New Page 1

The Son of God became present to us in Person, in history, in dialogue, and in mystery. The Lord asks each of us, “Who do men say that the Son of Man is?” (Mt 16:13). What is your answer? Who do you believe Jesus Christ is? The Apostle Simon responded, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Mt 16:16). Thereafter Simon was renamed, Peter, the Rock upon which the Church was founded.

So the mystery of Jesus Christ contains two foci which illuminate one another: his divine nature, which sheds light on his human nature, and his human nature which reveals his divine nature. He was prophesied in the Old Testament by God’s presence in the world through Israel, through the Covenant, through his revealed Word, and through his action. The early Christians passed on to us a faith in the Son of Mary, that he is in fact God. In fact, he confessed that he was God (cf. Mt. 26:64 and parallels), and he did things only God could do. Yet being God, he chose the humblest of lives and the worst of deaths.

By rising from the dead in his flesh, a fact witnessed by many, he opened up for us the gateway of hope. He obeyed the Father in the hardest trials, and therefore he was glorified above every other name.

In the Deposit of Faith Series, Christology occupies one of the dogmatic topics. Most of the “-ology” units are dogmatic, such as this one, Mariology, Ecclesiology, and so forth. We are advancing this unit to fill in for a date in December we had not planned on meeting. Therefore this is the second dogmatic unit we are seeing, before we see one of the other sectors, such as sacraments, moral theology and Church history.

After the Trinity, it is most appropriate, among the dogmatic units, to consider the Second Person of the Trinity with special attention to the mystery of the Incarnation. Sometimes one distinguishes the divine nature of Christ by referring to him as the Word, then referring to his human nature by his name Jesus. Every mystery of the Catholic Faith will eventually return to this one, for Jesus Christ is the fullness of revelation, and present to us in his divinity and humanity under the sacramental species of bread and wine.

(For the various Christological heresies, see below, the sub-section entitled “Apologetics.”)

Low Christology. A method of Christology starting with his human elements as the point of departure.

High Christology. A method of Christology starting with his divine elements as the point of departure.

Evangelist. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, one of the four who wrote a Gospel. There are references in the Scriptures (Ez 1:5-21; Rev 4:6) to four animals: human, lion, ox, and eagle. While some assert they mean the four points of the compass, or perhaps four noble characteristics (intelligence, nobility, strength and agility), St. Irenaeus attributes to them relationships with the four evangelists:

These forms appear very frequently in forms of art in many Catholic places of worship.

It is appropriate to begin contemplating the characteristics of Jesus Christ, from his more exterior to his more interior, much like it is good to begin writing a description only after looking at the contemplated object.

It is probable that he was powerfully attractive, if not for his external appearance, certainly for the charisma he exercised over individuals and crowds. Occasionally the scriptures mention the penetrating, stimulating, even punishing glance with which he looked at others and knew what was in their hearts.

His physical strength and endurance are evident. He continually was in contact with sick people and is never reported to have contracted illness. He traveled on foot a lot and slept little, more than once spending a whole night in prayer. He climbed mountains from time to time, besides the fact that in his travels he met many hills and dales in Palestine. It is mentioned a couple of times how he did not have time even to eat.[1] He endured the stress and pressure of many powerful enemies who wanted nothing more than to take his life.

At one time his relatives came to collect him, saying that he was crazy, and they wanted to take him away. But on the contrary, we find he is a man of a brilliant intellect. He had a clear idea of his goals, and a profound apprehension of his ideals.[2] This clarity never faded even when everyone abandoned him. He is never indecisive about anything he did or said. He loved the truth and hated insincerity.

Jesus the Son of Joseph was a born leader, dominating in his personality and both regal and noble in his dealings with others. He had a certain distance from others and wasn’t prone to superficiality or unhealthy confidences. He loved to spend time alone, yet was not aloof.

He did not hide a holy passion and zeal which burned within him. His sentimental, emotional and passionate world was very vivacious.[3] His messianic and prophetic role in life led him to paradoxical and challenging words and deeds.

He was not an ecstatic type, but eminently practical. He was not given to depressions or rash judgments. Profoundly aware of the supernatural realities that surrounded him and those around him, he dealt with them, even extreme cases such as possession, with self dominion and reflection. Supernatural things were simply part of his grasp of reality.

No mind was more logically precise than his, in his use of terms,[4] in his syllogistic argumentation,[5] and his capacity to discern problems in the midst of complicated questions.[6] The cleverness of his parables further underscores his immense intelligence.

Among men he was understanding with the sick and ignorant, and was willing to suffer great things for others. He enjoyed great compassion for the poor, with true feelings of solidarity, for he too was poor. With the rich, the more educated, the powerful and influential, he was very demanding. He knew also how to have a good time at a party, such as at Cana or in the house of Matthew, probably because of his very balanced and truthful sense of reality.

Finally, he was a great man of prayer, that looked up to the Father frequently, spent nights in vigils, who prayed the official prayers of Israel yet personal prayers in public and private. He had a continual sense of the presence of his Father, hence is relationship to God was one of a Son, not one of a slave. All of this lead him to the greatest detachment from men and from things in focusing exclusively on the mission his loving Father gave him: to die to save us from our sins.

1. What other traits of Christ’s personality can I remember from my favorite scripture passages of the Gospels?

2. How does his personality type match up against ideals and values of the society that surrounds me?

Jesus Christ is most important to us because he is our God and savior. Therefore this seems like an apt first theological point for discussion.

There is a whole sub-discipline in the world of Christology called “Soteriology.” The word derives from swthvr (soter), the Greek word for “savior.” The fundamental question that soteriology strives to answer, is why did the incarnation happen. The simple answer is found in the Creed, “... for us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven.” His incarnation brought salvation, liberation and redemption.

By salvation we mean we were saved from our sins. By liberation, we mean that we are free from them, no longer a slave, and filled with the freedom of the Sons of God. By redemption, a word which derives from the Latin term “to buy back,” the debt of our sin was cancelled and entry into heaven has once again been made possible.

The salvation of Jesus Christ was prefigured in many ways, most extraordinarily in the Suffering servant of Isaiah,[7] and is said by all the New Testament writers to have taken its definitive from in his death on the cross.[8] It was no accident that Jesus Christ died on the cross. St. Thomas Aquinas discusses how, after discarding all the other possibilities of what the cause of Jesus Christ’s passion was, whether circumstance or Pilate or sinners or the Jews or the Romans, the only reason the passion occurred was because Jesus Christ wanted it to happen, obedient to the will of the Father.[9] There is no other cause of the Passion except Christ himself – so great is his love for us!

The Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and as I have power to lay it down, so I have power to take it up again; and this is the command I have received from my Father.[10]

It is in this light that Pope John Paul II wrote, towards the start of his pontificate, a document on the redemptive meaning of suffering.[11] This suffering savior gives meaning to our sufferings, and reveals the true nature of it to the heart of man.

Could such a Savior sin? Jesus as Man could not sin. The Devil tempted him (Lk 4). St. Thomas Aquinas (in De Malo, or The Disputed Question regarding Evil) says that the demons really didn’t have, nor do they have, a comprehension of the Incarnation. They could not understand how their crucifying him was actually the moment of victory over sin; nor can they understand how the incarnation influences Christ’s second coming to end all things. Sin and God are polar opposites, and as God is love and sin is the lack of love, it is impossible for any of the persons of the Trinity to sin.

1. Are there other forms of “liberation” proclaimed by the world at large which are inferior to the liberation from sin promised us by Christ?

2. If Christ show us that the path to salvation follows along the path of the cross, why do we often find ourselves downtrodden and discouraged by our own crosses? What is the solution?

Since the time Jesus Christ rose from the dead, everything has been different. On the third day after being laid in the tomb, Jesus Christ rose again from the dead, appeared to his disciples, stayed with them, ate with them, spoke with them and touched them.[12] His human nature became glorified, not limited by space and time, but able to be where he wills when he wills it; “Christ’s humanity can no longer be confined to earth and belongs henceforth only to the Father’s divine realm.”[13] He also has the “sovereign freedom to appear as he wishes.”[14]

His resurrection was different from the resurrections he performed. The Gospels narrate three: Jairus’ daughter, the son of the widow of Naim, and Lazarus. These latter were simply returned to this life. Jesus, on the contrary, returned but in a glorified state. It is another life “beyond space and time,”[15] which is quite a challenge for our understanding of the human body.

Because he rose from the dead, we too have hope in the resurrection from the dead.[16] Our bodies, after the resurrection, will endure the same fate as our soul, in heaven or hell. Therefore John writes, “The hour is coming when all who are in their tombs will hear [the Son’s] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:28-29),[17] a sobering revelation. Hoping that we are saved, our bodies will not be the same, for we will be glorified and not returned to the old, earthly life.[18] The Fourth Lateran Council reads:

All [the living and the dead] will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear (quae nunc gestant), so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, of the former eternal glory with Christ.[19]

Let us strive for our salvation with fear and trembling, yet with hope and in intimate conversation with the Lord, the angels and the saints in prayer.

1. Why might it be that no one was there when Jesus rose from the dead? Why did God in his Providence make it so?

2. What does the resurrection teach us about our own bodies? Were Plato and other philosophers through the centuries right in considering the body to be a prison for the soul?

3. How should the reward or punishment of the flesh at the resurrection motivate us, and why?

The Apostles, when they wrote the Gospels or epistles, stressed or underlined particular aspects regarding Jesus Christ. We don’t have to, in consequence, say, “which of these portraits of Jesus Christ will I accept?” Rather, it is a question of accepting them all and forming a synthesis in the light of Church Teaching. (A slightly more elaborate introduction to the New Testament writers will be reserved for the units of the Deposit of Faith Series reserved to them.)

Matthew. (Gospel of Matthew. To Palestinian Christians of Jewish origin.) Jesus is the fulfillment of the Prophets, the Law and the Writings. He is the Messiah, but the rejected Messiah. Matthew refers to the “Kingdom” more than any other evangelist (51 times; St. Mark, 14; St. Luke, 39). Perhaps related to this stress on the “Kingdom,” Matthew’s Gospel is very “church” oriented, including the proclamation of the supremacy of Peter (Mt 16:17-19). Also, Matthew records many of the discourses of the Lord.

Mark. (Gospel of Mark. To the Roman Christians; disciple of St. Peter.) Mark stresses Jesus as the Messiah who gradually reveals his divinity, and Jesus as the Son of God (Mk 1:1). Jesus’ divinity is there, evident, yet veiled to the Jews and not explicitly stated by any of the characters in the narrations until the centurion – not a Jew – states it at the foot of the cross. Jesus battles with demons all throughout Marks’ Gospel.

Luke. (Gospel of Luke, Acts. Perhaps to the Gentiles; Luke, the physician from Antioch, disciple of Paul.) In an educated and elegant Greek, Luke writes about Jesus underlining several themes. Jesus is ascending to Jerusalem, where he will exercise his office as high priest. His sufferings are on the way to his glorification.

John. (Gospel of John, epistles, Revelation or Apocalypse. To the Greek Christians.) His Gospel is the most explicit about the Holy Trinity. Faith, Charity, the Sacraments and Mary all play an important role. Jesus is the Word, full of goodness and truth – a mysterious truth at that. The Word was that through which the world was made, was sent forth from the Father, reveals to us the father, and loves us so as to procure our salvation.

St. Paul. If John’s writings are perhaps the most mystical teaching about Christ, St. Paul is perhaps the most intellectually lofty teachings about Christ. No easy synthesis is available, but some highlights can be mentioned. Christ is the Son of God, sent by the Father to give the Spirit to us all, his Church. He is the Lord before whom all bow and the Judge of all flesh. He fulfills the promises made to the Jews, and reveals that Adam, Abraham, Moses and others are prophetic types of Himself. He is the power of the resurrection, the light of all minds, the savior and the one who makes us holy by the power of his cross and resurrection. The important parts of the life of Christ which Paul refers to are almost exclusively those of his paschal mystery: his death, resurrection, ascension and sending of the Spirit. One also finds in Paul a nuptial understanding of Christ – as in John – where Christ is the groom and the Church is the bride.

This suffices as an introduction. It is good to read the scriptures themselves, even to learn passages my memory, and to read the writings of the Church, the Fathers and the saints when the comment scripture to get an ever clearer synthesis of thought.

Influence of Ancient Philosophy. During the first centuries of the Church, the greatest and dominant philosophical approach to divinity, man and the world was that of the Greeks. Authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Porphyry and others had suggested both schemes and terminology for discerning the nature of all things. The great Greek minds of the day were among the first bishops and Church Fathers, so it was natural for them in their day, as it is for us in our day, to grapple with the intellectual problems the faith posed with the tools they had in hand.

The Schools of Antioch and Alexandria. Both had different approaches to Scripture, and, fundamentally, to Christ. Both were Catholic schools of theology that produced both saints and heretics. Alexandria followed more Plato, who described reality as a shadow, where things were copies of eternal ideas; these authors excelled in finding allegory, typology and participation in Scripture when studying Christ. Antioch followed more Aristotle, who focused more on the raw fact of reality, its nature and its causes; these authors saw causality in the fulfillment in Christ of the prophecies of the Old Testament, the historical relationships and backgrounds, and the providential influence of God in time to prepare for the life, words and deeds of Christ.

The Councils. In a previous unit we discussed the importance of the 21 Ecumenical Councils, how they are a highly important and infallible way in which the Church teaches the World about Revelation, its meaning and its content. Furthermore, most Councils had an appendix of “canons,” which were laws regarding Church discipline and observance. More will be said about this in the unit on Canon Law. We will now take a sampling of three Councils, Nicea, Constantinople I, and Chalcedon.

Nicea, opened in the summer of 325, with 250 fathers present, gave us the Creed we pray on Sunday (later edited lightly by the First Council of Constantinople), offering this tight and dense profession of faith regarding Christ:

One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten from the Father, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from True God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us men and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead.

Both Nicea and Constantinople I were busily dedicated to combating the many heresies about the one true God, worshipped by the Catholics, especially Arianism.

The Council of Chalcedon, held in 451, had an interesting start. Pope Leo I, who confronted Attila the Hun and turned him away from Rome, was against it. But the emperor Marcian, in his eagerness to have the Church clear up some widely diffused errors of the time. The emperor convoked it, and the Pope reluctantly sent legates, worried a schism would break out over the theological differences that were pervasive at the time.

This was the singularly most important council about Christology in the history of the Church. This council proclaimed the following regarding Jesus Christ: Mary is the “God-bearer” (against Nestorius); there is no confusion or mixture of the human and divine natures of Christ; there is not a single nature in Christ; the divine nature in Christ is not passible; the Son of Mary is not a mere man; there is no duality of sons in him; the servant form he took is not some heavenly body. He is “consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us regards his humanity.” He is “like us in all things but sin.” He has two natures, “which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation.” He is not two persons in any way.

The council goes on reasserting these theses and drawing out some other teachings which are consequential to these. Chalcedon is a treasure chest of Christology.[20]

It is good to put in a list those things the Church has taught so clearly about the person and nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, for synthesis’ sake. The following list is compiled from the Creeds, Calcedon, CCC 456-483 and Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 3 and Gaudium et Spes 22 and 45.

1. If the ancient councils contended with the thought and philosophy of their day, what are the dominating thoughts and philosophies of our day, and how can they be used or answered to when they raise questions about Jesus Christ?

2. Am I able to convey to others these theological truths about Jesus Christ? Do I know them well enough? Do I believe them firmly enough? Do I have the courage to invite others to faith in the Lord?

There has been a lot in contemporary Christological development distinguishing the Christ of faith from the Jesus of history. This is a distinction that was branded and popularized by David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1879) in his Life of Jesus: Critically Examined,[38] who in turn was profoundly influenced by his intellectual hero Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1786). Reimarus (in his “Notes”)[39], famous for a version of Deism,[40] basically held that Jesus was a failed political Messiah, whose proclamation of the Kingdom of God was really a political message which the Apostles transferred to a religious message. The Apostles invented the resurrection along with the new religion to serve their purposes.

Strauss’ position can be profiled as follows. The Jesus of history has very little to do with the Christ preached by the Apostles. The messianic expectations of the Apostles caused them to create a false picture of Jesus, a myth. The task of the theologian is therefore to rescue the real Jesus from this mythologizing, to demythologize Jesus Christ and the Church.

The problems with such proposals are numerous. First of all, they are hypotheses that can only be proven at the level of suspicion, with no evidence to support them. Second, the faith of the Church is historical, and if someone accuses the witnesses of history of being false, the burden is on them to prove the opposite and to prove the incredibility of the witnesses. Third, they separate the humanity of Christ from his divinity, and further add to this that the divinity is simply a false myth.

These and other teachers claim that there are certain “criteria” by which on can discern whether a passage really goes back to the historical Jesus. They include criteria such as these (cf. Bonhoffer, Meyers):

· Embarrassment: if it is embarrassing to the faith, yet still reported by the Apostles, it’s probably historical.

· Multiple witnesses attest to it, or more than one scriptural tradition (Pauline, Johannine, etc.): it really happened.

· Coherence: if it’s coherent with the passage, culture or personality, it really happened.

· Discontinuity: if something is reported yet is out of character, it probably happened.

The problem with this approach is that it ignores the witness of the Magisterium, and the question of the authority of the Church when she teaches in the power of the Holy Spirit, who, being God, can neither deceive nor be deceived. The fact that a passage is scandalous, coherent, or vivid can shed light on other aspects of exegesis, but it cannot determine whether a passage of the Gospel is historically true or not.

The following are a list, in no particular order, of some of the most outstanding heresies against Christ in the early Church. The reader is invited to reflect on how these heresies are manifest today, and on which new heresies we could add to this list.

Arianism. (Arius.) They claimed that the Son was less than the Father, and that there was a time when the Father was but the Son was not. They claim that he “came to be from things that were not,” and that he was “from another substance” other than the Father.[41] He was the first of all created things, and the best of them.

Judaizers. It is necessary to observe the Jewish Law to be saved, even as a Christian.

Adoptionism. (Paul of Samosata.) Christ is the Son of God not by nature but by adoption.[42] At his adoption he received heavenly powers.

Docetism. A form of Gnosticism, they denied that Jesus was truly human.[43] He only appeard to have a body.

Nestorianism. (Bishop Nestorius.) There was the human person and also the divine person, hence two persons.[44]

Pneumatomachi. These denied that the Holy Spirit had the divine nature. It is not directly a Christological heresy, but worthy of note in the present context.

Monophysitism. They claimed that the human nature of Christ vanished when the Son of God assumed it. The term comes from the Greek: mono-, one; -physis, nature.

Apollonarianism. (Apollinarius of Laodicaea.) Christ didn’t quite have a soul; rather, the Word basically substituted what the soul was for men. Jesus was therefore different from God and from man, a sort of “tertium quid.”

Those who thought that the divinity of God was divided into different natures: Sabellians, Anomoeans, Arians and Pneumatomachi.

There has been a lot written lately about Jesus Christ and the female state of humanity. Some, quoting a Father of the Church, say, “what wasn’t assumed wasn’t redeemed.” We know women were redeemed. Therefore Jesus Christ had to represent both male and female. Not a few theologians have actually described Jesus as explicitly female on the cross; they draw analogies of the blood and water coming from his side to the bodily faculty of nursing women are capable of; they draw very forced analogies between the meaning of his nakedness on the cross and the female physiognomy, often approaching womanhood from the most carnal and lustful angle; or they will twist his words, “Behold your mother,” to refer to himself instead of the obvious referent, Mary (Jn 19:27).

The errors here are many and very misleading. If it is true that what wasn’t assumed wasn’t redeemed, it is necessary to understand that correctly. What referred to here wasn’t any abstraction we can make of any person or class of persons. Otherwise, well, either the Italians weren’t redeemed or Jesus was Italian; either blond haired people were not redeemed or Jesus had blonde hair; either business associates are not redeemed or Jesus was a business associate; either cold people weren’t redeemed, or Jesus was cold; either quadriplegics were not redeemed or Jesus was a quadriplegic.

There is a nature to things, and it was the nature which he assumed which was saved. There is one nature common to both men and women, Italians and Irish and Jews, people with blonde, red, brown and black hair... or even no hair... people in every relationship, state, and condition. Similarly, dogs, cats, cows, horses, lizards, trees and flowers have no hope in eternal salvation, for their nature was not assumed by the savior.

Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy): all.

[1] Mc 3:20; 6:31.

[2] cf. Mt 10:39; Mt 9:13; Lk 19:10; Mt 20:28; Lk 12:49, etc.

[3] for example, Mt 21:1 ff., Mt 22:13; Lk 12:46.

[4] Mc 12:27.

[5] Mt 22:44.

[6] Mc 3:4, Lk 14:5.

[7] Is 42:1-4 (possibly also 5-9); 49:1-6; 50:4-9 (possibly also 10-11); and 52:13-53:12.

[8] Some examples: each of the Gospel narratives of the Lord’s crucifixion; Eph 1:7; 1 Tim 2:5-6; Heb 9:12; 1 Pet 1:18-19; 1 Jn 2:2; Rev 7:14, and many more places.

[9] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, 47.

[10] John 10:17-18.

[11] John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris.

[12] Cf. CCC 641-644.

[13] CCC 645.

[14] Ibid.

[15] CCC 646.

[16] CCC 655.

[17] cf. Dan 12:2.

[18] CCC 999; cf. Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:44.

[19] DEC (op. cit.), p. 230, 30-34; Lateran IV, Constitution De Fide Catholica.

[20] All the quotes from the Councils come from Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Eng. ed. Norman P. Tanner, S.J., (Sheed and Ward: Wash., D.C., 1990), pp. 1-104 passim. (Hereafter DEC).

[21] Vatican II, LG 3.

[22] Theses 1-7 are drawn from the Creed of Nicea. From DEC, op. cit.

[23] Vat II, GS 22.

[24] Theses 8-19 come from Chalcedon.

[25] LG 3; cf. Eph 1:4-5, 10.

[26] LG 3.

[27] GS, 22; cf. Col 1:15.

[28] CCC 457.

[29] CCC 458.

[30] CCC 459.

[31] CCC 460.

[32] CCC 464

[33] CCC 468-9.

[34] CCC 470.

[35] Cf. Damasus I, DS 149; Constantinople III (681): DS 556-559.

[36] CCC 478.

[37] GS 45. This list concludes here, not as a complete compendium of infallible Church teaching, but as an adequate synthesis for a basic understanding of the Church’s teaching about the Incarnate Word.

[38] An online edition in English can be read at: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/strauss/.

[39] I am unaware of the English titles for these works; cf. Abhandlungen von den vornehmsten Wahrheiten der natürlichen Religion, 1755, Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes, a writing he hid during his lifetime.

[40] Reimarus’ Deism proposed that reason could come to more certain religious truths which can be known than revelation-based religions that exacted not knowledge but faith.

[41] CCC 465.

[42] CCC 465.

[43] CCC 465.

[44] CCC 466.

[45] St. Thomas Aquinas, Verbum Supernum. (The last two stanzas constitute the O salutaris hostia, which is frequently sung at Eucharistic adoration around the world, both in the Latin and in vernacular translations.) Tr. From H.T. Henry, J.M. Neale, Edward Caswall and others. Cited from Mike Aquilina, Praying in the Presence of Our Lord with St. Thomas Aquinas (Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington, VA, 2002), p. 100; Latin text thanks To Saint Jean Baptiste Catholic Church, Lexington Avenue at 76th Street, New York City, at http://www.sjbrcc.org/word.html.