monarchianism. Another group made
Christ and the Holy Spirit mere manifestations of God or only a difference in
mode, in which the one divine person manifests himself hence were named as
modalistic Monarchians (Qualben :107). Let’s first put the focus of this portion
before any detail.
Delimitations
When we try to find out the Christological thought developments, it is more fruitful
to pick historical deviating incidents from 1st C -5
th C. with special emphasis to
136
the 3rd, 4
th, and 5th C. A.D. but also a little addition through the next successive
years. Analyzing this historical age on Christology is more of theological than
exegetical because we more or less rely on the historical thought dialogues than
what we might have in the New Testament’s Christological scenario. Professor
Ben Witherington in his book ‘The Jesus Quest’ said that much more has been
written about Jesus and there is no end in sight (Witherington 3rd
1997 :253).
Could a trial in this research bring a difference? Ebionitism, Doceticism,
Gnosticism could be discussed within this list but these items are dropped so as
to be selective.
As peculiar interest of this thesis is the nature of the substance of the
‘Logos/Word’, in between the incarnate stage and the resurrection stage, a
search of an answer for this inquiry should necessarily apply a careful analysis
as to how this inquiry was handled in the mindset of the big figures in church
history.
Ethiopian experience is also a victim of this sequence. For this very reason we
would like to apply a historical approach, tracing back to ancient Christological
controversies, with the Ethiopic ancient Christological experience in a parallel
way, as this touches some concerns of Monophysitism/ Miaphysitism. Then we
will continue consulting ancient 1st C.-3
rd C A.D literatures also few but important
personalities from the medieval, reformation and modern ages.
Patristic Christological Views
The apostolic fathers may be worthy of our consideration in order to locate
original Christological beginnings. We may pick Ignatius first in this series.
Ignatius had no formal Christological creed but indications cited from his writings
tell that he emphasized upon the ‘two natures’ as he said in his letter to the
Smyrneans “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise…totally
convinced that with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with
respect to human descent, Son of God with to the divine will and power (Lightfoot
and Harmer 1989 :110). The creedal statements forwarded by Ignatius of
137
Antioch were more or less set with two faces. 1-Instructions; 2-ordinances and
leadership office issues. His letters were more doctrinal than deep theological or
philosophical explanations. Therefore we cannot speak of him as responding to
quests similar in our sociological framework. Concerning the ‘Son’ Ignatius said,
He is hung upon the cross, and forgiveness of sins; He is in the grave, and raiseth up the
dead; he comes forth from the grave and leaves the clothes therein; he went in to His
disciples while the doors were shut, and gave them (the salutation of) peace. So the
Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, and the Holy Spirit, this is the Trinity, equal,
indivisible, and immutable; Christ was really born, He really grew up, He really ate and
drunk, He was really crucified, He really suffered and died and was buried and rose from
the dead. Whosoever believeth this that it is so, is blessed; and whosoever dispiseth this
is a stranger to the blessed life, (Lightfoot, the Apostolic Fathers :305-306).
Ignatius presented the Son as “one person” not “two persons”, referring to the
son as “he” with more emphasis to the reality of his humanity.
We will then look into the Didache; the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of
Hermas. These treatises were considered most possibly as the first organized
documents of the Apostles teachings, actually after the creedal statements
forwarded by Ignatius of Antioch. Scholars agree that these documents cover the
years between 1Century-150 A.D. (63-168) (Lightfoot J.B., 1989 :145-147), and
the Didache was very similar to the Gospel of Barnabas. The Gospel of
Barnabas as discovered by Bryonies in 1873, is with 21 articles, and elaborates
the complete humanity and suffering of Jesus where it says “the limited God
suffered at the hands of cruelty“; (it is true that no one is sure whether this
document has come out of Barnabas the Apostle or somebody else other than
him), (Lightfoot : 170-171). But one thing is true; the content tells that the Son
during the incarnation was referred as “the limited God”.
In contrast to the Gospel of Barnabas the ‘Shepherd of Hermas’ speaks of the
Son of God in a great power and Lordship rather than in a guise of a slave
(Lightfoot :245).
The next patristic period more or less covers 2nd
– 4
th C.A.D. where this era
geographically touches the Mediterranean world with Government seats at Rome
and Constantinople. Issues here are whether Jesus was of one substance with
138
God or one in being/consubstantial with God -“homousious”. This time the
Christological debate was swinging between Alexandria and Antioch,
Alexandrians favoring the divine where as those from Antioch tilting more
towards the human nature ( McGrath 2001 :22).
Polycarp (C.110-155) is a better reference here, for he was said that he met
John the apostle and other disciples who have seen Jesus Christ while he lived
on earth. In his Christological statements, Polycarp affirmed the enthronement
(Pelican and Hotchkiss :43) of Christ at his fathers’ right hand and that he will
come to judge the living and the dead (Lightfoot :334). Still Polycarp’s
statements were primarily focused on the post resurrection image and with more
doctrinal than theological emphasis.
Justin Martyr (C.100-165) as an apologist, very much relied on pagan
mythologies to describe Christian mysteries. He borrowed the Logos
Spermaticos – seed bearing Word concept to describe Christ. Yet this might help
only to understand the nature of the pre-incarnate Christ. For Justin the Son was
only a reason in the mind of the creator until He was born as a Son/Logos (Boer
:110; See also Pelican and Hotchkiss: 22). There are other fathers of faith in this
series but those picked for this consumption are the ones with direct focus of
Christology.
Tertullian born 150 A.D. was so terrified by the holistic approach of Clement
from North Africa. Therefore he developed theology of Trinity and Christ.
Interesting to note is one of his reasons for emphasizing the distinction between
Christ’s two natures or substances. It is improper for God to suffer. God is
impassible-incapable of suffering. Thus in order for Jesus Christ both to suffer
and be divine, he has to have two distinct natures and substances. Only one of
them-the human- could have suffered and died, as the two natures acted
distinctly (Boer 1976 :112-113; See also, Olson :97). So, we see two distinct and
simultaneously working natures in one Christ according to Tertullian which may
have elements in common with Nestorianism.
139
Oregen of Alexandria (185-254 A. D), born 185 or 186 in Alexandria, a great
genius scholar who produced approximately 800 treatises, castrated himself,
have been a principal of a Christian school at the age of 18, never ordained but
died as a martyr, but was never canonized as saint, and was suspiciously
remembered as heretic. He was accused of teaching that human souls
preexisted their descent into bodies, a charge that is almost certainly true which
modern New agers seem to borrow from him and apokatastasis-a sort of
universal reconciliation of all creation(Boer 1976 :92; see also, Olson 1999 :99-
103).
Like Clement, Origen recognized and acknowledged truth outside of scripture but
rejected the possibility of truth in conflict with the divine revelation (Olson :104).
According to Origen all souls enter into this world from a pre-existent state where
they have made free choice of obedience or disobedience to God. Only the
human soul of Jesus survived this pre-existent probation of innocence; that is
why the human Jesus on earth was sinless (Olson :104).The preexistent soul of
Jesus was so united with the Logos that it was like iron filled with fire. It was
divinized and yet remained creaturely and thus was the perfect instrument for the
Word’s descent into human existence without change of the divine Logos but
only the human soul and body of Jesus suffered (Olson 1999 :111).
Origen’s contribution is a mixture of the positive and the negative (Olson :112). A
soul like any other preexistent soul which enters into humanity, but a soul still
different from other preexistent soul as it is divinized by the Logos. It is this soul
which later got into the human Christ during the incarnation, according to Origen.
This makes easy for Origen to set the divine and human together in one man-
Jesus.
Origen with his controversial approach made the Son an emanation (out flowing
of the father) and the Holy Spirit an emanation from both. His explanation made
the Son a subordinate to the father therefore Origen has someway been termed
as the father of Aryanism (Qualben :107). The preexistent soul symbol is vague
140
in Origen’s analysis especially as it applies to the nature of the pre-existent
Christ. He didn’t make it clear whether Christ was uncreated, self sufficient
person eternally. Plus to that the ‘iron-fire’ symbolism seems an element passed
to Euthechian model as the identities are so mixed as far as a total change.
Aryanism (310 C. A.D) followed lowering the essence of Christ into createdness
in a process of declining dynamism or ascending dynamism, with a little
supremeness than humanity yet lower than God, and omitting the Divine element
from Him. We got enough defenses from Athanasius to Arius theology (296-373),
(Archibald R., 1885 :29).
Saint Athanasius (296-373), in his book “Athanasius on the Incarnation”,
committed series of chapters dealing on the issue of ‘reasons for the incarnation‘.
Exegesis and meaning doesn’t seem to be of importance to Athanasius but just
applied arbitrary quotes from the Bible to justify his concerns of the reasons for
the incarnation. According to him, the first main reason for the incarnation is
man’s fall, original and continuous previous sins (Archibald :9). Athanasius then
goes to say; ‘for this very purpose, then, the incorporeal and the incorruptible and
the immaterial Word of God comes to our realm …. But he comes in
condensation to show loving kindness upon us and to visit us (Archibald :12)’.
The term ‘condensed’ here is more elaborated in his own words saying
‘condensed to our corruption, and unable to bear that death should have a
mastery-lest the creatures should perish ,…,He takes unto Himself a body, and
that of no different from ours’ (Archibald :12).
Everything Athanasius said might not be relevant to our concern here, yet what
he meant by condensation and the body in his clear wordings which said “the
’Word’ took upon Himself, which is totally the same with the nature of ours”, is of
interest here.
The pre-incarnate eternal Word is now being limited in the ‘body’ susceptible to
corruption and suffering of any kind to the extent of losing mastery over death.
141
This is agreeable for it re-enforces the reason of this critique.
Athanasius then goes to expose ideas of the incarnation comparing and
contrasting it to the capacity of humanity. He said, though humans are limited in
the physical dimension – – -“Now the word of God in His man’s nature was not
like that, for he was not bound to His body, but rather was wielding, so that he
was not only in it, but actually in everything. ” Then, he added the analogy of the
“Sun”, saying though the sun revolves around in heaven it is not defiled by
touching the bodies upon the earth, nor it is put out by darkness. This implies that
the human Jesus was never defiled and/or restricted by the condensation
process.
As far as evaluating Athanasius, the identity of the Pre-incarnate word seems to
be confused with the identity of the incarnate Christ all through the analysis of
Athanasius (Archibald :27). The question here is who suffered the death on the
cross, the word/Logos or the body? If we agree to the logic of Athanasius, saying
that the Lord’s deeds are divine as well as human when he was performing
miracles, taking miracles as evidences of divinity, where will be His limitedness, if
he is unlimited, because of the incarnation?
In the analysis of Athanasius there seems a mix of condensation with that of
infinity during the incarnation. Affirming the eternal divine unlimitedness of the
Logos in the pre-incarnation stage, it is also better to affirm the shift to the
condensation issue of the Logos during the incarnation with no compromise, as
this action is a necessity to save humanity.
What has then happened to the divine nature of the Logos during the
incarnation? Nothing except that it was functionally avoided for sometime in-
order to save humanity in humanness.
Athanasius seems to tie the condensed nature with unlimited pre-incarnate
nature. Here we see mixes of the pre-incarnate stage with the incarnate stage.
Two problems seem to be evident. The first one is mix of two dimensions, the
142
eternal and the physical or the one which is not time bound and space bound,
with the other which is time bound and space bound. The second problem is a
hint of two personalities in Athanasius thinking. Who were then the logos during
the incarnation? The pre-incarnate is only one person and the incarnate is still
one same person. Where Christ was the Word he was the Word only and this is
during the pre-incarnate stage. When Christ became flesh, still the same person
became flesh. It doesn’t say the Word added Flesh but the Word became flesh
(John1:14).
How about to the whereabouts of the divinity? Position wise the Logos is still God
during the incarnation but functionally the Logos is only human who is very
dependent on the father in the time between the pre-incarnate stage and the
resurrection stages.
Apollinarius of Laodicea (ca.A.D.310-ca.A.D. 390); Apollinarius basic question
goes like “how can man conceive of Christ’s (Logos’s ) human existence?
Therefore, his concern was to give a rational elaboration to the union of the
eternal Logos with the human Flesh. He was in search of a rational logic in the
rational scenario, for the divine dimension is too difficult to be grasped by the
created dimension. He still did not deny the divinity of the Logos element except
that he said the human flesh was divinized by the divine element. He then went
saying “even the flesh was something brought down from heaven while the
womb of Mary, simply serving as a passageway” (Bengt; 1968 :90).
He might have said this for his idolized reverence to the flesh material so as to
make it very clean. This thought of him might have come from the theology of
transmission of sin and sanctification. So, as he was looking for cleansed
material he believed that the flesh came down from heaven. We may at least try
to understand Apollinarius in that his effort to seek a rational solution should be
commended. He has not denied that Christ is the eternal Logos with His own
eternal person. Scholarship agrees with this point of him and believes that this
eternal person has come down and dwelt within human flesh (Bengt :90-91).
143
The counter argument rounds the process of the fusion. No rational or scientific
or philosophical or theological resolution has thus far satisfactorily treated the
union of the divine with the human. Apollinarius said the divine has given life
(soul) and reason to the flesh; this might not have perfect rational explanation
thus far, either to prove or disprove what really happened during the process of
incarnation. Apollinarius was also against Deodore (bishop of Tarsus, 378) who
actually was reluctant to the issue of virginity, from the literalistic camp, with
strong denouncement to the philosophical allegorical interpretation against the
case of the birth of Christ (Chadwick 1967 :193-194).
The agreement seems in the orthodox view that the incarnated one has finally
made up one Christ from two natures but only one person. It should be affirmed
that Christ was of the same substance and on equal authority with God the father
and the Holy Spirit everlastingly. Yet issues of the then world with the issues of
the now world demand a rational justification and reinterpretation as far as the
understanding of nature of Christ, as he became man (Jn 1:14). Perusing the
search for rational satisfaction the next immediate proposed antithesis is the
tension b/n Cyril and Nestorius.
Cyril-of Alexandria- might be taken as an extreme Alexandrian with the popular
allegorical approaches much emphasizing the Theotokos ‘mother of god’ issue.
Having this thought as an option to comprehend passibility/impassibility issues
for the time being, let’s see more comparison of Nestorius and Cyril. While
Nestorius favored a moral union as if the divine stands off the human, implying
duality, Cyril went for a perfect union, as in the union of the soul and body in
human nature, one entity out of duality (Weinandy, 2000 :182–92), where the
soul and body coexist under one entity but keep their identity, which this
argument of Cyril actually stands as a strong case for soteriology rather than
Christology (Norris :151).
Nestorius-argued that Mary is the mother of the human Jesus, she is not the
mother of God. She has never mothered the preexistent divine. But no one could
144
deny the natural mother- son relationship of Mary and Jesus when it comes to
His human years. Still, all this is for the purpose of saving humanity as of the
divine decree, rather than any special favor to Mary. Leaving the debates of Cyril
and Nestorius there for a while, we would pass to see Gregory Nazianzen as his
views were sort of grease to the tension between Cyril and Nestorius, even
though not totally salvific.
Gregory of Nazianzus: The argument was not yet settled that Gregory of
Nazianzus sometimes called Nazianzen (A.D. 329-389) asserted a serious attack
against Apollinarius. Shortly his stern comment against Apollinarius goes like;
“Jesus was with a human mind for it is impossible to separate the humanity from
the divinity”. Nazianzus affirmed the pre-existent nature of Christ as the eternal
Son of God who was God Himself and has assumed human nature also for our
salvation. In the body, he said, Christ was subject to limitation, yet unlimited in
the Spirit; at one and the same time earthly and heavenly, tangible and
intangible, comprehensible and incomprehensible; that by one and the same
person, a perfect human being and a perfect God (McGrath 2001 :51).
The question is, if Jesus is unlimited in the spirit during the incarnation, how can
limitedness and unlimitedness go together? What is the incarnation all about
then? Nazianzus’s argument sided very clearly with the Antiochene literal camp,
yet some of his explanation needs relevant explanation to the modern mind.
What was his intent when he said it is impossible to separate the humanity from
the divinity? Divinity and humanity are really two separate dimensions. Divinity is
usually categorized with the uncreatedness while humanity is within the created
dimension. Following this logic they are obviously separate. Nazianzus
treatment of the issue was targeted against Apollinarius, yet some issues seem
by passed without serious treatment. There needs to be a clear distinction
between the physical dimension and the divine dimension.
When it comes to Christ, yes the divine declined to the human dimension still
with his positional divinity and with his material humanity in the limitedness of the
145
physical dimension. So, main concern here is not to confuse the physical with the
divine. What is divine is only divine and what is physical is only physical. The
case of Christ is a case of declining toward the physical limitedness, for the
purpose of saving humanity under the divine decree for a limited period of at
most 33 years.
Nazianzus statement of limiting Christ in the body and unlimiting Him in the Spirit
at the same time should also be redefined. Was Christ sometimes in the divine
dimension and sometimes in the physical world? Or was He in the divine and the
physical at the same time? Nazianzus seem to affirm the second one. But there
seems a temptation to either hide in the divine cave sometimes and the human
cave another time.
To put it in a simple word Christ’s pre- existent nature with all the divine potent is
beyond doubt yet the decree of saving humanity has made the divine Christ to
move or decline to the human dimension. So, during his fleshly humanly years it
seems fair to say he willfully limited Himself from the divine dimension for the
purpose of saving humanity. Thus, we cannot say divinity was there materially in
Human Christ. Yet still his pre-existent divine form was not robed of Him. It was
and is in his own possession, positionally, but not materially or functionally, when
it comes to His earthly time. So Nazianzus’s statements are worthy of some
clarification accepting most of it as orthodox. More will be said on this issue in the
following chapters of this thesis.
When we evaluate the tension between the Alexandrian camp and the
Antiochene camp, Nestorius stands on another extreme within the Antiochene
literalistic camp. Shortly the Antiochene counteraction against the Alexandrian
camp was that;
Christology made based on the Historical Grammatical approach. This group said Christ
had both the human Soul and the human body. According to this group the Logos was
not transmuted into man; instead he retained His divine nature, took upon Himself a
human form, and united himself to human nature. The Logos employed human nature as
an organ, at the same time, however, the two natures remained distinct. Christ
possessed the true divine nature, yet He was also real man with a human body and soul (
Bengt :91-92).
146
To be fair however, the original Antiochens also asserted the unity of the person.
Nestorianism is the result of a dispute at the Synod of Ephesus in 421.
Unfortunately the Synod decided against Nestorius in favor of the Alexandrian
theology that Nestorius was declared as heretical, up until being driven to exile,
accused of taking the Antiochene School to the extreme of creating two ‘Christ’s
’. This is where the Antiochene theology separated itself from the Alexandrian
theology. In 428 Nestorius became the patriarch of Constantinople and Cyril
continued as the patriarch of Alexandria (Haggland :93).
Simple matters in need of due attention are questions like; what if we expand the
possibility of life movement in three channels? God permeated life through the
union of man and woman in sexual unity. Male chromosomes fused with the
ovary will give way to the conceiving and the fetus will go on processing being
fed through the umbilical cord of its mother. Christ is neither exception of this
process except that He is not born through sexual unity of a human father to a
human mother. An extreme of divinizing the flesh of its mother will lead one to
deny the true humanity of Christ, where He was there in its mother’s womb for
nine months and was then brought up as anyone of us, being fed through his
mother’s system, playing as any child would do and possibly lots of human frailty
and mistakes during his youth. Another extreme of emphasizing the human part
will lead one to deny the former pre-existent divine nature of Christ. Where is the
synthesis then?
Humanity only doubts the reality of incarnation as supra-rational or irrational. Yet
humanity never asked how Adams life was permeated. Was it through a sexual
union? No. Was it partly human and partly divine work? No. Was it through
supra-rational supernatural means? Yes, absolutely. If this is an assumed fact,
how could Christ’s incarnation nature be in doubt? Betrayal of the fact has been
the scenario of humanity that it has been easy to see the vanity rather than
reality. If it was possible for God to permit life with or with out sexual unity as it
was in Adam or any human-being, why is it impossible for Christ to be born with
out any sexual contact? If Adam’s life was natural, why is Christ’s life confusing
147
as far as making it supra-rational? God then has used both means (with and
without the union of man and woman) to permit life of the same nature as it was
in Adam’s creation and Christ’s incarnation.
Therefore no need of unnecessary divinization to the flesh or still no need of
unnecessary denial of the preexistent nature of Christ, yet affirming that Christ’s
virgin birth and humanity was a natural possibility against ancient Apollinarian
Alexandrian philosophy and the undefined Anthiochene abstract.
Eutyches (ca.A.D. 378-454): Other arguments of the early five centuries of
Christianity were reactions from the Alexandrian camp by Eutyches. He claimed
that “after Christ became man He had but one nature”. According to Eutyches,
Christ’s humanity was not of the same essence as ours. While Nestorianism
seems about the divided Christ or denial of unity, Eutichianism is denial of duality
or Monophysite-a united Christ. Two natures mixed to create a third single nature
neither divine nor Human, but a mixture of both in one new being (Hannah, 2001
:73). Eutyches View was condemned at the council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.
Councils
As Constantine the great and the succeeding emperors looked upon the church
as the great unifying force, great efforts were made to keep unity and suppress
heresy. But where was the true church? The criterion was formulated and
defined by the five General or ecumenical councils of this period. The doctrinal
definitions of these councils, especially those of Nicene and Athanasius creeds,
have always seen been accepted by the main body of the church, the general or
ecumenical councils. This we see outlined by Qualben p 121 as; 1 Nicaea I 325,
2-Constantinople I (381), Ephesus I 431, 4-Chalcedon 451, 5-Constantinople II,
553, 6-Constantinople III, 680, 7- Nicaea II, 787(Qualben :121).
A synthesized position seems to vegetate in series of councils where the
chalcedonian was the biggest, which is treated independently below.
The Creed affirmed that “Christ in the incarnation was fully God and fully man, in
148
one person –against Nestorius who so distinguished between God’s son and
David’s son, without confusion forever. The creed goes saying; our Lord Jesus
Christ, who is perfect in His divinity-(against Arius who denied divine nature of
Christ insisting dynamism), with a reasonable soul and body – (against
Apollinarius), of one essence with the father according to divinity and of the same
essence as we are according to humanity (Norris 1980 :151). The distinction of
Natures being by no means taken away by the union, the property of each nature
preserved, and concurring in one person not parted or divided into two persons
but one and the same Son and the only begotten of God, Logos the Lord Jesus
Christ (Huggland 1968 :98-99).
However a dozen of the then churches were not yet in favor of the Chalcedonies
creedal decision that another council was held at Constantinople in 553, still
solidifying the Chalcedonies decision against Monophysites-single nature
Christologists.
This action seems to push the remnants towards east and history tells us that
some have traveled as far as Egypt and Ethiopia. Next we will try to look to the
root elements of monophysitism/miaphysitism in Ethiopia, so as to connect it to
the main issue of our research in this thesis.
Generally Chalcedon 451 A.D. was simply a confession of two natures in one
Christ with no details into the how of the composition. The decision was against
Nestorius who was said, so divided the two natures, against Appollinarius one
who made the Logos swallowed the flesh- or the other way round the flesh itself
was divinized by the Logos, and against Euthyches – who argued for only one
nature out of two after the union.
Yet despite the council’s decision which somewhat safely ignored Cyril, Cyril was
more popular to the extent of gaining violent supports, especially within the
eastern camp.
The debate continued through series of examinations over the substance of
149
Christ’s flesh, some saying it was corruptible still having the divine in it-
phithartholatrai, Severus (460-538), yet others voting for the incorruptible flesh-
phanthasiata or mere humanity (Fergusson Sinclair B., 1978 :442-443). Such
arguments led some to say God suffered on the cross.
Medieval Christological Developments
Western European theological influence was much greater at this time, meaning
Christian theological reflection moved from North Africa to Western Europe. The
fall of Rome is usually dated 4th C. A.D. 4
th
-13th C. -almost 1000 yrs, are mostly
categorized by scholars as the dark ages.
Here the growing disagreements over the “filoque clause” are indubitably
recorded. The tension grew between the Latin speaking Rome and Greek
speaking Constantinople and a fight continued as Western theology and
Byzantine theology, 1054 being the final break(McGrath :30-31).
Augustine: Where do we get clue to reach to the mind of Augustine? His very
confessions are far better help for a research as this, as prime source in addition
to other sources about him on the issue of incarnation.
‘The confessions of Augustine’ as edited by Rev E.B. Pusey., are not primarily
written focusing on issues of Christology or incarnation but they are recorded in
steps sequentially, from the stages of his infancy and boyhood all through his
sinful experiences and attitudes, educational advancements, love of fame, love of
wisdom and Manicheanism. His so-journ to Rome and Milan then leaving
Manicheans, became again a Catechumen in the church of catholic.
In his 31st year, his confessions tell us that he was gradually coming out of his
former errors and heretic tendencies. Here he finds the seeds of the doctrines of
Divinity of the ‘Word‘. His confessions clearly say that the divine ‘Words’
humiliation, meaning the nature of his incarnation were not yet clear in the mind
of St. Augustine at this stage. Therefore he did not know Christ to be a mediator
(Pusey :151). Most of his studies of the scriptures at this time especially St. Paul
150
was of much help to him to straighten his confusions (McGrath 2001 :185). Then
his conversion experience followed where his mother Monica’s prayer and vision
was fulfilled (Pusey 1926 :217). His mother died two years after his conversion
at her 56 or in his 33rd year. Then Augustine lastly confessed his understanding
of God and Christ as the only mediator in his final chapter (Pusey :253).
His Confessions of Christ’s nature could be borrowed here for the consumption
of this research. His narration is short not more than three pages yet condensed
with deep thoughts and well said statements. To quote him directly his literal
statements are like;
“But a mediator between God and man, must have something like God, something like
man” “less being in both like man, he should be far from God: or if in both like God, too
unlike man; and so not be a mediator” (Pusey: 312).
The ‘something like God’ means of the same substance with God, and the
‘something like men the same way, means of the same substance like men. This
statement is drawn from the continuing statements of him where he said “less
being in both like man, he should be far from God: or if in both like God, too
unlike man; and so not be a mediator” (Pusey :312).
Similarly Saint Augustine himself in his book “The City of God”, under his sub
topic ‘of the knowledge of God, which non can attain but through the mediator
between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ’ said,
Therefore this must be purged, and instructed by faith, to set it the surer; where in truth
itself, God’s Son, and God, taking on our manhood without wasting of Godhead, ordained
that faith to be a pass for man to God, by his means that was both God and Man; for by
his manhood is He mediator, and by man he is our way. For if the way lie between him
that goes and the place he goes, there is hope to attain it. But if one has no way, nor
knows which way to go, what boots it to know whither to go? And the only sure, plain
infallible highway is this mediator, God and man: God, our Journey’s end, and man, our
way unto it (Saint Augustine, The City of God :313).
This cannot mean anything other than strongly suggesting divinity and humanity
in full so as to fulfill the office of a mediator. One question is yet unanswered in
Augustine’s analysis. Was Jesus considered a mediator before the cross?
Augustine continued his explanations of a mediator through the analogy of a
151
deceitful mediator, most possibly Satan. What does Satan has in Common with
God and in common with man. Augustine said Satan has sin in common with
man and immortality in common with God. Since Satan has rebelled against God
he should die but he couldn’t for his immortal nature. Men will die, for the wages
of sin is death. Therefore, according to Augustine, Christ should have the same
substance with us, in order to die for us, and pay the penalty of sin (Augustene
:312) let’s see another direct quote.
The man Christ Jesus, appeared betwixt mortal sinners and the immortal just one; mortal
with men just with God: – – -, for as man he was a mediator; but as the ‘Word’ not in the
middle between God and man, because equal to God and God with God and together
one God. For as to thee both victor and victim, and therefore victor, because the victim;
for us to thee sacrifice; making us to thee of servants, sons by being born of thee, and
saving us (Pusey :313).
The statements of Augustine clearly affirm that Christ could be a victor if and only
if he is a victim. Christ could be a priest if He is willing to shift towards the nature
of a sacrifice as one of humanity so as to be able to die, for the pre-existent word
could not die unless he shifted into the dimension where death is a master.
As we have seen it earlier our research question is partially treated in
Augustine’s analysis. Actually questions are mostly different from context to
context. Augustine has not treated the divine and the human nature
independently in a detailed way. Was the Logos fully empowered through divinity
during the incarnation or set aside for a short period of time?
The two natures are possessions of one and the same person-Christ. But the
divine infinity doesn’t seem active during the incarnation for the purpose of
incarnation (Pusey :314). The incarnation has been a necessity for the cases of
humanity, humility, emptiness, disability or incapacitated status, so as to be able
‘a victim’ borrowing Augustine’s words.
The ‘victor’ issue must be seen while victory was gained later in the resurrection
not during the incarnation.
Anselm of Canterbury in the 12th
C. and Thomas Aquinas in the 13th C. both
152
called the church back to what Augustine has said (MacCulloch :107). On this
line, Aquinas after affirming that the Son of God is God, he reacted against the
historical heresies, registered before him from Sabellius and Arius (Joseph
Rickaby, S.J., Summa Contra Gentiles Of Saint Thomas Aquinas., Of God and
His Creatures, Orchard St,17 South broad way, London W, : 337-346). Almost
similarly, Erasmus insights are very interesting as far as their influence on the
protestant revolution, somewhat reverting the misguided Marian devotion that
hung on Luke 2:51, which he believed is less true as a salvation channel (Opera
Erasmi …:1969,:490-92 See also MacCulloch :97). His approach however was
not so radical as was with Luther.
Reformation to mid 17th Century- Period of Orthodoxy
When we come to the Christology of the reformation with a little bit to post
reformation also, what we discover is that the Christology itself was Augustinian
than Scholastic (MacCulloch :112). Major proponents could be said Luther and
Calvin.
Collins said, at the heart of the reformation initiated by Martin Luther (1483-
1546), was the question of grace (where/how do I find a gracious God), which
amounted to the question of the sinners justification. ‘To know Christ means to
know his benefits and not… to reflect upon his natures and the modes of his
incarnation (Collins, SJ, 1995 :209). Therefore we may say the reformations
Christology was covered more by soteriological emphasis. Dulling also added to
this saying; Luther sought to maintain the orthodox doctrine of Jesus Christ “as
truly God and truly man”. He usually avoided using the church’s language and
the philosophical language of Aquinas, preferring to employ down to earth
expressions and language taken directly from Scripture. When Luther came to
the New Testament itself, he concentrated on the humanness of Jesus. It was
the weak, lowly and beggarly Christ that attracted him most. Jesus Christ was
born in lowliness, lived his life as a human beggar, suffered and died on the
cross a weak man, the object of scorn and contempt (Dulling: 105-106).
153
Referring to Luther’s primary works;
He had eyes, ears, mouth, nose, chest, stomach, hands and feet, just as you and I have.
He took the breast: his mother nursed him as any other child is nursed…He ate, drank,
awoke, and was tired. He was sad and happy. He wept and laughed; He hungered and
thirsted, froze and perspired. He chatted and worked and prayed. In short, He required all
the necessities and sustenance of this life, and died and suffered like any other man,
sharing fortune and misfortune (Luther’s Works :199-200).
A bit exploration of Luther’s works as edited by Pelican and translated by Martin
H. Bertram of Luther’s Works , Vol 22 ,Sermons on the Gospel of Saint John
Chapters 1-4, 1957 22, S 22) hints a tone that divinity and incarnation of the Son
is a mystery which is not graspable by human hearts except by faith. It literally
reads as;
The Second Person, the Son, and neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit, assumed human nature.
He was born of the Virgin Mary when the day of redemption was to dawn. This Son of God, born
of the Father in eternity, John first calls “the Word.” He says: “In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” Later he speaks of His incarnation when he says
(1:14): “And the Word became flesh.” St. Paul speaks similarly in Galatians (4:4): “But when the
time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman.” Any attempt to fathom and
comprehend such statements with human reason and understanding will avail nothing, for none
of this has its source in the reason: that there was a Word in God before the world’s creation, and
that this Word was God; that, as John says further on, this same Word, the Only-begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth, rested in the Father’s bosom or heart and became flesh; and that
no one else had ever seen or known God, because the Word, who is God’s only-begotten Son,
rested in the bosom of the Father and revealed Him to us. Nothing but faith can comprehend this.
Whoever refuses to accept it in faith, to believe it before he understands it, but insists on
exploring it with his reason and his five senses, let him persist in this if he will. But our mind will
never master this doctrine; it is far too lofty for our reason. Holy Writ assures us that faith alone
can appropriate it. Let anyone who refuses to believe it let it alone (Luther’s Works 22, S. 22:5).
This discussion of Luther clearly speaks of or Lord’s humanity. Actually, McGrath
referring to G.E.Lessing, argued that the leading characteristics of Luther’s
theology was his proclamation of the individual’s total freedom in matters of
religious opinion, unfettered by ecclesiastical interference, than complicated
issues of Christology ( McGrath 1994 :19). McGrath also added that the only
major Christological debate of the period of any interest centers upon two groups
of Lutheran theologians, who developed rival positions known as ‘crypticism’ and
‘kenoticism’ in relation to the nature of Christ’s divine attributes (McGrath :13).
Calvin (1509-1564), in his ‘Institutes of the Christian Religion’, published in 1536,
154
reasserted the main tenets of Lutheran Protestantism, but without Luther’s stress
on the soul searching quest for salvation. Calvin stressed the absolute
sovereignty of God the creator (Calvin 1989 :215) sees also (Dulling :114).
Calvin put it in Orthodox terms: Christ was both divine and human. In his book
one, Calvin concentrated on the divinity of Christ, correlating the Old Testament
prophesies about him as the eternal Word and wisdom, and its fulfillment in the
New Testament where Jesus was seen able to penetrate the silent thoughts and
hearts of people (Mt 9:4;Jn 2:23). According to Calvin, Jesus’ divinity is proved in
his power to forgive sins (Mt 9:6), (Dulling :116). Calvin also used the title ‘Son
of man’ which he argued in Hebrew, meant true man, citing Psalm 8:4 and Heb
2:6; Phil 2 and Rom 5.
Concerning the nature and person of Christ, Calvin’s synthesis is well balanced
and parallel with what was said by Augustine. His explanation more follows the
mediatory task of Christ. His literal words are like;
Christ’s work as a mediator was unique: it was to restore us to divine favor and to make
us sons of God, instead of sons of men; heirs of the heavenly kingdom instead of heirs of
hell. Only the son of God could do this by becoming the son of man…because the Son of
God took upon himself a body like our body, flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone, that he
might be one with us (Tony Lane :125).
The way Calvin used biblical texts for his argument is most of the time left
unquestioned but the contextual meanings implied in the passages seem to imply
another teaching than to what Calvin was trying to pick. Obviously he is well
trained in Semitic and Greek languages but his application of ancient languages
to his systematic does not seem exegetically sound. Simple proof for this is the
way he picked the texts above for his analysis of the divinity of Christ, where the
verses are only talking about Jesus penetration of human hearts, or that He has
authority to forgive sin and so on. Contextually the verses tell something else
other than the divine nature of Jesus. The question this research raises is not on
the divinity of our Lord but on the method Calvin used to support his case.
Luther and Calvin as biblical theologians affirmed a Christology which was in full
accord with Chalcedon; indeed, the Chalcedonies definition became important
155
element in the creedal literature of most of the reformation churches (Wells 1984
:121-122). Reformations faithfulness to the ‘Word/Scriptures’ and Calvin’s
systematization on what Luther laid had a saving and healing effect to the
church. But biblical approaches of the reformation are very literal and particularly
Calvin’s’ somewhat mystical systematization still leaves profound questions
unanswered.
Bringing the scriptures back as a center and trusting them fully is one thing but
neglecting the contextual-exegetical meaning is another danger. This we see in
the treatments of Calvin to the interrelations between Man and God in Christ, in
his book “Institutes of The Christian Religion” (Calvin 1989 :215), in the
discussion about ‘the Knowledge of God the Redeemer’ in Christ. Here, before
he discussed his Christology, Calvin primarily brings the cause of the fall,
‘disobedience of the woman’ which entails ‘pride’; not necessarily eating the fruit
or so. Then Calvin goes straight to the book of Romans where Paul said ‘by the
disobedience of one man…. (Rom 5:18-20).
Well it is fine to say that infidelity, ambition, pride are the initial causes of the fall
of man and therefore the curse over the whole nature. But the extension of its
consequence to the offspring which all great theologians like Cyprian, Augustine,
Luther, and Calvin call it as ‘original sin’, is not correctly cited from the scriptures
as Calvin also more or less arbitrarily quoted from Ps 51:5; Rom 5:19;1Cor
11:22; John 3:6 and Eph 2:3. These texts have nothing to say on the origin of sin
and its transmission, except that the one from Psalm is just a rationalization of
King David for his sin with Bathsheba and the Romans 5 text is an argument
asserting that salvation is through one man and no other way.
So, ways Calvin quoted the scriptures for his systematic approach seems
arbitrary leave alone solving cases of Christology (Calvin 1989 :215). Misuse
and misinterpretation of various texts from Paul like (Gal 3:13 and 2Cor 5:21),
was the customary habit of the reformers, as for example the view of redemption
as penal substitution, as if Christ literally took upon himself the guilt of human sin,
156
also as if he had personally committed all these sins himself (Collins :211-212).
All questions against exegesis of the reformers apply to the way they also
understood Christology.
One way or the other the reformers and other orthodox Christian scholars like
Grudem (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 549-562), Hodge, (Hodge; Systematic
Theology, vol II, part II. ch III, pages 387-418 ; 433-440); Gregory of Nazianzus:
Nazianzen( A.D. 329-389), (McGrath :51)., Augustine(Saint Augustine, The City
of God :313), Calvin(Calvin 1989 :215), were mostly interested, firstly in
reforming the church, secondly staying faithful to the authority of the scriptures
and authority of the creeds, than a satisfactory response to current Christological
questions. Well this is ideal and all should stick to this. But, literal application of
the scriptures has its own deficiency when it comes to right exegesis. Plus to
that, the creeds are just general frameworks which still need revitalization as far
as solving Christological questions of the post modern context.
Most theologians from early church history all through the medieval age and the
reformation repeatedly said that Christ has assumed a human nature or took
upon himself a human nature or added a human nature. This assertion of them
doesn’t seem to fit the becoming/ egineto of John 1:14.
Enlightenment, Modern and Postmodern Christological Approaches Late
17th C-late 19th C
René Descartes (1596-1650) ‘cogito ergo sum’, symbolized and encouraged
‘the anthropological turn’ that switched to a concern for the conscious subject
which has deeply affected modern Christology and other branches of theology.
Like Descartes, John Henry Newman (1801-90) took as his starting point the ‘I’
and ones consciousness of oneself (Collins :213).
According to Dulling, in philosophy, the enlightenment had moved from Cartesian
rationalism to empiricism, through skepticism, and finally to materialism, none of
which was based on the Bible and revelation. This led into a new form of religion
157
where orthodoxy with its creeds, dogmas, institutions, Virgin, and Christ could
only obscure the universal morality known to all by human reason (Dulling :137-
139). Within this age, supernatural elements, especially the miracles, were seen
as common superstitious beliefs of ancient people, and Christianity had simply
borrowed such beliefs as the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ. Miracles were
contrary to the “New Science,” for, it was thought, and God does not stop the
Great Machine of the Universe (Dulling: 144). So Jesus in this age was taken as
only human and moral example.
However, many have found out that centrality of reason of the enlightenment as
authority towards meaning instead of the scriptural authority was insufficient. The
feeling part was getting missed. For Pietists the heart of religion was feeling not
reason. Pietism as a distinct movement is usually associated with three figures
that emerged within German Lutheranism: Jacon Spener (1665-1705), August
Herrmann Francke (1663-1727), and Count Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700-60). In
summary, protestant Pietists stressed the inwardness of spiritual experience, the
emotional component of religion, without which they believed religion was in
danger of becoming cold, dry, and too intellectual.
Pietism and Moravians grew vigorously in the seventeenth-century continental
Europe. In England, where the lower classes were depressed economically,
spiritually, and morally during the beginnings of industrial revolution, the time was
ripe for religious renewal. John Wesley (1703-91), began his study of William
Law’s Christian perfection, which presented “an imitation of Christ” ideal
centering on daily self denial, for example, by moderating fasting, leaving home
and family for the sake of Jesus, and abstinence from improper books, dramas,
plays, and conversation (Dulling :148-151). More of his thoughts are made clear
in Wesley’s own sermons which we may focus on what he said about the
condensation of Christ during the incarnation. To quote him rightly;
John 1: 14. Flesh sometimes signifies corrupt nature; sometimes the body; sometimes,
as here, the whole man. We beheld his glory-We his apostles, particularly Peter, James,
and John, Lu 9:32.Grace and truth-We are all by nature liars and children of wrath, to
whom both grace and truth are unknown. But we are made partakers of them, when we
158
are accepted through the Beloved. The whole verse might be paraphrased thus: And in
order to raise us to this dignity and happiness, the eternal Word, by a most amazing
condescension, was made flesh, united himself to our miserable nature, with all its
innocent infirmities. And he did not make us a transient visit, but tabernacled among us
on earth, displaying his glory in a more eminent manner, than even of old in the
tabernacle of Moses. And we who are now recording these things beheld his glory with
so strict an attention, that we can testify, it was in every respect such a glory as became
the only begotten of the Father. For it shone forth not only in his transfiguration, and in his
continual miracles, but in all his tempers, ministrations, and conduct through the whole
series of his life. In all he appeared full of grace and truth: he was himself most
benevolent and upright; made those ample discoveries of pardon to sinners, which the
Mosaic dispensation could not do: and really exhibited the most substantial blessings,
whereas that was but a shadow of good things to come (Logos Library System; Wesley’s
Notes , S. Jn 1:14).
According to Dulling, because Wesley wrote no treatise about Jesus Christ, his
views on this subject must be gleaned from various places in his writings. The
difficulty of systematizing his views is compounded by the fact that such a
systematic statement was not as important as to Wesley as the Christian life
itself. To Wesley, scripture was to be interpreted in the light of experience and
experience in the light of scripture. Wesley’s specific method of biblical
interpretation stressed the reformation principles that one should look for the
plain, literal sense of a passage and that “Scripture interprets Scripture”. The
result of interpretation for Wesley is that “plain truth for plain people” frees from”
all nice and philosophical speculations. This overall perspective is crucial to
Wesley’s view of Jesus Christ. Like Calvin, he came to believe that all persons
share in Adam’s sin, are totally without merit (Original Sin), and therefore are
dependent on God’s totally free gift of grace through the sacrifice of his Son,
Jesus Christ (Justification by faith),( Dulling :152-153).
Shortly, Wesley’s discussion is firstly faithful to Chalcedon, secondly underlined
the condensation of the Logos into humanity, third underlined that the glory
shone during transfiguration including his miracles are signs of his divine power
inside him.
In line with this, Schleiermacher, still with an anthropocentric theology, shifted a
bit towards a massively subjective switch in the way he systematically set out to
base all Christian truth on the experience and self consciousness of the
159
individual. Eventually he came out to interpret faith in terms of a human ‘feeling
of absolute dependence’. Hence his Christology revolved around, or was
practically reduced to, Jesus’ unique God Consciousness (Collins :213).
The flow so far from the reformation to the dawn of enlightenment tells us that,
Christological view was more of Orthodox and Chalcedonian and soteriological.
The question of the nature of Christ is still kept within the frames of full humanity
and full divinity in one person.
A further development of modern world, which at least in the Western world, has
complicated Christological (and more generally, theological), work, has been the
emergence of a new philosophic pluralism. Philosophy before the 16th Century
was following either Platonic or Aristotelian modes. But from the sixteenth
century philosophical thought has split up into different and new systems. From
Descartes to Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), and Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-
1951), philosophers have stood back from their culture, surveyed centuries of
intellectual history, and quite consciously tried to take philosophy and human
thought in new directions. Influences from analytical philosophy, existentialism,
idealism, neo-Thomism, phenomenology, philosophical hermeneutics,
pragmatism, process philosophy, and transcendental philosophy, turn up
constantly in twentieth-century Christology (Collins :218-219).
Then after, followed a break with tradition since the enlightenment. Here all the
past is questioned as to the point that it has no life in the present. Lessing asked
truths of the past if it ever affects truth living out here and now. As the
enlightenment had no experience of the past, like the miracles of Jesus and even
Jesus himself, neither the miracles of Jesus nor Jesus Himself are necessary
(Schillebeeckx :583-584). So if Jesus is at all necessary, a new image emerges
which has nothing to say about Jesus of Nazareth himself, but only about our
new experiences of Him (Schillebeeckx :586). John Thiel similarly affirms that a
post modern theory of development which fully acknowledges the discontinuity of
the present from the past and yet finds a way in which the past is drawn up into
160
anew present day framework (Thiel :56-95).
Carson is a good reference as far as postmodern Christological approaches are
concerned. Actually other noted scholars will also be touched for the purpose of
this sub topic. Carson in his definitive statement discussed pluralistic tendencies
of the postmodern age against the Orthodox Christological outlook and shifted
his focus onto empirical pluralism, Cherished pluralism and philosophical
pluralism. As of his rich experience of research and teaching on hermeneutics he
specially focused on hermeneutical philosophical deviations which are leading to
pluralistic tendencies about Christian ideas of God, Christ and the Bible. Carson
also adds these are mainly the problem of the western society where extreme
civilization and post modernistic culture is dominating (Carson :13). As post
modernism is an age with no center (Kevin :18-19), the same way the centrality
of the Bible, God and Christ is scrutinized by the traits from postmodern thought.
Carson goes on saying; pluralism in one of its uses refers to the sheer, diversity
of race, value system, heritage, language, culture and religion (Carson :13). He
impressively stated it saying “the pressures of secularization insured that formal
religious observance may happily co-exist with the marginalization of religion”
(Carson :15). As much as diversity of pluralism, plurality is the natural outcome.
Anyways as communism was a threat to confessional Christianity, secularism is
currently a threat today. The same is with new age theosophy which publicly
confesses the transformational nature of man into the existence of transcendent
nature like God with no need of a mediator or a suffering priest and also a radical
interpretation of evil (Carson :41). The same is also with rising biblical illiteracy in
which most have little or no religious heritage in their bringing up or (Carson
:41), the baby booster generation who always want entertainment than lectures
(Carson :45).
According to the new age philosophical pluralism there is no need for faithfulness
to Biblical world view. This contributed very much towards the decline of
Christianity, Catholicism and the vegetation of modern Hinduism (Monism),
161
Occultism, Mormonism, and decentralization towards pluralism.
Is pluralism a bad fate or opportunity? If Christianity and Christology are
swallowed by pluralistic ideologies against its own creedal tenets it is obviously
dangerous. But if Christianity and Christology are able to win racial pluralistic
society with its Gospel, then it could be taken as excellent opportunity.
Ancient Christological thought developments were in search of an absolute truth
about Christ’s nature but postmodernism’s slogan is ‘there is no such thing as
absolute truth’. There is a sharp contrast here. The ancient Christology is
objective as much as possible but the postmodern is naturally subjective letting
everybody have his/her own belief democratically.
To mention some illustrative thoughts from Carson’s well summarized
paragraphs;
-Enclusivists say; though Jesus Christ is God’s self –definitive act of self-disclosure
salvation itself is someway available in other religions(Carson :27) .
– Exclusivists say; any claims in any religion against the confessional acceptable tenets of
Christianity are necessarily false (Carson :26).
-Confessional Christianity is against radical religious pluralism which more or less is with
no claim of superiority over any other religion. Therefore Christology in postmodern age
is almost retreating to the defensive camp than on the offensive side for the much blow
from pluralism ( Carson :26).
Actually it seems convincing that there can never be absolutism in this world.
This is because the imperfect nature of the created world makes it naturally less
absolute. Absolutism or perfection is the sole-prerogative nature of God who is
solely absolute. Imperfectly created being cannot own absolute knowledge about
the mystery of Christ’s nature, incarnation or the resurrection phenomena yet can
have the undeniable understanding through either the concrete general
revelation or special revelation in contrast to rationalistic approach and must
assume these incidents as fact.
What are the Bible’s Christological claims against the postmodern pluralistic
tendency? What does the Bible say about the uniqueness or the finality of
162
Christ? How about the question “Who do people say I am”?
Carson tried to pose some fresh interpretations of who the historical Jesus really
is. Issues treated here are” what kind of Christology would be necessary and
what kind of Christology would have to be introduced into traditional Christology?
In his digest of ‘pluralism in search of an acceptable Christology’ applied a harsh
criticism to Ziesler and Barbara who made Jesus either a political failure or
Lunatic magician, by simply saying their interpretation is bad, and Edwards Jesus
has a Jesus who is fundamentally removed from the Bible’s storyline (Carson :
317). Carson was also against Keithword, who believed a three stage
development of Biblical history, 1-Local, 2-Great scriptural traditions and 3-New
emergent truth. Ward believes that the New Testament revelation is still
progressively growing towards an unfolding understanding but currently it is with
a mysterious signpost (Carson :319).
Then comes the interest with Carson’s point borrowing Hick’s “Incarnation as
Metaphor”. Hick said forgiveness is not necessarily through incarnation or
sacrifice, but through a true repentant heart. Hick made Jesus on the same level
as others without the incarnation or crucifix issue (Lk 15: 20-24, Matt 7). Carson’s
response is from a hermeneutical side. He condemned Hick with irresponsible
textual selection. According to Carson Hick’s approach is almost treason (Carson
:20).
Both Hick and Carson seem to override the fact of Jesus incarnation substance.
Well it is clear that Carson is for the confessional Christianity side, against Hick
and his contemporaries. Carson’s treatment seems only a hunt to Hick and his
friends taking the incarnation as a given, without treating the real issue of the
incarnational substance.
Hick completely removed the incarnation and crucifix issue which actually is
treason as Carson said or a blind ignorance so to say. To make Christ as
ordinary historical figure is a blind wish.
163
Anyways those who argue for pluralistic notion, it is a profane to try to grasp
God’s dimension in confessional creeds which we should also agree on the
theory avoiding the means they used to justify their theory. What is meant here is
that, it is better to base ones confession on the Bible than on the creeds, yet
defendants of pluralism neither base their theory on the Bible nor the creeds but
on the philosophy of secularism. In response to them the confessional Christians
are saying that authentic Christianity which has resulted from the confessional
documents of God’s revelation of Himself in History as well as in Jesus Himself is
a necessity.
In short Carson’s approach is totally against pluralistic tendencies which were
even evident in the classic liberal dichotomy between the historical Jesus and the
Christ of faith (Carson 321).
Knitter for example is the one who votes for a Theo-centric Christology, where he
said even Jesus put God at the center than Himself (Knitter :181). Jesus never
thought of Himself as divine according to Knitter. Well Jesus’ material
incarnational substance has no scientific elaboration so far; leave alone the
creedal saturations and some trials from the scholarly camp.
Another extreme is from White, who said that God Himself has experienced
suffering, death and temptation, to sin and overcome them, as a human
individual (Carson :327). If it is possible for the divine to be physical at the same
time, what White suggested might have some point.
Both White and Carson are with indistinct theology concerning the incarnation.
White simply closed Jesus with mere humanity, at the same time he throws the
temptation and suffering to God, where surely he stands is not clear. Carson
seems to return back to the Orthodox creeds with a simple defense of them than
a logical antidote to the gangrenes, in his defense against other rivals as
Pannikkar and Fox.
According to Carson these guys were dissecting the historical Jesus from the
164
Christ of faith (Carson :328). We may not avoid the ideal dissection for Jesus
who was ones the Logos only and then the incarnated and the again the God
man. Yet the dissection Pannikkar and Fox drown is between the Jesus of
Christians and the Christ of all (Cosmic Christ) (Pannikar :235-263). This is not
theology, rather methodology.
Then Carson concluded saying pluralism leads to find the Jesus element in every
religion as the Guru in Sikhism, The Yogi in Hinduism, the Adept, Avata and
Shamman. He said it is not what may happen to billions of un-confessional
generation or it is not whether the peculiarity of Christ could be presented
logically, reasonably, but it is all about the authentic confessional Christianity
living against pluralism of any form. This will happen as a result of the authority of
the scriptures no matter what experience or culture or numerical push might
confront the few confessional Christians scattered in various faces of the world
(Carson :227).
Evaluation
The question of what is unique about Christ still demands due attention. First of
all we have to define uniqueness. Uniqueness in Christ case goes to His
exclusive nature which no one has and also not pluralistically shared in any other
religious figure. What then makes Him exclusively unique? His incarnation
nature and His resurrection nature are two key items which we never get in any
body else but in Christ only. Incarnation naturally reminds us the pre-form before
the shift towards the incarnated nature. What is incarnated is the one who
existed before. Incarnation was not the beginning stage but a proceeding from
the former existence, to a different and new form. The pre-existence precedes
the incarnation. The incarnation follows the pre-existence.
The pre-existent uncreated second person of the Trinity has then shifted into
limitedness to be in the boundary of the physical world yet without change to His
eternal person. Incarnation is a willful move to limitation. Incarnation tales in
Hinduism, Buddhism and a little part of Confucianism just refer to a cycle of birth
165
and re-birth of physical matter in another physical matter from the tangible,
intelligible physical world into another intelligible matter within the parameter of
the physical world. Still this analysis is an assumption or blind faith with no
historical and scientific proof.
But the incarnated Christ is the pre-existent divine person, not simple matter who
willfully shifted from the divine into the human, from eternity to time, from spiritual
dimension to the physical dimension. None of Christ’s contemporaries claimed
this formula. His incarnation phenomena were not mythical or mystical tale but a
historically proven fact.
Some try to explain the uniqueness in relation with the virgin birth. Virginity is all
about Mary than Christ therefore it is better to talk about Him than her, for those
who believe salvation is from Him. Some also try to see it from the reproduction
process point. Yes Jesus was born without a human father. This looks
scientifically insensical. Theologically speaking, we may say that reproduction of
human beings is not the product of science but the free gift of nature. Therefore,
it is the author of nature who can surely define how reproduction occurs than
scientific endeavors. We may not also say for sure that scientific discovery has
finished its process of understanding how reproduction really occurs.
Elaborating Christ’s uniqueness, McGregor returned back to the Nicene Creed
which says “…and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God,
begotten of His Father before all worlds”, in search of an answer for this
question. He first raised the unique nature of any individual with his/her unique
fingerprints and argued why it is difficult to internalize the unique nature of God.
He then continued saying Jesus Christ is the only Son of the only God because
there is only one God, the God whom the Jews claimed to be the only one. Jesus
is not only the Messiah or the Rabbi but also the unique Son of God for there is
no other who is both wholly divine and wholly human’ (McGregor :28).
Witherington 3rd is also in line with this issue in his revision of several articles
written about Jesus. He first picked Borg’s collections of essays under the title
166
‘Jesus at 2000’ (Witherington :253). Borg’s writing with few others has
specifically focused on the historical Jesus. Who was Jesus and who do His
followers say He is? Borg simply denied the divine quality in Jesus body to the
extent of denying the resurrection event, as only a dream or vision. But Borg has
affirmed that Jesus has continued to be believed as a resurrected reality while he
was not (Witherington :254). Borg is also supplemented by John Domenic
Crossan concerning the denial of the resurrection issues. Witherington refused
and defended Borg’s Ideas that we should not add more to this corpse.
Yet our response goes to the other extreme side of the horizon which is the
denial of the Historical claims at the expense of His divinity. The human
limitedness of Jesus’ incarnation is emphatically stressed here.
Let’s do more comparison of Christological discussions on extreme positions.
Paul D. Molnar in his synthesis of contemporary understandings of incarnation
and resurrection, made a comparison of the key theologians of the 20th C. Barth,
Karl Rahner and Torrance. Molnar’s treatment is lining Barth and Torrance
together and Rahner on the other side (Molnar :125).
According to Molnar, Barth’s incarnation theology is said to be ‘the act of
becoming flesh-sinful flesh, on the part of God’s eternal word, where the word did
not cease to be God. This occurrence was never forced by any force outside
either the fall or Law or the Trinity but a free act of God’s love. No third reality
was emerged in the incarnation (union) for this would imply the losing of both
former realities, Divine and Human (Molnar :3). Barth also asserted that
incarnation concluded by the resurrection gives meaning to the faith of the
disciples.
Tomas F Torrance with a similar concept said, incarnation means the entry of
God Himself into the sphere of space and time without ceasing to be God. He
said Jesus homoousion with the father in his divinity and with us in our humanity.
(Torrance :52-53).
167
In contrast to the above stands, Karl Rahner followed a symbolic analysis where
he said ‘the symbol gets reality in the wholly other nature’; he also believed that
Christology gets conclusion in the incarnation rather than the resurrection. He
believed that Jesus rose from the dead but rose into the beliefs of the disciples
(Molnar :45).
Pressure of Post modernism
Another threat which needs attention is the process of defending Christology
against pluralism in a blow coming from post-modernism. Post modernism is
defined as a synthesis of situations after the modern is out of date. It could also
be translated as “beyond the now”. A difficulty here is that the current change is
like fast running water in the river line where you couldn’t even make a distinction
of nature. Wouldn’t this be true even in the understanding of the nature of
Christian doctrine? Post-modernism is known for its decentralized character
ever-changing quickly (Kevin :6).
Post- modernisms exceptional element is the quest for truth. What is truth? How
objective is our experience of what we call truth, concerning Christ in this case?
Kevin said philosophers have often struggled with the idea of what is true and of
how we see the world. Sanders under his title “Unitarianism” treated the nature of
heresy saying they are as old as human unbelief and as ancient as man. What
seems new, he said, is only new to the age listening to them (Sanders :54).
Idealists see or interpret reality as the product of mind. “I think therefore I am” as
the finest modern philosopher Descartes said (1665- 1753), any tangible
existence gets its reality first in our thinking. See a chair in a room. The chair gets
its existence as long as we can see it in the room. If we leave the room it might
vanish (Sanders : 33). Empiricists against the idealists sought to trust only what
could be discerned through the five senses, only that which could be measured
and observed.
Still these philosophies look to stand in sharp contrast with Christian doctrines for
‘you will have what you believe to have’, than what you can see and sense to
168
have. Isn’t Christ real, though we cannot sense Him through our five senses? Yet
still God decreed to put Christ in our likeness in the incarnation process where
God made Himself very available to our five senses as the testimony of the
Apostle John who was an eye witness (1st John 1:1).
Emmanuel Kant stood in between the idealists and the empiricists in his own
coined terms the ‘noumena’ – the world of reality as it is, the ‘phenomena’- the
world of appearances, and the ‘sense perception’-our angel or reality (Sanders
:35). Kant’s explanation is the middle-way or the synthesis between both
extremes.
Though there could be no clear distinctive concrete wall between noumena and
phenomena, we may put ourselves as the wall in between, in which this wall is
neither real nor unreal. This very idea comes from a diluted principle, where our
explanation of anything- including our faith upon Christ, could neither be real or
unreal as far as measuring it through our five senses or perceptions.
This is because we all are created imperfect originally, for perfection always goes
to God and we all partake the fallen nature. This makes our perception neither
real nor unreal till the time we may be swallowed by the perfect one or in His
perfection. Currently any explanation of a reality including ourselves is disguised
and partial. But, when the fullness of time comes, the perfect will totally get
control of the imperfect. Then the perfect atmosphere will be a tool to interpret
the mysterious reality and we will know that we ourselves are known (1Cor 12:13
). Therefore perfect knowledge is the consciousness of ‘self’ in the perfect and
personal reality, which is God Himself.
Unitarianism started through a rationalistic approach to the person of Christ. It
was Faustus Socinias , born in Sienna in the16th c. who adopted a Unitarian
thought. Shortly, this man started by denying the eternal existence of Christ. His
reasoning is given to us by Sanders as follows: “As to Christ; the assertion the
uni-personality of God necessarily has its corollary, a denial of the deity of Christ,
who is reduced to the level of the best of men (Sanders :54).
169
This is where we should sharply dissect Christology and Christian tenets of faith
from such philosophy. The creating power of God is turned to make Him
somewhat emanating or secreting from something and is still trapped in
something as the mind of Humanity. Therefore according to unity thinkers deity is
trapped in human mind that prosperous thinking helps humanity to explore the
divine. God is impersonal principle for the adherents of ‘unity’.
Yet, modern conservative and Biblical Theology puts strong emphasis upon the
uniqueness and the personality of God who is transcendent as well as immanent
where we could apply this to the risen Christ. A direct quote of the ‘Unity’ about
who Christ is goes like;
Christ “the Bible says that ‘God so loved the world that He gave His only son,’ but the
Bible does not here refer to Jesus of Nazareth, the outer man; it refers to Christ, the
spiritual identity of Jesus, whom He acknowledged in all His ways, and brought forth into
His outer; until even the flesh of his body was lifted up, purified, spiritualized and
redeemed—. And we are to follow Him for in each of us is the Christ, the only begotten
Son (Sanders :49).
Dissecting Jesus from Christ is a docetic influence though there is a possibility of
talking about the incarnation nature of Christ which was not part of the Logos in
its pre- existent condition. Yet the incarnation process has not dealt away with
the eternally living Christ. The material nature of Christ employed change during
the incarnation for there was a shift from the divine to the human, but the
qualifying authoritative personality which is His positional deity was never robbed
of Him or changed when He entered Humanity. What then has happened to
Christ when He was born as Emmanuel?
-The timeless entered into time.
-The infinite willingly happened to be finite.
-The divine qualities were set off for the purpose of applying suffering and
sharing human trauma.
-The Logos became flesh, not the Logos added flesh (John 1:1; 1:14; Mark
15:35-38; Phil 2:4-9; 1st John 5:6; 1st John 4:2; 2nd John 7).
170
Chapter Four
EOTC and EEC Christological Literatures and Traditions
Introduction
This Chapter mainly focuses on the EOTC and EEC literatures and traditions
with scholarly works, measured analytically, against objective outlooks from
outside, also meanings from the New Testament and the thoughts of Orthodoxy.
The goal here is to find out things held commonly within the doctrines and
traditions of both denominations with also the differences, on the way evaluating
the commonality with the difference. At the end, the whole analysis hopefully
leads us to find out whether unity is possible or not.
Basic questions in view here are; are the EOTC adherents really our brothers
and sisters in Christ? Are we really heirs together of the hope of glory? Or should
we still be evangelizing them? Is there really a need to seek for a uniting
initiative?
EOTC and EEC theological Review
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church hereafter referred as (EOTC) and the
Ethiopian Evangelical Churches, hereafter referred as (EEC) are the two major
Christian denominations so to say, which are designated as representatives of
Christianity in Ethiopia. The Ethiopian Catholic Church is also part of the
Christian circle in Ethiopia but since the growth of the Catholics in Ethiopia is
limited to one percent only, it is no more influential and therefore not a case for
our study.
Actually Evangelicals are not to be taken as one denomination if we are trying to
see the issue as to what constitutes a denomination. But as long as they are now
having a consortium under the auspices of the Evangelical Churches Fellowship
of Ethiopia (ECFE), we will try to treat them together as one, for the purpose of
171
this study.
On the other end, we also have to agree that the sects within the Ethiopian
Orthodox Tewhado Church are significant. The sects actually don’t consider
themselves as sects, but as part of the big umbrella that we treat the EOTC as
one denomination with all its sects.
Will there be a possibility of unity confessing one faith? What kind of unity are we
aiming at? What do the EOTC-EEC commonly confess still staying in their
respective denominational boundary?
To start with, we may say these denominations have a lot confessional elements
in common. One example is that they have something to share from all the
creeds before Chalcedon (451), which may be capitalized towards the big goal of
unity ahead?
Number one step is identifying the common elements which both hold
consciously or unconsciously within their respective circles. After identifying what
the two entities have in common, we will then pass to the things which might be
set apart for dialogue, then after to the things which might be kept at a distance
for more examination on each side of the spectrum.
What we may do here is that, we first trace to the givens in both denominations.
These are “God; Jesus; the Bible; Church and Salvation”, where both believe as
givens. Some issues which may be set aside for dialogue are “the extra biblical
sources in the EOTC; the role of Angles and Saints including Virgin Mary within
the whole soteriological and ecclesiastical process etc… The rest is the traditional
and experiential mythology most possibly vegetated after destraction done to the
EOTC churches, traditions and textual heritages during Yodit Gudith(a zealous
female Jew-of the Ethioian Felasha/diaspora Jews) in 9th C, also under the
initiation of king Zera Ya’ikqob (1426-1460), which might be temporarily kept at a
distance (Deqiqe Estifanos “Behig Amack”/Sons of the Estefanites “Under God’s
Jury” :26), additionally heretic and cultic images imported during King Suzenios
172
and his son King Facil in 15th Century (Aleqa Kidanewold, 1986 :83).
Doctrines Held in Common
First, there is a sort of spiritual unity which both churches rationally accord. That
is; Christ’s church is “one holy catholic (universal) apostolic church in its spiritual
sense”. The term ‘ Catholic’ is not necessarily referring to the denominational
Vatican Catholics but referring to the church universal based on Eph 4:1-7.
Second, trials of ecumenism may be reinforced for mutual recognition and
fellowship. There are positive initiations from both sides indicating a need for
fellowship and mutual recognition. A research document by revered Nibure Id
Elias Abreha, former secretary for the EOTC patriarch office, presented in the
presence of both patriarchs of the EOTC and ECC, key leaders from all the three
denominations mentioned above, proposed fellowship of the three Christian
denominations in Ethiopia (Orthodox, Catholic, Evangelicals), in a five years plan
and complete unity in the long term plan. This seems a little ambitious but the
initiation is worth considering. We will come back to the detail analysis of this
proposal later in this chapter.
Third, common purposes like development and relief may be embraced in one
consular organizational alliance, still remaining in one’s identity. This research is
not aiming at a total assimilation of one by the other. Practical work out
strategies, that is identifying areas where both entities may see the possibility of
working together may be one of the proposals of this research and be presented
as an initial discussion item in a platform where all leaders are represented.
Detail doctrinal elements will not be part of the discussion agenda at this stage.
Both denominations will be allowed to retain spiritual quality within their identity in
their mother denominations. Fostering unity and cooperation against competition
is the goal of this research.
Having said this we applaud the initiation by the EOTC done on April 8th 2008, in
a research paper presented by Nibure ID Elias Abraha, in the presence of His
173
Excellency, the late patriarch- Bitsue Wo-kidus abune Pawlos, Patriarch head
of Arch Bishops Ze-Ethiopia, Arch Bishop Ze Axum, Wo echege Axum, Ze
menbere Teklehaimanot , late president of the World Council of Churches(WCC);
and his Excellency Aba Birhaneyesus, Patriarch of the Catholic Church in
Ethiopia; also the presence of the higher executives of the Evangelical Church’s
Fellowship of Ethiopia (ECFE), where I was also an eye witness as a board
secretary for the ECFE and the initiatory role to unity form the EOTC side.
We also show our appreciation to the positive response from the Evangelical
Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia (ECFE), allowing the presentations again in its
own general assembly the same year, which I was still an eyewitness. That
presentation was summarized in ten position statements which are summarized
later in this chapter.
The argument here is the EOTC and EEC has a lot in common which might be
picked as a building block for unity than differences. The things which they share
in common will be outlined, hereafter.
Common Monotheistic Views
Number one common bond is that the EOTC and EEC share monotheism with
the same God whom both denominations believe that this God rules over the
whole cosmos. Both denominations name this God as “Egzi-ab-her” meaning ‘a
Father God who governs over all nations’ (Gorgorios-Abba 1999:86). There is no
variation in the world of meaning and the language games naming this God.
Even though they apply worship staying in their own boundaries, both
denominations attribute worship to “Egzi-ab-her”. Sharing one God commonly,
attributing worship to him and only him (Haimanote Abew/Relegion of the Fathers
1995 :1).
The book “Haimanote Abew is an official EOTC commentary document with a
teaching that relegion has to be based on the teaching of the Apostles and the
Prophets of the Old and New Testaments. So religion according to this document
174
is what the Lord has thought in the History of the Gospels, what the apostles
have received and transferred to the next religious fathers, decisions of the three
councils (Nicaea, Costentinean,Ephesian excluding the Chacedonean, but all
teachings from Cyril of Alexandria and fathers who agree with him). What sets
them apart is that the Evangelicals add the Chalcedonies decision. In addition to
this practices of mediations and methods of worship sets them apart. However,
these are simply technicalities.
For example, EOTC believers might be expected to come to the temple for
worship. All must stay within the limits of the outer court all through their
devotions either personally or collectively. The temple has two parts as holy and
holy of holies, where God is believed present inside with his angels, as you might
also see pictures of angels all over the inside walls of the temple building. If one
is ready to stay inside the temple during devotionals and reading of the
scriptures, he/she is expected to take off his/her shoe, as the place is believed to
be inhibited by living angelic spirits with God at the center. This all is done out of
reverence to the presence of “Egzi-ab-her” with his holy angels.
With this the priest who is responsible for prayer and reading of the scriptures
with a little bit of mediation to the repentant sinners, has the right to access all
through the center of the holy of holies, which is not permitted for the ordinary
worshippers. Believers may stay there in deep devotion, many times with much
care and trembling as the angel of God might smite and do harm or kill those
who don’t observe due reverence for “Egzi-ab-her”. That is why it is better for one
to stay in the outer court for meditation, hearing of the scripture reading, and
personal prayer and devotion. This is all motivated by fear of “Egzi-ab-her” and
reverence to him.
Is there anything wrong here? We may evaluate it from the theological and
practical implications aspect. Theologically speaking, observing fear and
reverence to “Egzi-ab-her” is absolutely right, therefore ‘all’, be them from EOTC
or EEC should strictly follow such attitude and apply it during their worship and all
175
through their daily living activities.
Another possible theological aspect here is designating places or boundaries
within the temple system. It is believed that “Egzi-ab-her” is mainly confined
within the holy of holies, the rest space like the Holy and the outer court is left for
the angels to inhibit and for the worshippers to stay in. This destination may help
worshippers making them alert of the glory of “Egzi-ab-her” and care their steps
while they approach the temple court. On the other hand, this may give false
impressions for worshippers as if God is confined only to the center.
A restriction of spaces within the temple court is fine as far as one understands
that God is “a spirit” therefore unrestricted in boundaries, but boundaries only
help alerting one to watch his/her attitudes and all steps during God-man worship
encounter. If this leads the mass to a latent result making them think that “Egzi-
ab-her” is confined within the limits of the temple center only, therefore makes
one lose his/her fear and due reverence to God anywhere outside that center,
this should be redirected through teaching.
Practically speaking, whatever the theological meaning behind may be implied,
the popular view seems to be influenced by the false impressions of confining
“Egz-ab-her” to the limits of the temple. So, millions of EOTC adherents live and
practice whatever they feel is good, as far as they are distanced from the temple
area. When they feel guilty of their acts they come to the temple area and apply
some ritual, mostly aided by the priests, but during fasting and prayer times
within the year or even few times only during their lifetime. May be this is an
indicator to the need of a disorientation of the wrong orientation towards right
worship orientation.
When we come to the evaluation of the practice of worship among the
Evangelicals, as the Ethiopian experience in a majority case shows, there surely
is a center for worship, where Evangelical believers come together for a
corporate worship, apart from some Lutheran congregations, the design of the
worship center is firstly undivided as outer, holy, holy of holies etc… . Secondly,
176
the space is freely accessed by anyone worshipper as the community among
evangelicals is believed to be a community of priests or priesthood of believers.
Theological truth here is that all are priests not some. All have free access to
God with no mediator necessarily. The temple form is another extreme of the
way it is set among the EOTC, as “Egzi-ab-her” is believed to be “a spirit” and is
everywhere, as he is also among fellow worshippers and in the lives of
individuals as well.
Practically speaking, this form seems to lead the mass among the evangelicals to
lose their reverence and fear to “Egzi-ab-her” while they are in corporate worship
at the central place of worship. We don’t see the quality of fear and reverence
visible among the EOTC, as far as the worship practice of the Evangelicals is
concerned.
Therefore sharing the same God who deserves worship, theological and practical
concepts seem to have a little bit difference. But the theological difference is not
unbridgeable as the EOTC confessional stance in actuality understands that God
is everywhere and God is also a “Spirit”. This is still something which both
denominations can affirm together.
On the other hand due reverence to the presence of God which is highly valued
and practiced by the EOTC believers should also be taken by the EEC believers
as a theological truth to be lived out. This shows there is still a possibility of
synthesizing the practice of worship so as the adoring of ‘one God’ will be done
similarly within both denominations.
Mediations
Within the discussion of the worship of one God, the mediational communication
is differently understood in both denominations. The EOTC believes that Mary
has mothered God (Akeqa Kidanewold 1986 :84). The flesh of Christ according
to the EOTC is the flesh of Mary. This flesh has been divinated but not the flesh
of Mary. Therefore the EOTC theology (Lk 1:27-28), makes Mary unique than
177
any other creature in that she is choosen to be a mother of God (Sisay
Wogayehu July 2005 :23).
Thus far the EEC has no significant difference with the theology of the EOTC as
far as Mary is concerned. The EEC in Ethiopia, though with no enough
rationality, rejects that Mary has mothered God. As far as this research is
concerned, core difference lies in the ‘theotokos’ formula and in the
‘soteriological’ formula of both denominations.
Soteriological differences are related with Saintology and Mariology: the EOTC
traditionally believes that a person accesses God through his/her allegiance to
saints and his/her deeds, in addition to his faith in Christ. Whereas, the EEC
officially rejects any allegiance to saints of whatsoever and also affirms that
salvation is by faith alone, like the Lutheran formula of ‘Sola fieda’. This is the
attempt of this research where we need to find a bond point.
While saints and angels including Virgin Mary are believed to have roles of
channeling worship and prayers to the ‘one God’, among the EOTC believers,
EEC believers all in all avoid the saints and angelic beings channeling. The
EOTC concept of including Virgin Mary, saints and angels for mediations is very
much rooted in the reverence aspect, as God is thought to be high and remote,
access should always be through lesser beings. According to EOTC tradition, in
addition on mediatory roles, a mediator must be one who is free of any criminal
activities ( Rom 3:11), and he/she must be one who is free of debts of any kind,
of his own or from his/her parents so that he/she may be considered as
competent guarantor (Chief Dereje&Deqemezmur Beza 2008 :23-33).
Referring to the above criteria’s the EOTC tradition gives the answer for who can
be a mediator; following this line, Saint Mary could be competent, “Holy Angels”
could be competent; Saints who have been heroes in the History of Christ’s
church anywhere, anytime, could be competent; and of course Christ could be
competent.
178
Surprisingly, these teachings are not necessarily natural to all EOTC adherents.
The mass after heretic teachers within the EOTC was little by little swallowed by,
syncretistic tendency to the point that the church seems to silence its standard
doctrinal frame. Yet the standard doctrines never echo these syncretistic
tendencies.
The book “Heretics inside the temple”, written by an EOTC priest, argues against
mediatory teachings saying, most of the above except Christ could not be
competent for mediatory roles. The right reason for this according to the book is
that; firstly all are created except Christ. Secondly, all cannot be everywhere at
the same time, except the risen Christ. Third, Angels act only and only if they are
sent by God not by men. Fourth, mediatory roles of Saints are developed in the
traditions of the EOTC, following a wrong interpretation of Matthew 10:40-42 and
Luke 16:18-31. Fifth attribution of mediatory role to Virgin Mary has developed
out of a wrong interpretation of John 2:3 (Rev Dereje& Deqemezmur Beza 2008
:23-33).
The reverence element on the EOTC side can still be appreciated but this
concept doesn’t seem to have commonness with the theology and practice about
the mediatory process among the EEC. Obviously the EEC shares the reformed
theology of free access or priesthood of all believers towards God only through
one mediator-Jesus.
The EEC theology of free access to God is rooted in the understanding that
Christ has come down to the level of man so as the seemingly high and remote
God may be viewed as immanently close as ever before. As this idea is also
tasty to the EOTC, there we see chance to bridge through a dialogue on the
reason of Jesus’ incarnation and the role of Jesus as a mediator. Referring to the
criteria’s suggested by the EOTC authority above, we may still hope uniting
thought in mediatory roles of Christ, excluding Saints and Mary. The next shared
ground is Jesus.
179
A “Jesus” Shared in Common
Christological Conceptions Within The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado
Church(EOTC).
Christological debates have been all through the history of the church. Different
exegetes responded differently towards the issue of Christology. Adrian Hastings
in his book “A World History of Christianity” said; the theological struggle from
Nicaea 325 to the council of Chalcedon in 451 remains decisive for the evolution
of both doctrine and the geographical shape of Christianity ( Hastings 1999 :47)
Debates between Nestorius and/ or Eutyches or Cyril or one from Chalcedonic or
Monophysite or Miaphysite were very much intertwined in their own historical
milieu and were reactions to the queries of their own settings. The East- West rift
(1054 A.D.) for example is yet unresolved problem in the Continuum. The rift is
also more than east-west, because it has religiously dissected countless local
African ethnic villages. Ethiopia is one of these localities affected by such a rift,
and this rift presents the opportunity to re-examine the Christological stance of
the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC).
Background Analysis
Investigations studied so far focused on the unity of the full humanity and the full
divinity in Christ. As is usually presented in church history it was Nestorius, a
major representative of the Antiochene School of theology, who became
patriarch of Constantinople in 428, failed to endorse the term ‘Theotokos’ and
this led him being openly charged with heresy, which somewhat looked to be
pushed to the idea of two natures and two persons by making a distinction
between the ‘Son of God’ and ‘the Son of Mary’. He also denied that Mary is
Theotokos (Mother of God) (Lane 1984 :34).
Nestorius’ was successfully refuted by St. Cyril of Alexandria (sometime before
+444) as heretic, when the latter argued that the Son of God who had been born
of God in eternity was born of St. Mary in the fullness of time. Cyril’s position was
180
clearly presented in his famous formula: one incarnate nature of God the Word.
Going to the extreme of St. Cyril’s Christology, Eutyches thought of the presence
of only one nature in Christ; this led to the conclusion that the humanity of Christ
was absorbed in His divinity.
With the intention of refuting Nestorianism and Eutychianism, the council of
Chalcedon (A.D. 451) proposed a formula, highlighting that there are two natures
in the one hypostasis of the Word.
The Chalcedonian Churches accepted the formula but for the oriental Orthodox
Churches (Samuel 1977 :247), the definition of Chalcedon appeared to be
contradictory to the Cyrillian formula. As the miaphysis in the formula indicates,
the hypostatic and perfect union of the divinity and humanity in Christ, the
Chalcedonian phrase: “in two natures” does not sound harmonious with Cyril’s
formula. According to Samuel, “the ‘in two natures’ could mean only that God the
Son and the man Jesus were united in the realm of prosopon.” (Harnack Vol 4-
5,1976 :226 and :228). Thus after A.D. 451 a schism occurred between the
Chalcedonians and Oriental Orthodox Churches (non-Chalcedonians).
The Chalcedonies and non-Chalcedonies approach
The Chalcedonies and the non-Chalcedonies put emphasis on different specific
issues leading to unfortunate mislabeling and misunderstandings. The former
underlined the distinctness of the divinity and humanity in Christ, so that they
were considered by the non-Chalcedonies as Nestorians . Since the non-
Chalcedonies highlight the union of the natures in Christ, the chalcedonies
labeled them as ‘monophysites’ and described them as if they agreed with
Eutyches indicating that one of the two natures was absorbed by the other. The
Coptic Church strongly rejected the ‘in two natures’ formula of Chalcedon, and
could be described as ‘Monophysite’.
Modern Christological dialogues have realized that the reason that separated the
churches in the fifth century were more terminological and political than
181
theological. It is historically true that after the death of Constantine and with
Athanasius, who was a strong back up for the Nicaean theology, and who begun
to be conciliatory in his old age, the upholders of Nicaea and the easterners
came together, helped particularly by basil to recognize that it had been
terminology, not belief, that divided them (Hastings :49).
Justin I (518-527 A.D.), after he came to the throne of the eastern empire in 527
undertook an ambitious plan of military re-conquest beginning in North Africa and
moving on to Italy and finally even to Spain. According to Hastings, linked to
Justin’s military campaigns was his overriding ambition to reunify the church, by
either reconciling or abandoning the powerful Monophysite movement which had
its base in the eastern territories and by restoring a friendly understanding with
Rome, under the theological fight between extreme Monophysite theologians
like Sergios the grammarian and Julian of Halicarnassus, who suggested that
the body of Christ remained incorruptible even before the resurrection and the
moderate Monophysite architects like Severos, who taught that there is one
divine nature in Christ, but that he also possessed genuinely human qualities
(Hastings :70).
Hastings concludes his evaluation of them saying; the difference between this
doctrine and that of the chalcedonies rests primarily on their various
understandings of the union of the two natures of Christ in the incarnation
(Hastings :70-71). Justinian attempts of reconciliation anyways remained
unsuccessful as tensions underlying were in no way completely resolved.
As we bring this to the context of EOTC and EEC, theological explanation of the
nature of Christ among the EOTC and EEC is different. The EOTC mostly lines
up with the Eastern thought as we have seen it in chapter one, therefore it is
mostly non-chalcedonies. I said ‘mostly’ because EOTC Christology is more
Cyrillian than true monophesite. As we have seen it in chapter one, the nature of
Christianity in Ethiopia is different from the nature of western Christianity in
Christological and soteriological details.
182
It is true that influences of the East-West Schism during and after the time of
Constantine, with the immense influence of the nine saints described in chapter
one, and the churches’ historical alienation from the western Christianity for the
last 1400 plus years, gave the EOTC a different picture from Christianity in the
west (Chief reverend Dereje Haile and Dekmezmur Beza, Mekdes Yegebu
Menafiqan/Heretics inside the Temple 2008 :1-2).
Christological stance of the EOTC is strictly against Aryanism (Gorgerins/Abba
1998,:87-88, 92), against Euthychianism, but more of Cyrilian and a bit
sympathetic to chalcedonies. Gorgorios referred to church history and said that,
as Arius has believed in the saving power of Jesus but denied Christ’s eternal
deity, it is illogical to believe in his saving power and deny his eternal deity as
these notions are extremely contradictory issues. Gorgorios also argued saying
“how can a created being be able to save created beings (Gorgorios :110). As a
result it may be fair to say that the EOTC bases its doctrinal stance of Christology
on the Nicene 325 A D, against Arius, and the Constantinopolitan, against
Macedonian, and the Ephesian (331 A D), councils. The EOTC recognizes Cyril
as the formative master mind of the council of Ephesus but rejects the decision of
Chalcedon (451).
In EOTC’s incarnational analysis, the flesh and the divine word- the Logos, are
perfectly united without confusion, retaining their identity, like the unity between
the Soul and Body, in humanity under one person. This process is mandatory in
the incarnational analysis of the EOTC, in order for the salvation need might be
met, as God surely became man during the incarnation.
“Unity” according to the EOTC never implies the two former entities lost their
former natures (Te’aqibo meaning no loss of the former identities in the perfect
unity) (Kidanewold 1986 :84) . It rather tells that the two have been united not to
separate, not to remain two, but to be one, retaining their former individual
qualities ( Heretics inside…2008 :127). EOTC’s Christological analysis also
underlines that, in order for the needed perfect unity to be effectual, there needs
183
for some elements to be eliminated. For example, sinful nature is surely a
scandal for the unity, therefore should be eliminated. The logic here is that the
‘Son of God’ cannot be a savior at the same time hold sinful nature from the
human part. This must be done away for soteriological purposes, so as the
innocent lamb may be sacrificed as a ransom to remove the sin of humanity (
Dereje and Deqemezmur…:127). Therefore incarnational analysis of “perfect
Unity/Tewhado” is the central key to understand EOTC Christology.
The Chalcedonies Creed (451 A D), sees a united duality without separation,
retaining their individual natures, getting united through a process of the
conquering role of the person of Word/Logos, with no confusion or mix and with
no losing of the former qualities (Dereje and Deqemezmur…:128) .
But just before Chalcedon, Cyril has articulated the “union”, a little bit differently
from Chalcedon, Saying; “two natures”, coordinated to leave back duality and/or
twinity and became “Unity” towards one, but not to remain two. Against
Euthyches, the unity is without confusion or mixture but just like the unity of the
Soul and Body under one person in a Human being united not to be two, not to
separate anymore, not to be seen divided (Haimanote Abew Quaddamt par
Kidanewold Kifle 1986 :63).
Christological Understandings in EOTC in the Then and Now
The early 5th century Monophysites, having been chased away at the counsel of
Chalcedon in 451 A.D., faced persecution and found refuge in Ethiopia. It is also
reported as the East-West or Catholic-Orthodox Or Anthioch-Alexanderia Or
Rome-Bazentine divorce (Sebhat Le’ ab Meseret 1996 :19). The migrants were
from Egypt and Syria.
Nine monks out of these migrants were aggressively involved in multiple
missionary activities that they were accorded the title as ‘teseatu qedusan’
meaning ‘the nine saints’. Establishing monasteries, applying translations into the
then Ethiopic language and developing the liturgy was their main duty with the
184
propagation of the monophysitic theology which they were abandoned by their
own people (Metzeger, 1997 :221).
The question here is, is the EOTC Monophysitic now or what? Its current status
and nature is accounted a little bit differently than what we see from the above
discussion. For example a paper submitted to a consultation ‘between the
theologians of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches’ held at the
university of Aarhus, Denmark in August 1964, the Very Rev ‘Like Siltanat
Habtemariam Workneh‘ *Habtemariam :1994), the then Dean of Ethiopian Holy
Trinity Cathedral, said something not exactly like but not exactly monophysitic
(___,Habtemariam 1994).
Basic deference as far as our survey is concerned here is that the Monophisite
emphasizes a nature fully swallowed up (Meleqot Sewinetin Wattew) by another
nature to bring one out of the two. Whereas, Miaphysite terming distinctly points
two natures perfectly united without change of their basic natures, without
confusion of whatever elements from each against the thought of a mixture but a
perfect unity of the two to bring one. From the above analysis it seems clear that
the official Christological position of the EOTC currenltly should be termed as
Miaphysite rather than Monophysite.
A reinterpretation of Likeseltanat Habtemariam Workneh’s research is more or
less like: after the union numerical use of ‘two’ for one person is mistaken
analogy or irrational. But it is logical to address ‘Him’ as one rather than two. In
the Incarnation process when one speaks of the flesh, he/she duly speaks of the
divine, and the vice versa. Co-equality and con-substantiality uncompromised,
with the two natures perfectly united, and at the same time preserved their
properties. To quote him directly;
Incarnation is a divine mystery. The two natures of Godhead and manhood are perfectly
united and Christ is thus one person and one nature from two natures. Christ is one
incarnate nature of God the Word. After the union it is impossible to speak of Christ as
being in two natures. By the union of the nature in the Incarnation the two natures
became one nature, the natures being united without separation, without confusion, and
without change. Neither of the two natures was assimilated by the other, the properties of
the Devine Word was assimilated by the flesh and those of the flesh to the Divine Word.
185
The Logos revealed Himself in our flesh and became man like us. He did all things that
man does with the exception of sin (John 8:46). And at the same time was truly God. He
is a God-man. He is co-equal and consubstantial with the father in his Godhead. He is
perfectly united with us in the union being from two modes of life into one. The union of
the Word with the flesh took place in the womb of the Virgin Mary. St John says:”the
Word was made flesh…” In the same way we can say that also the flesh was made
divine. The attributes of the flesh can be given to the Divine word and vice-versa.
However the properties of each nature are preserved without change after the union.
Therefore, we believe that Christ is one person and one nature, and thus is both divine
and human. We speak of one because of the union. We hold “Miaphysis”, composite
nature, one united nature. Again, the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect man and perfect God.
The word “perfect” closes the door to all quibble and prevarication. We accept both unity
and duality in Christ who in acting performed as one. Christ, in whom humanity and
divinity were united in one person and one nature, was crucified on the cross. The divine
word without being united with the flesh cannot be crucified and subjected to death. If, on
the other hand, only the human body was crucified, He could not save the world
(*Habtemariam :1994).
As the EOTC Christology affirms both unity and duality in Christ, but also says
“who in acting performed as one”, we don’t see much difference here as
compared to the chalcedonies confession which said “two natures in one
person”.
The EOTC Christological tradition never loses rationality but when it comes to
scriptural facts there remains unresolved questions. For Example, what was the
magnitude of the divine property within the flesh after the union done in the
womb of Mary? How much was the divine heat in the human Jesus, during his
earthy mission? If it is just equality and consubstantiality, how about texts like,
Mark 15:39 and Philippians 2:4-7? EOTC confession said, “Perfect union of the
two natures yet never lost their original properties in the union”. Does this mean
the flesh is totally flesh with no change and the divine just divine with no change?
If so what is then the incarnation? Abune Meqarios said, the fleshly heat was
totally subsumed by perfect unity and the divine glory was totally subsumed to
the flesh because of the perfect unity ( Meqarios;Mengede Semay/Heavens way
:46).
On the same line, Abba Hailemariam Melese Ayenew, in his Doctoral
Dissertation presented at the University of South Africa (Hailemariam 2009 :21),
refined the official Christological doctrine of the EOTC in his way of designation,
saying ontological explanation of the EOTC Christology is based on the
186
theological emphasis of Cyril of Alexandria, who so said Christ is one incarnate
nature of God the Word, at the same time against Nestorian interpretation, who
so distinguished the two natures, and even more against Eutyches explanation,
who made the two natures absorbed in just one during the incarnation union.
According to Abba Hailemariam, Monophysitism is a labeling of the
Dyophysitists to line up EOTC’s position with Eutyches. However, EOTC’s
Christological position rather bases itself in the historical understanding of Cyril of
Alexandria, which should be termed as one united nature, mia-physis” in
preservation of the properties of the natures rather than Monophysitism.
Another scholar of the EOTC church has also released a book on the same title (
Mebratu Kiros Gebru :2010), and has said EOTC’s Christology should be termed
as miaphysite christology, which highlights the one-united (Tewahedo) nature of
the Word of God incarnate. Besides, the book proves the orthodoxy of Ethiopian
Christology, demonstrating how it is based on the Christology of St. Cyril of
Alexandria (+ A.D. 444). In all this discussions the church retains the Theotokos
issue which may be the point of departure from EEC Christological
understanding.
If we try to analyze what we’ve seen so far, it seems that EOTC’s proposal only
borrows terminology from Euthichianism-monophysis, in that it stressed one
nature against what diaphysites might believe, as Christ having two natures.
However, it is still away from monophysitism in that it stressed the preservation of
the two natures without change after the union, and this is close to diaphysis
theology, which underscores one perfectly united nature and one person from
two and is both divine and human.
From the above analysis it is clear that the official Christological position of the
EOTC should be termed as Miaphysite rather than Monophysite. Basic deference
as far as our survey is concerned here is that the Monophysite emphasizes a
nature fully swallowed up by another nature to bring one out of the two. Whereas
Miaphysite terming distinctly points to two natures perfectly united to bring forth
187
one nature, without change of their basic natures, without confusion of whatever
elements from each, against the thought of a mixture but a perfect unity of the
two to bring one against the duality in unity of Chalcedon.
The Theotokos as far as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church literatures explain says;
The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of
the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the
Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the
original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This
unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s womb. As a
result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the Virgin’s womb,
one nature was formed out of both: “The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos” as St.
Cyril called it (Bitsue Wo Qidus Abune Meqarios-;1993 :22).
Questions still needed to be addressed are like: Does the Holy Spirit need to
purify the blood and flesh, for just purifying purpose? This line obviously leads to
the sin inheritance issue. According to the above analysis Christ never inherited
original sin. The question is who else has inherited sin? If all inherited sin, can we
say Christ is fully human? Is there really a sin to be inherited? If so what would
be the fate of new born and under aged children? Some say that if others believe
about them and apply Eucharistic duties they will be saved. Others say no but
faith is a natural gift that children are spared. Still others say there is no chance
for a child dying before an age he/she believes.
All options above lead to irrational and arbitrary conclusions. It might be better to
see it differently. None of us have inherited sin but the fallen or the weak nature
with its will power. The same is true for Christ. No sin inherited but He has
inherited the weak fallen nature which could be exposed to any kind human
weakness and temptations. That’s how we say he shared our very nature (Phil
Ch 2:5-11).However, Christ never yielded to temptations or sin (Heb 5:6).
Therefore a sin which should be counted sin is the one (all humanity including
children of any age) done as a result of ones own actions. All children, incapable
of any actions, are at the age of innocence like Adam before the fall, therefore
are automatic holders of eternal life if they die before consciousness to any sin.
These questions are discussed as reinforcement to the Christological-
188
soteriological unity.
Therefore, we may say the EOTC Christological formula follows Cyril than
Chalcedon. “Unity/Tewhado” in the EOTC teaching, means that the divine took
the nature of humanity owning it and the human also took the divine nature (only
in the case of Christ), leaving back its former duality, towards oneness( not
necessarily employing one nature, as the natures are united but not assimilated).
This incarnational explanation of the EOTC, is called Mia-Physis, not Monophysis
(Heretics inside…:128).
This analysis, according to the EOTC, has Biblical bases. It is true that God is
eternally God not to be man and also man is created man not to be God. But, the
EOTC elaboration says, against the natural law, Isaiah 9:6 affirms that, a child is
born with a mighty name. This prophesy seems against the natural law of “man
be man: God be God”, and also seemingly contradictory as a “sovereign God”
and “a child” are seen woven together in the text.
The EOTC says this seeming contradiction or paradox gets resolved only and
only in the EOTC “Unity/Tewhado”, explanation , where the Christology of Unity
gives chance for God to become man(Jn 1 :14), and for man to become God
(only in the person of Christ) (Isa 7:14). This is the ancient and confessional
Orthodox incarnational analysis, underlying that the Son of God, while getting
united with man, during the incarnation, twin-ness has disappeared and the son
became “one Son”, not “two Sons”, “one person” not “two persons”. This will be
true only and only through the mystery of “Unity/Tewhado” (See Heretics inside
the Temple :135).
EOTC never ever identified itself with Monophysitism; EOTC rather calls herself
as Miaphysite which the council of Chalcedon had condemned as heretical
anyways. Following Cyril’s articulation, the EOTC confesses that the divine took,
only the flesh, not soul and spirit, which has directly came down with the
Word/Logos, therefore the EOTC accepts both unity and duality in Christ who in
acting performed as one (Aymro and Joachim, 1970 :95). This analysis helps to
189
avoid the “sin inheritance” disjunction, as the divine soul and spirit is free from
any taint of sin (Heretics inside the Temple :136).
Sadly, this Christological analysis in the EOTC has remained only confessional,
among few intellectual clergies and is facing worse degeneration in the process
of History, through the unguided practices of the mass under the influence of
state men like the Zera Yai’kob (1434-68) , Monk Teklehaimanot (1706-1721)
etc (Atiya Aziz S., 1968 :148). The table under may be used to clarify the distinct
theology in each category.
Monophisyte Christology Miaphysite Christology Chalcedonies Christology Remark
the two former entities lost
their former natures during
the incarnation
the two former natures
retained their former
individual qualities during
the incarnation
the two former natures
retained their former
individual qualities during the
incarnation
Miapysite and Chalcedon
are the same at this point
Euthychian Cyrillian Chalcedonian Cyril was the hot bed
source for Chalcedon
therefore very close with
Chalcedon than Euthyces
Incarnation analysis of
Mixture as far as losing
former identity and quality
Incarnational analysis of
“perfect Unity/Tewhado” is
the central key to
understand EOTC
Christology.
a united duality without
separation, retaining their
individual natures is central
key to chalcedinian
Christology
Duality or twinity is left
back in Miaphysite
theology, yet still
completely different from
monophysite theology; but
twinity or duality is
retained in chalcedonies
theology
This is the monophysite
theology from ancient
underlying the Son of
God, while getting united
with man , during the
incarnation, twinness has
disappeared and the ‘Son’
became “one Son” not
“two sons” “one person”
not “two persons”. This
will be true only and only
through mixture and loss
This is the ancient and
confessional Orthodox
incarnational analysis,
underlying that the Son of
God, while getting united
with man, during the
incarnation, twinness has
disappeared and the son
became “one Son”, not “two
Sons”, “one person” not
“two persons” yet retaining
the former natural qualities
The Chalcedonies Creed
(451 A D), sees a united
duality without separation,
retaining their individual
natures, getting united
through a process of the
conquering role of the person
of Word/Logos, with no
confusion or mix and with no
losing of the former qualities
How will oneness be
maintained if duality is
maintained? Miaphysitism
challenges. Chalcedon
settled it through the ‘one
uniting person’
conquering both natures.
How can the former
qualities be retained if
twinity has disappeared?
Chalcedon challenges.
190
of the former identity intact. This will be true only
and only through the
mystery of “Unity/Tewhado”
Miaphysite settled it
through the ‘perfect unity’
model
What we have seen so far is a Christology of EOTC, on the confessional level
only. But we may say there were three antithetic forces in the formation of EOTC
general Christology. One is the confession of the faithful fathers, under Cyril’s
formula, as we discussed above and the other two traditional interpretations are
from lay group who are simultaneously backed up by state officials.
For example, a group called “Qibat /Annointing” believed and thought that the
“Word/Logos” was changed to be man to the point of losing everything from the
divine, then got fully united by the unction or the anointing of the Holy Spirit, to
keep intact with divinity while he was getting baptized in the Jordan river (Aymro
and Joachim 1970 :150).
Against the “Qibat” teaching, the faithful fathers re-acted saying; if we say “the
Word was changed”, this is against the basic impassibility of the divine Word/God
and opposes the continuous distinction between the divine and the human
natures in Christ, therefore, charged the “Qibat” group as heretics. But since the
group was backed up by the followers of the Monks like Ewostatewos, their
teaching flourished dominating the Orthodox Christological understanding,
particularly in Gojjam area, northwest Ethiopia (Aymro and Joachim 1970 :152).
After this another group of monks developed the “Sost Lidet”/Three Births, theory
called as the Tsegga/Grace group. This group was from Debra Libanos
Monastery, the monastery of Tekla Haimanot. The three births are his eternal
birth from the Father; His temporal birth from the Virgin Mary and his third birth
through the unction of the Spirit. According to this group, it was during the third
birth Christ earned the redeeming grace, either given to him in the womb of Mary
or during his baptism, therefore called as “Yetsega Lij”/ Son of Grace (Aymro and
191
Joachim 1970 :153).
Through time, any resistance of new teachings was getting backed by armed
forces that, the “anointing” and the Tsega (Grace) group were somewhat
replaced by another group call “Kara”. They are named as “kara” because they
were said slaying their contenders using their sharp knifes.
Therefore, the conservative Cyrilian Christology got somewhat swallowed by
heretic groups under the political covers from the then state men like emperor
Theodore II 1855-68, Emperor Yohannis IV 1872-89, Menelik II 1889-1913,
Menelik’s grandson Lij Eyasu who embraced Islam, Menelik II’s daughter
Zawditu-a crowned empress with the then 25 years old grandnephew Ras Teferi
Mekonnen, as her regent at the beginning but later ruled the country as the last
emperor Haile Sillassie I from 1930-1974 (Baur :157).
The current position of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC), and
scholarly articulations evolving from within will be examined against others who
see the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) differently. More analysis
will be done in the sixth chapter which focuses on the official literatures of the
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC) and the Ethiopian Evangelical
Churches (EEC).
In the mean time we may assuredly say that the same Christ is shared among
the EOTC and EEC, except a little bit of variations in the explanation of the
nature of Christ as we have seen it compared and contrasted in the table above.
Taking the Miaphisis doctrine as the official Christological teaching of the EOTC,
we should then move to the study of the commonality and/ particularity of the
persons of the Trinity so as to see the relationship of the divine versus
incarnation.
192
A Triune God shared in Common: Commonality and particularity of the
persons of trinity according to the EOTC tradition
Trinitarian concept of the EOTC is very deep as emphasized in the book Sillassie
Betewhado. Meseret Sebhat Le ab in his treatment of the prolegomena, treated
the EOTC doctrinal issues in seven main sections like: (1-’Egzi ab her n
Maggnet/Accessing God’,2- ’Ye eg zi ab her Helwete Melekot-Gebre
bahriy/Ontology and Function of God’, 3-‘Sillassie/Trinity’, 4-Ye Sillassie
Wuhedet Mestere/Mystry of Trinitarian Unity’, 5-‘Menfes Kidus e’ na Wold, ke ab
Se lemewtatu, ab gen kemanem kemenem alwetam/ Holy Spirit and the Son
Coming out from the Father but the Father from no one from nothing’, 6-‘Ye
Sillassie A kalat Alemelewawet/Non interchangeability of the functional names
and persons of the Trinitarian bodies’,7-And Fekad/One common will).
For the purpose of this research we may at least focus on major section five-
“Holy Spirit and the Son, coming out from the Father but the father from no one
or nothing”, major section six-“Non interchangeability of the Functional names
and persons of the Trinitarian bodies”, and major section seven- “One common
will”.
Main reasons to select these portions from the entire book is that one way or the
other we will get Christological understandings and reflections of the EOTC
within these details.
The nature and glory of the Son is treated in detail in section five of the book.
The Son is aphorized as the Sun’s ray- coming out from the Sun. Explaining
more, paragraph five says; ‘the Son’ is the begotten one with no predator or
successor. It then goes on to say ontologically ,the Son is with the same nature
to the Father and these absolute oneness has come because of begetting
relations, for the Son is born of the Father not created. If the Son is created no
one can say He was begotten. The begetting of the Son is a begetting of nature
and therefore ontological identity affirmed.
193
The analysis above begins interpreting the nature of the Son from the text of Jn
1:18. Is this a retrospective check or a prospective projection about the nature of
the Son? As it is natural to ask so far as to what about of the pre-incarnate Son’s
substance, the argument goes back retrospectively to the actualization of the
Son in no time. This occurrence is part of Gods decree that it has nothing to do
with creation issues. Most obviously creation is an occurrence in time. But the
event of the Son is an occurrence in no time but eternity. In eternity the Father
has begotten the Son therefore the Son shares eternality and the same nature
with the Father.
The begetting process has also nothing to do with the incarnation process.
Therefore John 1:18 in the analysis of the document above affirms the Son- ship
of Christ from eternity without details of the incarnation nature of Christ. Having
agreed to the absolute oneness of the Father with the Son from eternity, we may
say the above argument said nothing concerning the substantial nature of Christ
in between the imaginary walls of incarnation and resurrection and therefore is
deficient concerning the details of the incarnation. Therefore, EOTC’s
incarnation Christology is very deep theology so far as the above analysis is
concerned but EOTC’s ontological Christology is well argued in the above
analysis.
Major section six speaks concerning the Non interchangeability of the Functional
names and persons of the Trinitarian bodies. The expressed reason here is that
the Father is the begetter therefore not the begotten and the Son is the begotten
therefore not a begetter and the Holy Spirit comes out or happens from both the
Father and the Son therefore not Himself the Father and also not Himself the
Son.
With this we may still find only the non-interchangeability of the functional names
in the decree function of begetting, being begotten and coming out. At the same
time the positional document of the EOTC only affirms the Trinitarian separate
persons in eternity than to the nature of the incarnate Christ in between the walls
194
of incarnation and resurrect on (Bitsue Wo kidus Abune Maqarios 1993 :21).
When we come to major section seven, it talks about the common will in between
the Father the Son and the Spirit. Surprisingly this portion discussed the
incarnation nature of Christ. It said ”the Son became flesh and dwelt with us,
born in a manger, born in the image of a slave (be araya gaber), born as a baby,
escaped to Egypt, suffered in wilderness, famine, drought and needs, all human
miseries have happened upon his fragile humanity“. It then continues to say “this
Son was the Word, and was with God, and was himself God, everything has
happened by him and through him, who was the only begotten Son of God. But
his pastoral nature made him Human“.
The ‘common will’ is not elaborated in a substance manner in the above analysis.
The ‘will’ here is not something material and measured materially; it rather is all
about absolute consent where the will of the Father is the will of the Son and the
will of the Holy Spirit. The source of the will is neither the Father nor the Son nor
the Holy Spirit but it is there eternally common and naturally unanimous.
The nature and the experience of the incarnate Christ, according to this book, are
like anyone of us with no specialty. The mystery of incarnation never goes to
explain something beyond the pastoral nature of God to save and protect
humanity.
In general Christology is treated independently in the above argument; one in the
pre-incarnate stage and two in the incarnate stage. The mystery of the nature of
Christ in between the walls of the incarnation and the resurrection, compared or
contrasted to the pre-incarnate or post resurrected scenarios seems safely
ignored in the above analysis.
A little review of the ancient Christological mind frames is good in order to
articulate basic variations between East and West. Lule Mel-aku, one of the key
scholars of the EOTC also a specialist teacher of church history at the Holy
Trinity Cathedral, says the variations had their root in ancient Gnostic philosophy.
195
He even said Christological heresies and disparities vegetated out of Gnostic
influences where God and every creation is understood dissected into two as evil
and good, material-immaterial and so on. This logic, according to him, has led
some to believe that divinity should always go to the Father only but not the Son
while he was human. Christ Jesus dynamically shifted to the divine, right after he
finished his earthly mission. This logic gave birth to Aryanism, Arius from North
Africa, now Libya, in 318 A D was the founder of such thought.
Obviously Aryan controversy was dealt at the council of Nicaea 325 A D, in the
presence of 318 scholars with the king Constantine, where the scholars argued
from scriptures that the Son was originally God. In addition to this basic
questions to be treated are: Where do the Ethiopian Evangelicals stand in their
theoretical conceptions of the nature of Christ in between the incarnation and
resurrection? East or West? What was the substantial nature of the incarnate
Christ, just in between the incarnation and resurrection? What are the
justifications? How has the above question influenced the EOTC-EEC
Christological dialogue? What could be the possible dialogue links between the
EOTC-EEC so as to bring them together on the same flat?
Trinity was not necessarily the divisive factor between the EOTC and EEC from
the then up until now. So we may assuredly say that possibility of unity is very
visible if such a research is set as an agenda on the table.
The Holy Spirit shared in Common
Understanding of the Holy Spirit is basically the same within the theology of the
EOTC and EEC, as far as confessions of both denominations are concerned.
The Holy Spirit is the third person of the trinity as clearly confessed in the
apostolic creed which both denominations share together. This Holy Spirit, both
denominations believe, comes out to renew the face of the earth, and is the
person who descended on the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). This
belief commonly shared by both denominations, makes us to assuredly say that
possibility of unity is very visible if such a research is set as an agenda on the
196
table.
A Bible shared in Common (at least major part 81.5 %)
Orthodox Christianity was a unifying factor as much as majority of Ethiopians
found in it their national identity. Core problems among the mass and few EOTC
clericals, as outlined in the book (heretics inside the temple :12), are firstly Bible
Phobia, which says if one reads the Bible he or she may lose his/her religious
practices. Secondly, if one reads the Bible at all, it must be a simple and shallow
reference with no deep examination. Third; too much dependence on extra
canonical literatures than the Bible with the 66 books. Fourth, the theology of
mediators and mediator ship; the case here is intercessory roles of one for the
other (See the Book of Grammar and Dictionary; By Chef Kidanewold Kifle).
Such intellectual observation from within the EOTC is a spring board for a
discussion on ‘unity’ as an agenda item. It is not the evangelicals who identified
the problem of Bible phobia, or a shallow reading of the Scriptures, or a problem
of high dependence on extra biblical sources than the Bible itself. These items
are identified as deviations from the truth by EOTC scholars themselves.
If so, why is it difficult to sit together and settle that the Bible which both
denominations believe as inerrant- inspired and with full authority for life and
practice, is central to all of us? Yes, when we say “the Bible”, what the EOTC has
as a content of the Bible (81 books), is different from what the Evangelicals in
Ethiopia has as a content of the Bible ( 66 books). But, we may primarily
capitalize on what unites us (81.5 %) than what divides us(only 18.5%),
therefore, see with how much of the contents we agree and set aside temporarily
those books which are not helpful for commonality and unity.
According to Abba Asrat Getnet-Wisdom scholar in EOTC, the EOTC actually
recognizes only the 66 books of the Bible as inspired. The rest are just added as
additional references. The probem is, this stand of the church is not
communicated enough to the mass that the mass generally says the EOTC
197
official documents are 81 (o.i., July 26, 2013).
Brief Survey of Christological Conceptions among the EEC
The Ethiopian Evangelical Churches are around 31 denominations united under
a consortium known as Evangelical Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia (ECFE).
ECFE is the umbrella in which most evangelicals are represented formally
through it, in a simply stated ‘credo’ as those who share the same faith in one
God who revealed Himself in trinity; also believe that Christ is the only way to
salvation and believers have never contributed to their salvation, whereas are all
expected to persevere in faith. ECFE is a member of the World Evangelical
Alliance (WEA), and African Evangelical Association (AEA) (_____Evangelical
Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia 2012 :2)
Evangelicals in Ethiopia confessionally believe in one Holy Catholic Apostolic
Church and therefore are organized to foster unity in diversity. The ECFE has
also 61 Para church associates, some of them Christian ministries and some of
them Para church Christian organizations. Since there are also denominations
which are not formally linked to the ECFE but are by default members, for the
faith they confess, we prefer the abbreviation EEC than the ECFE just for the
consumption of this thesis.
The EEC Christological conception is cofessionally Chalcedonian. This is
because many can easily articulate the nature of Christ was with two natures and
one person all through the incarnation and the resurrection and after.
Nonetheless, deep examinations rather imply another fact.
When we try to uncover the wrapping, Christological conceptions among EEC
seem standing neither chalcedony nor non- chalcedonic but somewhere in
between. This we say as a result of a survey made in a written interview
questions made to some 120 seminarians in Addis, whom we think can be
representatives of the EEC.
198
Rational of our selection was first of all, diversity of their traditional background,
Lutheran; Baptist; Mennonite; Pentecostal, Presbyterian etc…; Second their
seminarian background so that we might gain easy articulation of deep
Christological thoughts; third the nature of the interview questions (qualitative)
where the interviewee is made not to be conditioned as much as possible, and is
also made not to know what is expected of him/her till the end through open
ended discussions.
Well some may say this can never replace the status of the mass on Christology
issues. But it should be clear that it is hard to identify the Christological
understanding of the mass which ever line they align themselves; as far as
experience tells us, the theology of the mass is a ‘doing type’ than a theory type,
a dynamic type than a fixed type, experiential type that doctrinal type.
With this presupposition the questions set were totally nine focusing on the role
of the trinity in the creation process; the particular role of the trinity in the
reciprocal union of Eucharistic duties from humanity to God and from God to
humanity; the exclusive role of the Son during creation- if we can talk exclusivity
at all; the exclusive role of the father in the incarnation process; how the trinity
might have shared ,in the incarnation, the suffering and the Eucharistic sacrifice
of Christ; whether Christ has solely carried the suffering and the Eucharistic
duties or not? If yes what was the role of the father and the Holy Spirit? The
difference between Monophysite, Diaphysite and Miaphysite
theology/Christology and which one they personally accept and why? If there is
any theological difference worthy to dye for? etc etc ….
These questions aimed not only for the consumption of this chapter alone but for
the consumption of all the research. Yet we will select the responses given for
the questions like; if Christ has solely carried the suffering on the cross or not
and how; the difference between terminologies like Diaphysite/ Monophysite/
Miaphysite and where the interviewee stands; Why? Out of these, our
expectation was to find out the confessional stances, as to where we may line up
199
naturally as EEC and if there is a need to die for;
In the responses to the question whether Christ has solely suffered on the cross
or the Father and the Holy spirit has shared him some way; Out of 120
interviewee 74.28% responded ‘Yes’ Christ has solely carried the suffering by
himself with no participation of the divine. 7.14 responded yes and no as if the
divine has somewhat shared the suffering either through knowledge or through
decision and encouragement yet the pain was totally upon the human Christ. As
to me this group has no difference from the first rank. But the rest 18.57 said God
was there energizing the human Jesus on the cross. This notion was made clear
as some within this group has have literally said that God sent an angel to
support Christ.
When we come to apply these responses so as to trace the Christological
whereabouts of the Evangelicals, if Christ (his human nature only) has solely
carried the agony on the cross, this therefore implies that two natures were
either acting independently or only the human nature was reactive starting the
incarnation up until crucifixion. This leads to either Nestorian Christology or
kenotic Christology.
If Christ was someway energized with divine power from inside or supported by
external power in His suffering on the cross, this idea more tilts to either
monophysitism for the two natures are seen mixed or still kenoticism because the
human Jesus was supported externally by another power.
Setting aside the confessional Christology of the EEC for the time being, the
practical Christological conception of Christology among representative
Evangelicals so to say, is neither clearly East nor clearly West nor in between but
a third view of some type which should be left for further study.
Is there something to die for in such a thought? How about the current attitude
from both sides? Are the existing Christological differences between the EOTC
and the EEC worth dying for?
200
Next questions to them were like;
1- Ethiopian Orthodox Church Christological position is neither Diaphysite
nor Monophysite, as far as their claims now but Miaphysite as to current
scholarly literatures of the EOTC. What do you think is the difference
between these three terminologies? Which one do you personally believe
is Biblically sound and theologically viable?
2- Do you see a theological difference worthy to die for or it is just a
terminology play?
3- Two natures in one person, One nature and one person from two, Two
natures perfectly united without change of identity, without confusion, with
no mixture. Do you see any difference here? If so what and how?
For the first question out of 120 interviewee, (these were all seminarians
supposed to have a better understanding than the ordinary mass), 61.43%
supported the Diaphysite theory. 27.14 % were not clear in their stand, seems
confused. 8.57% supported the Miaphysite theory. 1% the supported both the
Miaphysite and the Diaphysite. 1% supported the Monophysite theory. 1%
rejected all theories as meaningless at all.
A little check deep into the same group to see if they really believe in what they
meant, by asking them the 2nd and 3rd question (if this is worthy to die for as far
as dissecting us); also the real difference between the three theories’ shows that;
for these questions; 62.8 % said there is nothing to die for but the difference is
clear. The rest 37.2% said it is a theological difference therefore it is not only
worthy to die for but necessary to fight it by all means.
Those who replied ‘yes and no’ with no clear stand were examined if the issue is
worthy to die for; 63.15% out of this group said it is not worthy to die for. The rest
36% said it is worthy to die for.
As we can see from the above analysis Evangelicals are as diversified as their
201
nature when it comes to Christology issue. Majority of them confess chalcedonic
but the above data’s proved that deep inside they are somewhere in between the
chalcedonies and the non-chalcedonies. Therefore we cannot say the Ethiopian
evangelicals clearly line with the Chalcedonies (451 A. D) formula.
But one thing is very clear. Majority of the respondents from evangelicals side do
not believe that these Christological theories are worthy to die for as far as
igniting animosity between the EOTC and EEC.
If the EOTC and EEC have major pillars of doctrines sharing together, why did
they remain separated? May be the division is caused with a language game,
meaning the missing of the interpretative center. If one makes Mary the center of
interpretation the other might have made Christ the center of interpretation. On
the confessional level, both EOTC and EEC believe that Mary is the mother of
Christ as far as the humanity is concerned. Both believe that Christ is the only
begotten Son of God from eternity. Confessional level, both believe that Christ is
the center of salvation. Therefore the interpretation should be centered at “Christ”
than anyone else. Is unity possible? Chapter six of this research will deal with the
possibility of unity between the EOTC and EEC.
202
Chapter Five
Reflective Epistemological Critique
Introduction
This Chapter attempts to polemically argue for or against contextual response to
the readings and crucial contextual questions concerning the status and nature of
Christ during his earthly ministry. The epicenter for all arguments so far, from
Chapters 1-4 revolves on the issue whether Christ should be the center faith;
also around the controversial statement that “two natures in one person” led to a
hypostatic controversy of the human and the divine or the vice versa. We have
seen these from its Biblical roots; historical perspectives; theological
conceptions, also contextual highlights.
Our discussion of the Bible concerning the hypostatic union of the natures of
Christ during the incarnation was an exegesis of the Gospels, specifically John,
the synoptic Gospels and Pauline writings. In our analysis of the Gospel of John
we said that, first of all and most likely, whatever Christology John might have
suggested, is naturally geared by the post resurrection scenario. Secondly our
cause was not necessarily the problem of the New Testament community in the
first two hundred years. Therefore, we might find very little in the New Testament
concerning the nature of Christ in between the incarnation and the resurrection.
Having this as a frame, we have to admit that trying to put the hypostatic union
into a simple rational box is an infeasible task to our time as it was infeasible
during the pioneer years of Christianity, the first five hundred years. Keener’s
contextual exegesis seems fair as he said it was cultural for the Greeks divinizing
heroes as it was cultural for conservative Jews under the dogmatic Shema (Deut
6:4) (Keener 2003 :299). This tension was evident in the incarnation treatments
of John 1:1-14, 18.
203
Analysis
The beginning verses of John Chapter 1:1-4 narrated the God-Logos who was
‘coming out of God’ with a functional duty (creation and salvation). Its parallel is
the creation tone (Gen 1:1), which is more functional than ontological. The
‘Word’, who is God (ontologically), was coming (functionally) to this world. The
Word ‘coming out’ was also ‘becoming’ man (Jn 1:14). What is natural is natural
therefore no change; what is ontological will remain ontological. However, what is
functional or relational is adjustable to any context therefore the becoming of the
Word into flesh (Incarnation) was made possible. As we find it in the discussions
of Fauset and David, after each verse, then, the reader must say, “It was He who
is thus, and thus, and thus described who was made flesh.” (Fauset A.R; and
David: 1997). It was him ‘the God, the eternal, the unchangeable’ as we find in
Turner also (Turner :17) that θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος meant the same thing as ὁ λόγος
ἦν ὁ θεός; who became flesh.
“Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament” puts it saying ‘and the Word
became flesh, Cf. ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο (Jn. 1:14). Following this line of thought,
John 1: 18 says, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God…. . “
At the conclusion of his prologue to the Gospel, the evangelist states
emphatically, “God… [First in the Greek word order] no one has ever seen.” 1:18.
Genesis of this discussion should affirm that it is the Word who was God, who is
made flesh. How can a God become flesh, will be the core element of the
discussion to come next. The language game in ancient New Testament Greek,
ἐ-κένωσεν transl. He stripped himself, aor. -νόω empty. λαβών by taking, aor2
2 A superior figure 2 denotes strong or 2nd aorist (or future or perfect).
204
ptc λαμβάνω take. ὁμοίωμα7
likeness (Rom 8:3) indicates simply that in every
respect he was like a man. γενόμενος aor 2 ptc γίνομαι be born; (v.8) Become.
σχῆμα7
refers to his ‘at hand’ appearance, dat. Of respect §53. εὑρεθείς aor. ptc
pass. εὑρίσκω, pass. be found to be. With μορφή, ὁμοίωμα, σχῆμα note the
different vbs: ὑπάρχων (divine nature), λαβών (human nature), γενόμενος
(likeness of man), εὑρεθείς (appearance).
The translators here gave the literal meanings of the words “he kenusen-stripped
off and genumai- became or be born”. How is the word genumai to be
translated? It literally means “became” rather than just an outward appearance or
of some kind of addition of nature to. The translation seems to mean that the Son
was ‘stripped off’ his divine prerogatives if we take the word he kenusen and the
same Son became a full man, if we take the meaning of Genumai literally to
mean “become”.
In the first place there is no one assertion in this research saying that Christ is
not God. This research affirms that Christ is the same yesterday, today and
forever. But His immutability doesn’t mean that His power would not be restricted
for the actuality of suffering and death. God is immutable at the same time able
to limit His power as he became /Genumai/ flesh.
What is at this venture is, how has the unity of the divine and the human been
managed, be it in church history and in the Christology of the EOTC? It is true
ptc participle, participial
7 neut. nouns ending in -μα
v. verse
dat. dative
pass. passive (voice)
205
that Nestorius favored a simple moral union of the natures remaining distinct.
Euthyches on the other extreme so mixed the natures forming a new “one”. Cyril
a little bit in the middle said the unity is neither simple moral nor a total mix but
perfect union like the soul and body. Chalcedon (451) is not so far from Cyril as
the two natures are united but not as far as Cyril, saying they are perfectly united
or not as far as Nestorius’s distinction towards twinity.
As we bring a comparison of Christology in the theological doings of the EOTC,
the church follows Cyril, asserting the perfect unity against twinity, as God the
Son has taken flesh from Mary, where the two are perfectly united as to make the
human- divine and the divine- human (Maqarios Abba 2001 :46). In the EOTC
Christology there is nothing missed by the human from the divine also nothing
missed by the divine from the human. The divine heat is never minimized
because of the perfect union with human; the human weakness is never
swallowed by the divine because of the perfect union with the divine. The divine
has made the human glorious also the human has made the divine truly human
(Gorgorios Abba 1999 :89). This thinking, according to the EOTC serves the
soteriological purpose making the divine part of the human.
Even though this is the official teaching, there are significant group named as the
‘Qibat’ believing the union has degraded the divine to zero level making the new
nature in need of ‘unction’ by the Holy Spirit for His ministerial empowerment.
Other in-groups known as the Tsega with a little bit modification said the unction
happened while Jesus was getting baptized (Gorgorios 1999 :87).
The question is, if the divine is with full heat within the incarnation, how can the
humiliation and crucifixion be a reality? To say it has been made zero, may not
be close to the seeming truth but the divine empowerment must be seen
managed in restriction and deactivation up until the resurrection, just for the
mission of saving humanity. This management is because of the “becoming”.
206
Next issue is the whereabouts of the divine enablement or as to practicality of the
divine enablement. It may be implied that the verb Genumai /becoming, should
be there for the purpose of, ‘not using’, which actually means the enablements
were not active. That is very consistent with the gist of our research here.
Whether literal or idiomatic the verbs tell that divine enablement was in non-use,
during the incarnation up until the crucifixion.
The same tone seems to be implied in Philippians 2:6-8. A simple reading of the
Philippians Text in Chapter 2 verse 5-11, looks to have a structure like; 1-Vs 6;
Christ’s being in the very nature of God: 2-Vs 7-8: Christ’s becoming new form
(incarnation): 3-Vs 9-11;His exalted form.
As the interest here is to find out the substancial nature of Christ during the
incarnation before the resurrection, our exegesis of the book of Philippians, in
chapter 2 has focused on Vs 7-8. What do the words “emptied”; “humbled”
imply? As we may see in various versions, variants from the base text are very
visible. But the variants look like only on emphasis rather than on meaning,
except in the King James Version which added a wholly other word to the
‘emptied’ saying; ‘taking no reputation’. This doesn’t bring any difference as far
as meaning is concerned. When we see the next statements, the degree of
variance is more as the phrase “being found in human form” is also said “in
human likeness” and an extension of a word “in appearance” in the New
American Bible version. What confuses may be the meaning of “human form”;
“human likeness”; and “appearance”. Does this imply that Jesus was not really in
a human likeness, in the form of a servant, as this is measured in reality?
If we follow the Greek ὁμοίωμα7
likeness (Rom 8:3), it denies nothing of the
content of μορφή but of itself indicates simply that in every respect he was like a
man. When the outward appearance of Jesus is measured in content and
7 neut. nouns ending in -μα
207
likeness (μορφή, ὁμοίωμα), Jesus never missed any of the organs which any
human being could have. F. F. Bruce adds that such expressions as “born in the
likeness of man” and “found in human form” in Vs 7, should not mislead us; apart
from the form, the consideration that they may belong to a pre-Pauline
confession, there is a high probability that they represent alternative Greek
renderings the Aramaic phrase kebar-‘enash (“like a son of man”) in Dan 7:13(
Bruce 1989 :81-82).
Other scholars seem not to agree to such interpretation and have also
extensively invested on this very text. Ralph P. Martin has summarized the
literatures from 1900 through 1963 in his exhaustive study entitled Carmen
Christi.
But Martin has admitted that the text is still the occasion of much debate
with lack of agreement to a precise nuance in modern commentaries from
Dibelius to Fee (Martin 1989 :1-2). In this list D. G. Dunn has began from the
poetic nature of the pretext so as to show the theocentric points coming out of
the worship than Christology matters; Ernst Käsemann regarded it as
mythological hymn, therefore difficult to argue on and he chose to focus on the
kerygmatic dimension of the text (Martin 1989 :43). But this is all about
establishing the boundry and the text only than setting the meaning.
As we try to get the meaning of the word “humbled” in Vs 8, all versions measure
the ‘humbling’ process to the point of death and a death on the cross with no
variance. As the death of Christ was backed up with data’s from history; Bible
and Science in our research of the Corinthian letters (see chapter two part II of
this thesis), this would again go into the line of argument we have done so far,
that Christ has willfully been stripped off his divine enablement, only “functionally”
not ontologically, within the imaginary walls of incarnation and resurrection, in
humanity for the purpose of saving humanity.
Does this humbling clearly talk about the ‘God’ part or the ‘Man’ part? If we are
talking about one person, like Chalcedony or Cyril, then it is God who was
humbled. But if we are talking about two persons, like Nestorius may be, then the
208
God part has never experienced humbling, which doesn’t seem to mean that way
in Philippians 2:8; It rather tells one person, who was eternally in the image of
God but condensed into an image of man and a slave.
Such a stand naturally differs from a classical view which generally underlines
that God can never experience change, therefore no change of God during the
process of incarnation. In addition to this, the classical view affirms that the Son
added human nature, which this research is with a complete separation to such
assertion; saying God the Son has not added but “become” as it is very clear in
the genumenos of texts of John 1:14 and Phil 2:6-7.
So we would like to respond to possible questions arising against such
assertions in this research. The first question is; who died on the cross? God the
Son or Jesus the human? If we say God the Son died; we may be trapped in the
snare of passibility-impassibility cases. If we say only the human nature faced
death we still have to resolve the two person-one person controversy of
Nestorius and Chalcedon. How can this be reasoned out without erasing the
immutability of God and a preservation of one person Chalcedonies concept?
As we try to make a survey study of Christological developments, particularly
within the last 100 years, the discussion on Philippians 2, has a diverse
interpretation with still open ended conclusions. Here is a middle road not so far
as denying impassibility but affirming Chalcedonies one person theory. God
cannot change! But God can limit himself.
There is no change in his divine attributes; there will be no change at all forever
and ever. But God’s Omni nature can make Him able to act both ways in action
and in non-action without changing or annihilating Himself. As there is no
dissection in the nature of God there will be no change in nature whether within
the Father or the Son or the Spirit. But the same nature in all the three may either
be manifested in action or in non-action as it moves from the Ontological to
209
relational-functional state through the movement from creation to redemption and
consummation.
In this case we see that this nature was functionally manifested in non-action,
with the Son, for the sake of the saving mission, when God the Son was willing to
become human and die on the cross. Simply speaking, the incarnation is a
temporary limitation, non-activation of God the Son’s divine enablement, as the
Son has ‘come out’ of God (John 1:14), for the sake of a true experience of
human suffering and death.
A bit more discussion here is the ‘likeness of the Son with the rest of the Trinity,
particularly as the “Son” should become “man”. There is a question as to whether
the original reading here is μονογενὴς υἱός (monogenēs huios, one-of-a-kind
Son) or μονογενὴς θεός (monogenēs theos, one-of-a-kind [Son, himself] God).
With the acquisition of P66 and P75, both of which read μονογενὴς θεός, the
preponderance of the evidence now leans in the direction of the latter reading. M.
Harris (1992: 78–80) expresses a “strong preference” for μονογενὴς θεός, for at
least four reasons: (1) it has superior MSsupport; (2) it represents the more
difficult reading; (3) it serves as a more proper climax to the entire prologue,
attributing deity to the Son by way of inclusio with 1:1 and 1:14; (4) it seems to
account best for the other variants. Most likely, then, μονογενῆς υἱός represents a
scribal assimilation to 3:16 and 3:18.
So how can we reconcile the impassibility issue with the case of the incarnation?
It may be said that, in the impassible himself there is ‘passible’ (became/
ἐγένετο), therefore the word became flesh. What is seen here as “the becoming
and into what has the Word become” is mostly ignored by authorities from the
then to now, as majority of them prefer to say God added flesh than God became
flesh. This is a Nestorian notion as he preferred saying the ‘Word’ only dwelt in
the flesh making the flesh as only a tent. But this exegesis does not rightly
understand the “becoming” in Jn 1:14 and so leads to twinity so dividing between
the two natures.
210
The text of John never hints the addition of the flesh into God but the God
becoming flesh and the flesh is the exact flesh we know and we have; (Σάρξ
refers, first, to the bodily substance, the flesh of circumcision, then the human
body itself (frequently with a closer qualification, e.g., ἀσθένεια).
The resolution to defend the impassibility of God, by making the flesh an addition
as asserted by most church fathers (see chapter 3 of this thesis), is not from the
Text of John but from the theory that God is impassible. A resolution here says
that, in the impassible himself there is passible, as everything (humanness,
dynamism, dying) in the nature of creation has come out of Him, non other than
Him, in the His creation/actualization acts, and is always in his control and sight.
Therefore affirming impassibility, also admitting possibility of passibilty within
impassibility, as it comes for God who is ontologically the same but functionally
or relationally changeable. Again affirming the ‘becoming’ than the addition which
the testimony of John affirms against the line followed by most church fathers (for
details see chapter 2 and 3 of this research).
Not only in John but the synoptic Gospels and Paul repeat this harmoniously.
Luke 24:39, refers to the actual corporeality (appearance in person) of the
resurrected Jesus in contrast to an incorporeal and unreal spirit. Acts cites the
OT twice with the phrase πᾶσα σάρξ, “all human beings” (2:17: Joel 3:1 LXX;
2:26: Ps 15:9 LXX). Acts 2:31 concludes from the incorruptibility of Jesus’ σάρξ
that of the human σάρξ (cf. 2:26f.); this refers to the resurrection body of Jesus
(ψυχή in v. 27 are not repeated in v. 31), (Robert and Gerhard, 1990-1993c:230-
232). In Heb 5:7 σάρξ is used of Jesus’ earthly existence; the “days of his flesh”
are his days on earth.
One might ask a question like, was Jesus God during the incarnation? The
synthesis of discussions so far leads us to a “yes” ; but in a positional manner, for
Jesus was not robbed of His divine position yet the divine qualities were saved or
in non-action for the purpose of saving through dying. This view that our Lord
could not use some divine qualities as omnipresence and omniscience during His
211
time on earth- is denied by many including Calvin, Hodge, and Grudem whose
positions we will evaluate below. But the opinion that the earthly Christ had
limited usage of some divine qualities is held as well, by some Evangelicals as
Millard Erickson (Erickson, God in Three Persons, 223,224; also in his Christian
Theology, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985).
Against Nestorius explanation of simultaneous acts of or Lord, some by his divine
and some by his human, Erickson affirms the position that Jesus never exercises
only His humanity or deity; it is always the “human-divine” that acts (Christian
Theology, 1983 : 735).
This is never denying the co-equality of our Lord with God. But God the Son
became less, as he became human because of his humanity and because of his
willingness “not to use” his divine enablement’s, temporarily, for the sake of
tasting weakness and death and the saving mission.
Now, the future holds the assurance of the second coming of the risen Lord. No
one is able to say Jesus was man before incarnation and no one could also say
Jesus was raised before he died. This tradition was there among the apostles in
the very early year of Christianity (1st Cor.15:1-3; 5-7, 11).
Historical Frames
The history of the Christological understanding in the past two millennia seems to
imply that the Christological formwork is continuously changing. Though, the
substance and the salvation plan, which is only through Christ, basically remains
the same. Pelican in his book “Jesus through the Centuries”, said that, what has
the 1st C formula that says “Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever” to
tell us in the 21st C? (Pelican :1-2). If therefore one were to study history as
condiment and cosmetic, culture and commodity, one would probably be able to
discover many of the continuities and many of the discontinuities- in the past
three millennia.
Similarly the history of the images of Jesus illustrates the continuities and
212
discontinuities of the past two millennia simultaneously. One consequence of the
discontinuity is the great variety and unevenness in the concepts and terms that
have been used to describe this meaning, from the most naïve and
unsophisticated to the most profound and complex (Pelican :4). Enough is said
in Chapter 3 of this research concerning the historical dynamism of Christological
thoughts in the history of the Christian church. We may need to focus on the rise
of Christological revisions in the 19th Century.
The rise of the history of Christian doctrine at the beginning of the 19th C, as a
historical discipline in its own right-distinct from the history of philosophy, from
the history of Christian church, and from doctrinal theology, though continually
related to all three of these fields-forms an important chapter in the history of
modern scholarship. To borrow the distinction of Werner Elert, alongside the
“dogma of Christ” there has always been the “image of Christ”. Jesus through the
centuries is a history of the image (or images) of Christ”. For example, the efforts
to portray the person of Jesus in visual form are likewise “artifacts” for our story
(Pelican :6).
The next discussion on contextual responses will primarily focus on literatures of
noted scholarly systematic Christological approaches such as Roger Olson,
Berkhof, Grudem, Grenz and Erickson; then a review of the progressive research
so far towards a synthesis as an application.
Roger E. Olson: Part IV Another Crisis Shakes the Church: The Conflict
over the Person of Christ
Though the fight over the trinity seems to be settled, soon the bishops and
theologians of Alexandria and Antioch with their respective followers were at one
another’s theological throat over the nature of the God-man, Jesus Christ (Olson
:198). As in the case of great Trinitarian controversy, what they all saw at stake
was human salvation itself. If Jesus Christ was not both truly human (equally with
us but not less human), and truly God (equally with God but not less divine), then
how could he save us? It took three councils (Constantinople 381; Ephesus 325
213
and Chalcedon 451) to finalize the debate over Christology (Olson :199).This
portion of the book treats the deep seated theological differences between the
two great cities of eastern Christianity, Antioch and Alexandra (Olson 1999 :200).
The Schools of Antioch and Alexandra Clash over Christ
These two schools were situated in two important and rival cites of the then.
Thus Alexandrian and Antiochene theologians diverged at their very roots-biblical
interpretation (Olson 1999 :203).Their hermeneutical sight led them into
divergent Christological views. While the Alexandrian was very much dominated
by the divine as the divine is needed to transform the human so as to save it, the
Antiochene were so much taken by the human, historical substance though they
confessed the divinity of Christ (Olson :204).The Alexandrian soteriology was
free divine gift and more of metaphysical where as the Antiochene soteriology
being the work of the Son of God, was more of moral-ethical still needing mans
free will and mind (Olson :205).
When it comes to Christology, taking Athanasius as sample from the Alexandrian
camp believed that the human side of Christ was passive, as if the Logos took on
himself the body without actually entering into human existence, which was
called Word-flesh Christology (Olson :206). The Word-flesh Christology so
horrified the Antiochenes, with their leading theologians Eustathius of Antioch,
Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mepsuestia, emphasizing much on the
humanity of Christ and developing Word-man Christology (Olson :206).
From the Alexandrian side Apollinarius denied the human rational soul in Christ.
The reason that Apollinarius “mutilated” the human in Jesus Christ was
soteriological, of Course. For him as for most Alexandrians, salvation as
deification was only possible if the whole of Christ is thoroughly controlled by the
divine will and power (Olson :207).Theodore from the Antiochene side
emphasized much on the distinction of the two nature and on the assuming of the
Logos to the human and on the human to be assumed (Olson :209-210). This all
led to one nature one person Christology by the Alexandrians and two nature one
214
person by the Antiochenes but not yet clear from both sides.
Nestorius and Cyril Bring the Controversy to a head
The Greek word theotokos the title of Virgin Mary is another bone of contest in
the next theological debate. The real meaning does not make Mary the mother of
God but the bearer of God. Although both eastern orthodox and Roman Catholic
traditions highly revere Mary, the Theotokos title is really a pointer to belief in
Jesus’ true divinity, when Mary gave birth to her little boy, she gave birth to God
(Olson :211).
Nestorius Patriarch at Constantinople came as a hero denouncing the theotokos
which shocked all; both shocked and surprised the Alexandria spies as they were
waiting to revenge their defeat on Apollinarius. The Antiochene Christology was
on the ascendancy in 428 when Antiochenes favorite son, Nestorius, occupied
the most powerful ecclesiastical position in the eastern half of the Roman empire.
Back in Alexandria the Bishop, also a Patriarch due to the importance of the city-
was a man named Cyril. Cyril was sound in his theology with strong back up from
councils but was condemned of being a bridge to heresies like Apollinarianism
and Monophysitism, also sending spies into Nestorius’s chair as his eyes were
on the position (Olson :212-213).
Nestorius was caught as he preached against calling Mary the Mother of God.
His logic was that God cannot be born as he cannot die but was Christ the
human nature which was born of Mary. So, he gave the congregation permission
to call upon Mary the bearer of Christ (Christotokos) (Olson: 213).
Treatises of Nestorius and Cyril were not big commentaries as such but
correspondences they had. Except the extremes on each side of the followers
and supporters these guys may have said almost similar things nothing to be
categorized as heresy. But they were in fact different in one thing. Nestorius’s
focus was on the humanity with his own human person and he argued that the
incarnation is a mutual indwelling of two persons. He said the two persons are
215
united by a special kind of union which he called synaphia which means
conjunction (Olson :216). Two natures and two persons but united in
conjunction. For Nestorius the God person of the union worked the miracles but
the human person suffered (Olson :217-218). This theory may ease the
impassibility issue as God cannot suffer, but it denies the becoming of the Word
into flesh. That is why it is fair to sa there is a possibility of possibility in the
impassible not through annihilation of one nature by the other but through the
saving of one nature in non action for the possibility being human and being able
to suffer and die. So Nestorius’s solution cannot be conclusive.
Overall, it seems, Cyril’s real contribution to Christology is the doctrine of the
hypostatic union. This becomes the great church’s foundation for explaining and
expressing the mystery of the incarnation of God in Christ. For Cyril there was no
human person subject to the incarnation. Mary, Cyril argued, gave birth to God in
the flesh (Olson :218). For Cyril the incarnation switched off the human soul and
switched on the divine soul therefore God became human and suffered. His
famous formula was God did not come into a man, but he ‘truly’ becomes man
while remaining God (Olson :219).
Though Cyril is said to be ambiguous by Grenz, the battle seems to favor him
therefore Cyril succeeded in making the council of Ephesus to be real in 431.
The council decided against Nestorius but pulled Cyril to compromise a bit in at
least recognizing the two natures, yet he remained preferring the one nature after
the union, though this all compromise did not make his Alexandrian followers
happy (Olson :220-221).
Chalcedon Protects the Mystery
All cases one way or the other, either left or right, were circulating around
soteriology. Jesus Christ’s importance was as Savior of the World. Everyone
agreed that in order to accomplish salvation he had to be truly God and truly man
(Olson :222). After the council of Ephesus, deposition of Nestorius and the union
formula didn’t seem final. The Antiochenes were giving shelter to some Pelagian
216
teachings which was condemned as heresy by Rome. Having the two person’s
formula making the union as just conjugation and moral one, they somewhat
tilted towards saying that salvation comes as we follow Christ’s moral examples
(Olson :223).
This made their case worse. The Immediate successor of Cyril was Dioscorus
who did nothing than to reflame the war between the two cities. He out rightly
rejected the 433 reunion formula as the one nature in Christ is the only Orthodox.
His parallel counterpart was the Antiochene favorite and next candidate for the
patriarchy of Constantinople. The possible war needed only a spark which
happened in the person of a certain humble monk of Constantinople named
Eutyches, who believed and thought that after the union no talk of two natures
but mixed to be hybrid and totally swallowed by the divine (Olson :225-227).
A robber synod was called which ended in affirming Eutyches and also a blood
shed here and there as far as killing patriarch Flavian. These unsettlements
generally led to the Chalcedonies council held in October 25, 451 A.D. . After
much debate, a new formulary faith was agreed upon based heavily on
language; concepts in Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s letters to Nestorius and John of
Antioch (228-231).The result of the council of Chalcedon and its Christological
definition was a permanent schism within the Eastern Church. Significant
portions of churches of Syria (Persia and Arabia) refused to accept the new
statement, and set off themselves from the Great Church and remained
Nestorian. Most of the Christian churches in Egypt also refused to accept the
new faith and split off forming their own independent monophysite churches
(Olson :232).
Fallout from the Conflict Continues
While the Eastern Church was caught up in Christological controversy, the
Western church was consumed by debates and conflicts and over the true nature
of the church. Unfortunately, many western Christians-both Roman Catholic and
protestant-know little or nothing about post-Chalcedonian Christological
217
controversies in the east (Olson :238-239). A question left unresolved in many
church leaders mind was this: what constitutes a complete manhood (humanity)?
What is the minimum which it must retain if it is to be called complete ( Olson
:240)?
All parties in the great Christological debates seemed locked into the belief that
nature and person necessarily go together so that in order for a nature to be real
and complete it has to have a person to give; real existence as opposed to
abstract existence (Olson :242). Leontius of Byzantium seem to offer the
solution. Leontius of Byzantium’s works have never been translated into English.
They are generally known in the west by their Latin titles: Contra Nestorianos et
Eutychianos… .
Justinian, a powerful Emperor of the time, who was crowned in 527, got excellent
ways of defending Chalcedon through the works of Leontinus (Olson 1999 :243-
244). Leotinus first agreed with the Alexandrians and foremost that the eternal
divine Logos/Word, the Son of God, is the subject of the incarnation. The one
and the only personality of Jesus is God the Son. But against the Alexandrians
he rejected the idea of the impersonality of the humanity of Christ-Cyril’s
anhypostasia.
Leotinus proposal was that while the person of the human Christ can never exist
with out hypostasis it can also be enhypostasized in another. The human nature
of Christ was personalized in the person of the Logos (Olson :245).Natural
procedures of these for Leotinus are; conjugation as an agreement of two
retaining their natures (Nestorius) or a hybrid with no retaining but a third nature
out of the two (Euthyches) and thirdly two things may be so united that their
distinct natures subsist in a single hypostasis, which was Leotinus’s proposal for
the council of 553 (Olson :245-246).
The argument continued with no end in sight even after Chalcedon. In all the
arguments, the parties seem to hold rival attitudes claiming victory, labeling each
other as losers. The debate on the nature of Christ was not as important to the
218
mass as it was so important to the camps fighting either side. In addition the
debate seems so political than salvific. What requires one to be saved? May be a
firm faith upon the death and resurrection of Lord Jesus Christ and that Jesus
Christ is God forever and ever. Extended knowledge on the natures and the way
they conjugated is secondary as far as the lay believer is concerned.
Though, all the above arguments have never touched the case of taking both the
human and the divine materially in Christ. The Idea of saying ‘Christ was only
human while he was on earth’ demands a clear justification of the whereabouts
of His former divine qualities.
Christological discussions in Berkhof
Christology is treated in Berkhof’s systematic theology, in a sequence such as,
the doctrine in history (Part I), the relation between Anthropology and Christology
(in which human kind was created in the image of God but fallen therefore in
need of a redeemer), therefore Christology gives the remedy; then the evolution
of the doctrine before the reformation and after the reformation (Berkhof 1953
:305-308). Part two deals with names and natures of Christ. The names of Christ
has a similar treatment in Berkhof as elsewhere, but his treatment of the natures
of Christ strictly sticks to Chalcedon 451, against those in the age of reason
during the 18th Century, who claimed to have found nothing more than a man in
Christ. Among these; Schleiermacher , Ritschl, Wendt, and the liberal school
represented by Harnack, the eschatological School of Weiss and Schweitzer are
main ones in the list, who agree in the denuding Christ of His true deity, and
reducing Him into human dimensions (Berkhof :316).
Berkhof underlined that it is of the utmost importance to maintain the doctrine of
the two natures, as it was formulated by the council of Chalcedon and is
contained in our confessional standards (Berkhof :316). He argued that two
natures are necessary for the scriptural doctrine of the atonement (Berkhof
:319).
219
Another important element considered in the treatments of Berkhof is the
Unipersonality of Christ, which is the discussion of God and Man in one person.
Berkhof said, at Chalcedon 451, we are simply told what Jesus is, without any
attempt to show how He became what He is. He took upon Himself our humanity
and not, as Brunner reminds us, that the man Jesus acquired divinity. This is a
movement from God to man rather than a vice versa (Berkhof :321). Under his
treatments of the effects of the union of the two natures in one person, an issue
of mutability/immutability is discussed. Berkhof said no change in the divine
nature, making it remained impassible, as He is incapable of suffering and death,
free from ignorance, and insusceptible to weakness and temptation. Here,
Berkhof corrects the understanding that the divine took upon himself the human’.
Berkhof said that the person of the Son of God became incarnate (Berkhof
:323).
Important question worthy of discussion here is if the two natures are governed
under one person, how will the two natures communicate to each other? The
same person is divine, Omni, unchangeable etc… in one hand and a man of
sorrow, limited knowledge, limited power, subject to human interests and misery
on another hand. As far as rationality is concerned, this case is not argued well in
Berkhof, but just said, may be through undivided and unmixed unity; or through
an operation of grace or anointing upon the man (Berkhof :324).
Berkhof also discussed the kenosis doctrine, which had its glory in the middle of
the 19th century, as another alternative to the mystery of the communication of
the two natures. According to the Lutheran theologians who made extensive use
of such a theory, it is simply a self limitation of the God-man, where he laid aside
the actual use of his divine attributes. In the actual Kenoticists however, the
Logos in the incarnation was denuded of all his attributes and was reduced to
mere potentiality (Berkhof :325). One way or another, Berkhof said, Thomasius,
Delitzch, Cosby, Gess H.W Beecher, Ebrard, Martenson and Gore line up in the
kenotistic camp (Berkhof :326).
220
Let’s raise one important question. Which nature should die in order to make the
atonement effectual? The divine or the human? Or the same one person in the
divine and the human? If we say the human we would fall in the trap of
Nestorianism who so divided between the two natures, the actions of the two
natures as well. If we say the divine only died still the Nestorian division and the
Creedal confession that the divine will never experience death will be in danger.
If we say the divine-human, the possibility of the death of the divine demands
due elaboration.
Berkhof continued the discussion on the states of Christ. The word ‘State’
according to him, denotes- relationship or position rather than condition. This
argument began to bloom in the 17th Century though traces of it were in the
communicatio idiomatum of the Lutherans (Berkhof :331). Two states are in view
here; the humiliation and the exaltation. Here the reformed theology divides the
humiliation into two such as: the emptying (that he laid aside the divine majesty)
and secondly he became subject to the demands and to the curse of the law) (
Berkhof :332). This happened only to the human Jesus not the Logos, according
to the Lutherans, therefore the incarnation is excluded from the humiliation
process. According to the Lutherans, the exaltation began during the descent into
Hades and then through the resurrection and ascension. In the reformed
theology the person of the mediator is the subject of exaltation (Berkhof :344).
Then Berkhof concludes his discussion of Christology by adding the offices of
Christ such as the prophetic, the priestly (atonement and Intercessory works) and
kingly offices ( Berkhof :356-410).
This research prefers the simple self-limitation of God-man as the self-limitation
is a necessity if salvation should be an effective reality. Christ is originally God
and was with God (Jn 1:1). Christ was willing to come out of God and became
man (Jn 1:14). As to the whereabouts of the ‘divine power’ during the realization
of the incarnation, it may be said that the divine enablement’s are never robbed
of him but confined into self-limit of non-action for the working out of all human
221
frailty, for the purpose of activating humanness, suffering and death. The divine
enablements’s, been there in Him, belongs to Him forever, but were disabled
temporarily. The self-limit is not extinction but a stance in the willing defenseless
position.
Who became man? Who died? It was “Him” or the same person who became
man and died, therefore the uni-person serves both natures, starting the
incarnation all the way through eternity.
The effect of suffering and death during the incarnation and His crucifixion affects
his entire person not only his human nature. Therefore, this research underlines
that the God became man, suffered, died and rose, as these experiences were
before him, way back before actualization, and are in His control forever. He is
able to stay alive, as he is still able to yield Himself unto death and to gain victory
over death.
Christological Discussions in Grudem
Grudem follows almost the same outline of Christology in most systematics, in
his pages 529-634. Under his discussion of the person of Christ, Grudem has
raised a question like how is Jesus fully God and fully Man, yet one person. As it
is presented before, Berkhof’s way of treatment is more on the theological
discussions here and there, then scriptural proofs for this or that and finally his
stand. A little deviating, Grudem prefers more to start with scriptural proofs for a
theory or assumption. Therefore the question above is more or less treated by a
discussion on the humanity of Christ first and then the deity of Christ ( Grudem
1994 :529).
The first proof given by Grudem for the humanity of Christ is the virgin birth
referring to (Matt 1:18,20,24-25; Lk 1:35 3:23). In the virgin birth, according to
Grudem, Jesus has not inherited sin because his descent was through the
woman only not through the man-Adam (Grudem :530). The same time, no sin
or sinful acts in Him though He could have sinned as his human part could be
222
and has been tempted (Grudem :537-540).
Another proof for humanity given by Grudem is his human weaknesses and
limitations with a human Body, Human Mind, Human Soul and Human emotions.
He said, people near Jesus saw him as only human (Grudem :531-535). For all
his arguments, enough biblical quotes are forwarded, though the texts referred
may not necessarily be proofs as Grudem might claim.
The same way Grudem continued to quote scriptural claims for the Deity of
Christ. This scriptural claims include John 1:1,18; John 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus
2:13; Hebrews 1 :8 etc… Additional proof is the Greek term Kyrios (Lord)
(Grudem : 544). Here Kyrios or Kurios seems confusedly presented.
Grudem then went on giving strong Claims to Deity, evidences also that Jesus
Possessed Attributes of Deity (Grudem :545-552) , still all backed up with plenty
scriptural quotes. He then concluded saying Jesus is truly and fully man and
God. His name is rightly called “Emmanuel,” that is “God with us” (Matt 1:23)
(Grudem :552). The next series discussions in Grudem evaluated Christological
thought frames before Chalcedon 451, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism,
Eutuchianism and the solution in the Chalcedonian definition ( Grudem : 553-
558).
Communication of the two natures is also treated in Grudem but not clearly
argued as Berkhof does. It is even not clear as he said that the “post resurrected
Jesus is everywhere but not the man as if the man Jesus is left aside somewhere
in heaven in its own term (Grudem :559). He said the baby Jesus at the manger
Bethlehem was also upholding the universe at the same time. The question to
Grudem is “where is his limitation then”? Or what is the incarnation all about?
Does the Bible affirm the human nature of Christ as presented in Grudem’s
discussions? This is very true. Does the Bible affirm the deity of Christ as
presented in Grrudem’s quotations? This is also very true. Does the Bible tell that
the baby Jesus was upholding the universe at the same time being a human
223
baby, as presented in Grudem’s discussion? Nowhere is this hinted but probably
quoted from Grudem’s theological heat. Does the Bible say the post resurrected
Jesus and his humanity are divided, as presented in Grudem’s discussion
above? Nowhere the Bible says so, but only in Grudem’s theological heat.
This research asserts that, Christ in the baby manger is the same Christ/Logos in
eternity, as far as person is concerned but the baby manger Christ is only a true
baby as far as empowerment is concerned.
Christological Discussions in Grenz
Theological persuasion for Grenz as we see in his Book “Theology for the
Community of God, 1994” is concerning the community and the kingdom of God.
His Christological treatment also allies with fellowship of Jesus the Christ with
God. For Grenz, Christology is the believing community reflecting the confession
of faith in Jesus as “God with us.” Grenz said, at the heart of Christology in turn is
the confession that God is present in Jesus (Grenz, 1994 :245); But in what
way? Grenz himself asks. Before he gave the answer to his own question, Grenz
made evaluation of developments of the affirmation of Jesus Deity in the midst of
heretic temptations (Grenz :246-249).
According to Grenz theologians from Augustine to Luther declared that
affirmation of Jesus Deity must come from the witnesses of Gospel narratives.
The Pietists said any knowledge in the head must base the heart. In 1900
thinkers divorced the Christ of faith from the Jesus of History ( Grenz :249). The
20th Century introduced the Christ of the kerygma, as presented in the works of
Martin Kahler, Emil Brunner, Karl Barth, and Rudolf Bultmann. All in all what is
foundational for Grenz’s Christology is the history of Jesus Nazareth (Grenz
:251).
Next, proposals are given by Grenz in the affirmation of Jesus’ perfect life or
sinlessness which is a proof for his perfect humanity and his deity (Grenz :252-
253). Jesus’ teachings, Jesus death, Jesus’ claims, Jesus resurrection are given
224
as proofs for God-man thesis. Therefore, Grenz says, “we affirm that Jesus is
divine on the basis of his history” (Grenz :251-261).
The implications of Jesus as one with God, is explained in the functional-
ontological plays by Grenz. Jesus is portrayed as the revealer of God. As the
task of revealing God is a divine activity which Jesus carries out, for he is
revealing the essence of God (Jn 14:9). The revealer cannot be separated from
what is revealed. As a consequence of this connection, Jesus participates by
necessity in the essential nature of the one he reveals. He must be ontologically
one with God and share in the divine essence which he exemplifies. A self giving
compassionate God is seen here through the incarnation (Grenz :264-266).
From the unity or fellowship of Jesus with God, Grenz shifted to the affirmation
that Jesus is true human. He said, Jesus, in other words is, the revelation of
humanness as intended by God and humanness of Jesus in a broader sense is
the eternal kingdom, life in which God intends for us to participate. Kingdom
living is life-in-community (Grenz :282-283).
Concerning the fellowship of Deity and Humanity in Jesus, Grenz, said, as
Christians, we affirm that Jesus of Nazareth is at the same time both truly divine
and truly human. This is standard Chalcedonies orthodox Christianity. However,
Grenz said, to say Jesus is fully divine and fully human is inherently paradoxical
(Grenz :294-295). Grenz tried to give solution to such mystery by the Logos
occurrence (330 times according to his statistics) in the New Testament. The
Logos (the principle of the universe), therefore, was connected to the rationality
and understandability of the world (Grenz: 300-301). The other additional
alternative is the “Son” as in ancient near east “son” is a name given to only
persons believed to be offspring of gods (Grenz :302).
Concerning the incarnation, Grenz still followed the historical development. He
referred to the Chalcedonian formulation and said, “in the incarnation, the Son
did not unite with the human person, but with human nature, which gained
existence in its connection with the Logos (enhypostasis). As the consequence of
225
the incarnation, the one person Jesus Christ enjoys the properties of the two
natures (communicatio idiomatum), (Grenz :306-307). Grenz also raised the
kenosis theory but as only with flows and swiftly moved to modifications of
kenosis theory.
The reformulated kenosis theory postulates that in the incarnation the Logos did
not lay aside the divine attributes themselves, nor those powers inherent to deity.
Rather, the Son gave up the independent exercise of these powers (Grenz
:307). Then he concluded his incarnational discussions with a critique of
incarnational Christology (Grenz :308); Significance of the incarnation (Grenz:
309); Jesus Preexistence (Grenz : 311); and the virgin birth (Grenz :314).
What does Grenz mean while he said “the revealer cannot be separated from
what is revealed”? The divine can reveal Himself through any tool but this can
never make the tool necessarily divine. What does Grenz mean by the
independent exercises of the powers? If he meant that the human limited power
only was active and the divine was non-active, this research also affirms that. But
if Grenz is implying that there was a simultaneous action one after the other
according to the cases in front, this is a repetition of Nestorians’ not Chalcedony.
Christological Discussions in Erickson
Erickson in His book “Christian Theology, 1998” begun his discussion by the
search for the historical Jesus. Erickson listed thinkers who line up in this
contest, such as David Strauss, Ernest Renan, Adolf von Harnack, which in
many ways represents the pinnacle, in his treatise of the ‘non miraculous Jesus’
and the end of the search for Jesus (Erickson, 1998 :679-680).
According to Erickson, Albert Schweitzer in His ‘Quest for the Historical Jesus’,
almost put an end to the liberal thoughts. Martin Kahler in His Historical Jesus
and the Historic Biblical Christ also added a new value to end up liberal stands,
about the historical Jesus (Erickson :681). Then, Erickson very lightly discussed
issues of ‘Christology from above’ and issues of ‘Christology from below’ with
226
their strengths and weaknesses (Erickson :682-688).
Erickson as he mostly does, entertained both extremes and brought them
together through what he calls an alternative approach, which he also puts as
evangelical stand (Erickson :689). In this model, the two factors are held in
conjunction: nether the Jesus of History alone, nor the Christ of Faith alone, but
the charismatic Christ as the key that unlocks the historical Jesus (Erickson :
691). With other issues as ‘the person of Christ’; ‘the Deity of Christ’; ‘Functional
Christology’; ‘the Humanity of Christ’, Erickson follows almost similar outline with
the above Scholars, particularly Berkhof and Grudem; with a substantial
treatment of the historical developments upon each item of Christology, biblical
proofs and then a middle way position in all (Erickson :692-738).
Concerning the unity of the person of Jesus Christ, after a review of all the
historical developments, Erickson puts his alternative position:
1- The incarnation was more an addition of human attributes than a loss of divine
attributes, and his proofs are from Phil 2:3-7. With almost no enough discussion
he just jumps to quote Col 2:9.
2-Jesus acted always as divinity-humanity not independently or alternatively, but
limitation of the divine because of the human, through what he calls a
circumstance induced limitation (Erickson :751-752).
As it was discussed before at the beginning of this chapter, noted theologians
and systematicians including Erickson seem to ignore “the becoming/egneto” in
John 1 :14. The becoming is a box of limitation. The person is the same but the
power is limited. This research fully agrees to sayings that Jesus acted always as
divinity-humanity not independently or alternatively. But a compromise method by
Erickson is more confusing than salvific to the Christological field.
Counteractive Arguments
We have seen that it was the Logos-God who became man. In any discussion of
227
the nature of Christ referring the divine status of Him from eternity is beyond
question, as far as the position in this research is concerned. Then the exegetical
analysis so far proved that this God became Man. The process is referred as the
becoming than an addition of humanness as far as John 1:14 is concerned. The
hub of the argument here goes like saying the notion of taking both Human and
Devine materially in the incarnate Christ needs theological justification, for the
very decree of human salvation needs Christ’s complete becoming into Human (
Phil 2:5-11 and Mark 15:33-38).
The debates we have seen so far tell, so distinguishing between the two natures
as far as an independent exercise of the two in Nestorius and a little bit in Grenz,
so uniting as far as losing former identities in Euthyches, protecting the natures in
perfect unity within the frame of one nature and one person in Cyril, protecting
the mystery of two natures and uni-person in Chalcedon 451, two things may be
so united that their distinct natures subsist in a single hypostasis, which was
Leotinus’s proposal for the council of 553. These are basic frames on the
continuum. Recent scholars are still entertaining the case yet most of them with a
faithful position to Chalcedon.
In the analysis of Christological discussions in the EOTC concerning the ‘perfect
unity’ of Cyril and ‘duality’ of Chalcedon, we have seen that, “Unity” according to
the EOTC never implies the two former entities lost their former natures. It rather
tells that the two have been united not to separate, not to remain two, not to be
treated independently, but to be one, retaining their former individual qualities
(See Heretics inside…p 127). EOTC’s Christological analysis also underlines
that, in order for the needed perfect unity to be effectual, there needs for some
elements to be eliminated. For example, sinful nature is surely a scandal for the
unity, therefore should be eliminated. The logic here is that the ‘Son of God’
cannot be a savior at the same time hold sinful nature from the human part. This
must be done away for soteriological purposes, so as the innocent lamb may be
sacrificed as a ransom to remove the sin of humanity ( Heretics…127). Therefore
incarnational analysis of “perfect Unity/Tewhado” is the central key to understand
228
EOTC Christology. Habtemariam Workneh the late dean of Trinity College of the
EOTC similarly said “We accept both unity and duality in Christ who in acting
performed as one. Christ, in whom humanity and divinity were united in one
person and one nature, was crucified on the cross”.
The Chalcedonies Creed (451 A D), sees a united duality without separation,
retaining their individual natures, getting united through a process of the
conquering role of the person of Word/Logos, with no confusion or mix and with
no losing of the former qualities (Heretics inside…:128) .
But it is discussed in chapter three that just before Chalcedon, Cyril has
articulated the “union”, a little bit differently from Chalcedon, Saying; “two
natures”, coordinated to leave back duality and/or twinity and became “Unity”
towards one, but not to remain two (Kidanewold :85). Against Euthyches, the
unity is without confusion or mixture but just like the unity of the Soul and Body
under one person in a Human being united not to be two, not to separate
anymore, not to be seen divided.
In an interview done to 190 Evalgelical Seminarians in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;
Christological analysis goes like; Christ held both Divine and Human qualities
during His Earthly ministry.
1-This argument first stood as a defendant and with compassion not to belittle
the personality of Christ by robbing off his divine qualities. Those who supported
this view felt somewhat spiritual in defending Him through an offer of the divine
qualities to the human material. This argument begs an answer for no question.
This thesis is never tempted to deny the divinity of the Logos (Jn 1:1). Still this
argument is not clear as to how much divine was materially there in the incarnate
Christ.
All suggestions of the interviewee were flowing from some New Testament texts
which are said to be supportive of this idea. The texts are mostly exposing Jesus’
miraculous deeds to heal the sick, walk on water, changing the water into wine,
229
calm the noisy killer storm, multiplying few loaf of bread to many, raising the dead
and the likes (Mark 2:1-12, 6:45-50,8:1-10,John 2:1-11,4:50,5:1-9,6:1-14,9:1-11;
11:1-16). According to this argument this could never be done on a human level
except through the application of the divine qualities. This may imply
Nestorianism’s independent acts of the two natures. At the same time simple
face value quotation of verses has been a soft exegesis and only a simple
reading meaning, which is evident especially Grudem which never heals the
problem.
This argument also has applied a little bit of interpretative methods by combining
the summery of the deeds of Jesus in the synoptic writers in addition to the
approach of John the apostle in his Gospel. For example Jesus was described as
the Messiah (Matthew), and the true servant (Mark), and the true man (Luke),
and the true God (John) in the four documents of the Gospel history. Therefore
according to the correspondents of this view, there is no way we can separate
the divine nature from the human nature any time.
Evaluation of the analysis above:
First of all there is no need of defending Jesus. Whatever happened to Jesus has
never happened suddenly. All was according to the decree and/or foreknowledge
of God. At the same time what Christ confessed about Himself during his earthly
ministry by itself is enough defense of who He is than anyone’s sympathy to Him.
In John 5:28-30 we see people amazed at what Christ has done, yet His
response was a confirmation of His complete limitedness or incapacitated status.
This was clear when he summarized all his deeds saying “By myself I can do
nothing” vs. 30, (the NIV study Bible). Defending what is not there is simply
exerting unnecessary and futile efforts. Let’s not put our defense on what Christ
has not said, but on what he said and who He really was during His earthly
ministry.
Secondly each individual text picked to be indicator of Christ’s Divine quality in
His earthly ministry, rather affirm His humanity, because in those texts he clearly
230
mentioned to Himself as the son of man (Mark 2:10, 8:31).
What was then the causing fact and purpose of the miracles and some seemingly
indicator sayings of divinity in some of Christ’s deeds and sayings? Reply here
will be simple. First of all miracles aimed to introduce the advent of the Kingdom
of heaven through the presence of Christ.
Christ was performing miracles as an object lesson to preach and teach so that
they may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing
they may have life ( John 20: 30-31). At the same time Christ was introducing the
advent of the kingdom of God through His physical presence in complete human
situation for he who was originally God, and with God referred as the ‘eternal
Word/Logos’, is now the Emmanuel with us to unite the divine dimension with the
Human created dimension (John 1:1; Matt 1:23).
Generally the miracles were performed under the anointing of the Spirit upon the
human Jesus (Luke: 4:19, 11:20) and they were all performed on a human level,
as anyone anointed is also able to perform them through faith in Him (John
14:12).
Third an argument from a unified thought of the synoptic Gospels and the fourth
Gospel has neglected the time of the documentation of the records. Most of
these materials were documented after the resurrection event- some 25- 50
years after Christ’s ascension in the 60-66 A.D. and 90-95 A.D. Therefore each
individual writer was well aware of the status of Christ as fully human and fully
divine at that time. Their orientation of the full picture (His former Divine, His
complete humanness with the divinity only positional, in His earthly ministry, and
His unlimited empowered Human-Divine status after His ascension) has
influenced them to offer us the full picture.
We say this because some are seen misinterpreting views on issues of Divinity
and Deity. Divine qualities are meant to imply all about the qualities rather than
the positional status Christ has. Yes, divineness is the quality of God and God
231
only. This quality is shared by none except for the persons in the Godhead. Yet
this aspect is about the nature rather than status issue. A problem in some
counteraction is confusing the nature issue with the status issue. A middle way
might be that all the nature holds the status holds, yet all the status holds might
not be held by all the nature holds.
To make this idea more clear what Christ holds positionally is not held materially
when it comes to his humanity. His nature has shifted from the unlimited
divinness to the limited humanness, though His position is retained. Divineness is
unlimitedness in every aspect but humanness is limitedness in every aspect.
Christ was willing to come from the unlimited dimension to the limited dimension
for the purpose of saving humanity in humanity. None of us can argue saying the
divine pre-existent Christ was having the human nature in his pre-existent form.
No healthy person again would argue the unlimited has not imposed limitedness
upon Himself when it comes to the reality of the incarnation process because
that’s what the incarnation is all about (the unlimited moving to the limited
dimension).
Therefore the one who is eternally existent in the infinite existence was
actualized in the finite existence, for ours sake, historically, some 2000 years
back. His uncountable years in eternity were made countable as 1, 2, and 3
when He willed to be literally confined of the divine qualities.
Again, incarnation is primarily the shrink of divinity to Humanity. The divine
infinite dimension was succeeded by the finite limited dimension for a while, at
least some 30-33 yrs of Christ’s stay as human, on this physical world, with
actualized physical flesh, and with a geographical and cultural limitation of not
beyond Palestine and its surroundings.
In addition to this, Christ has never denied his limited reality while he was on this
earth. Some mentions of such incidents are as 1-His testimony of his limited
Knowledge (Mk 5:13:30; 6:38; 9:21; Lk 2:46:13:32), He also said by myself I can
232
do nothing (John 5:30) etc….
Generally the incarnation is a historical occurrence with no change to the person
of the divine Christ, with no less of deity, yet with radical change to his
materiality, for the flesh was not part of the eternally pre-existent Christ, and then
continued as a limited man till the finish of His walk on the cross, limiting His
divine qualities, yet without being robbed of His deity.
Then the incarnation was succeeded by the resurrection where the blend of the
divine and human qualities continued timelessly. To make this clear, personality,
Deity, and Divinity, three terms found either intermingled or independently in the
Bible. Person refers to identity, and deity refers to authority and power, whereas
divinity refers to quality. Still personality is part of deity/ divinity.
What do we mean by saying Christ was only Human (nature wise not person
wise) during His earthly ministry? Let’s see this through series of successive
points which we think would clarify the stand.
1-The very decree of human salvation demands a limitation of divinity to
humanity. It is true that God could have saved us anyways for he is omnipotent
but the ill of humanity would better be treated with the cure of humanity. An
antibody treatment is natural and scientific practice in a disease control
mechanism. Our body might be affected by a bacterial or viral disease and our
body will also develop its own defense mechanism to do away with the next
similar attacks. Is it not then logical for Christ to take the very nature of humanity
in order to save humanity?
The process of incarnation by itself is defined as a practical, concrete and
complete becomingness from the divine dimension to the Human dimension
though the divine qualities were never robed of Christ. The divine dimension is
completely a different set of uncreated substance and the human dimension is a
complete set of createdness. With this in mind it is impossible to say the divine
was just mixed with the human and the human was sometimes borrowing the
233
divine as an aid for some of its activities, no independent exercise, no
simultaneous alternation but an act of one human nature.
Still it seems fair to say that the person of Christ is not a created substance, at
the same time is not a unity of two entities or identities. The eternal Christ
referred as the word of God, who was the beginning and who was with God and
who was God Himself, has become human/flesh without adding or changing his
eternal uncreated person, but confining it into a temporary non-use ( Jn 1:1-5).
Still Christ was neither robbed of his divine qualities nor were the divine qualities
in use. It is just a voluntary nonuse of them for the purpose of saving humankind.
No salvation can be attained through lending these qualities and avoiding human
limitations. His willful limitation to humanness is also a willful exposure to
whatever damages happened to him. His emptiness in human image and all his
sufferings he willfully faced were never fake but real (Phil 2:5-11).
Such thinking bases its profoundness on texts of the New Testament as Phil 2:5-
11, where Godly Image has completely and voluntarily shifted to Human image
and the Human Image has later released the divine qualities right after
humanness has completed its assignments. Another supportive text is Mark
15:33-37 where Christ’s complete rejection was evident in His God forsaken
“ABBA” shout and of his substitutionary death. People were saying his
incapacitated status to defend himself from his accusers and this was not just
fake drama but real historical phenomena. Hebrews 5:7-10 and 13:32, are also
clear concerning the total dependency of Christ on God in His earthly ministry.
Some seemingly confusing texts like-Mark 2:5, John 18:5-8, are treated through
a mirror of the above texts and concepts to never speak about the borrowing of
the divine qualities sometimes as He wishes. In contrast these texts magnify the
human power rather than divine power in practice, if they are rightly and
contextually interpreted.
Ex- He was able to manage escape from his persecutors, well this can happen
234
and has happened to many human ministers in the biblical scenario as Elijah and
Elisha, and to many even today. Escape can happen on the human level;
therefore this couldn’t be the case for divinity.
His Persecutors fell down when they were about to seize Him (John18:5-8).He
was not running to save himself from their drugging. Yes they failed but this has
happened in a time when Christ was truly willing to suffer as a sacrifice to many.
How could we say his activity and goal to save humanity, in His humanity, was
sometimes interrupted by his divine attributes? Whether with or without His
consciousness. This is completely a contradiction of the divine decree.
He released forgiveness therefore He used His divine quality (Mark2:5). Was he
using this opportunity as an object lesson to teach and preach or for a show of
His Devine qualities? How could forgiveness come in the total scenario of the
New Covenant? Is it not through a willful and complete becoming (Jn 1:14), to
Humanness? All our forgiveness has come through the work of Christ in His
incarnation where the divine substance is completely substituted by the human
created material and was ready to share human predicament with the suffering
on the cross. Then God’s decree to forgive humanity through rejecting His
eternal son on the cross was realized when Christ submitted his will to the will of
the father (Mark14:32-42, 15:34). Therefore Christ’s confession of forgiveness
was primarily a stepping stone to his next preaching and a prophetic utterance
pointing towards the true forgiveness on the cross. Eucharistic practices of the
Old Testament were effective in applying forgiveness parallel with what Jesus did
in the above texts.
The eternal Son of God has been sent to the village of humanity in the existence
of humanity with no exception of nature but fully human (Jn 17:3; Phil 2:11; Mark
15:39), in order to be abandoned for humanities sake, yet as the humanity of the
historical Jesus was real, His divinity was also real as he was never robbed of
His divine qualities. Still He willfully avoided them for the mission of saving
humanity. There is no Soteriology without a reality of Humanity for Humanity is
235
the cure of Humanity. The difference is the saving agent is the God who became
Human and who remained God-man for ever and ever to unite lost Humanity with
God.
Possible question here is the uncertainty of indivisibility and irreducibility of being,
personal or impersonal. Nazianzen said ‘I see one torch, and cannot divide or
measure out the undivided light’ (Nazianzen Select orations NPNF : 40-41). Of
course he said this in his discussion of the nature and unity of the trinity. Yet the
rational here may be applicable to our discussion of the nature of Christ when he
became flesh.
Irreducibility and indivisibility is likely to everything, leave alone God himself as a
being. Ontological reductionism says the smallest units like atoms and molecules
are naturally with the same content to the big whole (Poole :38). This is just
saying the higher level phenomenon has emerged from a lower level
phenomenon (Lennox 2007 :55). Anything reduced may still give a product with
the same composition essentially.
This logic is primarily driven from the philosophical explanation that higher and
complex nature out there has emerged from a combination of the lower atomistic
or molecular elements. The same way human beings are machines for DNA.
Such theory moves from the lowest to the complex, from what is there out to the
origin, from the effect to the cause, making ‘the origin’ and ‘the cause’ to be the
final product rather than a cause itself.
Since this logic basically corrupts established Theo-centric doctrine, in which
God stands as a self-existing God, many may not be tempted with such
erroneous explanations. First of all such reasoning has no substantial addition as
to what might be the person, his feeling, joy and fear which are beyond any
measurements.
This logic, applied to the incarnation, more or less may imply that in some way
the divine will only have a size reduction rather than content reduction,
236
conclusively saying the divine Christ is in no way reducible, even during the
incarnation and therefore the meaning of incarnation will be meaningless.
Biblical voices seem to go against this scientific rule. For example, what could
one say concerning the loud cries and tears of Jesus to the one who could save
him from death during the period between the walls of incarnation and
resurrection other than reducibility (Heb 5:7). Mark 15:39, implies the absence of
the divine enablement during the agony of Jesus on the cross. On the same line
Philippians 2:6-8 confirms the above argument saying ‘made Himself nothing.
Trinity seems to share this reducibility positionally, yet this happened to Christ
only when it comes to its physical application where the Son was reduced but not
the father or the Holy Spirit (Psalm 8:5). If the scientific explanation and the
biblical texts counteract each other the matter will then be left for sorts of
responsible and reasonable choices to either the scientific rule or the biblical
rules.
As a conclusion it might be said that we don’t fully know therefore align ourselves
with protection of the mystery, but we still continue to believe that a divine is able
to limit himself without changing or destroying also Himself following His own will.
An attempt of trying to set a simple and down to earth kind of theological
framework which may be a common heritage to all is an impossible task. As
Kaufman said the mystery in God and the finitude of humanity makes the task
fundamentally complicated. He added saying; theology is and has always been,
an activity of imaginative construction by persons attempting to put together as
comprehensive and coherent picture as they could of humanity in the world
under God.
As knower’s we should be willing to live harmoniously with mysteries. All humans
are products of spermatic fluid before they got the structure today. That
spermatic fluid is a sort of fluid which looks nothing but just a fluid, which is
actually with the potential to be at the same time not yet. What could have
happened to that simple fluid had it been not transferred into its mother’s womb
237
and protected in there fed through the mothers system.
Fortunately enough it may be passed into the mother’s womb and kept there for
months to mature being fed through the system. Now it is no more fluid; the
potential to be has begun to change into an actual being. Potential legs are
becoming actual legs, potential bones are becoming actual bones, potential
hands are becoming actual hands, the same with the nose, eye, ears, and so on.
As to what is the arithmetic behind, no one knows but every human being lives
with such a mystery harmoniously, without hating to live as one who was once
just spermatic but later a giant concrete living structure. We all don’t know the
original chemistry of the spermatic fluid, the same time we all don’t know how a
potential was ever destined to be actual yet we choose to live with such a
mystery with no question.
Has anyone been angry because he/she doesn’t know such mystery? Have we
ever tried to reverse such a process and start a new in order to get the whole
picture from zero to hero? Live alone trying, no one ever seem to take time and
think and try to understand. Almost all of us happily live with it. The fact is we
believe it but we don’t know it.
See also the dynamism of growth. What I know is a little that I always need
something to eat every day many times. I have been feeding myself for all the
years Iived. How much would it be the amount which I ate if it was been
reversible, just to trace the amount? I think no one ever has troubled himself to
record that or know that. Similarly I just ask without getting troubled by it. Yet, I
know one thing that all the eating has contributed towards the dynamism of
growth and aging to keep me active and alive within this existence.
We always change, and the change seems to be from zero to hero and then
again from hero to zero dying every day. What is the mystery behind? Why birth?
And why death? What is birth and what is really death? We don’t really know but
we seem to live harmoniously with such a mystery. We don’t know fully but we
238
live with it believing it as a given.
Mothering is one of the secrets of nature. But mothers do not seem to worry or
ask why they are mothers. Fathering is the secret of nature but fathers do not
seem to care to know. They just father their kids. A mother is made mother by
her siblings and a father is made father by his siblings. Do they care about the
how and why of the siblings? I don’t think so, but they try to be responsible as
much as they can through some derive from unpredictable source.
All of us were almost nothing and we become something, then we are relating,
depending on one another, we always change and we always age towards
beauty and again towards nothingness. This looks uninterrupted vicious circle.
No one asks why but chooses to live with the mystery. We don’t know but we
believe with ‘a head passive’ but the ‘a heart active’. In your head you don’t
exactly know or you doubt but in your heart you can’t deny therefore you believe.
Faith of the self is a seldom questioned given fact.
A little more we may add concerning the things beyond our limits. It seems that
we are able to sit and then to stand and then to walk and then to eat and then to
use the CR for our waste system. Is it not wonderful to sit in the CR and relax
through the process of displacing waste from our system and this happens very
peacefully? Then we are able again to come out of the CR and walk confidently
as if nothing happened. We again assume our routine activities getting energized
through dynamism of life. Has any one asked why and how? I don’t think so.
There you go and you have a free air, a free sunshine, free rain, the greenery,
rivers and oceans, riches of nature which was there and none of us have
contributed for it to be there. May be our contribution these days is working
against nature’s dynamism destroying it for temporary selfish consumption.
Yes, natural resources were originally free but humanity is selfishly and greedily
making them less enough for subsistence. One way or the other very few control
it, greedily manipulate it and billions are suffering as a result of the greed.
Though, nature has its own frame of justice, that those who are now able to do
239
“anything” will no more be able. Those who greedily controlled everything and
are renting everything which was originally provided freely will come to know that
this is a time of justice within the dynamism of life.
All power, all glory and all authority starts to go down again, death stretches and
holds with its strong grip and humanity comes to know the ontological anxiety
borrowing the word from Paul Tillich. Once we were strong capable of doing this
and that but now we are helplessly laid there awaiting death welcoming us.
But we all want to stay alive and try to push away death. We are happy to stay
alive and enjoy life with all its miseries and mysteries’. No good bye until it is time
to say good bye. No one had chance to taste life or existence before into it either
to decide to live or not.
The Idea of God
Such a thought more or less leads us to the idea of the one who originates and
controls such a system. This “One” is still a mystery that some consider it as
Brahman in Vadenta Monism. Others consider it as just ultimate force. Judaism
points at him as the creator (Gen 1:1 and Jn 1:1-2).
Christianity fully followed the frames laid by the Jews through what is known as
the God who successively revealed Himself as is recorded in the inspired
documents of the Old Testament.
This revelation, Christians believe, became complete in the incarnation of Jesus
Christ and in the death of God on the cross which made the mysterious “One”
very accessible as “one of us” and all the incapacitated fallen existence is
renovated through the justice of God inflicted upon Jesus over the Cross, which
made God to die as to the point that life in its source everywhere was
disconnected for hours; death and darkness have dominated the scene for a
while (Lk 23:44)
A little more here which might unpack the enigma, is the consideration that
240
Christians on the ordinary level simply believe but we surely don’t know. John
1:1-2 says “In the beginning there was the God, and the God was with God and
the God was God” (paraphrasing mine). It tells us the beginning; it tells us that
God was in the beginning, and God was with God and also God was God. How
many Gods? What is meant by God and God with God and then God? The
dilemma of the same single thing in oneness; the same single thing in plurality.
John seems to use a word play here, trying to reflect both the oneness and
duality by saying God and Word/Logos, but both God and the Logos is God.
The unity of God and the Logos is the divinity and the duality of the God and
Logos is the person. The duality may also go towards the functional
aspects/mission, where God is basically the origin and the Logos is the one who
comes out of the origin, first to create and then redeem.
So this means God has come out of God to create; God has come out of God to
redeem (Incarnation) and God has come out of God to die. Here comes more
complication or mystery. How can God come out of God if God is one? Unless
God is no more thought as “One” but plural; at least two. Or there is wisdom to
see the oneness for one thing but the duality for another thing. Our finitude won’t
let us know such a mystery but we normally live with it as we all normally live with
the mystery of nature within each one of us, let alone the mystery in the nature
and communication of God.
The question still persists. How can God die if he is God? What does death mean
for God? When does death become death? If the undying should die, he must
come out from God context and enter into man context. This is because God
never dies unless he comes out of Himself. But what has happened to God when
God came out of God? It may be said that the infinity and undying nature of God
yielded to the finitude and dying nature temporarily (from the incarnation up until
the resurrection).
Within the temporary shifts from God context to man context; God remained God
but the Logos was away from God in willful humiliation/incarnation. What was out
241
there for the God who came out from God? There was no God but this time just a
spermatic (seed) Logos who came out from God, who is with the potential to be
but also susceptible to die, facing the fate of any potential human being who
could be able to be or not to be; who could be able to become a being or may not
be able to become a being.
The Logos in the womb of Virgin Mary through all the process in her system was
passing through the dynamism from potential into becoming a full structure. He
was born as a weak baby, grew as a ‘son’ in Joseph’s house, in Bethany, Galilee
and Judea villages.
Once the God acted to step out of God, all fates of evil including death were out
there for him but the God who sent the God is still in control of the fate of God
while the Logos-God was out there. We imagine this because the Gospel history
vividly tells us that the God was with him where the Logos was out there.
Yes the Logos was out there, and his fate was lingering in the face of man and in
the face of the God. His growth dynamism was like any human being in the face
of man and God (Lk 2:52). He is no more with God as before, as he willingly and
for the sake of saving mission stepped out but the God or the Spirit of God was
with him. God was with him who sent the God to earth into finiteness, into
humanness.
The sending of the God to God is stretched not only into this earth, weakness,
humanness but the destination of the sending is to the cross. On the cross the
sending and the escorting of the God to the Logos has been replaced by the
forsaking of the Logos on the Cross so that the God-Logos may experience
death. Here, sending achieved its goal and was succeeded by forsaking (Mk
15:34).
What has the forsaking accomplished? While God was with God the
togetherness provides all the packages of Omni nature. While God was sending
God the togetherness rests upon the will of the God not the Logos. While the
242
Logos was heading towards the cross the togetherness was completely replaced
by forsakenness so that the mystery of death could work on the Logos God. The
God who forsook made the God to be able to die yet the God was still in control.
Why should God forsake God? So that God may be able to taste, limitedness,
human misery, bear debt of sin and suffering, ultimately, God may be able to die.
God forsook God because this should happen so; because God was able to save
him; yes because God knows he will save God/Logos and bring him back to life.
Then the resurrection followed and victory of God against the strong grip of
mystery, suffering and death. This is because, the God who forsook again came
to kill the taste of death in the Logos therefore forsakenness begun to be
replaced by togetherness. The Logos was back again to life and infinity and his
former Omni nature (Acts 2:32; Rev 1:18).
Is suffering of God still “Maya”? Still mystery? How can a good God allow his
creatures to suffer loss and limitedness, death etc? Who is responsible for
suffering, confusion and loss of humanity? May be God or may be humanity.
Who is this God and where does he live? In what form and quality is he?
Monotheism; Trinitarianism, Henotheism, Polytheism… A God who is mystery, at
the same time a God who can never be ignored. Very far from our head and logic
but very near to our heart and comes to us through faith. We don’t know but we
just believe.
To make the above thesis more tangible let’s think of the spermatic (seed) life
dynamism. If we are able to live with the mystery of our birth, the mystery of our
changing and aging dynamism, the mystery of the body, Saul and Spirit may be,
three in one and one in three, or two in one and one in two, why is it difficult to
live with God and believe in the saving power of Jesus the Logos God, who
became man, suffered and died, rose again, even though his nature remains
mystery to us. I think we don’t really know but we believe.
243
Chapter Six
I Moving Towards Unity
1.1 Learning from Past Interreligious Dialogue Theories and Experiences
Interreligious dialogue is the vision of the time, possibly the best way of future
missions. Before we try to go into details of interreligious dialogue methodologies
regarding Soteriology-Christology, it is better to see when and how this
interreligious dialogues begun? why dialogue is necessity? and what direction it
has towards the future of world missions for a united action?
Initiatives of dialogue could go as far as the second Vatican council (1962-65),
during the historic papacy of John Paul II, which the council stated decrees
seeking deeper understanding particularly with eastern orthodoxy, also with
various “ecclesial communities” (Noll Mark with others; 2008 :12-13). After this,
many conferences and symposiums are held as for instance the one among
protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox representatives on the place of Virgin Mary in
theology and worship (Noll Mark …2008 :15). See also the closing words of
Chapter II of the Decree ‘Unitatis Redintegration’ – “…and how the road to unity
may be made smooth” (Art.12, para.2), which well express the intention of this
document. Abbott states that the Decree on Ecumenism– “marks the full entry of
the Roman Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement.” (Konig &
Geldenhuys, 1983:147).
The Roman Catholic Church should get the credit for its commitment to work for
the restoration of unity among all followers of Christ (Horgan Thaddeus 1990
:33). Olson asks; could there be unity without uniformity? How diverse can the
parts be and still produce symphony? Diversity can be healthy, but it takes a
mature person to handle it (Olson 1999 :591-592).
244
1.2 Delimitations
This chapter may borrow ideas from past ecumenical attempts done by the
Roman Catholic Church through the efforts of John Paul II fifty years ago and
other ecumenical initiations done by others like Prof. Y. Iisaka. However a
reference to such authorities only aims to borrow methodologies in the
ecumenical encounter so that the methods may be applied as tools in the unity
process, rather than repeating the dream of uniting the Roman Catholic Church
with others or so. At the same time this research never aims to initiate
ecumenical relations with Islam. The research also affirms that there will be no
compromise as to the exclusiveness of Christ in the reconciliation of humanity to
God. The aim of this thesis is to hint unity opportunities between the EOTC and
EEC.
1.3 Why Dialogue?
Dialogue, be it interreligious or inter-institutional of any kind, is a necessity for at
least three main reasons. Number one reason is that dialogue is naturally there
with us in our everyday bargains such as; how laws of society should be made,
what will insure a society’s prosperity, a dialogue between communities in how to
promote trade, or planning together for a scientific research or so (Michael 1995
:75). Number two reason for the need of dialogue is the deep seated sentiments
and competitions between religious groups, getting revealed through strife’s,
harsh animosity with uncontrolled terrorism and war. Third, this age is an age of
connectivity; therefore dialogue is the best strategy of future missions.
1.4 Interreligious dialogue: Meaning and Significance
Aplinar Senapati, in his article on “Vincentian Charism and Formation in Asia
Pacific” said, dialogue is identifying a common bond which we may find in every
religious group; For example, he said; in India, the Hindu, Sikhs, Muslims and
Christians share Indianness together. Senapati said, to live a life of religion is to
245
live it inter-religiously, i.e., to accept and adopt what is good in other religions.
Believers of different religions should be open to the faith of other religions2
. As
Hans Kung states: “There can be no peace among the nations without peace
among the religions. There can be no peace among the religions without
dialogue between the religions.” Senapati added the following comment;
Inter-religious dialogue is a challenge and a historical mandate for the believers today. In
the present multi-religious and democratic societies, the believers of different religions
are called to live and grow in dialogue with persons of other religions. So rooted in once
own faith and traditions, the Christians should be open to the spiritual riches of other
religions aiming at the mutual understanding and harmony. They should realize the fact
that the followers belonging to different religions are “co-pilgrims guiding one another
towards the one transcendent goal” (Pope John Paul II, Assisi, 1986). It implies that they
have to avoid at all levels any tendency to become a monolithic and monocultural
institution. “Inter-religious dialogue helps believers to say “no” to fundamentalism,
fanaticism, extremism and say “yes” to the liberative values of each faith, to the basic
values of the human person and community, and to their protection and promotion.”
Dialogue leads to communion among individuals and of individuals with God. It can do
this only in humility, dialogue and mutual respect, without laying claim to a superior
insight or authority 3
.
However, a reference to this document is, first of all to show the need of dialogue
whatever the results may be; secondly the literature itself never demands a
replacement of the exclusive faith’s held by the dialogue participants. The
literature clearly states “rooted in once own faith and traditions, the Christians
should be open to the spiritual riches of other religions aiming at the mutual
understanding and harmony”. This is just a call to Christ’s Church to be an agent
of peace and prosperity. This may be true only and only through openness
despite fundamentalism, be it on the EOTC’s side or the EEC.
What is essential to the evangelicals like the doctrine from John 14:6 or Gal 1:8,
will remain a possible common bond which both denominations are confessing
consciously-unconsciously? If we may be able to trace to such hidden
commonalities serving as bonding lines, this may be a step towards unity.
2Prof. Y. Iisaka teaches political science at Gakushuin University. He was
a visiting lecturer at the University of Nebraska (1961-2) and lecturer at Nagoya.
University.
3
246
Similarly, Yoshiaki Iisaka, treating dialogue issues in his article “The Significance
of Inter-religious Dialogue for World Peace”, under the title “A common Concern”
said; a common concern must underlie, if inter-religious dialogue is to be fruitfully
conducted. Even though religions cannot always speak a common language, the
underlying common concern for peace; a common concern for humanity may
overcome this language barrier. This is because expressed language is only one
means of communication among religions as well as among men of diverse
racial, national, cultural and other backgrounds.
Difficulties in inter-religious dialogue so far have been derived from each
religion’s claims to absoluteness and monopoly of truth and justice, its
exclusiveness and resultant crusading spirit, its sense of messianic mission, its
rivalry in propagation and proselytization and so forth. With these premises,
dogma easily leads to dogmatism by absolutizing its own position.
Preparation for dialogue must start with contrition and confirmation of common
concerns to be shared by different religions. Peace, in the sense of man’s being
in harmony with the Ultimate One, is certainly such a common concern for any
religion of the world (_____; http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/publications/jjrs/pdf/CRJ- :234.pdf )
.
1.5 Interreligious dialogue: Initiatives
Second Vatican Council was called by Pope John XXIII in 1962, and continued
under Pope Paul VI until 1965 when it issued “The Documents of Vatican II,”
each on different aspects of church teaching and doctrine. The spirit and attitude
of these documents were remarkably different from any the Roman Catholic
Church had ever produced. They were full of scriptural references, and did not
include any blatant “curses” on those who did not agree (as previous councils
had done). Series of developments after that, particularly in his Encyclical letter
1995, Ut Unum Sint, which deals with the “Ministry of unity of the Bishop of
Rome, should be taken seriously as far as religious dialogue is concerned
(Braaten 2001 :1)”.
247
Along with the letter is the directory for the application of principles and norms of
Ecumenism, present to the Ecumenical movement, and extensive vision of how a
church understands the ecumenical movement; its goal, the means to achieve
that goal, its successes so far, and the work still to be done (Braaten 2001 :10)
also his series of visits to different ecumenical celebrations “with churches and
ecclesial communities that are not in full communion with the catholic church. For
him they vividly express the new ecumenical awareness that, despite existing
separations, “we all belong to Christ”. The pope’s ecumenical devotion to unity is
based on Jesus’ high priestly prayer in Ch 17 of St. John’s Gospel (Braaten 2001
:1).
Hermeneutical insights to the results of Vatican II as far as the articles are
concerned are as diversified as the variety of the researchers. However, almost
all agree that there is no change as far as doctrine and the status of the Roman
Catholic Church is concerned. What is to be taken as a change is; reform in
liturgy and openness towards dialogue and brotherhood: (The Catholic
Chronicles IV; What Did Vatican II Really Change? Edited and compiled by Keith
Green).
As also reported by David A Shannon in his reflections on the Decree on
Ecumenism: A Free Church perspective; in series of meetings during July 18-21,
1984, in Berlin, and also after a year in June 24-30,1985, then 1986, 1987,1988;
he summarized his five year experience as a participant in the Roman Catholic-
Baptist International conversation. He said the decree begins by calling all to
recognize God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Then unity is a fact according to the
Decree. The second chapter of the Decree sets forth principles for active
participation in the ecumenical movement, beginning with a call to repentance
and exhortation to live “spiritual ecumenism”. The decree also proposes
theological study and dialogue. This is followed by a clear exposition of some of
the issues involved in the quest for Christian unity, including, 1: confessing Jesus
as God and Lord; 2: the relationship between scripture and the church 3: the
sacrament of baptism; 4: the Lord’s supper; and 5: the application of the Gospel
248
to moral conduct (Horgan 1990 :34-35).
What captured our attention is his testimony that all the discussions uncovered
no significant differences with regard to the doctrine of the person and work of
Christ, although some did appear with regard to the appropriation of Christ’s
saving work (Horgan 1990 :39). In this document conversion is said to be
grasped only in faith and in the practice of Christian discipleship, which is
presented as a turning away from all that is opposed to God, contrary to Christ’s
teaching, and turning to God, to Christ, the Son, through the work of the Holy
Spirit. Conversion and discipleship are related to one another as birth to life
(Horgan 1990 :40-41).
Discussions concerned with the church according to Shannon, centered on
“koinonia of the spirit” (Phil 2:1; 2 Cor 13:14) sharing in one reality held in
common, which is being called to the fellowship of his Son (Horgan 1990 :44).
Mission issues in Catholic emphasized more on incarnation, where as the Baptist
emphasized on redemption of fallen humanity from sin (Horgan 1990 :46). The
approach of the Baptists and the Catholics differ concerning salvation within non-
Christian religions.
The Roman Catholics have brought to an end the negative attitude towards the
non-Christian religions. The same time the council made it clear that the church
“proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the
truth and the life (John 14:6). On the other end, “Baptists” have issued that there
is no other name given under heaven by which humankind must be saved (Acts
14:12) (Horgan 1990 :48).
1.6 Sample Language Games
Under this portion we will try to see some samples depicting religious language
games, hinting potential clues for religious dialogue. Shankara, Ibn Sina known
as Avicenna, Moses Maimonides or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Moses son of
Maimon) listed some clues within this discussion as models with the key for
249
possible language games towards religious dialogue.
Shankara delivered a thought about the possibility of Brahmanism or Brahma
sutra is an idea of monism in Hinduism (Meister …2010 : 97). Shankara’s
thoughts sought to overcome the Vedanta insistence against the
Brahman/Atman’s fundamental unchanging reality, and he also sought that
Brahman and Atman are in some respects different, but at the deepest level non
different (advaita Vedanta ). For Shankara the Atman which is identical with
Brahman and which is the only ultimate reality, beyond nature, unconfused with
nature, is the true Self and knowledge of this Atman can only save (Moksha)
from Samsara . Appearance of plurality is entirely the work of ignorance (Meister
2010 :98). How then can Atman be known? Only through faith, only through
revelation, the Sruti (Meister 2010 :105).
Ibn Sina known as Avicenna in the West lived (c 980-1037) in central Asia
Bukhara. Focuses of his arguments are; God’s existence, God’s properties,
theological language, divine providence and prophesy. For him the essence and
existence of things differ from each other. He said series of causes without first
cause is impossible. The first cause exists then the contingent effects continue to
exist (Meister :107-108). The first cause may continue to exist without existing
as its effects do, or as its contingent beings do (Meister :108).
Concerning divine properties and theological language, he denies that God can
be composed of constitutive parts, like parts of a statement, which explains the
meaning of his name. He never implies that his statements about God in human
terms are equivocations (Meister :110).This creation is essentially good since its
creator is perfectly good. Goodness is the property of God and evil is its non-
existence or lack of some perfection proper to it. God cannot be non-existent and
he cannot lack any perfection proper to him. Avicenna anyways divides evil into
three as; metaphysical (the nonexistence or the lack of natural beings), natural
(such as destructive fires and floods) and ethical (Meister :111-112).
Moses Maimonides or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Moses son of Maimon), was
250
born in Cordoba Spain 1135/8 and died 1204(Meister :117). At a young age he
wrote an innovative commentary to the Mishnah, the core corpus of Jewish Law
and his later book on commandments. Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Leibnitz and
Spinoza were all influenced by Maimonidas. He is very much controversial that
interpretations of his works are diversified. Yet in his theistic views he implied
negative theology like saying; we know only what God is not rather than who God
is. His religious views are treated in three ways such as;1- semantics-meanings
assigned to statements 2-dogmatics-meaning and truth value of dogmatic and 3-
pragmatics-reasons for religious behavior (Meister : 119-126).
1.7 Peace among us is peace of the World
If we claim to be agents of peace, this must first start within us-religious
institutions. Peace within us is surely peace of the world. History reveals that
causes of conflict and war mostly emerge among religions. We might say the
wars ancient and current are not free of political agenda’s, selfish interests of
peoples and nations. Biblical samples tell that there was war between the Jew
and Gentiles, Assyrians and the Jew or Babylonians and the Jew or the Greeks
and the Romans from the ancient history; wars between the “Christians and the
Muslims” during the middle ages; wars between the west camp and the Arab
world concentrated in the middle east; big or small, the religious element is
evident. One way or the other the religious philosophy behind the nations and
political power plays characterize the political agenda.
If so, it is true that if the dialogue agents succeed making peace accepting each
other; respecting each other; understanding each other; standing together on the
common concerns; there will surely be peace in the world or peace among
political powers. This even gives chance for the religious institutions to play a
leading role in the political spectrum.
For example, if we examine the three major and ancient religions, Judaism
Christianity and Islam, due to their common ancestry, all share many similarities.
The Semitic traditions are classified as monotheistic religions. These are the
251
“People of Book” as they have their own distinctive Holy Scriptures. Hebrew Bible
is shared by Judaism and Christianity and there are multiple biblical stories found
in the Qur’an though with some variants and with changed focus. Judaism and
Islam share many biblical prophets. In fact 26 of the “Hebrew Prophets” along
with their stories are mentioned in the Qur’an. These prophetic traditions have
ethical orientation and eschatological outlook. All emphasize upon the
observance of divine law for human salvation is also common among many Jews
and Muslims. Judaism and Islam prescribe circumcision and strict dietary laws.
Both the traditions prescribe daily worship/prayers (Avodah and Salat) and
specified amount of charity (Tzedakah and Zakat).
Christianity and Islam share Jesus, his virgin birth- hence veneration for Mary,
his mission, his miracles and, to an extent, his resurrection and second coming. It
is true that Muslims deny the deity of and incarnation of and salvation (mission)
by Christ. This research reserves this claims uncompromised.
In reality many terms such as monotheism, scripture, prophets, law, salvation
and eternal life carry quite different meanings in these faith traditions. In spite of
the fact all share Abraham as a patriarch; they differ about his exact world view
and belief system. The Qura’n maintains that Abraham was the strength of
ethical monotheism and a staunch opponent of polytheism in all its forms.
It seems almost certain that the God of the Jews evolved gradually from the
Canaanite El, who was in all likelihood the ‘God of Abraham’…This all narration
leads towards seeking principles and proposals to unite the EOTC and EEC.
II EOTC-EEC: Fertile Soil towards Ecumenicalism: Principles and Proposals
2.1 Current Treatments of Christology in EOTC
The early 5th century Monophysites, having been chased away at the counsel of
Chalcedon in 451 A.D., faced persecution and found refuge in Ethiopia. It is also
reported as the East-West or Catholic-Orthodox Or Anthioch-Alexanderia Or
Rome-Bazentine divorce (Sebhat Le ab Meseret 1996 :19). The migrants were
252
from Egypt and Syria.
Nine monks out of these migrants were aggressively involved in multiple
missionary activities that they were accorded the title as ‘teseatu qedusan’
meaning ‘the nine saints’. Establishing monasteries, applying translations into the
then Ethiopic language and developing the liturgy was their main duty with the
propagation of the monophisytic theology which they were abandoned by their
own people (Metzeger, 1997 :221).
The question here is, is the EOTC Monophysitic now or what? Its current status
and nature is accounted a little bit differently than what we see from the above
discussion. For example a paper submitted to a consultation ‘between the
theologians of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches’ held at the
university of Aarhus, Denmark in August 1964, the Very Rev ‘Like Siltanat
Habtemariam Workneh‘ *Habtemariam :1994), the then Dean of Ethiopian Holy
Trinity Cathedral, said something not exactly like but not exactly monophysitic
(___,Habtemariam 1994).
Basic difference as far as our survey is concerned here is that the Monophisite
emphasizes a nature fully swallowed up by another nature to bring one out of the
two. Whereas, Miaphysite terming distinctly points two natures perfectly united
without change of their basic natures, without confusion of whatever elements
from each against the thought of a mixture but a perfect unity of the two to bring
one. From the above analysis it seems clear that the current official Christological
position of the EOTC should be termed as Miaphysite rather than Monophysite.
A reinterpretation of Likeseltanat Habtemariam Workneh’s research is more or
less like: after the union numerical use of ‘two’ for one person is mistaken
analogy or irrational. But it is logical to address ‘Him’ as one rather than two. In
the Incarnation process when one speaks of the flesh, he/she duly speaks of the
divine, and the vice versa. Co-equality and con-substantiality uncompromised,
with the two natures perfectly united, and at the same time preserved their
properties. A direct quote of him says;
253
Incarnation is a divine mystery. The two natures of Godhead and manhood are perfectly
united and Christ is thus one person and one nature from two natures. Christ is one
incarnate nature of God the Word. After the union it is impossible to speak of Christ as
being in two natures. By the union of the nature in the Incarnation the two natures
became one nature, the natures being united without separation, without confusion, and
without change. Neither of the two natures was assimilated by the other, the properties of
the Devine Word was assimilated by the flesh and those of the flesh to the Divine Word.
The Logos revealed Himself in our flesh and became man like us. He did all things that
man does with the exception of sin (John 8:46). And at the same time was truly God. He
is a God-man. He is co-equal and consubstantial with the father in his Godhead. He is
perfectly united with us in the union being from two modes of life into one. The union of
the Word with the flesh took place in the womb of the Virgin Mary. St John says: ”the
Word was made flesh…”. In the same way we can say that also the flesh was made
divine. The attributes of the flesh can be given to the Divine word and vice-versa.
However the properties of each nature are preserved without change after the union.
Therefore, we believe that Christ is one person and one nature, and thus is both divine
and human. We speak of one because of the union. We hold “Miaphysis”, composite
nature, one united nature. Again, the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect man and perfect God.
The word “perfect” closes the door to all quibble and prevarication. We accept both unity
and duality in Christ who in acting performed as one. Christ, in whom humanity and
divinity were united in one person and one nature, was crucified on the cross. The divine
word without being united with the flesh cannot be crucified and subjected to death. If, on
the other hand, only the human body was crucified, He could not save the world
(*Habtemariam :1994).
As the EOTC Christology affirms both unity and duality in Christ, but also says
“who in acting performed as one”, we don’t see much difference here as
compared to the chalcedonies confession which said “two natures in one
person”.
The EOTC Christological tradition never loses rationality yet as it comes to
scriptural facts, there remain unresolved questions. For Example, what was the
magnitude of the divine property within the flesh after the union done in the
womb of Mary? How much was the divine heat in the human Jesus, during his
earthy mission? If it is just equality and consubstantiality, how about meanings
from texts like, Mark 15:39 and Philippians 2:4-7?
EOTC confession said, “Perfect union of the two natures yet never lost their
original properties in the union”. Does this mean the flesh is totally flesh with no
change and the divine just divine with no change? If so what is then the
incarnation? Abune Meqarios said, the fleshly heat was totally subsumed by
perfect unity and the divine glory was totally subsumed to the flesh because of
the perfect unity ( Meqarios; Megede Semay/Heavens way 2001 :46).
254
On the same line, Abba Hailemariam Melese Ayenew, in his Doctoral
Dissertation presented at the University of South Africa (Hailemariam 2009 :21),
refined the official Christological doctrine of the EOTC in his way of designation,
saying ontological explanation of the EOTC Christology is based on the
theological emphasis of Cyril of Alexandria, who so said Christ is one incarnate
nature of God the Word, at the same time against Nestorian interpretation, who
so distinguished the two natures, and even more against Eutyches explanation,
who made the two natures absorbed in just one during the incarnation union.
According to Abba Hailemariam, Monophysitism is a labeling of the
Dyophysitists to line up EOTC’s position with Eutyches. However, EOTC’s
Christological position rather bases itself in the historical understanding of Cyril of
Alexandria, which should be termed as one united nature, mia-physis” in
preservation of the properties of the natures rather than Monophysitism.
Another scholar of the EOTC has also released a book on the same title (
Mebratu Kiros Gebru :2010), saying EOTC’s Christology should be termed as
miaphysite christology, which highlights the one-united (Tewahedo) nature of the
Word of God incarnate. Besides, the book proves the orthodoxy of Ethiopian
Christology, demonstrating how it is based on the Christology of St. Cyril of
Alexandria (+ A.D. 444).
In all this discussions the church retains the Theotokos issue which may be the
point of departure from EEC Christological understanding.
If we try to analyze what we’ve seen so far, it seems that EOTC’s proposal only
borrows terminology from Euthychianism-monophysis, in that it stressed one
nature against what diaphysites might believe, as Christ having two natures.
However, it is still away from monophysitism in that it stressed the preservation of
the two natures without change after the union, and this is close to diaphysis
theology, which underscores one perfectly united nature and one person from
two, who is both divine and human.
255
From the above analysis it is clear that the official Christological position of the
EOTC should be termed as Miaphysite rather than Monophysite. Basic difference
as far as our survey is concerned here is that the Monophysite emphasizes a
nature fully swallowed up by another nature to bring one out of the two. Whereas
Miaphysite terming distinctly points to two natures perfectly united to bring forth
one nature, without change of their basic natures, without confusion of whatever
elements from each, against the thought of a mixture but a perfect unity of the
two to bring one against the duality in unity of Chalcedon.
The Theotokos as far as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church literatures explain says;
The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of
the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the
Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the
original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This
unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s womb. As a
result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the Virgin’s womb,
one nature was formed out of both: “The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos” as St.
Cyril called it (Bitsue Wo Qidus Abune Meqarios- 2001 :22).
Therefore, we may say the EOTC Christological formula follows Cyril than
Chalcedon. “Unity/Tewhado” in the EOTC teaching, means that the divine took
the nature of humanity owning it and the human also took the divine nature (only
in the case of Christ), leaving back its former duality, towards oneness( not
necessarily employing one nature, as the natures are united but not assimilated).
This incarnational explanation of the EOTC, is called Mia-Physis, not Monophysis
(Dereje and Deqemezmur…2007 :28).
This analysis, according to the EOTC, has Biblical references. It is true that God
is eternally God not to be man and also man is created man not to be God. But,
the EOTC elaboration says, against the natural law, Isaiah 9:6 affirms that, a
child is born with a mighty name. This prophesy seems against the natural law of
“man be man: God be God”, and also seemingly contradictory as a “sovereign
God” and “a child” are seen woven together in the text.
The EOTC says this seeming contradiction or paradox gets resolved only and
only in the EOTC “Unity/Tewhado”, explanation , where the Christology of Unity
256
gives chance for God to become man(Jn 1 :14), and for man to become
God(only in the person of Christ)(Isa 7:14). This is the ancient and confessional
Orthodox incarnational analysis, underlying that the Son of God, while getting
united with man, during the incarnation, twin-ness has disappeared and the son
became “one Son”, not “two Sons”, “one person” not “two persons”. This will be
true only and only through the mystery of “Unity/Tewhado”.
Following Cyril’s articulation, the EOTC confesses that the divine took, only the
flesh, [not soul and spirit, which has directly came down with the Word/Logos,
therefore the EOTC accepts both unity and duality in Christ who in acting
performed as one (Aymro and Joachim, 1970 :95). This analysis helps to avoid
the “sin inheritance” disjunction, as the divine soul and spirit is free from any taint
of sin (Dereje and Deqemezmur … :136).
Sadly, this Christological analysis in the EOTC has remained only confessional,
among few intellectual clergies and is facing worse degeneration in the process
of History, through the unguided practices of the mass under the influence of
state men like the Zera Yakob (1434-68) , Monk Teklehaimanot (1706-1721) etc
(Atiya Aziz S., 1968 :148). That is why this research suggests Information-
Communication and Education is the best tool towards unity and effective
mission.
2.2 Fertile Soil towards Ecumenicalism
The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church and the Ethiopian Evangelical
Churches are the two major Christian denominations so to say, which are
designated as representatives of Christianity in Ethiopia. As is stated in chapter
one, the Catholic Church is also part of the Christian circle in Ethiopia but since
the growth of the Catholics in Ethiopia is limited to one percent only, Catholic is
not a case for our study.
As is referred in Chapter one ‘Evangelicals’ are not to be taken as one
denomination if we are trying to see the issue as to what constitutes a
257
denomination. But as long as they are now having a consortium under the
auspices of the Evangelical Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia (ECFE), we will try
to treat them as ‘one group’ just for the purpose of this research.
The Ethiopian Evangelical Churches are currently around 48 denominations
united under a consortium known as Evangelical Churches Fellowship of
Ethiopia (ECFE). ECFE is the umbrella in which most evangelicals are
represented formally through it, in a simply stated ‘credo’ as those who share the
same faith in one God, who revealed Himself in trinity; Evangelicals believe that
Christ is the only way to salvation and believers have never contributed to their
salvation, whereas are all expected to persevere in faith.
Evangelicals in Ethiopia under the consortium of the Ethiopian Churches
Fellowship of Ethiopia (ECFE) confessionally believe in one Holy Catholic
Apostolic Church; therefore are organized to foster unity in diversity. The ECFE
has also Para church associates, some of them Christian ministries and some of
them Para church Christian organizations. Since there are also denominations
which are not formally linked to the ECFE but are by default members, for the
faith they confess, we prefer the abbreviation EEC than the ECFE just for the
consumption of this thesis.
Well there may be a thought that this can never replace the status of the mass on
Christology issues. But it should be clear that it is hard to identify the
Christological understanding of the mass in both the EOTC and EEC, which ever
line they align themselves. As far as experience tells, the theology of the mass is
a doing type than a dogma type, a dynamic type than a fixed type, experiential
type that doctrinal type.
For example, a significant group called “Qibat /Annointing” in the EOTC believe
that the “Word/Logos” was changed to be man to the point of losing everything
from the divine, then got fully united by the unction or the anointing of the Holy
Spirit, to keep intact with divinity while he was getting baptized in the Jordan river
(Aymro and Joachim 1970 :150). The ‘Qibat’ believed the union has degraded
258
the divine to zero level making the new nature in need of ‘unction’ by the Holy
Spirit for His ministerial empowerment.
Other in-groups known as the Tsega with a little bit modification said the unction
happened while Jesus was getting baptized (Gorgorios 1999 :87). This theory
sets the divine, distinct from the human, which may seem Nestorian in the
distinction aspects.
Against the “Qibat” teaching, the faithful fathers re-acted saying; if we say “the
Word was changed”, this is against the basic impassibility of the divine Word/God
and opposes the continuous distinction between the divine and the human
natures in Christ, therefore, charged the “Qibat” group as heretics. But since the
group was backed up by the followers of the Monks like Ewostatewos, their
teaching flourished dominating the Orthodox Christological understanding,
particularly in Gojjam area, northwest Ethiopia (Aymro and Joachim 1970 :152).
As we evaluate major section seven of the book “Sillassie Betewhado/Trinity in
unity” by Meseret Sibhat Le’ab, it talks about the common will in between the
Father, the Son and the Spirit. Surprisingly this portion discussed the incarnation
nature of Christ. It said ”the Son became flesh and dwelt with us, born in a
manger, born in the image of a slave (be araya gaber), born as a baby, escaped
to Egypt, suffered in wilderness, famine, drought and needs, all human miseries
have happened upon his fragile humanity“. It then continues to say “this Son
was the Word, and was with God, and was himself God, everything has
happened by him and through him, who was the only begotten Son of God. But
his pastoral nature made him Human“. This doctrine telling the true humility of
the ‘Word’ is official to EOTC.
In general Christology is treated independently in the above argument; one in the
pre-incarnate stage and two in the incarnate stage. The mystery of the nature of
Christ in between the walls of the incarnation and the resurrection, compared or
contrasted to the pre-incarnate or post resurrected scenarios seems safely
259
ignored in the above analysis.
What is at this venture is, how has the unity of the divine and the human been
managed, be it in church history and in the Christology of the EOTC? It is true
that Nestorius favored a simple moral union of the natures remaining distinct, as
if the divine only dwells like God someway dwelling in us.
Euthyches, on the other extreme so mixed the natures to the extent of losing
former identity of what soever, forming a new “one”.
Cyril a little bit in the middle said, the unity is neither simple moral, nor a total mix
but perfect union like the soul and body. Cyril with his crew of 200 Bishops at
council of Epesus (331) asserted that, it is better to believe ‘God became man’
than to believe ‘God dwelt in man’. Chalcedon (451), is not so far from Cyril as
the two natures are united but not perfectly as far as Cyril’s concept.
As we bring a comparison of Christology in the theological doings of the EOTC,
the church follows Cyril, asserting the perfect unity against twinity, as God the
Son has taken soul and body from Mary, for his humanity, to make the human-
divine and the divine- human, through perfect unity (Maqarios Abba 2001 :46). In
the EOTC Christology, there is nothing missed by the human from the divine also
nothing missed by the divine from the human. The divine heat is never minimized
because of the perfect union with human; the human weakness is never
swallowed by the divine because of the perfect union with the divine. The divine
has made the human glorious, also the human has made the divine truly human
(Gorgorios Abba 1999 :89). The human nature with soul and body from Mary
has perfectly united with the divine ‘Son’ to form one nature-one person. The
perfect unity neither separates the natures, nor mixes the natures but keeps
them together as ones’ soul and body. This thinking, according to the EOTC
serves the soteriological purpose making the divine part of the human.
260
If the divine is with full heat within the incarnation, how can the humiliation and
crucifixion be a reality? To say it has been made zero, may not be close to the
seeming truth but the divine empowerment must be seen managed in restriction
and deactivation up until the resurrection, for the mission of saving humanity.
What confuses may be the meaning of “human form”; “human likeness”; and
“appearance”. Does this imply that Jesus was not really in a human likeness, in
the form of a servant, as this is measured in reality?
If we follow the Greek ὁμοίωμα7
likeness (Rom 8:3), it denies nothing of the
content of μορφή but of itself indicates simply that in every respect he was like a
man. When the outward appearance of Jesus is measured in content and
likeness ( μορφή, ὁμοίωμα), Jesus never missed any of the organs which any
human being could have. F. F. Bruce adds that such expressions as “born in the
likeness of man” and “found in human form” in Vs 7 should not mislead us; apart
from the form, the consideration that they may belong to a pre-Pauline
confession, there is a high probability that they represent alternative Greek
renderings the Aramaic phrase kebar-‘enash (“like a son of man”) in Daniel 7:13 (
Bruce 1989 :81-82).
Here is a middle road may be, not so far as denying impassibility but affirming
Chalcedonies one person theory. God cannot change! But God can limit himself.
There is no change in his divine attributes; there will be no change at all forever
and ever. But God’s Omni nature can make Him able to act both ways in action
and in non-action without changing or annihilating Himself. As there is no
dissection in the nature of God there will be no change in nature whether within
the Father or the Son or the Spirit. But the same nature in all the three may either
be manifested in action or in non-action as it moves from the Ontological to
7 neut. nouns ending in -μα
261
relational-functional state, like the movement from creation to redemption and
consummation.
During the perfect union, this nature of God was functionally manifested in non-
action, while still retaining his Omni power, being incapacitated within the limits of
human nature, for the sake of the saving mission to be true, when God the Son
was willing to become human and die on the cross. Simply speaking, the
incarnation is a temporary limitation, non-activation of God the Son’s divine
enablement, as the Son has ‘come out’ of God (John 1:1-14), for the sake of a
true experience of human suffering and death.
With this presupposition a survey was made as to where the evangelicals in
Ethiopia do stand? The questioners set for a survey of Christology within the
theological doings of the Evangelicals were totally nine focusing on the role of the
trinity in the creation process; the particular role of the trinity in the reciprocal
union of Eucharistic duties from humanity to God and from God to humanity; the
exclusive role of the Son during creation- if we can talk exclusivity at all; the
exclusive role of the father in the incarnation process; how the trinity might have
shared ,in the incarnation, the suffering and the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ;
whether Christ has solely carried the suffering and the Eucharistic duties or not?
If yes what was the role of the father and the Holy Spirit? The difference between
Monophysite, Diaphysite and Miaphysite theology/Christology and which one
they personally accept and why? If there is any theological difference worthy to
dye for? Etc.
These questions aimed not only for the consumption of this chapter alone but for
the consumption of all the research. At the same time the goal is to trace into the
common Christological heritages in the EOTC-EEC encounters. Yet we will more
focus on the responses given for the questions like; whether Christ has solely
carried the suffering on the cross or not and how; The difference between
terminologies like Diaphysite/ Monophysite/ Miaphysite as to where the
interviewee stands? Why? Out of these our expectation is to find out the
262
confessional stances, especially where the evangelicals may line up also if there
is a need to die for ones Christological stand.
In order to accomplish this we selected 120 seminarians from different
denominations. Rational of our selection was first of all, diversity of their
traditional background, Lutheran; Baptist; Mennonite; Pentecostal, Presbyterian
etc…; second their seminarian background so that we might gain easy
articulation of deep Christological thoughts; third the nature of the interview
questions where the interviewee is set in qualitative discussion.
In the responses to the question whether Christ has solely suffered on the cross
or the Father and the Holy Spirit has shared him some way; Out of 120
interviewee 74.28% responded ‘Yes’ Christ has solely carried the suffering by
himself with no participation of the divine. This tells the human element
dominated much and Christ never utilized divine enabelments for his earthly
journey.
7.14% responded yes and no as if the divine has somewhat shared the suffering
either through knowledge or through decision and encouragement yet the pain
was totally upon the human Christ. Our analysis sees that this group has no
difference from the above explanation.
But the rest 18.57% said God was there energizing the human Jesus on the
cross. This notion was made clear as some within this group have literally said
that God sent an angel to support Christ. The measurments above tell that great
ratio of the respondents stand on the side that Christ has never manipulated his
divine power to avoid human misery and suffering.
When we come to apply these responses so as to trace the Christological
whereabouts of the Evangelicals, if Christ has solely carried the agony on the
cross, this therefore implies that two natures were either acting independently or
only the human nature was reactive starting the incarnation up until crucifixion.
This leads to either Nestorian Christology or kenotic Christology.
263
If Christ was someway energized with divine power from inside or supported by
external power in His suffering on the cross, this idea more tilts to either
monophysitism for the two natures are seen mixed or still kenoticism because the
human Jesus was supported externally by another power.
Therefore setting aside the confessional Christology of the EEC for the time
being, the practical Christological conception of Christology among
representative Evangelicals so to say, is neither clearly east nor west nor in
between but a third view of some type which should be left for further study.
Is there something to die for such a thought? How about the current attitude from
both sides? Are the existing Christological differences between the EOTC and
the EEC worth dying for? My next questions to them were like;
1-Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church Christological position is neither
Diophysite nor Monophysite, as far as their claims now, but Miaphysite as to
current scholarly literatures of the EOTC. What do you think is the difference
between these three terminologies? Which one do you personally believe is
Biblically sound and theologically viable?
2-Do you see a theological difference worthy to die for or it is just a terminology
play?
3-Two natures in one person, one nature and one person from two, two natures
perfectly united without change of identity, without confusion, with no mixture. Do
you see any difference here? If so what and how?
Let’s see results from our questioner survey. When we try to uncover the
wrapping, Christological conceptions among EEC seem standing neither
chalcedony nor non chalcedonic but somewhere in between. Results of the
survey show that;
For the first question, out of 120 interviewee, (these are all seminarians who I
think should have a better understanding than the ordinary mass), 61.43%
264
supported the Diaphysite theory. 27.14 % were not clear in their stand, seems
confused. 8.57% supported the Miaphysite theory. 1% the supported both the
Miaphysite and the Diaphysite. 1% supported the Monophysite theory . 1%
rejected all theories as meaningless at all.
In an attempt to check deep into the same group to see if they really believe in
what they meant, by asking them the 2nd and 3rd question ‘if this is worthy to die
for as far as dissecting the denominations? Also the real difference between the
three theories’ 62.8 % said there is nothing worthy to die for but the difference is
clear. The rest 37.2% said it is a theological difference therefore it is worthy to die
for.
Then those who said ‘yes and no’ with no clear stand were examined if the issue
is worthy to die for; 63.15% out of this group said it is not worthy to die for. The
rest 36% said it is worthy to die for.
As we can see from the above analysis, Evangelicals in Ethiopia are as
diversified as their nature when it comes to Christology issue. Majority of them
confess chalcedonic but this research has proved that deep inside, they are
somewhere in between the chalcedonies and the non-chalcedonies. Therefore
we cannot say for sure the Ethiopian evangelicals are clearly lining in the
Chalcedonies (451 A. D) formula.
Yet one thing is very clear. Majority of evangelicals do not believe that these
Christological theories are worthy to die for. Why do we need to examine the
Christological understandings within both denominations? This is because
chalcedonies 451 definition, though may be the best in its approach on
Christological definition; we may say it is only theologically outstanding but not
missiologically outstanding. Reasons for this are; it has been historically the
epicenter of division between the east and the west. If so reconciliatory initiatives
must set their foundation on things necessary to die for and/or to live for. That is
why this research is firm in asking these basic questions, whether these
Christological bargains are worthy to die for? We have found out that Diaphysite-
265
Monophysite-Miaphysite talks should not be taken as things worthy to die for.
Deep examination of Christ’s nature may be theologically viable but not
missiologically viable. Focusing on traditional orders is also divisive. What is
needed may be is, the need to focus on what is important rather than what is not
important.
For example, the way priests dress in EOTC tradition with the white or yellow
robe, the T structure stick, the Holy chanting etc etc …may be kept as it is and
/or reshaped making it somewhat missiologically communicative, without
replacing it by another tradition, be it evangelical or so. But the content of the
traditional teaching-preaching, holy chanting etc etc on both sides… should be
totally faithful to the truth. That is what matters rather than the long awaited
unresolved discussions on the nature of Christ.
The EEC Christological conception is cofessionally Chalcedonian. This is
because many can easily articulate the nature of Christ was with two natures and
one person all through the incarnation and the resurrection and after. Yet as it is
stated above deep examinations rather imply another fact.
The question is will there be a possibility of unity confessing one faith? What kind
of unity are we aiming at? What are we really commonly confessing still staying
in our denominational boundaries?
To start with, maybe we have a lot confessional elements in common. Don’t we
have common roots in the apostolic tradition and the creeds (Nicaean and
Ephesian), except in Chalcedon which may be capitalized towards the big goal?
(Haimanote Abew 1994 :22). Both denominations set salvation exclusively
through Christ. There are lots of pillars confessed within both traditions. An
official doctrinal reference of the EOTC entitled as “Haimanote Abew/Relegion of
the Fathers” is very clear here saying: “Believing in the Father, the Son and the
Holy-Spirit as on God… (Haimanote Abew 1994 :19). The EEC confesses the
same thing. What set’s them apart is insignificant compared to what may make
266
them partners in the soteriological mission of God.
So, the first step is identifying the common elements which both have within their
respective circles consciously or unconsciously. After identifying what they have
in common, we will then pass to the things which might be set apart for dialogue,
then after, to the things which might be kept at a distance for more examination
on each side of the spectrum.
For example, first of all there is a sort of spiritual unity which both churches
rationally accord. That is; Christ’s church is “one holy catholic apostolic church in
its spiritual sense”. Haimanote Abew literally says, “One congregation gathered
by Christ’s apostles…” (Haimanote Abew 1994 :19). The term ‘Catholic’ is not
necessarily referring to the denominational Catholics but referring to the church
universal as of the text in Eph 4. Therefore, the EOTC and EEC are one family in
the body of Christ as far as soteriological mission is concerned.
Second, trials of ecumenism may be reinforced for mutual recognition and
fellowship. There are positive initiations from both sides indicating a need for
fellowship and mutual recognition. As it is referred in the former chapters of this
thesis, a research document by revered Nibure Id Elias Abreha, the then vice
secretary for the EOTC patriarch, presented in the presence of key leaders from
all the three denominations mentioned above, on April 8th 2008, proposed
fellowship of the three in five years plan and complete unity in the long term plan.
This seems a little ambitious but the initiation is worth considering. We will come
back to the detail analysis of this proposal later in this chapter.
Third, common purposes like development and relief may be embraced in one
conciliar organizational alliance, still remaining in one’s identity. This research is
not aiming at a total assimilation of one by the other. Practical work out
strategies, that is identifying areas where both entities may see the possibility of
working together may be one of the proposals of this research and be presented
as an initial discussion item in a platform where all leaders are represented.
Detail doctrinal elements will not be part of the discussion agenda at this stage.
267
Both denominations will be allowed to retain spiritual quality within their identity in
their mother denominations. Fostering unity and cooperation against competition
is the goal of this research.
Fourth, Information, Communication and Educational tasks (IEC) must be
singled out as prior tools to inform the confessional doctrines to the mass,
through modern media’s as far as making the confessional truths and research
findings accessible to every body; ultimately education must be made available
to all at all levels so that the dream of soteriological unity may be realized.
Having said this we applaud the initiation by the EOTC done on April 8th 2008, in
a research paper presented by Nibure ID Elias Abraha, in the presence of His
Excellency the late bitsue we-kidus abune ze-membere Patriarch, wo echege
axum, Aba Paulos , the then president of the World Council of Churches(WCC);
his excellency Aba Birhaneyesus, Patriarch of the Catholic Church in Ethiopia;
and also the presence of the higher executives of the Evangelical Church’s
Fellowship of Ethiopia(ECFE), where I was also there as a board secretary for
the ECFE and an eye witness of the initiatory role form the EOTC side.
We also applaud the positive response from the Evangelical Churches
Fellowship of Ethiopia (ECFE), allowing the presentations again in its own
general assembly the same year, which I was still an eyewitness. That
presentation was summarized in ten position statements which I have
summarized them later in this part.
This hopefully is a ripe opportunity to grab and contribute academic thesis like
this for the healthy dynamism of processing unity. Therefore, it is mandatory for
the key leaders to be open for dialogue hearings from both sides around the
table, be it short speech presentations or a research, either entertaining the need
for mutual confidence, and also the need to face the discordant enemy through
joint venture services.
One of the assumptions behind this thesis was that we see no indispensable
268
difference worthy to die for, between the so called Diaphysite / Miaphysite camps
in the existential practice of Ethiopian Christianity, as far as dissecting the
Christians Ethiopia. This is confirmed by the research so far. Let’s refresh this
discussion by referring back to the main problem statement and see if the
research has achieved its presupposition.
2.3 Hints of common uniting elements from the Popular Songs within EOTC
A little bit examination of the practice of the mass in the EOTC theological doings
exhibits that, the differences between the EOTC and EEC has resulted out of a
focus on what is unimportant than what is important. Well one may argue that the
level of importance depends on the interest of each group. However, so long as
the two parties have the major things in common, that is what is important. For
example both parties share the 66 books of the Bible in common as far as the
translations emerged up until 1988. The difference is on the 15 books added
from the apocryphal books. The Bible translated in 1988, for the EOTC
consumption, itself clearly says the 15 books are ‘additional’. What really is
important? the things held in common (66) or the additional 15 apocryphal
books?
Both parties do not argue much on the centrality of our Lord Jesus Christ for
salvation, as both accept 1 Timothy 2:6-7;John 14:6; Acts 4:12. These texts are
commonly held by both as authoritative references. In addition to this the EOTC
is not monophysite- which make the nature of the incarnate Christ a total mix as
far as losing all identity, it is neither diaphysite which the Church believes, so
separetes the two natures, but EOTC is Miaphysite which the church believes
that the identity of the two natures are protected but under a pefect unity like the
soul and body of any human being.
Some of the famous songs in the life and practice of the mass within the EOTC
circle witness the same thing about the centrality of Christ. For example a
popular song from the EOTC by “Alehegn Demas” released March 2013, is
enough proof for the argument here. The tape has seven songs, where each
269
song tells the centrality of Christ. Let’s try to write each lyric so that readers may
do their own judgment of the content. We will spare ‘song # I’ until later for a
detailed discussion.
Song # II says:
I have seen the Lord’s love on the cross
The lamb slain forgiving his killer
The Lord of the Oceans was forbidden water
Instead of water they gave him vinegar
Was crucified and bitten, his bones counted
For Adam to be free of his debts
Having the storms, tides, under his commands
Was detained by the Jew to save the whole world
Naked and spikes over his head
Gave away his flesh and blood so that we may eat
For Christ has paid all the debts
Adam has been free of all guilt……….
The song above purely tells the love of Christ, as He suffered on the cross to
save the lost. There is nothing that the Evangelicals would say is non-Orthodox
or the EOTC might say is evangelically biased. As the song is released from the
hands of a purely an EOTC singer, it might be said that the beliefs of the mass
are gradually confessing the true Orthodox doctrine.
Song # 3- of the same tape is all about praising Christ. Song # 4 is selected for
270
emphasis as it repeatedly tells the centrality of the cross;
Christ was crucified instead of the criminal
All our debts and transgressions were removed by his blood
Who among the generation has perceived this offer?
All agreed to punish him by death
Those who ate and drunk from his own hands
Made him suffer instead;
Was taken to Pilate for justice
But all shouted “crucify” “crucify”….
They were beating him turn by turn
No one had compassion to spare him out of his misery
They made His grave with the evil doers
………His lovers will surly stand on his right
hand…………………………………
Song #5 is a testimony of a believer about the substitutionary death of Christ.
Song #6 is about Christ’s sorrow and suffering on the cross.
Song # 1 is, praises to Mary as she is the mother of Christ, and still very subtly
magnifies Christ. See how the poet narrated it;
Praises to Mary, Praises to the Virgin
No one is like her, from all creation
Neither the Seraphs nor the Cherub
271
For the ‘divine fire’ was in her womb
Lord of creation in the Womb of Mary
The one who was, who is and who lives forever
God compassion came to us through you (Mary)
We could have been Sodom unless
otherwise…………………………………………………………………
………….
The song above is about Mary. However, there is nothing wrong offering due
respect to Mary, as far as making this a matter of dissection between EOTC and
EEC. Still, as one tries to look into the contents of line four, five, six and seven, it
seems that the objective is not about Mary rather the one who is born of her,
referred as the “divine fire; Lord of creation; one who was; who is and who lives
forever… . Similarly the church confessionally retained the Theotokos issue
which may be the point of departure from EEC Christological understanding.
It is true that these are not the only items to be checked as short lists. An issue of
hierarchy, a “practice” of ritual (not the impact), yearly celebrations, general
organizational matters etc etc…may be added to the list. But these things are
neither theologically important nor soteriologically significant. Therefore, they
may be left for the choice of each denomination. This hopefully is a ripe
opportunity to grab and contribute academic thesis like this for the healthy
dynamism of processing Christological-soteriological unity.
We see many common Christological heritages, which may be used as a
foreground for the unity anticipated and elemental supportive inputs, crept in
within the current stance of the EOTC-EEC. Currently the EOTC is 43.5% and
the Protestants 18.6 % according to official statistical information accessed from
(www.selamta.net.htm:accessed June 17, 2013).
Each group seem formerly standing for its own sect to the extent of dying for its
272
own claims. Our research question was articulated as; ‘is there a meaning in the
EOTC-EEC literatures, worthy to die for, to the extent keeping us antagonists?
Our data’s tell that there seems no insistence worthy to die for either in the
official confessional literatures or in the interviews don for this survey, from both
camps, therefore ample chance for harmony. Therefore we would bring these
issues to the fore as a stepping stone towards possible unity.
This we say because first of all the paper presented by the official representative
of the EOTC Patriarch office at the African union hall in Feb 8th 2009, has
resulted in a positive response from the EEC side. The EEC in its 24th general
assembly, held on April 8
th 2009, had nailed the following positional statements in
response to the EOTC proposal. The position paper of EEC may be summarized
as;
-acknowledging the magnificent contribution of the EOTC to preserve Christianity
in Ethiopia for the last 18 hundred years and the contribution of the Ethiopian
Catholic church the last five hundred years and the golden contribution of the
EEC to preserve and expand Christianity in Ethiopia the last hundred years;
-regretting, forgetting and forgiving the past that, having the same basic faith on
the trinity and Christ, these three denominations were seen each other in
animosity, competitive spirit and severe conflict;
-praising and applauding for the initiatives taken by the Ethiopian Bible
Society(EBS) trying to bring these three denominations into close affinity these
days, especially on the remarkable meeting held on Feb 8th
2009, in the African
Unity meeting hall;
The EEC would therefore embrace the following positional statements
(enumeration mine and the EEC is seen replaced by ECFE as the minutes in the
paper prefer this title):
1-the ECFE (EEC) accepts the unity initiation proposal presented for the three
major denominations (the EOTC, ECC, and ECFE), upon the belief that these
273
three major Christian denominations have Trinitarian unity, as these was the
prayer of our Lord in John 17;
2-the ECFE (EEC) accepts that there is Trinitarian and Christological
commonality between them;
3-the same time the ECFE (EEC) sees that there are surely soteriological and
liturgical application differences among them;
4-having these elements as facts the ECFE (EEC) sees that co-operational unity
is possible; and also sees that a dynamic unity is possible from one to another
through time;
5-therefore the tasks at hand would be avoiding any competition, sign of
disrespect of whatsoever, but foster reverential attitude towards one another;
6-the ECFE (EEC) accepts cross-sectional free movement of members from one
denomination to another, with no competition and understated attitudes and acts;
7-the ECFE (EEC) underscores that preaching should always be Christocentric
rather than mere scolding of one another;
8-the ECFE (EEC) virtually avows that we all should capitalize on what unites us
rather than what divides us;
9-the ECFE (EEC) would then be open for a dialogue on the differing elements
so to say; by reinforcing the unifying opportunities attempted by the Bible
societies and theological institutions;
10-the ECFE (EEC) also accepts that in addition to our common and main role of
kerygmatic preaching, it would be the firm interest of the ECFE (EEC) to co-
operate on development, health, apologetic and environmental national interests.
The position paper therefore concluded by underlining for the need of follow up
and a task force to carry over.
274
Therefore we repeat our main quest: is there a meaning in the EOTC-EEC
literatures, worthy to die for? Is Christ divided? one for the EOTC and the other
for the EEC, as far as keeping us in our own denominational lines? No!
Another recent movement within the EOTC which may be seen as ripe
opportunity towards unity and reformation of the body of Christ is the
establishment of a council known as the National Ethiopian Church Renewal
Council (NECRC). This group in its exclusive meeting held at TK building on
June 29, 2013, also affirmed that nucleus of one dimension of faith is evident this
time. Discussions in the whole day session are summarized as follows:
There was holy chanting/ with slow movement sacred dance, by group of singers with
yellow dress- neck robes as the tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church
(EOTC) until 9:10.
-The seminar was officially opened by the board Chair of National Ethiopian Churches
Renewal Council here after referred as (NECRC), Mr. Aklilu Dogisso at 9:10 am.
-Next was corporate worship with all the attendants, the famous song “Hizbin Abeza-
wosen assefa” ‘God multiplied his people-His boundary’… – until 4:00 A.M.
-Then was the turn for Rev Belina Sarka-a known evangelical prophet in the nation,
whose prophesies were true and down to earth the last 10 years. He prophesied that
there surely is coming a time of true unity between the EOTC-EEC and the Ethiopian
Catholics, and this will give ample chance to the abundant blessing coming to the nation
for the next 100 yrs. According to him this abundance will over flow Africa, Asia (North
Korea and China), Latin, Cuba and the rest of the world starting 2 years from now.
-At 10:45, came the key note speech by Dr Beta Mengistu- a summary of Acts 8, about
the Ethiopian Ambassador of Queen Hindeque, during the apostolic revival of the New
Testament; the pre Lutheran Ethiopian reformation of Father Estefan in 1402. He made
us think of Harmonium Dew- the source of life moving slowly to the Sea of Galilee and
Jordan River. But this life giving Dew dies as it is swallowed in the Dead Sea, a sea with
no outlet therefore no life. Dr Beta said, the same way; it is unfortunate that the Ethiopian
Orthodox Tewhado Church (EOTC), lost the chance of renewal as the twisters
overpowered the movement all the past 1700 yrs. Dr Beta said true Orthodox is the one
who lives and dies for the truth.
-at 11:10 came evangelist Yared Tilahun saying God is not only a God of creation but
also a God of renovation.
-at 11:55, a poem by Mss Lidia Teqa on the idea of the Old and New wine in either the
Old or New jug, insisting for the need of the new Jug to the new wine.
-Then was the time (12:00 A.M.1:10 P.M)- for the major agenda of the day led by Master
Getachew, Chief Executive of Kesate Birhan. He quoted from Ps 8:31-“Ethiopia will
stretch its hand to God”. Then he made his remarks of the huge change coming within
the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church; To list some;
275
1-The renewal change has never stopped;
2-These days preaching pure Gospel within the pulpits of EOTC is not forbidden though
not official;
3-Known preachers of the EOTC have boldly started saying salvation belongs to Jesus
who died for us;
4-Any one can ask whether “Mary can mediate salvation or not” but must be under the
“context of mercy/Awde mihret” in the tradition of the EOTC;
5-The power of the Holy Spirit is ignited among the elderly and the monks within the
EOTC;
6-Evangelicals in Ethiopia seem to stagnate but Gospel revival is very true within the
EOTC currently;
7-No need to get shield hiding within the evangelical umbrella, but this is time to remain
Orthodox at the same time Evangelical;
Then Master Getachew continued his historical analysis starting from the very
beginning event of;
1-the entrance of Christianity to Ethiopia during the apostolic revival, where the Ethiopian
returned back happily to his land touched by the Spirit (Acts 8/42 A.D);
2-Frumintius in 325 A.D; In 350 A.D., Christianity become an empire religion in Ethiopia.
According to Master Getachew, until 385 A.D, meaning until the death of Frumintius
Ethiopian Christianity was sound and strong;
3-International head quarters were in either Alexandria, or Ephesus or Anthioch or
Constantine that Ethiopians had to get their leaders anointed from either of these places.
Unfortunately said Master Getachew, the fate of Ethiopian Christianity fell into the hands
of the Egyptians. According to him this had political game also as the Egyptians were
aiming to kill the potential of the nation, then spare the Nile for themselves, that they
advanced a new creed where Ethiopians may observe days of saints, where the majority
of the days from the year were allotted for fasting or prayer, which actually made the
nation crippled in poverty;
4-Surprisingly, the original and still the official faith statements of the EOTC is 100%
similar to the apostolic creed; also 100% the same with the current evangelical faith
statements;
5-Ethiopia was the president of the WCC until the sudden death of its patriarch Abune
Paulos in June 2012;
6-the ancient Ethiopic NT versions tell that until the 4rth C. Ethiopian Christianity was
Apostolic and evangelical;
7-During those years Holy celebrated dates all refer to the deeds of Christ from his birth
until His return, asserting that the EOTC was purely apostolic;
8-The pictorial NT version which is very ancient and exclusive to the nation was prepared
so that those who are not able to read may be saved by learning the deeds of Christ from
the very beginning chapter of Matthew up until the book of Revelation;
276
Master Getachew continued his analysis of the major contributions of the EOTC to
the nation.
1-Billions got salvation through EOTC if we count from the NT time up until now;
2-Idolatry was condemned nationally 3000 years back during the reign of queen of Sheba
in 2900 B.C.;
3-Ethiopian history is made to be Christian church history;
4-The EOTC is the reason for textuality in Ethiopia through its educational contribution of
coining alphabets;
5-National boarders and national identity was protected because of the philosophy that
Ethiopians equally live and die for their faith and their nation, which is a teaching by the
EOTC;
6-Strong social ties through fellowships like the (Tsiwa; Equb; Edir), are all from the smart
influence by the EOTC; Interestingly Islam are allowed to live in the land as long as they
live peacefully; But strong proscriptions kept the nation never to be overpowered by
Islam. There are prohibitions like from “Islamic Food”; “Islamic way of dressing”; “Islamic
way of peeing” etc etc… which actually protected the nation from Islamic invasion done to
most of North Africa;
Master Getachew continued his analysis of reasons for the fall of the EOTC;
1-Starting from 385 A.D he said, the EOTC leadership was totally given to Egyptians as
the Ethiopians were not confident to lead themselves; they were also left for political
power play that this affected the strength of spirituality; 11 Patriarchs were assigned for
the nation consecutively for 1100 yrs, through a reference made to “Fitha Negest”(Former
Book of Law in Ethiopia); saying national leaders are forbidden to lead by the apostles of
Jesus; Therefore Ethiopians were forbidden to build learning institutions, seminaries or
universities of whatever, even though there were known universities in Alexandria in the
then. According to Master Getachew the current autonomy of Ethiopian Synod is only 53
years;
2-Another reason for the failure of Ethiopian Christianity is because of monasticism which
came down to Ethiopia by the so called 9 saints, who were banned at 451 A.D
Chalcedonies Christological controversy. These saints thought to the Ethiopians that
salvation is through effortful monastic experiences like fasting, praying, avoiding
marriage; ascetic life, etc etc…
3-Invasion of Judith the Judiazer in the 11th Century is another reason for the failure of
EOTC. Judith ruled the nation for 40 years, burned all churches;
4-Political power plays in 1270 A.D., to pull down power and the center of the
government sit towards Showa from Lasta Lalibela by Abune Tekle Haimanot- the Monk
with king Yiquno Amlack of Showa Region has also greatly contributed to the downfall of
the spirituality of the EOTC; (Refer to Gedle Teklehaimanot; Creative fictitious stories of
Stealing the Tablet of the ten commandments; part of the cross of Christ; Healing
pictures of Saint Mary, etc etc…).
5-The ruthless king Zer’a Ya-iqob in 1434 E.C/1441 A.D.; who was fond of Saint Mary,
translated many fictitious stories of mysticisms from different parts of the world; gravely
persecuted followers of Abune Stefen in 14th C and made the renewal light to be
277
extinguished ;
6-Invasion of Gragne Mohammed / Mohammed the left handed/, in 1527 E.C., who
attempted to relinquish Islam in the nation and turn down Christianity for 11 years;
7- Period of Judges in Ethiopia (1769 E.C.): The nation was disunited this time. Every
region had its own King like; King of Gonder; King of Showa; King of Tigray etc etc…This
time the political division also affected the EOTC. EOTC priests who might have failed
from the standard spirituality someway, like because of broken marriage, adultery, etc
etc… Those who might have been disciplined and disregarded of their priestly status by
the church started learning mystical divination practices to apply it over the adherents
outside the temple. These disregarded illegal priests are customarily called Debtera’s/
Divinizers. These divinizers/Debtera’s use to write Heroic Fictions/Gedle/. Unfortunately
the Heroic fictions are anti-Christ even anti- Mary that they killed the spirituality of the
whole generation under EOTC. These divinizers also used to curse the land since the
period of the Judges and have influenced majority of the adherents that this might also be
taken as one of the causes for the fall of the EOTC.
Lights of Spiritual Renewals from 6th C A.D-19th C A.D. in EOTC
1-Yared the Poet was a 6th Century priest, father of the Unique Ethiopian Singing and
lyrics who was emphasizing Jesus as the chief savior; he was famous for his stern
comments against lay priests confusing Zion with Mary through his lyrics;
2-an attempt of breaking the yoke from Egypt in 10th century but unsuccessful;
3-Faithful spiritual fathers who challenged the idolatry of the king in 1278 E.C.;
4-The renewal of Gundagundi-under Father Estefen and his followers’ against the
unspiritual life of the King and the generation at large in 1394 E.C. These group were
minority that anti forces with the king squashed them brutally;
5-Entrance of missionaries to Ethiopia in the 19th Century was also a light and Chance of
renewal to EOTC;
6-The rise of evangelical Christianity in Ethiopia gave way towards reverting the EOTC to
textuality. A rebirth of reading habit in the EOTC which was lost long way back because
of traditionalism and divinizers/Debtera’s influence;
7-Renewal of scholars like: Chief Taye 1853-1950; Blaten Geta Hiruy 1871-1931 ;
Mersea Hazen Ejjigu; Chief Kidanewolde;Chief Zenebe; Kentiba Gebrehiwot Bikedange;
etc etc…
8-Total freedom of the Ethiopian Synod from the rulership of Egypt in 1951 E.C. and the
birth of groups called, Haimanote Abew/Religion of the fathers and Army of Christ but the
communist Derg government successfully dismantled these holy movement groups;
9-ushering of Sunday centers after 1963 E.C.; Close to 6 million EOTC members were
followers of this movement but finally joined the evangelical union as they sought shelter
while EOTC persecuted them;
10-Spiritual songs within EOTC by Zerfe; Tirfnesh; Bgashaw; etc, etc…are very much
emphasizing the centrality of Christ, these days;
11-Renewal is now the main agenda of the EOTC synod showing that the new
278
millennium is granting the final victory to the minority spiritual remnants;
Why are all these renewal chances unsuccessful?
1-Church and state were one and the same, all through, until the fall of the Monarchy-
Emperor Hailesilassie, in Ethiopia in 1966 E.C/1975.
2-Media and communication tools were poor for almost none during the last 1900 years.
3-Renewal movers were ethnically bounded therefore national affectivity was impossible.
What time is it?
According to Master Getachew, this time is not a time of just movement but a time to lead
movements towards unity and effectiveness.
Vision of NECRC
See National, Continental and International Church Renewals (Gen 12:3).
Main task forces of this renewal are National Council of :
1-Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadisso (Renewal)
2-Ethiopian Evangelical Tehadisso (Renewal)
3-Ye-yishak(Isaak) Brothers Tehadisso (Renewal)
Next Activities are of the council will be:
1-Organizing national leadership
2-Organizing strong inclusive media
3-Organizing and realizing national renewal constitution and by-laws
4-Establishing national Seminary of Excellence
5-Establishig support groups
The unity and renewal movement by NECRC is moving on. This group had
another exclusive meeting on July 20, 2013 where I was also there as an
eyewitness. The main theme of the symposium this time is examining why unity
and renewal has been difficult actually impossible the last 17 hundred years.
According to Memhir (cleric Title of EOTC scholars), Getachew GebreYesus
(babtismal Name), main reasons subverting spiritual renewal opportunities and
therefore unity in the last 17 hundred years are:
1-Diverging interpretative traditions in the practice of the EOTC, such as the
279
Andemta -which seeks the meaning of a text or a word from the scriptures one
way or the other proceedings which may list up to 14 meanings to one text or
verse, which let’s either of the 14 meanings may be right;
2-the intermarriage of the state and church up until the down of the Monarchy in
1975. This bond with the government has had a strong crushing power to any of
the renewal initiations in the history of the EOTC; The crushing process goes in a
kind of saying “Felit or Filt” meaning “wisdom or hammer”, signifying the
possibility of deals with the renewal group, if not crushing. If monarchs are
unhappy of a religious leader who actually applies the truth and may be a threat
for government, the kings simply agree with other bandits within the religious
circle and apply un outlawed law saying, “Mistu ena nibretu leserawite; heywetu
lafote; meaning, the ‘threat’s’ wife and possession should be given to the army of
the king, and his life to the kings bullet”;
3-As far as Texts are concerned the EOTC officially recognizes the Old and the
New Testaments with the 39 plus 27 books. The church officially accepts only
these as inspired but there are additions close to 15 non-canonical books but
accepted by the church with low level canonical priority or uninspired and low
level of authority used just for orders inside the church or managing disciples.
However this position of the church is never made clear to the mass as far as
leading a substantial number of the adherents to idolatry;
4-another bondage is unhealthy competition between the EOTC scholars (lique);
5-Pseudo-spiritual activities initiated during the dark age of the EOTC (12th C-18th
C, especially the effect of Ahmed Grange’s conquest Islamizing almost all
Christians in 1525. For forty years, only 1/10th of the adherents remained faithful
through severe persecution and matrimonies. A reversal of this challenge was a
sort of pseudo revival, where the remnant priests were applying a practice known
as Kedar meaning re-baptizing the backslider restoring him to his former
Christian membership.
280
6-Still more scandal was the deficient approach of the renewal initiators strategy
mostly sided to one party only; For example the pre Lutheran reformation in
Ethiopia by Father Estifanos in the late 14th C., in the place known as Gunda
Gundi-Tigray-North Ethiopia, was so exclusive as far as staying away in
inaccessible fenced monastery;
7-Ethiopian secretive orientation by itself is so exclusive and distanced from
international civilization chances for long, as the people were alien to media and
the likes;
8- Lack of visionary spiritual leader;
9-Scandal of renewal leaders themselves through moral pitfalls;
10-Interference of a third party which was repeatedly twisting renewal
movements through Counter Reformation;
11-Lack of holistic renewal actions; attempts so far only focus on one end.
A retrospect view of the above 11 points is taken as basis for the next renewal
therefore uniting force of the EOTC with the rest Christians in Ethiopia, under the
initiative of the National Ethiopian Churches Renewal Council (NECRC).
The council is a consortium of EOTC members and EEC members dreaming a
holistic renewal to the EOTC and ultimately unity through activities such as a a
preparation of governance manual; formation of leadership from all parties;
establishing modern media and communication agency; establishing theological
institution in which its curriculum is neither tilted to the west nor neglecting the
native methodologies.
The prospective theological institution will be missionary oriented where the
mission target is renewal and unity of the Christians in Ethiopia. The expected
unity according to the council is diversity in unity not unity in diversity.
281
III Is Unity Possible?
The EOTC believes in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The EOTC
believes that salvation is through Christ and Christ only. Exact statement from
“Haimanote Abew/Religion of the Fathers” says “We believe that our source of
salvation is only Christ…” (Haimanote Abew 1994 :22). The EEC does the
same. Sadly enough the mass on both sides is uninformed , uneducated
(theologically/doctrinally), also out of communication of such common beliefs and
unity opportunities.
On confessional level what both denominations have in common is much greater
than what makes them different whatever ways measured. God, Jesus, Spirit,
Trinity, and the Bible (66 books), has a central place within the confessional
theology of both denominations even though appropriation and meanings of such
pillars differ.
The question is which one should get more priority if unity should be real? the
pillars of faith as they are or their meanings and appropriations? If the focus is
made on the pillars only, dialogue is possible. If the focus is made on the process
of appropriation and meanings, dialogue is difficult if not impossible.
How much are the common faith pillars compared to the things which they don’t
share together? Let’s give equal shares to each item above and see points of
potential ecumenism and points of differences.
For Example, if we give 20% share to every pillar doctrines listed above the ratio
is 100/40. They have 100 pts in common but only 40 pts set as difference. We
may set the 100 as our common ground and say that we are one on that portion.
We may set the 40 as a difference; the difference is on Saintolog and Mariology.
Still we leave a space for dialogue, to even make the 40 less. Lessening the 40
will then lead us to confess more of one faith and one family.
Before even an effort is made to minimize the differences, what they have in
common is like 71.4 % and what they lack for unity is 28.9 %. Therefore the
282
EOTC and the EEC are more of a family than more of rivals and hostile
denominations.
As discussed in chapter four of this thesis the book “Heretics inside the temple”,
written by an EOTC priest, argues against the excesses of appropriation of the
pillars during the liturgy and preaching. The book clearly says; on mediatory
function, most of the above except Christ could not be competent for mediatory
roles. The right reason for this according to the book is that;
-firstly all are created except Christ;
-Secondly, all cannot be everywhere at the same time, except the risen Christ;
-Third, Angels act only and only if they are sent by God not by men;
– Fourth, mediatory roles of Saints are developed in the traditions of the EOTC,
following a wrong interpretation of Matthew 10:40-42 and Luke 16:18-31;
– Fifth attribution of mediatory role to Virgin Mary has developed out of a wrong
interpretation of John 2:3. (Dereje& Deqemezmur Beza 2003 :23-33).
Anyways the ETOTC believes there is a mediatory communication from Man
through either Saints including Mary, or Angels to God (Sisay Wogayehu 2013
:23). Against this, Evangelicals in Ethiopia believe that there is no active
determinant will for the dead saints within the intermediate state to communicate
God on behalf of the physically living saints. The Holy angeles also have no right
to communicate any living physical being unless they are sent by God also no
right to take messages from any living physical being to God. The arrow of
communication is from God to man, not from man to God, and is through Jesus
or the Holy Spirit mainly also, through angels sometimes, excluding saints who
are existing in the intermediate state.
The spirituality on the EOTC side can still be appreciated but this concept doesn’t
seem to have commonness with the theology and practice about the mediatory
process among the EEC. Obviously the EEC shares the reformed theology of
283
free access or priesthood of all believers towards God only through one
mediator-Jesus.
The EEC theology of free access to God is rooted in the understanding that
Christ has come down to the level of man so as the seemingly high and remote
God may be viewed as immanently close as ever before. As this idea is also
tasty to the EOTC, there we see chance to bridge through a dialogue on the
reason of Jesus’ incarnation and the role of Jesus as a mediator.
Referring to the criteria’s suggested by the EOTC authority priest above, we may
still hope uniting thought in mediatory roles of Christ, excluding Saints and Mary.
What is important at this juncture is that it is mandatory for the key leaders from
both sides to be open for hearings from both sides around the table, be it short
speech presentations or a research, either entertaining the need for mutual
confidence; also the need to face the discordant enemy through joint venture
services. Both denominations are expected to actively engage in Information-
Education and Communication (IEC) proceedings as the mass in both sides is
uninformed-uneducated and out of communication concerning such beliefs and
unity opportunities.
Dreaming unity is a difficult as well as threatening trial especially for EOTC and
EEC who were antagonistic and competitive entities for long; there seems a sort
of ecumenical attraction from both sides now. Yet underlying reasons for the
dividing walls are entailed with what the group calls “truth”; therefore the trail of
unity would even seem much difficult. But our strategy is capitalizing on the
fellowship initiatives done so far than focusing on what divides, for unity to be
realized.
One short-cut approach to inter-religious dialogue is to conduct it on the level of
religious philosophy or so-called comparative religion. It aims to elicit a lowest
common denominator and the broadest generalizations. It may become a
religious cosmopolitanism but never a religious internationalism which makes
284
possible a dialectical process of enriching each individual religion’s identity as
well as the Fellowship of religions
IV Principles and Proposals towards Unity
4.1 Freedom
The process of making one a proselyte is mostly done by enforcement at the
expense of freedom. Even God the ultimate waits one to respond following
his/her freedom. To the contrary the strategies of proselyting applied in Ethiopia
so far bases itself on a wrong attitude of absolutism and enforcement. If the
ultimate willfully let human beings to exercise their natural power of choice and
freedom, how can one violate this at the expense of freedom? Therefore, any
initiation of unity must be ready to be governed by the principle of freedom of
human beings especially in the process of proselyting. There should be no
imposition of legalistic formula from any side.
4.2 Deal with deep seated Sentiments
First and foremost there must be a dead end to the past negative sentiment.
Deep seated animosity must be let to come out to the fore, not for …. But for
fruition of true repentance and reconciliation. Theology proper teaches
repentance comes first positional before reconciliation. Many attempts of unity
fail as they mostly overlook the first principle. The first principle is dealing with the
past long awaited deep seated sentiments. If the agents of reconciliation are able
to effectively deal with the past, the next initiative will stand on a guaranteed
footing.
4.3 Deeper Understanding
How can unity vegetate unless otherwise there is openness for a deeper
understanding? Leaders and members in each denomination must first be
trained to develop an attitude of getting deeper understanding of the other
religion.
285
4.4 Significance of dialogue
The agents of the religious institutions must first develop the attitude of dialoging
rather than the attitude of competence or debates among themselves. Nobody
learns from debates but from dialogues. Dialogue follows the principle of
acceptance and respect. Dialogue naturally leads towards mutual understanding.
4.5 Control the Heresy of absolutism
No one can claim truth. Nobody is allowed to posse’s truth possessively for
himself. Yes Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life but not anybody or any
religion. Absolutism is theologically non sensical and a scandal for unity. It is the
worst heresy as it is applies to ecumenism. We all belong to the truth not the
truth necessarily being our exclusive possession.
4.6 Why Unity?
Unity is inscapable for many reasons. However, main reason to initiate unity is
because of the demand of the age. Out time is an age of connectivity and
necessarily demands unity. Religious institutions unaware of the time will simply
be pushed away from the scene towards obsoleteness. Religious institutions are
first of all agents of life. If they are supposed to be life agents they should not let
themselves die. How do they die? They die if they ignore the demand of the time.
What if they die? There will be no expansion or growth. Therefore watching the
demand of the time is a matter of existence for the religions themselves. They
live, grow or expand if and only if they are ready to entertain the demand of the
time which is connectivity and obviously stay united.
4.7 Seeking the lowest common denominator
How has the bits of animosity adhesiveness been in our attitudes? Isn’t it by
focusing on matters which separate us rather than those which may unite us?
Agents of dialogue must always start from what is common to both rather than
from what is uncommon to both. This is an issue of identifying the common bond
286
or things which the denominations share together. Unless otherwise the dream of
unity is hardly feasible.
4.8 Prioritizing the connective agenda
What are the agenda’s of dialogue? Should we settle every bit in order to bring
unity? Which of the agenda’s may be set with first or important priority? If we may
be able to sort out the important ones, prioritizing out the important from those
unimportant the next move towards unity will be smooth. Select the bits which
work out for symphony.
4.9 Unity or Uniformity?
Even though we are created humans we are not created 100% uniform. In our
uniformity there is diversity and all this is the beauty of nature. If this is true of
nature so also theology proper, how can we expect uniformity? Therefore the
dream of reconciliation should be unity rather than uniformity, respecting diversity
and differences whether minor or major.
4.10 Something good in others
What good things do we see in the other group which we are deficient? Is it
reasonable to ignore the good things just because they have not come from us?
Once we open up to endorse the good things of others, then we will be ready for
the next step towards making unity effective. Therefore we have to accept and
adopt the good things in other religions.
4.11 Open up at the same time uncompromised
Opening up opens the door for unity. Opening up is not necessarily
compromising “truth”. What the religious institution claims to be true may be
protected uncompromising obviously getting evaluated reasonably and
realistically. But truth claims and absolutism should never stand blocking opening
up.
287
Scholarly knowledge of Christ’s nature doesn’t necessarily serve for
soteriological purposes, rather may serve for apologetic purposes; what saves us
is not necessarily knowing the details concerning His nature or so, rather
knowing and believing Him who died for our sins; who rose again as the
exclusive savior.
4.11.1 Dyophysite-two natures christology/ Monophysite-one nature
christology/ Miaphysite Christology-two perfectly united natures is
simply a rational game. The argument on these matters simply divides
the body of Christ. Such level of christology is not the concern or the
head-ache of the actual beneficiaries (the mass) of the offer of
salvation.
4.11.2 We should start unity initiatives capitalizing on what unites us like,
Trinity which is common to both denominations, centrality of Jesus
Christ still common to both denominations, the Bible with 81 % of its
content common to both denominations, the “Holy Savior” the
exclusive saving agent in the whole soteriological plan, still common to
both denominations.
4.11.3 How mch diverse are the parts, unity will not be difficult if the focus is
on the whole. This is a matter of approach. There may be a difference
with regard appropriation of Christ’s work but there surely is no
difference with regard to the person of Christ in both denominations.
4.11.4 Leaders on both ends should lead in identifying the common bond
fostering unity. They should also be exemplary living interreligiously on
common concerns.
4.11.5 Jesus’ high priestly prayer in Ch 17 of St. John’s Gospel belongs to all
of us irrespective of our denominations. Leaders of each denomination
need to repeatedly rehearse this prayer with the perspective of seeing
all Christians in one fold.
288
4.11.6 Fostering full respect towards one another and openness for dialogue
on matters of differences.
4.11.7 Both should start to accept and adopt what is good in the other party.
4.11.8 Believers of both denominations should be encouraged to open up to
dialogues and understand the faith of others.
4.11.9 A common concern must underlie, if inter-religious dialogue is to be
fruitfully conducted.
4.11.10 Start common cooperative charity and development centers.
4.11.11 Start a common platform for confession of common beliefs.
4.11.12 Start common evangelistic enterprises.
4.11.13 This proposal may be used as a tool to foster dialogue between the
men of peace from both denominations.
Knowledge of our particular theology with more dialogues towards prioritization of
what should come first, setting aside what is secondary or tertiary for each one
denomination helps to get the common ground. Then the common
Christological/soteriological ground should be endorsed officially by parishioners
of each denomination.
With all this, Authority, Inerrancy and Infallibility of the scriptures should be the
determinant factor wherever, whenever. As ‘Believing Christ’, is the main thing
which puts anyone on the saved side. Soteriological dialogues in the practical
field, mostly presents Jesus with no complication or apologetic rationale such as
one of his nature and so on. “He saves”, not necessarily the articulate
knowledge/meaning of His person/nature.
Having said this, this research optimistically envisions bringing Ethiopian
Christians together, back to their eschatological commanding position, where
289
Christ’s church was practicing over the political spectrum, one way or the other,
in the foundational 3-4 Centuries.
290
Chapter Seven
Conclusive remarks and Future Prospects
Main problem statement of this thesis was like, “EOTC is represented by more
than 40 million people and Evangelicals in Ethiopia are more than 15 million.
Each group stands for its own sect to the extent of dying for its claims. The
question is ‘is there a meaning in the EOTC-EEC literatures, worthy to die for? to
the extent keeping us disunited?
Key Questions of the research were:
1. Are there exegetical insights, particularly those concerning issues about the
nature of Christ between the incarnation and the resurrection, which may
influence the answers to the main problem?
2. Where do the Ethiopian Evangelicals stand in their theoretical conceptions of
the nature of Christ in between the incarnation and resurrection? East or West?
3. What was the substantial nature of the incarnate Christ, just in between the
incarnation and resurrection? What are the justifications?
4. How has this third question influenced the EOTC-Evangelical Christological
dialogue?
5. What could be the possible dialogue link between the EOTC-EEC, which could
bring them on the same platform?
7. Are the existing Christological-Soteriological differences between the EOTC
and the EEC worth dying for?
The concern of this research was not to justify or modify the creedal stetements
or what Cyril said measuring it against Chalcedon or so. The aim here is to see
roots of EOTC Christology and get options where we may clear some
misconceptions about Cyril’s Christology so as to identify some crucial uniting
lines between Cyril and Chalcedon with the Christology and soteriology of the
West and East, lastly but not least, the Christological soteriological uniting lines
291
between the EOTC and the Evangelicals in Ethiopia.
In the previous six chapters this thesis basically treated the rift between the
Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic west, which is still an unresolved
problem in the Continuum. The rift is also more than East-West, because it has
dissected local African ethnic villages. Ethiopia is one of these localities affected
by such a rift, and this rift presented this opportunity to re-examine the
Christological-Soteriological stance of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church
(EOTC), Versus the Ethiopian Evangelical Churches (EEC). In a parallel way the
research has attempted to identify the possible Christological-Soteriological
dialogue links believing that these links may help bridge the long awaited gap
that eclipsed the saving gift.
This research, therefore, sought to answer the question: “Can the Christological-
soteriological rift between the EOTC and EEC, be somewhat bridged through
establishing dialogue links?” Is there a meaning in the EOTC-EEC literatures,
worthy to die for? Is Christ divided one for the EOTC and the other for the EEC,
as far as keeping us in our own denominational caves?
Each chapter was an attempt to respond to Christological-soteriological
questions which actually slanted in Ethiopian historical and sociological milieu.
These questions are not necessarily global and timeless but predominantly very
local and time bound.
One of the assumptions behind this thesis was that, Christological studies most
of the time give due emphasis to creedal theological developments like the
Nicene 325, the Constantinople I 381, Ephesus 431 and Chalcedon 451 and
also post creedal historical-theological developments. It is proven that
Christological treatments in the creeds very much focus on Christ’s post-
resurructed scenario as the chalcedonian assertion underlines full humanity and
full divinity of Christ.
292
This research preferred to do exegesis of biblical texts from the Christological
point of view; then see applications in the creedal proceedings; the first chapter
dealing with problem statement, history of Christianity in Ethiopia, religious
history, particularly of the EOTC and the EEC. Chapter two is with an attempt to
do exegesis of the New Testament Christology.
All arguments in the exegesis of the Gospel of John, the Synoptics, and Letters
of Paul cohere in one thing. Christ who is God and the radiant of God’s being (Jn
1:1) has become man (Jn 1:14), descended to the level of a salve, to the point of
death, as crucifixion details are recorded for us in all the four Gospel narrations
Matthew 27:37, 40; Mark 15:30, 31, 32; Luke 23:36, 38; John 19:19, 1
Corinthians 15; Galatians 3; and Phillipians 2:7-8. Therefore, the degree of the
divine enabelment in the human Christ was limited to zero level in between the
walls of incarnation and resurrection so as the soteriological mission may be
meaningfull.
The hypostatic union of the divine with the human in all the process was a perfect
unity, like the soul and body as in the analysis of Cyril, where Ciril is not basically
far from Chalcedon while he asserted that the two natures have preserved their
identity with no mixing or confusion but in perfect unity, which is not in Nestorius
or Eutichus.
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church according to (A.H.M Jones and Elizabeth
Monroe 1962 :31) is one of the five Oriental Orthodox Churches, which does not
accept the definition of the council of Chalcedon. The church has now developed
its own Christological exposition based on St. Cyril’s formulation. It is interesting
to note that the EOTC takes Cyril’s Christology very seriously, and so the church
calls herself “Tewahedo Church,” meaning a church that believes in the perfect
union of the humanity and divinity of Christ without change (wulate), confusion or
mixture (tusahe), separation (filtet) and division (bu-dae).
293
But the word tewahedo and the expression in it: “one nature” of Christ “from two
natures”, does not indicate the presence of one single and dominating nature in
Christ that resulted from the absorption of one of the natures into the other;
rather it implies “one united nature-miaphysis in preservation of the properties of
the natures “(Cheif Rev Derje & Deqemezmur Beza, Heretics inside the
Temple…,126).
The phrase “mia-physis” in Cyril’s formula does not mean “single one-monos” or
“simple numerical one” nature, but one composite or united nature. Hence,
“monophysite” Christology is entirely different from “miaphysite” Christology, and
miaphysitism is none other than the “tewahedo”.
This flow analysis hints the huge possibility of soteriological unity on
Christological stands between the East and West, also between the EOTC and
the EEC in Ethiopia.
Next comes Chapter three with a sweeping survey of Christology within the
frames of church history. Chapter four dealt with a review of EOTC and EEC
Christological literatures and traditions which led the discussion to discovering
the common doctrinal elements between the EOTC and EEC. Common elements
discovered were;
– Monotheism;
-A Jesus shared in common, obviously with a different understanding as far as
His nature is concerned;
– Common Trinitarian beliefs;
– A Holy Spirit shared in common;
– A Bible shared in common, even though the EOTC added the apocryphal books
(not as official but just as explanatory literatures).
294
Before even an effort is made to minimize the differences, what they have in
common is like 71.4 % and what they lack for unity is 28.9 %. Therefore the
EOTC and the EEC are more of a family than more of rivals and hostile
denominations.
As discussed in chapter four of this thesis the book “Heretics inside the temple”,
written by an EOTC priest, argues against the excesses of appropriation of the
pillars during the liturgy and preaching. The book clearly says; on mediatory
function, most of the above except Christ could not be competent for mediatory
roles. The right reason for this according to the book is that;
-Firstly all are created except Christ;
-Secondly, all cannot be everywhere at the same time, except the risen Christ;
-Third, Angels act only and only if they are sent by God not by men;
– Fourth, mediatory roles of Saints are developed in the traditions of the EOTC,
following a wrong interpretation of Matthew 10:40-42 and Luke 16:18-31;
– Fifth attribution of mediatory role to Virgin Mary has developed out of a wrong
interpretation of John 2:3. (Dereje& Deqemezmur Beza 2003 :23-33).
As far as the basic difference is concerned, the divergence lies on Angliology,
Saintology and Mariology. It is true that the EOTC believes there is a mediatory
communication from Man through either Saints including Mary, or Angels to God
(Sisay Wogayehu 2013 :23). Against this, Evangelicals in Ethiopia believe that
there is no active determinant will for the dead saints within the intermediate
state to communicate God on behalf of the physically living saints. The Holy
angeles also have no right to communicate any living physical being unless they
are sent by God; also no right to take messages from any living physical being to
God.
The effective way of communication is from God to man, not from man to God,
and is through Jesus or the Holy Spirit mainly, may be through angels sometimes
295
if and only if they are sent by God. This excludes saints who exist in the
intermediate state.
Chapter four and six on similar concerns concluded with survey questioners done
to 120 seminarians; where the data tells that majority of evangelicals do not
believe that the Christological theories of EOTC and EEC are worthy to die for as
far as making the EOTC and EEC enemies.
Chapter Five dealt with reflective epistemological critique, polemically arguing for
or against contextual response to the readings and crucial contextual questions
concerning the status and nature of Christ during his earthly ministry.
Then chapter six continued with an exploratory findings and a huge possibility of
unity in diversity, with eleven major principles and twelve point proposals to
initiate family reunion between the EOTC and EEC.
Some promising unity initiatives are at pledge now; however these initiatives
demand a holistic renewal movement to all Christian churches be it Orthodox,
Catholic or evangelical in Ethiopia.
The assumption behind this thesis was that there is no indispensable difference
worthy to die for, between the so called Diaphysite / Miaphysite camps in the
existential religious practice of Ethiopia, as far as dissecting Christians.
For example as far as the hypostatic union with the possibility and impassibility
issues, this research proposes a middle road not so far as denying impassibility
but affirming Chalcedonies one person theory. God cannot change! But God can
limit himself. There is no change in his divine attributes and there will be no
change at all forever and ever. But God’s Omni nature can make him able to act
both ways in action and in non-action without changing or annihilating Himself.
So, as there is no dissection in the nature of God there will be no change in
nature whether within the Father or the Son or the Spirit. But the same nature in
all the three may either be manifested in action or in non-action as it moves from
296
the Ontological to relational-functional state through the movement from creation
to redemption and consummation.
Therefore, a delivery of a proposal for a Christological-soteriological dialogue
between EOTC and EEC opens the door to reunite the Christian church of
Ethiopia.
As far as the prior presupposition is concerned this research proceeding
proposed that there are common Christological-Soteriological heritages, which
may be used as a foreground for the unity anticipated, also elemental supportive
inputs crept in within the current stance of the EOTC-EEC.
Scholarly Christological discussions mostly deal with the nature of the Lord Jesus
Christ, either differentiating the divine from the Human, or so mixing the divine
and the human, or putting the two natures in perfect unity or a complete
annihilation of the human by the divine. This is all like the two natures perfectly
united and one person en-hypostasized or the divine person en-hypostasized the
human nature. In a wider case we may say the Christological discussion
dissected christondom as Chalcedonies and non-chalcedonies or the East Camp
and the West camp.
If the two natures share a common person, where the person referred here is not
from Mary but the eternal person, the divine Son, this person could be
enhypostasized into the flesh from Mary, through a dynamic flow of life into both
natures. Then right after the incarnation, what belongs to the divine also belongs
to the human. The question is, how much of the empowerment is live in the two
natures? But if the two natures are so divided as in Nestorius, these may lead
that the two natures have their own independent person, independent acts as
well.
This research proposed that the total working out of this unity may be true
through the non-action of the divine enablement while retaining His full
ontological power, also retaining His deity positionally for a limited period of time,
just in between the incarnation and the resurrection. Surprisingly scholarly
297
Christological explanation remained as a mystery of the incarnation, whether one
says God only dwelt in the flesh, or God became flesh or God swallowed the role
of flesh etc etc…. At the same time such proceedings have only been a scholarly
concern than the concern of the mass.
– Therefore, this research asserts that scholarly knowledge of Christ’s
nature doesn’t necessarily serve for soteriological purposes; rather may
serve for apologetic purposes; what saves the ordinary advocate is
believing in Christ as the exclusive savior. This is very true to both
denominations (EOTC and EEC) as far as this research is concerned.
– Knowledge of our particular theology with more dialogues towards
prioritization of what should come first; setting aside what is secondary or
tertiary for each one denomination, helps to get the common ground.
– Then the common Trinitarian/Christological/soteriological ground should
be endorsed officially by parishioners of each denomination. The
discussion so far exhibited that what may unite these denominations is far
greater than what divides them. Therefore if priority is given to what is in
common than what separates, unity is possible.
– This research optimistically envisions seeing Christians in a common
forum or platform as far as Christology-Soteriology is concerned.
Christians could be brought back to their eschatological commanding
position, where the church was practicing over the political spectrum, one
way or the other, in the foundational 3-4 Centuries.
– This research proposes a common platform for common confessions and
joint venture for Christian missions, and holistic activities. Christ saves, not
necessarily the articulate knowledge of His person/nature. This thesis
proposes a simple soteriological teaching-preaching with unreserved
commitment to Inform, Educate and Communicate (IEC) such truth to the
mass on both sides.
– Dyophysite/ Monophysite/ Miaphysite Christology is not the concern of
298
the actual beneficiaries of the offer of salvation. These theories may be
part of curricular activities on higher levels like seminaries or so but not
necessarily part of building common faith and unity.
Therefore critical question of this research was: is there a meaning in the EOTC-
Evangelical literatures, worthy to die for? Is Christ divided one for the EOTC and
the other for the EEC, as far as keeping us in our own denominational lines? The
answer from the litratures and data’s gathered shows that this issue is never
worthy to die for. Christ is the exclusive savior as far as literatures of both
denominations tell. Christ is not divided.
Borrowing what Olson asked; could there be unity without uniformity? Yes, there
could be unity without uniformity. The unity dreamed here in this research never
dreams to bring uniformity. The two denominations have stayed long within their
own boundaries, different traditions, different cultures and experiences that they
surely will never betray their past to the extent of being uniform. Uniformity is even
difficult within their units.
However, unity is possible if the above principles and proposals may be
entertained in a common forum. Therefore, a delivery of such a proposal for
Christological-Soteriological dialogue between EOTC and EEC optimistically opens
the door to reunite the Christian church of Ethiopia.
299
Works Cited with annotations
1- Abba Hailemariam Melese Ayenew, 2009. Influence of Cyrillian Christology in
the Ethiopian Orthodox Anaphora, Submitted In Accordance With the
Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor of Theology, University of South Africa,
; ‘Abba’ is a cleric name in the tradition of the EOTC. Very clear articulation of
Cyrilian Christology in its Ethiopic understanding and explanation.
2- Aren Gustav, 1978. Evangelical Pioneers in Ethiopia: Origins of the Mekane
Yesus, Stockholm: EFSForlaget.(Mekane- Yesus is one of the largest
evangelical churches in Ethiopia, Gustav Aren was the founder and the first
president of Mekane-Yesus Seminarium. From his eyewitness experience he
deliberatively explained evangelicalism in Ethiopia in its foundational years).
3- Aren Gustav, 1999. Envoys of the Gospel in Ethiopia;In the Steps of the
Evangelical Pioneers, Stockholm, EFSForlaget, Gstav Aren and Verbum
Publisher.
4- Bahiru Zewde, 1991. A History of Modern Ethiopia (1855-1974), London,
James Curry. From his many years of lectures at Addis Ababa University Prof.
Bahiru Zewde presented this treatise where this book is the best seller academic
reference concerning Ethiopian History especially the modern face.
5- Corwin,V. St. 1960. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale U.
6- Eshete Tibebe, 2009. The Evangelical Movement in Ethiopia, Resistance and
Resilience, U S A, Baylor University Press. Very recent book with excellent
review of the history of Evangelicals and Pentecostals in Ethiopia; special focus
on the impact of persecution from the Derg Government.
7- __________Evangelical Churches Fellowship of Ethiopia., 2012, Paradise
Press.
300
8- Gebremedhin Ezra, 1977. Life Giving Blessing, An Inquiry into the Eucharistic
Doctrine of Cyril of Alexanderia, Sweden, Uppsala. Soteriological and Echaristic
set of guidelines, from one who was on a level setting the official statements of
the EOTC’s Doctrine.
9- Getachew Haile, 1983. The case of Estifanisites: A fundamental Sect in the
Church of Ethiopia. Paideuma. This book analyses the Ethiopian reformation
prospect which was said predated Luther’s reformation, where the EOTC lost its
ample chance to renewal.
10- Girma Zewde, 1985. Itopis. Addis Ababa, Neged Printing Press. This book
mainly focused on the severe persecution by the Derg Government (1975-1991)
and also with similar content on the Estifanisites (Ethiopian martyrs) like
Getachew Haile.
11- Gorgorios Abba., 1999. The History of the Ethiopian Orthodox Towhead
Church.,Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Tinsae Zegubae Press.
12- Grillmeier Aloys, S.J., 1975. Christ in Christian Tradition, vole 1, From the
Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), 2d, revved. trans. John Bowden( Atlanta Ga.:
John Knox Press
13- Haile Mariam Larebo, 1988. “The Ethiopian Orthodox Church”. In Eastern
Christianity and Politics in the Twentieth Century, edited by P. Ramet,
Durham,N.C.: Duke University. This book gives more information as to the
current turmoil within the EOTC and possible prospects.
14- __________Haimanote Abew (3rd Edition) 1994. Addis Ababa, Tinsae
Printing Press:Such a title is attributed to this book asserting that the fathers
believed this way; yet reminds that the next generation should follow the same
route.
15- Joachim Motovu& Aymro Wondmagegnehu(Editors),1970.The Ethiopian
Orthodox Church, Addis Ababa, Berhanena Selam Press. Excellent reference
301
concerning the history of EOTC.
16- Jedin Hubert (Edi), 1980. History of the Church Vol II, The Imperial Church
from Constantine to the early Middle Ages, London, Burns and Oates,.One of the
classic Primary reference especially on Christological conflicts between Cyril and
Nestorius.
17- Kaplan Steven, 1988. Christianity and the Early State in Ethiopia, in the Early
State in African Pesrpective, Edited by S. N. Eisenstad. Lieden: E.J. Brill.
Excellent reference concerning the history of EOTC.
18- Kelly J N D., 1958,1980 (re-printed). Christian Doctrines, London, Adam and
Charles Blak. Antique Christological debates are analyzed well that it helps to
establish deep arguments.
19- Kidanewold Kifle(Aleqa) 1986. Haimanote Abew/Religion of the
Fathers/Ancients:La Foi Des Peres Anciens, Franz Sterner Verlag Wiesbaden
GMBH, Stuttgart. Ethiopian Orthodox Religion of the Ancients like the history of
Trinitarian and Christological doctrine with the history of the papacy, is clearly
narrated.
20- Lule Mel-aku, 1993. Yebetekristian Tarik/Church History/, Addis Ababa,
Tinsae Printing Press,. ‘Yebetekristian Tarik’ is a book written in Amharic, by Lule
Mel-aku who is one of the Key Scholars on church history in the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church, used to teach at the Holy Trinity Cathedral, specialization in
Oriental Orthodox Church History.
21- MacCulloch Diarmaid., 2004. The Reformation History, U.S.A., Viking,
Penguin Books.
22- Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam 1969).
23- Meqarios Abba., 2001. Mengede Semay/Heavens Way; Addis Ababa;
Tensae Zegbae Press. Abune Maqarios is One among the respected Patriarches
in the EOTC.
302
24- Mebratu Kiros Gebreu, 2010. Miaphysite Christology, An Ethiopian
Perspective, Gorgias Press. This book tries to set off the EOTC’s position against
the mislabeling by chalcedonies labeled it ‘Monophisite’.
25- Musurillo, H., (1961). “Ignatius of Antioch,” Theological Studies 22.
26- Pelican Jaroslav and Hotchkiss Valerie(Editors), 2003. Creeds and
Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition; Vol l, Early Eastern and Medieval,
New Haven, London, Yale University Press. Very summarized views of creeds
and confessions which is very helpful to compare and contrast foundational
doctrinal mind frames.
27- Pusey E.B.,(Editor),1926. Saint Augustine., The Confessions of St.
Augustine, Great Britain, Blackie and Son Ltd, Glasgow. Gives basic hints from
the mind of Augustine as to the perspectives of the formative years of the
medieval age.
28- Robertson Archibald (Translator), 1885. ST .Athanasius on the Incarnation,
London: D.Nutt, 270 Strand. Gives basic hints from the mind of Athanasius as to
the perspectives of the formative Christological debates.
29- Schaff Philip, 1910. History of the Christian Church, Vol I , Apostolic
Christianity, A D 1-100, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co. . Telling us the history of the Christian Church at large in its early years, it
helps us to see into the developments and dynamisms happened through time in
the contextual nature and within our own locality.
30- Schaff Philip, 1910. History of the Christian Church, Vol II ,Apostolic
Christianity, A D 100-300, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co. Telling us the history of the Christian Church at large in its early years, it
helps us to see into the developments and dynamisms happened through time in
the contextual nature and within our own locality.
31- Schaff Philip, 1910. History of the Christian Church, Vol III ,From Constantine
303
the Great to Gregory the Great, A D 311-600, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co. A continuation from the above History.
32- Sebhat Le-ab, Meseret, 1996. Sellassie Betewhado (Trinity in Unity), Addis
Ababa, Mekane Yesus Seminary Theological Literature Fund. This book
discusses the EOTC’s theological stance with rich explanation on trinity and a
little bit Christology.
33- Strauss Stefen J., 1997. Perspectives on the Nature of Christ in the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church: A case study in Contextual Theology (A dissertation submitted
at Trinity International University), Deerfield, Illions. This is a dissertation material
by one who has been a township missionary of the SIM and who has done an
extensive study of the Christological understandings of the EOTC.
34 -Taddesse Tamirat, 1972. Church and State in Ethiopia, 1270-1527, Oxford,
Oxford University Press. This book helps to see the ecclesiological conceptions
from one who objectively has done an academic research, on the way exposing
tensions.
35- Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne (Editors), 1986.John Calvin on the Institutes
of Christian Religion, USA, Baker Book House. This book tells how the two
natures constitute one person of the mediator.
36-_________., 1996. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church, Faith, Order of
Worship and Ecumenical Relations, Addis Ababa, Tensae Publishing House.
Detail face on sacramental activities and duties of the church.
37- Uqbit Tesfazghi, 1973. Current Christological Positions of Ethiopian Orthodox
Theologians, Pont Intitutum Studiorum Orientalium. Set of Christological
guidelines, from one who was on a level setting the official statements of the
EOTC’s Doctrine.
38- Wesley, John: Wesley’s Notes: John. 1999 Electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages
Software, (Logos Library System; Wesley’s Notes), S. Jn 1:14
304
39- Weinandy, Thomas G. ; Keating, Daniel A. 2003: The Theology of St. Cyril of
AlexandriaAppreciation. London; New York : T&T Clark.
40- Yeshak, Abune. 1989. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewhado Church: An
Integrally African Church. New York: Vantage. Helps us to know the church
inside-out.
41- ___________(http://cccaprf.wordpress.com/ 2011/02/05/ its-significance-to-
pastoral-formation-indian-context/) Prof. Y. Iisaka teaches political science at
Gakushuin University. He was a visiting lecturer at the University of Nebraska
(1961-2) and lecturer at Nagoya University.
Works consulted
1- Adrian Hastings (Editor) 1999. A Worlds History of Christianity, U K., Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.
2- Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Eds), 2004. Anti Nicene Fathers
Vol 1 The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, USA, Hendrickson
Publishers, 4th printing.
3- Alexander Roberts, and James Donaldson (Eds), 2004. Anti Nicene Fathers
Vol 2 Fathers of the second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus,
and Clement of Alexanderia, USA, Hendrickson Publishers, 4th printing.
4- Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Eds), 2004. Anti Nicene Fathers
Vol 5,Apologetic; Anti-Marcion; Ethical, USA, Hendrickson Publishers Coxe
Cleveland A., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Latin Cristianity: Its Founder Tertullian S A,
Hendrickson Publishers.
5- Alexander Roberts, and James Donaldson (Eds), 2004. Anti Nicene Fathers
Vol 4 Fathers of the third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix;
Commodin; Oregen…, USA, Hendrickson Publishers.
6- Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Eds), 2004. Anti Nicene Fathers
305
Vol 5, Hippolytus, Cyrian, Caius, Novatia, USA, Hendrickson Publishers
7- B. Sinclair; F David Write; (Editors); 1988. Reprinted 2005. New Dictionary of
Theology, Leicester England, IVP.
8- Barton, Bruce B.; Osborne, Grant R. 1999. 1 & 2 Thessalonians: Life
Application Commentary. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, (Life
Application Bible Commentary).
9- Balz, Horst Robert ; Schneider, Gerhard., 1990-c1993. Exegetical Dictionary
of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, S
10- Boer Harry R.,1976. A Short History of the Early Church, Grand REapids
Michigan, Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Company.
11- Bloesch, Donald G., 1997. Jesus Christ; Saviour and Lord; USA, Inter Varsity
Press.
12- Bruce F.F., 1974. Paul and Jesus; Grand Rapids; Michigan; Baker Book
House.
13- Calvin John: Beveridge Henry (Trans); 1989/1995(reprint). Institutes of the
Christian Religion, (One Volume Edition), U.S.A., Eerdmans Publishing Co.
14- Carson, D.A., 1996. The Gagging of God, Christianity Confronts Pluralism,
U.S.A, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House.
15- Charesworth James H., 1988. Jesus within Judaism, New Light from Exciting
Archeological Discoveries, U.S.A., Doubleday.
16- Chemnitz Martin, 1971, The Two natures in Christ, U S A, Concordia
Publishing House.
17- Collins Gerald O’ S.J., 1995. Christology, Historical and Systematic Study of
Jesus, U.S.A, Oxford University Press.
18- ____________Colwell an article (1933). “A Definite Rule for the Use of the
306
Article in the Greek New Testament,” in JBL 52 (1933)
19- Daniel B. Wallace: 1999; 2002. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics –
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan Publishing House and
Galaxie Software, S. 257
20- Danker Frederick William (Editor) 1957. based on William Bauer’s, Greek
English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature 3
rd
edition, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press.
21- Dowley Tim (Organizing Edi), Briggs John H. Y.; Wright David F., Linder
Robert D., (Consulting Eds) 1977. Eerdmans’ Handbook to the History of
Christianity, England, WmB Eerdmans Publishing Co.
22- Duling Dennis C., 1979. Jesus Christ Through History, U.S.A., Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich,Inc.
23- Dunn James D.G., 1989. Christology in the Making: A New Testament
Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, U.S.A., SCM Press.
24- Erickson Millard J.,1991. The Word Became Flesh, A contemporary
Incarnational Christology, U.S.A., Baker Book House.
25- Evans Craig A.,& Porter Stanley E.,(Editors), 1995. The Historical Jesus,
England, Sheffield Academic Press.
26- Fergusson Sinclair B., and Write David F.,(Editors), 1978. New Dictionary of
Theology, USA, IVP.
27- Fee Gordon D., 2007. Pauline Christology, USA., Hendrickson Publishers.
28- Foster, John ; Frend, W. H. C.: 1991. The First Advance : Church History 1,
AD 29-500. Rev. ed. with additions. London : SPCK,.
29- Grillmeier S.J. Aloys with Theresia Hainthaler (Translator),1996. Christ in
Christian Tradition, Vol 2, From the Council of Chalcedon(451) to Gregory the
great(590-604). The Church of Alexanderia with Nubia and Ethiopia after
307
451,Great Britain, Mowbray, Wellington House.
30- Green Joel B., & Max Turner (Editors), 1994. Jesus of Nazareth, Lord and
Christ, Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, U.S.A.,
WmB. Eerdmans Co.
31- Gregory Nazianzen. Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Vol 7 of
NPNF.
32- Grudem Wayne, 1994. Systematic Theology, An Introduction to the Biblical
Doctrine, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, Printed Jointly by IVP and Zondervan.
33- Guthrie Donald, 1964. New Testament Introduction, England, IVP.
34- Haggland Bengt., 1968. History of Theology, Translated by Gene J. Land-
from the original Teologins Historia, London, Manufactured in the United States
of America, Concordia Publishing House.
35- Harnack Adolf., 1898. History of Dogma, Translated by Neil Buchanan, Vol
IV., Boston, Little, Brown, and Company.
36- Harris Murray J., 1992. Jesus as God: The New Testaments use of Theos in
Reference to Jesus., U.S.A., Baker Book House.
37- Hengel Martin, 1995. Studies in Early Christology, Scotland, T&T Clark LTD.
38- Henry Chadwick, 1967. The Pelican History of the Church.1, The Early
Church–, N.Y., USA, Penguin Books.
39- Jaroslave Pelican & Valerie Hotchkiss; 2003. Creeds and Confessions of
Faith in the Christian Tradition; Vol One; U.S.A, Yale University Press.
40- J.B.Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer (Translators); W.Holmes Michael (Editor),
1989. The Apostolic Fathers, 2nd Edition, U. S. A, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Baker Book House.
308
41-Keener Craig S., 2003.The Gospel of John, A Commentary, Vol. I, U.S.A.,
Hendrickson Publishers.
42- Kaufman Gordon D., 1981. “God the Problem” U.S.A., Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
43- Keener, Craig S., 1993. Bible Background Commentary, New Testament,
U.S.A., I.V.P.
44- Keener Craig S., 1999. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, U.S.A.,
Eerdmans Publishing Company.
45- Knitter, Paul F., 1985. No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian
Attitudes toward the World Religions, Mary Knoll: Orbis Books.
46- Kostenberger Andreas J. 2004. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament, Grand Rapids Michigan, John
47- Latourette K.S., 1953, 2003/Fifth Printing. The History of Christianity
Beginnings to 1500 Vol I, U.S.A.: Prince Press, an imprint of Hendrickson
Publishers
48. Lennox John C., 2007. God’s Undertaker; Has Science Buried God? Oxford
England, A Lion Hand book, an imprint of Lion Hudson plc.
49- Leonhard Goppelt; Guelich Robert A., (Translator), 1970, Apostolic and Post
Apostolic Times, London, Adam and Charles Black
50- Lightfoot., 1989. The Apostolic Fathers, USA. Hendrickson Publishers
51- Liddell H.G and R Scott, 1996. Greek- English Lexicon with a Revised
Supplement, Great Britain, Oxford University Press.
52- Longenecker Richard N., 2005. Contours of Christology in the New
Testament, Cambridge, U.K., Grand Rapids, WmB.Eerdmans Pub Co. .
53- Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ;
309
Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): Luther’s Works, Vol. 22 : Sermons on the Gospel of
St. John: Chapters 1-4. Saint Louis : Concordia Publishing House, 1999, c1957
54- Lohmeyer Ernst, 1928. Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2, 5-11
(Heidelberg).
55- Macquairry John, 1990. Jesus Christ in Modern Thought, Great Britain, SCM
Press.
56- Martin Ralph P., and Dodd Brian J., 1998. Where Christology Begun,
Louisville, Kentucky, Westminster John Knox Press.
57- McGrath Alister E., 1998. Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History
of Christian Thought, USA, Blackwell Publishing.
58- McGrath Alister E., 1987, 1994. The Making of Modern German Christology,
1750-1990, U.K., Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan.
59- McGrath Alister, 2001. Christian Theology, UK, Blackwell publishing.
60- Mcgregor Geddes, 1980. The Nature of God, The Nicene Creed Illuminated
by Modern Thought, .USA, Grand Rapids, WmB Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
61- Metzger, Bruce M., 1977. The Early Versions of the New
Testament…,Oxford, Oxford University Press.
62- Michael Poole, 2007, Questions of Faith, User’s Guide to Science and Belief,
China, Lion Hudson.
63- Molnar D. Paul, 2007. Incarnation and resurrection, toward a contemporary
Understanding., U S A., Wm B Eerdmans Co.
64- Nazir Ali Michael, 1995. Mission and Dialogue; Great Britain, SPCK.
65- Norris Richard A., (Translator& Editor), 1980. The Christological Controversy,
U.S.A., Fortress Press.
310
66- Norman K. Bakken, 1968. “The New Humanity: Christ and the Modern
Age. A Study Centering in the Christ-hymn: Phil. 2:6-11,” Interpretation.
67- Olson Roger E., 1999. The Story of Christian Theology; Twenty Centuries of
Tradition and Reform, U.S.A., I.V.P…
68- Pannikkar R., 1973. The Meaning of Christ’s Name in Service and Salvation,
Bangalore, CM-I.
69- Paul Barnett 2005. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, WmB Eerdmanns Co.
70- Patzia, Arthur G. 1995. The Making of the New Testament : Origin,
Collection, Text & Canon. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.
71- Payne, Barton J., 1962. last-printed 1993. The Theology of The Older
Testament, USA, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Published by ICI University with
permission of the Zondervan Publishing House.
71- P. Dawe, 1963. The Form of a Servant: A Historical Analysis of the Kenotic
Motif; Philadelphia.
72- Schillebeeckx Edward, (Hubert Hoskins, Trans), 1989. Jesus An Experiment
in Christology., U.S.A., Crossroad Publishing Company.
73- Schweitzer Albert, 1968. The Quest of the Historical Jesus, with a New
Introduction by James M. Robinson., U.S.A., Macmillan Publishing Co.
74- Stevenson J., 1989, Creeds, Councils and Controversies…AD 337-461,
London, SPCK.
75- Tomas F. Torrance., 1997. Space Time and Incarnation, Edinburgh: T&T
Clark
76- Walter Martin, 1975. The Kingdom of the Cults: An Analysis of the Major Cult
Systems in the Present Christian Era, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship,
1968) 75, n. 31.)
311
77- Wells David F., 1984. The Person of Christ; A Biblical and Historical Analysis
of the Incarnation, U.S.A., Crossway books.
78- Witherington Ben 3rd, 1997. The Jesus Quest, the search for the Jew of
Nazareth, USA, IVP.
79- Wyne Grudem, 1994. Systematic Theology, An Introduction to Biblical
Doctrine, USA, Grand Rapids, Michigan, IVP.
80- Zerwick, 1991. Biblical Greek, 56; L. Cignelli, and G. C. Bottini, “L’Articolo
nel Greco Biblico,” Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Liber Annuus 41, 187
81- Zerwick, Max; Grosvenor, Mary; 1974., A Grammatical analysis of The Greek
New Testament, Rome: Biblical Institute Press
82 -_______________ some of the questions raised by the Roman authorities’
investigation of Schillebeeckx lie outside the scope of this paper. For the official
correspondence between Schillebeeckx and the Roman congregation in Dutch
and French versions with brief commentaries, see Schoof (1973a) and
Hebblewaite (1980). For a consideration of related theological questions, see the
issue of Tildschrift voor theologie 20 (1980) devoted to this case, especially the
articles by van Bavel and Schoof. There is also a useful survey of foreign-
language materials in Asen (1980). For Schillebeeckx’s record of publication see
Schoof (1974). An updated bibliography will soon be published in the same
journal.
Selective Bibliography
1 -Abdassayid, A.S. 1985. The Egyptian Church and the Ethiopian Church,
1855-1909. Cairo [in Arabic].
2 -Adjemian, B. 1998. Traditions et filiations es savoirs européens et orientaux
dans une Géographie arménienne: l‘Ethiopie d’Agonc’ en 1802. Cahiers du CRA.
3 -Amdemariam Tesfamicael 1982-83. La chiesa ‘Tewahedo’ d’Etiopia. Quaderni
di Studi Etiopici 3-4.
4- Ayele Teklehaymanot, Abba 1988. The Egyptian metropolitan of the Ethiopian
Church. Orientalia Christiana Periodica.
312
5- BAGD W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. Danker, 1979. A Greek-
English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature.
6- Bairu Tafla 1967. The establishment of the Ethiopian church. Tarikh.
7- Bandrès, J.L. 2003 La doctrine christologique de l’Église orthodoxe Täwah?
do d’Éthiopie. Irénikon, forthcoming.
8- Beylot, R. 1971-72 Le millénarisme, article de foi dans l’église éthiopienne au
XVme siècle. Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 25.
9- Brake, D.T. 1977 An Historical Investigation of Monophysitism in the Ethiopian
Orthodox Church. Dallas: Dallas Theological Seminary (Ph.D. thesis).
10- Brown, C.F.1972 The Conversion Experience in Axum during the Fourth and
Fifth Centuries. Washington: Howard University, Department of History.
11- Bruce, F.F. 1989. Philip and the Ethiopian: the expansion of Hellenistic
Christianity. Journal of Semitic Studies.
12- Bruce, J. 1967. The Ethiopian Church. In: J. Forman, ed., Christianity in the
Non-Western World,. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13- Caulk, R.H. 1981. Islam and Christianity in Northeast Africa until 1500.
In: Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Africa.
14- Chaillot, C. 2002. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition.
Paris: Inter-Orthodox Dialogue.
15- Chernetsov, S. 1988. The role of Catholicism in the history of Ethiopia in the
first half of the 17th century.
16- Cohen, L. 2002. The Portuguese context of the Confessio Fidei of king
Claudius. In: Baye Yimam, et al., eds., Ethiopian Studies at the End of the
Second Millennium, Proceedings of the XIVth International Conference of
Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa November 6-11. Addis Ababa: Institute of
Ethiopian Studies.
17- Coquin, R.-G. 1967. Vestiges de concélébration eucharistique chez les
melkites égyptiens, des Coptes et les Éthiopiens. Le Muséon 80(1-2).
18- Cowley, R.W. 1970. The Ethiopian Church and the Council of Chalcedon.
Sobornost 6(1): 33-38.
313
19- Crummey, D. 1978. Orthodoxy and imperial reconstruction in Ethiopia, 1854-
1878. Journal of Theological Studies 19(2).
20- Daoud, M., Rev. 1959. The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church (English &
Arabic). Revised by Blatta Mersie Hazen.Cairo: Egyptian Book Press (First
edition: Addis Ababa 1954).
21- Davis, A.J. 1967. The orthodoxy of the Ethiopian Church.
Tarikh 2(1): 63-69. 1969 Pope Julius’ Bull of 1554: its political significance in
Ethiopia. Ibadan. 14- Braaten Karl E. and Jonson Robert W.(Eds) 2001. Church
Unity & the Papal Office; U.K., Grand Rapids, Michigan, Wm . Eerdmans
Publishing Company.
22- Dombrowski, B.W.W. & F.A. Dombrowski 1984. Frumentius/Abba Salama: zu
den Nachrichten über die Anfänge des Christentums in Äthiopien. Oriens
Christianus 68
23- Donzel, E. van 1969. Enqasa Amin (La Porte de la Foi). Apologie
Éthiopienne du Christianisme contre l’Islam à partir du Coran. Introduction, Texte
Critique, Traduction.
Leiden: E.J. Brill (Ph.D. dissertation).
24- Duff, C. 1980. Cords of Love: A Pioneer Mission in Ethiopia. Philadelphia:
Presbyterian and Reformed.
25- Echarri, M. 1967. Quince siglos de fe y heroismo in un pueblo que surgio de
la Biblia. Actualidad Africana 17(4-5): 14-32 [in Spanish].
26- Endalkachew Mekonnen 1970. Religion of our forefathers: is Christianity
irrelevant to our modern way of life? Abba Salama 1.
27- Ephraim Isaac 1967. The Ethiopian Church. Boston: H.N. Sawyer & Co.
28- Erlich, H. 2000. Identity and church – Ethiopian-Egyptian relations.
International Journal of Middle East Studies 31(1).
29- Fisseha Tadesse 2002. The representation of Jesus: reflecting attitudes of
masculinity in the Ethiopian theological tradition. Journal of Ethiopian Studies.
30- Forsberg, M. 1958. Land beyond the Nile. New York: Harper & Brothers.
31- Freuchet, V. 1996. Les Mouvements Monastiques en Éthiopie aux XVIIe et
XVIIIe Siècles et leur Role dans la Controverse de l’Union et de l’Onction (1622-
314
1730). Université de Paris I, Centre de Recherche Africaine (Mémoire de
maîtrise).
32- Fritsch, E. 2001. The Liturgical Year of the Ethiopian Church. The Temporal:
Seasons and Sundays. Addis Ababa: St. Francis Major Seminary, xiv.
33- Gebre-Yessus Wolde-Mikael 1977. Investigation into the Religious and Cultic
Vocabulary of the Ethiopic (Ge’ez) Bible Version. Jerusalem: Hebrew University
(Ph.D. Thesis).
34- Ghebre-Mariam Eman 1964. Il Rito del Sacramento della Penitenza nella
Chiesa Ethiopia. Rome: Pontifico Istituto Orientale (Ph.D. thesis).
35- Haberland, E. 1973. Feste im Kirchenjahr des Christlichen Äthiopiens.
Zeitschrift für Kulturaustausch (Special issue on Ethiopia): 56-58.
36- Habtemichael Kidane 1996. Il Deggwa – libro liturgico della Chiesa d’Etiopia.
Orientalia Christiana Analecta 251: 353-388. 1997 La celebrazione della
Settimana Santa nella Chiesa etiopica.
37- Getatchew Haile 1980. From strict observance to royal endowment: the case
of the monastery of Däbrä Halle Luya, EMML 6343 ff. 117r-118v.
38- Ghali, M. Boutros 1999. Ethiopian Church autocephaly. A.S. Atiya, ed., The
Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 3: 980-984. New York: Macmillan International.
39- Gigar Tesfaye 1985. La généalogie des trois tribus Irob chrétiennes d’après
des documents de Gunda Gundié. Annales d’Éthiopie .
40-.Girma Beshah & Merid Wolde Aregay 1964. The Question of the Union of the
Churches in Luso-Ethiopian Relations, 1500-1632.
41- G. Goldenberg & B. Podolsky, eds., 1986. The end of a deserter of the
established Church of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Studies. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference, Tel Aviv 1980. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
42-____________1988. A history of the Tabot of Atronésä Maryam in Amhara.
Paideuma 34: 13-22.
43- Haberland, E. 1979a. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church. A national church in
Africa. In: Christian and Islamic Contributions towards Establishing Independent
States in Africa South of the Sahara. Stuttgart: Institut für
Auslandbeziehungen.
315
44- Haile Gabriel Dagne 1987. Oral information on the establishment of churches
in Addis Ababa. Symposium on the Centennary of Addis Ababa 1986, November
24-25, 1986, Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.
45- Hammerschmidt, E. 1965. Jewish elements in the cult of the Ethiopian
church. Journal of Ethiopian Studies 3(2).
46 – Habte-Maryam Wärqnäh, Liqä Seltänat 1969. A historical account of the
Ethiopian Orthodox Monophysite Church creed. In: Proceedings of the Third
International Conference of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa 1966, vol.2 266-271.
Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Haile Selassie I University.
47- Habtä-Maryam Wärq näh, Liqä Seltänat 1976. The Ancient Ethiopian Order
of Teaching. Addis Ababa [in Amharic].
48- Habtemichael Kidane 1996 Il Deggwa – libro liturgico della Chiesa d’Etiopia.
49 – Haight Roger S.J. 2007. The Future of Christology., U.S.A., the Continuum
International Publishing Group LtD
50 – Horgan Thaddeus D.(Ed.), 1990. Walking Together, Roman Catholics and
Ecumenism, Twenty five Years after Vatican II, USA, WmB.Eerdmans Publishing
Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
51 – Hurtado Larry W., 2003. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest
Christianity, Cambridge, U.K., WmB. Eerdmans Pub.Co.
52- Jamieson, Robert ; Fausset, A. R. ; Fausset, A. R. ; Brown, David ; 1997.
Brown, David: A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New
Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., , S.
53- John Frame., 2002. The Doctrine of God, Phillipsburg: P&R.
54 – K’a’rkkainen Veli M’a’tti, 2003. Christology, A Global Introduction, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House.
55- K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren (Eds) 1975.
UBSGNT The Greek NT.
56- Kaplan, S.1985. On the Ethiopian Judeo-Christian context of the history of
the Beta Israel.Pe’amim 22 [in Hebrew].1986 Histoire et tradition: les chefs des
316
communautés Beta Israel et leur évolution. Les Temps Modernes 41(47). 1987
On the origins of the Beta Israel: five methodological cautions. Pe’amim 33. [in
Hebrew]. 1992. Indigenous categories and the study of world religions in
Ethiopia: the case of the Beta Israel (Falasha). Journal of Religion in Africa 22(3).
1993 The invention of the Ethiopian Jews: three models.
Cahiers d’Études Africaines.
57- Kropp, M. 1999. ‘Glücklich, wer vom Weib geboren, dessen Tage doch
kurzbemessen…’: die altäthiopische Grabinschrift von Hñam, datiert auf 23.
Dezember 873 n.Chr. Oriens Christianus.
58- Kur, S. 1994. Les Stéphanites à la lumière des Actes de Gunda-Gunde.
In: C. Lepage, et al., eds., Études Éthiopiennes. Actes de la Xe Conférence
Internationale des Études Éthiopiennes, 1988, vol.1. Paris: Société Française
des Études Éthiopiennes.
59- L. Abramowski & A.E. Goodman, 1972. A Nestorian Collection of
Christological Texts, Vol. 1: Syriac Texts. University of Cambridge Oriental
Publications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60- Luther, Martin: Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan (Hrsg.) ; Oswald, Hilton C. (Hrsg.) ;
Lehmann, Helmut T. (Hrsg.): 1999. Luther’s Works, Vol. 22 : Sermons on the
Gospel of St. John: Chapters 1-4. Saint Louis : Concordia Publishing House, ,
c1957.
61- MacDonald, William; Farstad, Arthur: 1997, c1995. Believer’s Bible
Commentary: Old and New Testaments. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
62- Mara, Y. 1972. The Church of Ethiopia: the National Church in the Making.
Asmara: Il Poligrafico, ii.
63- Marrassini, P. 1993. Lo Scettro et la Croce. La Campagna di ‘Amda Seyon
contro l’Ifat (1332). Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale (Studi Africanistici,
Serie Etiopia 4).
64- Meinardus, O.F. 1962. A brief history of the Abunate of Ethiopia.
Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 58: 39-65 [published in 1964].
1964 The Zequala, the holy mountain of Ethiopia.
Orientalia Suecana. 1965 Ecclesiastica Aethiopica in Aegypto.
65- Meier John P., 1994. A Marginal Jew, Rethinking the Historical Jesus, (Vol
II), U.S.A., Doubleday Pub. Group.
317
66- Meister Chad and Paul Copan (Editors), 2010. “The Routledge Companion to
Philosophy of Religion”, London and New York; Routledge Taylor& Francis
Group.
67- Mordini, A. 1964 Indagini sul convento di Gunde Gundié e sui problemi di
storia medioevale
etiopica.
68- Munro-Hay, S.C. 1997 Ethiopia and Alexandria: the Metropolitan Episcopacy
of Ethiopia. Warsaw – Wiesbaden (Bibliotheca Nubica et Aethiopica, 5).
69- Nagaso Gidada & D. Crummey 1972. The introduction and expansion of
Orthodox Christianity in Qelem awraja, western Wälläga, from about 1886 to
1941.
70- Noll Mark A., and Turner James.,2008. Thomas Albert Howard (Ed.) The
Future of Christian Learning; an Evangelical and Catholic Dialogue, USA, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, Brazos Press.
71- O’Donnell Kevin, 2003. Post modernism, Printed and bound in China, Lion
Publishing PLC.
72- Pankhurst, R. 1987-88. Some brief notes on the Ethiopian Tabot and
Mänbärä Tabot. Quaderni di Studi Etiopici 1998. Ethiopia: the book and the
cross. In: Cultures of the Indian Ocean,. Lisbon: Comissão Nacional para as
Comemoracões do Descobrimentos Portugueses.
73- Pedersen, K. Stoffregen 1990. Les Éthiopiens. Turnhout: Éditions Brepols.
1995 Die Äthiopische Kirche von Afrika bis nach Jerusalem.
Trier: Aphorisma.
74- Pennec, H. 2000. Des Jésuites au Royaume du Prêtre Jean (Éthiopie).
Stratégies, Rencontres et Tentatives d’Implantation (1495-1633). Paris:
Université de Paris I (Thèse de Doctorat).
75- Rock Darrel L., 2002. Jesus according to Scripture, Restoring the Portrait
from the Gospels, U.S.A, Baker Academic.
76- Sanders E.P., 1993. The Historical Figure of Jesus, Austrialia, Penguin
Books.
318
77- Schreiter Robert J., (Editor), 1991. Faces of Jesus in Africa, U.S.A., Orbis
Books.
78- Stuttgart: F. Steiner Verlag. Ullendorff, E. 1968 Ethiopia and the Bible.
London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, xiii.
79- (Sergew Hable Selassie, ed.), Ethiopian Orthodox Church
1970 The Church of Ethiopia: a Panorama of History and Spiritual Life.
Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Orthodox Church.
80-Taddese Beyene, ed., Proceedings of the VIIIth International Conference of
Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa 1984, vol.1, pp. 205-212. Huntingdon, U.K.: ELM
Publications.
81- Theil John E., 2000. Sense of Tradition: Continuity and Development in
Catholic Faith., Oxford, Oxford University Press.
82- Tekle-Tsadik Mekouria 1967 L’Église de l’Éthiopie. Paris: Promotion et
Édition. 1994 L’influence du roi David et de son Psautier en Éthiopie.
In: C. Lepage, et al., eds., Études Éthiopiennes. Actes de la Xe Conférence
Internationale des Études Éthiopiennes: Société Française des Études
Éthiopiennes.
83- Tescarole, G. 1970 La chiesa in Etiopia. La Nigrizia 88(2):.
Tewolde Beiene 1983 La Politica Cattolica di Seltan Sägäd I (1607-1632) e la
Missione della Compagnia di Gesù in Etiopia. Precedenti, Evoluzione e
Problematiche, 1589- 1632. Rome.
84- Trucca, B. 1973 Gli antichi culti etiopici precristiani. Sestante 8(2).
1980 Il culto delle pietre ritte (ansâb) in terra etiopica. Quaderni di Studi Etiopici .
85- Une épisode de l’histoire ecclésiastique de l’Éthiopie, le mouvement
Stéphanite. Annales d’Éthiopie.
86-__________1969-70. The role and significance of the religious conflicts and
people’s movements in the political life of Ethiopia in the XVIIth and XVIIIth
centuries. Rassegna di Studi Etiopici.
87- Uhlig, S. 1989. Kannte Kosmas Indicopleustes das astronomische Buch der
Henochapocalypse? In: E. von Schuler, ed., XXIII. Deutscher Orientalistentag
88- Wesley, John: Wesley’s Notes: John. 1999. Electronic ed. Albany, OR: Ages
vom 16. bis 20. September 1985 in Würzburg. Ausgewählte Vorträge.
