Models of Divine Presence in Christ

The doctrine on the divine presence in Christ makes special interest concerning the relationship between the divine and human nature of Christ. The quest for clarification upon this dogma of dual nature requires models to explain the nature of the relationship between the two elements in Christ’s person. In the Council of Chalcedon (451) there was an underlying assumption of divinization in relation to Christ’s divinity and humanity. What was not assumed by Christ was not healed. If Jesus is not God then he is not capable of saving humanity.[1] If the divine did not assume humanity, then humanity is not healed. The dual nature of Christ, therefore, is not just a matter of discussion on Christology but also of the implication it brings in relation to salvation.

The attempt to explain the relationship of Christ’s dual nature utilized a realistic approach. A consensus of Christian theologians can not be bypassed by the Council. They found common realization on the divine and human nature of Christ but not on the mode of the relationship between the two distinct natures. But the majority opinion can not escape the significant challenge of the Monophysites. Considered as a minority but enough reason to halt the Council’s success in establishing a global consensus concerning the dual nature of Christ. Monophysitism emphasized only one (mono) nature (physis) of Christ which is the divine element eclipsing the human nature. This theological understanding permeated the Armenian, Abyssinian, Coptic, and Syrian churches.[2]

Interestingly, the Council may compose the majority of theological agreement; but across the east Mediterranean world an opposing view on Christ’s nature was held. The split decision and agreement is conditioned by the cultural and philosophical orientations of the East and the West. From the context of the community of believers (in this case a widespread sector) consensus on a certain belief system is agreed on major issues only, i.e., Christ is truly divine and truly human. But the globally perceived idea of a specific doctrine finds more complication in terms of definite and specific thought content, i.e., the relationship between the divinity and humanity of Christ. In clarifying the relationship between these two elements of nature in Christ, variety can be expected. The following are several models that McGrath presented to shed light on the divine presence in Christ.

The Example of a Godly Life

In this model, the measurement of Christ’s distinction from other human beings is a qualitative one. There is heavy emphasis on morality and ethics. Jesus is highly regarded in relation to his character, being an example of living godly existence. This godly life is a manifestation of God’s will for human morality and as an example, Jesus is worthy of emulation by everyone. This model is popular in the line of thought of the Enlightenment. Other theological understanding on Christology with heavy emphasis on morality or moral example of Christ is that of the Antiochene School and Peter Abelard, but both retained a classical understanding of Christ’s dual nature. Modern explanation of Christ’s divinity with reference to example is highlighted through his self-giving love to the point of death. This is perceived in the Enlightenment to be the foundation of a morally right person in relationship with God. Among the Liberal Protestantism, the moral example is taken from inner or spiritual relationship of Jesus with God. The emphasis is on the religious personality of Christ. Wilhelm Herrmann is a representative in understanding Jesus as the ground of faith manifesting the inner life of a Christian in history.[3]

A Symbolic Presence

The model of divine presence through symbolic perspective presents Christology, not in substance but, representational. Christ is representative of a new being. Symbolic presence refers to the same presence which is available and accessible to humanity. Personal life is a main concern, especially to the proponent of this view. The historical Jesus is not the foundation of faith but more of the New Being active in Jesus as Messiah—the bringer of new state of things. Jesus is only a historical manifestation of the New Being who saves men from the old, alienated, and doomed being. Since God is the ground of being, he cannot appear under the categories of existence of Jesus, thus, Christ cannot be God as the New Being. He as a human only achieved union with the Ground of being; this is the same possibility for humanity.[4]

Christ as Mediator

The divine presence in Jesus, in this model, is centered upon his mediating representation as the “Christ” between the transcendent God and fallen humanity. The presence as mediation carries the implications of revelation and salvation with it. The mediation of revelation as presence is closely associated with the Logos-Christology of Justin Martyr. Jesus is the Logos-incarnate mediator that reveals the distance between God and humanity. It is developed by Brunner who emphasized man’s personal encounter with the Divine through Jesus by faith. Through faith, the divine impartation of his self-revelation is located, not in propositional truths but, in the act of Jesus or act of God. This act of mediation and self-revelation is historical in Jesus Christ. The truth encounter carries the elements of historicity and personal-ness. God communicates himself through the historical and personal Christ, not impersonal propositions.[5]

Special mention is made on Calvin’s model of mediation also. The soteriological emphasis is focused on the salvation that comes from God through Christ. The redemptive work of God is focused on Christ as the channel and focus of salvation available to the fallen humanity. As a mediator between transcendent God and fallen humanity deprived of any capability to be saved on their own, Jesus must be himself divine and human to be able to function as true mediator. Through Christ’s obedience as human, he became an offering to pay the penalty of man’s sin. Calvin theorized also that the incarnation of Christ is partial; God may have stayed in heaven in part since he cannot be totally concentrated in Jesus historical existence. Nonetheless, the mediatorial function of Christ as divine presence can be seen in the three functions he holds namely—prophet, priest, and king.[6]

Presence of the Spirit

The model of divine presence of the Spirit is like a pneumatological Christology. This model perceives Christ as the bearer of the Holy Spirit. This is how it interprets the divine presence upon Jesus. The assumption heavily relies on the Old Testament concept of the charismatic leaders or the anointed Messiah. In view is the significance of Christ’s anointing by the Spirit at his baptism where adoptionism and Ebionitism was closely tied with. They held that Jesus is a human being who became divine at his baptism. But in the explanation of Walter Kasper, the spirit-filled existence of Jesus is of prime importance to his Christology. Christ’s unprecedented relationship with the Spirit is indispensable as the life-giving power that paves the way for the new era of healing and hope. Jesus Christ is the focal point of God’s saving plan and the Spirit of the Lord at work in Jesus will be at work also in humanity so that they will be able to have the inner life which was in Jesus.[7]

Pannenberg laid some concern for this model as having the tendency to laps into adoptionism. Maintaining the divinity of Christ does not require the presence of the Spirit in him. For him, the resurrection of Jesus is the decisive measure to present his divinity and humanity.[8]

Revelational Presence

The revelational model of the divine presence in Christ emphasized the unveiling of God in time. Two representatives are worth considering. First is Karl Barth’s comprehensive treatment to the revelational presence of God in Christ. Christology seems to be that the overarching implication for all of his dogmatic theology. The revelation of God, like the hour glass, passes through the linking centerpiece or Christ, whereby all content touches Christ before pouring down to the base (which is representative of fallen humanity). Though Barth intended that Christian dogmatics is not totally centered upon Christological idea, Christ is the underlying foundation of theology in its entirety. But Pannenberg’s approach is more of an eschatological interpretation of the divine presence in Christ through his resurrection as an anticipation of the whole end-time resurrection of the dead. Through Christ’s resurrection, his identity with God is established. This self-revelation cannot be separated from God himself; it means that the revealer is identical with the revealed. And God’s divinity is proven only at the end of all world events.[9]

Substantial Presence

With emphasis on the incarnation, substantial model of the divine presence in Christ takes place when the divine nature assumes human nature. In the patristic theology, as they were bombarded with Gnostic teachings, the substantial presence justifies the goodness of matter. Here, the concept of redemption is not simply a spiritual affair, but represented tangibly. The symbolic, yet tangible affirmation of eucharist, deification, and icons are connected to this model. Those who held God’s ineffability and transcendence opposed icons.[10]

Kenotic Approaches to Christology

Kenosis has something to do with the use of the divine attributes, not attributes in itself. In Germany, this doctrine is hotly debated. Were the divine attributes used in secret or not at all? Special mention is on Thomasius who proposed that Christ deliberately set aside all his divine attributes and abandoned his privileges through his humiliating experience on the cross of suffering. The second person in the trinity leveled himself with humanity (An attempt to disprove this theory was made by A. Dorner using the argument of God’s immutability). Some theorized kenosis as the abandoning of divine omniscience on the part of Christ. The suffering of God was also highlighted. All of these theological models present significant emphases on Christology.

Cultural Engagement

God-talk with special emphasis of the divine presence is a comforting concept for Filipinos. If there is one model that is significant to the circumstances of the Filipino, it is the kenotic concept where Jesus chose to lay down his life for humanity. Filipino can better appreciate and attach themselves to a suffering Christ rather than the moral Christ. His suffering can be better understood and felt by the Filipino people. Evangelicals have emphasized so much the Christ as revealer or mediator for they are more comfortable with talking about him. Charismatic prefer the presence of the Spirit in Christ. But the strength of the Catholics is the sympathy they got from the suffering people through their representation of the Christ who understands the meaning of suffering, pain, oppression, and injustices.

Questions

Are theological models predetermined by culture?

Why is the edge of Christology in contextualization?

What is the role of Christ in relation to social transformation?

---

[1] Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 2d ed (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc, 1997), 343.

[2] Ibid., 344.

[3] Ibid., 344-45.

[4] Ibid., 345-46.

[5] Ibid., 347.

[6] Ibid., 347-48.

[7] Ibid., 349-50.

[8] Ibid., 350.

[9] Ibid., 351-52.

[10] Ibid., 352-54.