jesus -- god and man

8/14/2019 JESUS -- God and Man

1/24

JESUS GOD AND MAN. By Wolfhart Pannenberg. London: SCM Press, 2002. Pp.

xxvi + 472. 14.99

Wolfhart Pannenbergs book, Jesus God and Man, is one of the most excellent

contributions in the history of modern existentialist christologies. In this book, Pannenberg

believes that Christians know and discuss about God only as he has been revealed in and

through Jesus. Hence, theology and Christology, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of

Jesus as the Christ, are bound together (p.xxviii). He tries to locate his Christology

between two polar ends in the history of Christology. The first is the view that has arisen

out of the illuminist rationalism of the modern era, which holds that Christ is only human

and that his being, life and mission had no messianic or divine significance. Therefore, the

proponents of this view insist that that the task of Christology is to search for the historical

Jesus. The second is the view that does not see any need in going back to the historical

Jesus. What matters for theologians of this group, like Bultmann, is the Churchs kerygma

about Christ. For them, the task of Christology is to investigate how the Churchs

preaching about Christ challenges Christians to a life of commitment in faith.

Pannenbergs Christology, therefore, stands between historical and kerymatic Christology.

In seeking to take this middle position, Pannenberg decided to start from the

historical Jesus and moves forward to prove his divinity and his relation to the Father

therefrom (Christology from below). This is because it is in it that one discovers the

decisive factor in Jesus life and proclamation upon which faith is founded. Thus, he

succinctly states: Christology is concerned, therefore, not only with unfolding the

Christian communitys confession of Christ, but above all with groundingit in the activity

and fate of Jesus in the past. The confession of Christ cannot be pre-supposed already and

simply interpreted (p.10).

Now, though Christology must begin with the man Jesus, its first question has to be

that about his unity with God. Every statement about Jesus taken independently from his

relationship to God could result only in a crass distortion of his historical reality. The

modernistic presentation of Jesus at the height of the quest of the historical Jesus offers

enough examples of this (p.19). In trying to investigate the basis of Jesus unity with God

1


2/24

from below, most groups have taken the lead from the claim to authority in Jesus

proclamation and work. But there is no reason for the assumption that the foregoing taken

by itself justified faith in Jesus. On the contrary, everything depends upon the connection

between Jesus claim and its confirmation by God. Gods confirmation of Jesus pre-Easter

claim happened in Jesus resurrection. However, the verisimilitude of Jesus resurrection

as a historical event has been seriously argued and debated. For Pannenberg, the

resurrection of Jesus would be designated as a historical event only if one examines it in

the light of the eschatological hope for a resurrection from the dead, then that which is so

designated is a historical event, even if we do not know anything more particular about it

(pp.94-5). At this juncture, a problem crops up because the significance of Jesus

resurrection was originally bound to the fact that it constituted only the beginning of theuniversal resurrection of the dead and the end of the world. Again, Pannenberg rightly

noted that the delay of the end events, which now amounts to almost two thousand years,

is not a refutation of the Christian hopes and of revelation as long as the unity between

what happened in Jesus and the eschatological future is maintained.

Having stated this, he turns to examine the Christologies of the Church on the basis

of Jesus unity with God as shown in his resurrection. An impasse becomes manifest here:

Jesus unity with God himself was expressed in different ways in primitive Christianity,

not only in a multiplicity of traditional titles, but also in such a way that these titles were

connected with definite events in Jesus destiny to be the future, eschatological Son of

God. Now, did Jesus become the Son of God only at his baptism, or through the particular

event of transfiguration, or through his resurrection, or that he already was the Son of God

from the beginning, from his birth or even as a pre-existent being before his earthly birth?

Can a material relationship among all these conceptions be shown? In Pannenbergs view,

Jesus resurrection from the dead is the decisive point in the history of Jesus relation to

God. Nevertheless, this does not imply that Jesus received divinity only as a consequence

of his resurrection. Jesus did not simply become something that he previously had not

been; rather, his pre-Easter claim was confirmed by God in his resurrection. This

confirmation, the manifestation of Jesus divine Sonship by God, is the new thing

2


3/24

brought by the Easter event. However, as confirmation, the resurrection has retroactive

force for Jesus pre-Easter activity, which taken by itself was not yet recognizable as being

divinely authorized. How, now, did Jesus, exalted through the resurrection from the dead,

become the pre-existent divine being descending from heaven? According to Pannenberg,

in view of Gods eternity, the revelatory character of Jesus resurrection means that God is

always one with Jesus, even before his earthly birth. Jesus is from all eternity the

representative of God in the creation. Were it otherwise, Jesus would not be in person the

one revelation of the eternal God.

Having established Jesus divinity, Pannenberg sets out to establish also the basis

and significance of Jesus humanity. Responding to views that hold Jesus humanity as a

myth, he avers, If Jesus lived at all, if his existence is not to be counted as a matter of

spiritistic mysticism, then he was a man like us. The only question is where the uniqueness

of this man in distinction from other men is to be seen (p.207). What constitutes Jesus

uniqueness is that in him that which is mans destiny as man has appeared for the first time

in an individual and thus has become accessible to all others only through this individual.

In this light, the essence of man becomes revealed through Jesus, the Son of God, in a

twofold way: first, through Jesus deeds in that Jesus grants or promises community with

himself and thus participation in eschatological salvation; second, in Jesus fate insofar as

mans destiny in the resurrection life has been revealed in Jesus himself (p.211).

At this juncture, Pannenberg entered the insuperable problem of the doctrine of the

two natures. From the very beginning Christian theology has been forced to say that Jesus

is both truly God and, at the same time, truly man. What constitutes the real distinction

between the two-sided statement vere deus, vere homo concerning the one man Jesus? The

doctrine about the two natures does not take the concrete unity of the historical man Jesus

as its given point of departure, but rather the difference between the divine and the human,

creaturely being in general. Various attempts were proffered towards resolving this

dilemma. The two cardinal ones are: Antiochene Christology and Alexandrian Christology.

However, the two attempts historically proved implausible and none was fully adopted by

the Church.

3


4/24

For Pannenberg, this dilemma results from a Christology which begins with the

assertion of incarnation in order to attain, by argument, the unity of the man Jesus with the

eternal Son of God. This is because the incarnation is itself an expression of this unity,

which must be explained and established on other grounds (p.367). Furthermore, the

unity of the man Jesus with the eternal Son of God results rather only by the way of a

detour.... It is a detourby way of Jesus relation to the Father i.e. to the God of Israel

whom he called Father. Only the personal community of Jesus with the Father shows that

he is himself identical with the Son of this Father (p.382). From the perspective of Easter

Jesus is revealed as the one obedient to the Father in his mission and Fate, and as such he

is the revelation of the Father, and as the revelation of the divinity of the Father is himself

one with God and thus himself belongs inseparably to the essence of God. Thus is he Son.The designation of Jesus as Son is justified only as a statement about the whole of the

course of his existence. But within the course of his life, this fact is apparent only from its

end. If one neglects this distinction, the full humanity of Jesus earthly way is lost from

view. Thereby, the man Jesus indirectly shows himself to be identical with the existence of

the Son of God. His humanity is not synthesized with a divine essence, but it involves two

complementary total aspects of his existence. Nevertheless, with the special relation to the

Father in the human historical aspect of Jesus existence, his identity in the other aspect

that of the eternal Son of the eternal Father is given. Thus the perception of Jesus

eternal Sonship as dialectically identical with his humanity is based noetically upon the

particularity of just this human being in his relation to the divine Father; ontologically, the

relation is inverted, for the divine Sonship designates the ontological root in which Jesus

human existence connected with the Father and nevertheless distinguished from him, has

the ground of its unity and of its meaning (p.385).

While one cannot fail to laud Pannenbergs genius in this book, it must be admitted

that the tendency to equate a Christology that starts from history with theology is not

altogether a healthy development. Often, such a Christology ends up developing

theologies that are constructs of human reason. Furthermore, the pivotal function which

resurrection plays in his scheme is problematic. If his Christology is that which is found

4


5/24

within the process of divine revelation, it should be progressive rather than retrogressive.

The resurrection, thus, should not be the decisive point of manifestation of the deity of

Christ but the climatic point. It could be noticed, also, that Pannenberg was a child of the

existentialist system. He consciously omits the Passion and the Cross. His Christology

could not demonstrate how Christs divinity would be revealed in the assault of the cross.

So he prefers to locate such a father/son relationship in the triumph of the story of the

resurrection than in the scandal of the passion and cross. Unfortunately, here he misses the

kernel of Christianity by a leap. In fact, even though the value of the cross was confirmed

by the resurrection, it is by the cross that Christ relates himself to the will of God. It is

because of this that the Church persistently talks of the Paschal mystery as the passion,

death and resurrection. It is a single reality that is at the same time a continuum that cannotbe separated.

All in all, Wolfhart Pannenberg is really a household name in dogmatics. He

masterfully wrote Jesus God and Man in a lucid but erudite mode with sustained

arguments. No one will readJesus God and Man without having awe for the refined and

fine mind of the author. His characteristic way of stating, in brief, the theory he is about to

expound in a particular chapter aids a lot in comprehending the book. Save for few

delicate topics, like his views on Marys virginal birth and Jesus meritorious freedom, his

thoughts were quite orthodox. One expresses nothing but admiration in Pannenbergs style

of highlighting a theological problem, bringing in various authors view on the particular

issues, countering them where necessary, and then resolving the problem. Furthermore, an

unusual consistency and coherency ran through the work. In fact,Jesus God and Man, in

words of critics, is a must for all serious students in contemporary theology.

JESUS OF NAZARETH. By Pope Benedict XVI. New York: Doubleday, 2007. Pp. xxvi

+ 355. U.S. $24.95.

5


6/24

Perhaps, as an allusion to the rich and scholarly content ofJesus of Nazareth, the

Pope in his very first sentence in the Forward remarked that the book has had a long

gestation, which started when he was growing up in the 1930s. This book is an attack

against an extreme type of modern historical exegesis which in its search for the historical

Jesus denies the divinity of Christ and can only grant that Christ is God if such a claim

would be taken as a latter interpretation of the post-resurrection Christian community. The

Pope lauded the remarkable achievements and contributions of historical-critical

scholarship in making the life of Jesus of Nazareth very accessible to the modern mind;

yet, he lamented gravely that it led to finer and finer distinctions between layers of

tradition in the Gospels, beneath which the real object of faith the figure of Jesus

became increasingly obscured and blurred (p.xii). Furthermore, as historical-criticalscholarship advanced, it culminated in this bizarre conclusion: the faith in the divinity of

Jesus was only a later result of the believing community. This impression has by now

penetrated deeply into the minds of the Christian people at large. This is a dramatic

situation for faith, because its point of reference is being placed in doubt: Intimate

friendship with Jesus, on which everything depends, is in danger of clutching at the thin

air.

From this background, the Pope hopes to counter these foregoing implications of the

conclusions of historical-critical scholarship about Jesus. He hopes to rediscover the real

Jesus in the light of his communion with the Father, which is the true centre of his

personality. However, beyond contemporaries who have also taken this route, like

Schnackenburg, he believes that the details of the real historical Jesus recorded in the

Gospel are not the dubious insertions of the proclamations of the early Christian

community. In so doing, the Pope asserts his trust that the Gospel can render the real Jesus:

The main implication of this for my portrayal of Jesus is that I trust the Gospel (p.xxi).

Having stated this, he goes on to categorically state the import of his work: Of course, I

take for granted everything that the Council and modern exegesis tell us about literary

genre, about authorial intention, and about the fact that the Gospels were written in the

context, and speak within the living milieu, of communities. I have tried, to the best of my

6


7/24

ability, to incorporate all of this, and yet I wanted to try to portray the Jesus of the Gospels

as the real, historical Jesus in the strict sense of the word (pp.xxi-ii).

From the Gospels, the Pope firmly stated, Jesus is the only true revealer of the

Father (God), because he is the only one who has seen the Father (cf. Jn.1:18). To

expatiate on this foregoing point, he contrasts Jesus with Moses, the greatest prophet of

the Old Testament, of whom it was reported in Deut. 34:10: And there has not arisen a

prophet since in Israel like Moses whom the Lord knew face to face. Earlier in the same

book, Moses prophetically consoled the Israelites thus: The Lord your god will raise up

for you a prophet like me from among you (Deut.18:15). In the bid to understand what

Moses meant by aprophet like me, the Pope drew out the most distinctive character about

the figure of Moses: ... whom the Lord knew face to face. Yet, there is a limit to Moses

intimacy with God. When Moses asked God, I pray thee, show me thy glory (Ex.33:18),

God refuses his request: You cannot see my face (Ex.33:20). This shows how far Moses

intimacy with God can go: You shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen

(Ex.33:23). This request, which was refused Moses can be granted only to the Son: No

one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is nearest to the Fathers heart, who has

made him known (Jn.1:18). It is in Jesus that the promise of the new prophet is fulfilled.

What was true of Moses only in fragmentary form has now been fully realized in the

person of Jesus: He lives before the face of God, not just as a friend, but as a Son; he lives

in the most intimate unity with the Father (p.6).

Therefore, the Pope went further to draw the implications of this unity of Jesus with

the Father in his life and teaching. For him, Jesus teaching is not the product of human

learning, of whatever kind. It originates from immediate contact with the Father, from

face-to-face dialogue from the vision of the one who rests close to the Fathers heart.

It is the Sons word. Without this inner grounding, his teaching would be pure

presumption. From here, the Pope went on to demonstrate how this inner grounding and

unity of Jesus in the deep communion with the Father was manifested throughout his

major events as recorded in the Gospels. During his baptism, the Father himself acclaimed

Jesus as his only begotten-Son. Jesus Sonship was also very manifest in his temptations

7


8/24

and his proclamation of the Kingdom of God. Cross-dimensional reading of the Gospel

will show that Jesus himself is that Kingdom of God which he preached. In the Sermon of

the Mount, Christs position of authority vis-a-vis the Torah alarmed the Jews, because he

did what was reserved only for God. And, it is only God who can do what Jesus Christ has

just done: You have heard that it was said..., but I say to you.... Moses brought the Old

Law, now, Jesus the new Moses brings the New Law, which is not meant to abolish the

old but to perfect and fulfil it to the fullest. Furthermore, in the Lords Prayer, the

character of the new religion instituted by Christ becomes evident: invitation to share in

the Sonship of Jesus Christ. The Jews revere and respect God, but none dare address him

as Father, as Abba, only the Son can do this; it is only the Son who comes to reveal the

Father can invite us to address God as Our Father. This novel and original concept ofSonship ran through Jesus choice of his apostles, which he did after having communed

with the Father in the mountain, the messages of his parables, the principle images of

Jesus in Johns gospel, to Peters confession at Ceasarea Philippi and the Transfiguration

of Jesus at Mount Tabor. Finally, Jesus divine Sonship was shown very brilliantly in the

various self-declarations of his identity, especially under these three basic terms: Son of

Man, Son and I am he.

The fundamental, focal question that reverberated throughout the work was: Is

Jesus Christ really God and not one of those enlightened individuals that history

occasionally witnessed. The Pope dramatically demonstrated this in the dialogue between

Jesus and the Rabbi Neusner. The latter followed and agreed with Jesus teachings until the

point when Jesus asserted himself to be God. For the Pope, this is the decisive point in the

contemporary world. Today, many accept Jesus teaching as inspiring but shrink back at

his claim of unity with the Father. At best, the historical-critical scholarship projects that

Jesus claims of being of God in the Gospel were just the latter developments of the early

believing Christian community. They try to demonstrate that the historical Jesus never

understood nor proclaimed himself as one with God. In addition to the numerous proofs

and convictions in the pages of his work, the Pope strongly asserts there are direct

declarations of Jesus unity with God in the Gospels which were original only to Jesus

8


9/24

himself, without any former appearance in the contemporaneous Jewish milieu. Among

others, these three stand prominent: Son of Man, Son (of God) and I am He: All

three of them bring to light Jesus originality his newness, that specific quality unique to

him that does not derive from any further source. All three are therefore possible only on

his lips and central to all is the prayer-term Son, corresponding to the Abba, Father

that he addresses to God. None of these three terms as such could therefore be

straightforwardly adopted as a confessional statement by the community, by the Church

in its early stages of formation (p.354).

Actually, in Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict XVI has done a lot to bridge the gap

between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. One significant fact from this critical

work is that the author intends to beat his opponents in their own field. He approaches the

verdict in Christology by historico-critical exegesis from a historical point of view and yet

grasps what eluded the historic-critical exegetes the duty of the Son of man. However, it

is at this decisive point that the Popes loophole became obvious: the evidence and

authority of the Pope seems not fully capture the length and breadth of the liberal thesis

and agenda. The point is that not even the Gospels are free from the attack of historico-

critical exegetes. This is largely because, for the historico-critical exegetes, the Gospels do

not present an objective history one can rely on. They feel that the Gospels are articulated

statements of the Church that has a historical structure that is aimed at proving the divinity

of Christ and the messianic vision of Christs mission. This is the point the Pope did not

actually grasp; otherwise, it is either that he would not have used the Gospels as his

authority or that he would have attended to a more basic issue in proving the historical

basis of the Gospels claim on Jesus Christ.

Finally, it must be noted, according to the Pope, that this book is in no way an

exercise of the magisterium, but is solely an expression of my personal search for the face

of the Lord. Everyone is free, then, to contradict me. I would only ask my reader for that

initial goodwill without which there can be no understanding (p. xxiii-xxiv).

The Emergence of African Theologies. By Justin S. Ukpong in Theological Studies,

Vol. 45, no. 3 (September 1984): 502-529.

9


10/24

Contextualization of theology has, within the last few years, become a major

theological orientation of contemporary age whether in the North Atlantic region or in the

South. It is within this framework that three major theological currents have emerged in

Africa in the last two decades. The first and oldest of these is African inculturation

theology, simply referred to as African theology. Briefly stated, this theology is an attempt

to give African expression to the Christian faith within a theological framework. The

second is South Africa black theology. This takes after the American black theology and

aims at relating the gospel message to the social situation of segregation and oppression in

which the blacks in South Africa find themselves. The third is African liberation theology,

which is becoming very popular in most parts of Africa. There are three sub-currents in

this theology. One is based on the indigenous socioeconomic system, the second takesafter the Latin American model, and the third involves a combination of elements from

both approaches. They seek genuine human promotion in the context of the poverty and

political powerlessness of Africa, and take the form of Christian reflection within the

context. These three theologies are based on three different issues which, though separate,

are nevertheless related: the issue of culture for African inculturation theology, and the

issue of colour for South African black theology, and the issue of poverty for African

liberation theology. According to Ukpong, many authors in discussing African theology

consciously or unconsciously tend to take one or other of these issues as basic and then

attempt to integrate the other issues into the framework elaborated for the basic issue.

However, these approaches are inadequate for articulating the different concerns raised by

these three strands of African theology and the Christian response to them. Consequently,

Ukpong approached these issues by acknowledging each of these issues as different in

nature from the others and as such, demand a different theological approach. At the same

time, he recognised also that these issues and the theologies based on them are seen to be

interrelated. Before carrying out the foregoing, he highlighted the factors that made these

African theologies possible at the time they appeared.

Firstly, he noted the cultural factor: African inculturation theology, being a

phenomenon of the Christian religion in Africa, is a function of the process of the

10


11/24

interaction over the years of African traditional religion and culture with Christianity

presented through European culture. This interaction has produced two things: the

selection and integration of elements from both sides as well as cultural tension. Secondly,

the historical factor: the history of Christianity is replete with milestones of inculturation,

which can be interpreted as supporting the drive for inculturation theology in Africa.

Thirdly, the socio-political factor: During the colonial era African culture suffered disdain

at the hands of the colonizers. After independence, however, an all-out attempt was made

to reaffirm its identity and integrity, as true selfhood was seen to include cultural identity.

The wave of this cultural revival did not leave Church practices unscathed. There was a

great desire, among African intellectuals particularly, to show a positive attitude towards

and an appreciation of African culture. The same philosophy also inspired the search forpolitical and economic identity expressed in liberation theology. Black theology of South

Africa arises, too, from a reactionary sentiment and has as its point of departure the social

discrimination practiced against the blacks in that country. Fourthly, in the light of the

contributions from the social sciences, culture came to be defined in terms of differences

in existing societies rather than in terms of one society taken as a paradigm. Researches

along this line have led to the realization that African culture has a great potential in the

process of evangelization. This was the beginning of African theology. Finally, the

theological factor: the theology of the Second Vatican Councilhas influenced the rise of

African theologies. The entire orientation of the Council was marked by an updating of the

Christian life in all its forms. This alone was enough to inspire in African theologians a

certain questioning and creativity as to the mode of presentation of Christianity in Africa,

including the presentation of theology.

That the above three theologies are different on the basis of the issues they treat

seems clear enough from the foregoing discussion. But they are also related. This is

because all these issues have to do with the fundamental concepts of freedom and life.

Negatively put, these issues express reactions to negations of freedom and of lifes

meaningfulness at different levels of the Africans existence. Positively, they articulate

certain phases in the process of Africas search for freedom and for meaning in life.

11


12/24

African theologies have a basic feature with other third world theologies, which are

distinguished from traditional Western theology: they are a response, in the spirit of the

gospel, to the cultural, religious, social, economic, and political concerns of the different

Third World peoples. Furthermore, African theologies do not oppose but complement

Western theology. Western theology is basically an attempt to give a systematic

presentation of Christian doctrine. It treats, therefore, of the basic Christian concepts,

beliefs, and doctrines and presents these in terms of a human thought-system. African

theologies are also concerned with the presentation of the basic Christian faith. However,

they differ significantly from Western theology because they have as their basic constraints

an African world view, an African religious thought-system, and an African way of

apprehending reality. These theologies naturally depart in context from the traditionalWestern theology. They are situational theologies. From this, according Ukpong, it is clear

that while African theologies are new ways of doing theology, they are not opposed to

Western theology; they are meant to complement it.

Ukong has really done some noble work here that demands much praise.

Nevertheless, the aforementioned African theologies are at the same time assumed to be

Christian. In my view, what the three strands of African theology set out to achieve are not

in consonance with the modus operandi of theology in the Christian sense. Theology

should be a discourse on God and his relationship with man. But what is set here as

African theology can best be classified as theories of liberation and inculturation, but

never theology, especially in the Christian milieu. African theology can emerge when

African gods and religious objects are brought to the level of critical approach.

The Incarnation of the Holy Spirit in Christ. By David Coffey in Theological

Studies Vol. 45, no. 3 (September 1984): 464-488.

12


13/24

Orthodox Christian faith understands the high point of Gods presence to man in

terms of incarnation i.e. the assumption of a human nature by God the Son, who had

existed from eternity in the divine nature. Faith further understands this presence of God

as radiating out from the Incarnation and being shared in by all who make the submission

of faith through Christ. This is accomplished through the Holy Spirit, who, also existing

from eternity, is now sent by Christ to men and women, to unite them to himself and

ultimately to the Father. According to Coffey, this entry of the eternal spirit into Gods

plan of salvation happens through Christ and in dependence on him. (p.466) Therefore,

he calls it an incarnation of the Holy Spirit in Christ. In the light of the above, he aims to

explore the nature of this incarnation of the Holy Spirit. To do this he took the

Christology of Rahner as his point of departure. Rahners basic Christological insight restsupon his philosophical and theological anthropology: philosophical anthropology because

he understands human nature in terms of transcendence; and theological anthropology

because he sees the term of this transcendence, which is realized perfectly only in the case

of Jesus, as hypostatic union with the divine Son. For Rahner, the incarnation of God is the

unique,supreme, case of the total actualization of human reality, which consists of the fact

that man is in so far as he gives himself up. Consequently, he draws two cardinal

implications: first, the divinity of Christ is not something different from his humanity; it is

the humanity, i.e. human nature at the peak of its possibility, which is the achievement of

Gods grace, to which the human efforts of Jesus are subordinated. Second, to say that the

divinity of Christ is his humanity is not to say that the divine person of the Son comes to

perfect expression in the human nature of Christ. It is only to say that he comes to the most

perfect expression of which humanity is capable, which is different from the expression

which he has in his divine nature in the eternal Trinity.

Rahners Christology made it possible for Coffey to understand the divinization of

the humanity of Christ as the work of the Holy Spirit. In the one act of nature and grace

the humanity of Christ was created by the triune God and so radically sanctified by the

Holy Spirit, sent thereto by the Father, that it became one in person with the eternal Son,

and so Son of God in humanity. This theology of Incarnation, with its central role for the

13


14/24

Holy Spirit, does not harmonize with the doctrine of the immanent Trinity in which the

Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The solution lies in recognizing that

tradition offers not just one but two models of the immanent Trinity. Though the second is

far less well known that the first. The first had to do with the processions themselves and

the second with the manner of the processions. It is with the second model of the Trinity

that Coffeys theology of Incarnation harmonizes. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit is the

mutual love of the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is not the result or term of this

mutual love; He is the love itself. The Holy Spirit is an operatio subsistens, and in this

respect is to be contrasted with the Son, who is the subsistent term of an immanent

operation in the Trinity. Coffey calls this model of the Trinity the bestowal model

because according to it, the Holy Spirit, as mutual love of the Father and the Son, is thelove which the Father bestows on the Son and the answering love which the Son bestows

on the Father. This model stands in distinction to the procession model in which the

Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

This love of Jesus for the Father, which is the Holy Spirit, is infinite. Yet, given that

even the actualization of the infinite divine Sonship in humanity is not just possible but

verified in the case of Jesus, this love is not beyond the obediential potency of human

nature. In Jesus there was a progressive actualization of the divine Sonship. This does not

mean that God underwent change in Himself. It means rather that the humanity of Christ

had a normal history of development from birth through death. In this growing maturity it

became an ever more apt medium for the actualization of the Divine Sonship. Parallel to

the progressive actualization of the divine Sonship, there was a progressive actualization

of the Holy Spirit in Jesus transcendental love of the Father. Hence, as love follows

knowledge, with the dawn of consciousness in Jesus, the Holy Spirit, as his transcendental

love of the Father, began to assume the characteristics of his very personal and individual

love of God, and this process continued throughout his life, coming to its completion in his

death. But further when Jesus died he was admitted to the beatific vision. In his case this

can only mean that the direct presence of the Father, which he experienced throughout life,

was now apprehended with full intellectual clarity. This means that the Holy Spirit, as

14


15/24

Jesus transcendental love of the Father, become fully incarnated in his human love,

since his love must follow the new intellectual presentation of its object. Here, then, we

have the perfect incarnation of the Holy Spirit in Christ. It is the incarnation of divine

love in human love.

Consequently, two things from the Scriptures are now explained. First, the Holy

Spirit bears the Christological character or impress. The Spirit touches us first as the

fraternal love of Christ, and in its unitive character unites us with him, so that with Paul

one can say Christ lives in me (Gal.2:20). Second, one can now understand why the

sending of the Spirit on the Church after the death of Jesus presents not just a factual but a

necessary sequence, for it depends on his attainment of the beatific vision. For this the

Holy Spirit has to be seen as the return of the Fathers love by Jesus and his sending of the

Spirit upon the Church as the obverse of this love.

Coffey wrote like a master in the field. His work, however, has a bent towards the

rejection of the mystery of the distinct persons of the Trinity as held by the Catholic

Church. The bestowal model which he employed implicitly denied personhood to the

Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was presented merely as the operatio subsistens, a term which

he used to explained the manner of processions in the immanent Trinity. The Church, on

the contrary, holds that the three persons of the Trinity are distinct and equal. Furthermore,

he opined that there was a progressive actualization of the Holy Spirit in Jesus as he was

growing up. This reached its apogee with Jesus admission into the beatific vision. This

raises serious question about Jesus eternity. With the admittance into the beatific vision,

did he acquire a knowledge which he never had before or which he had forgotten, as in the

Platos world of Forms?

The Vocation of the Theologian. By Mary Ann Donovan in Theological Studies, Vol.

65 no. 1. (March 2004): 3-22.

15


16/24

Before this contemporary era, the study of theology and the vocation of theologians

were reserved in the Church. Then, theologians were bishops, priests and religious. The

vocation of the theologian in the Church then was very clear. His vocation is to pursue in a

particular way an ever deeper understanding of the word of God found in the inspired

Scriptures and handed on by the living tradition of the Church. The theologian does this in

communion with the magisterium, which has been charged with the responsibility of

preserving the deposit of faith. Today, however, society, culture and worldview are

changing very swiftly. Significantly, nowadays, theologians are as often lay as clerics. The

vocation of the theologian seems to be blurred. The fact that theologians are increasingly

lay, that their preparation for their work is predominantly academic, and that theological

work is increasingly done outside institutions which are juridically controlled by theChurch pose a potential threat to faith and suggest a re-examination of this vocation of the

theologian.

As a historical theologian, Donovan thinks that an investigation in the history of the

theological vocation, and the impact in it of recent developments in theology, may shed

light on the joy and hope to be found in following such a call. Before Vatican II,

theologians were mainly bishops and the vocation of the theologian was still within the

cloister of the Church, it has not yet been secularized. This is why Vatican II reserves a

great significance on the common theological vocation of laymen and clerics. In the

Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, the council rooted the infallibility of the

magisterium in the entire people of God: The whole body of the faithful who have

received an anointing which comes from the holy one cannot be mistaken in belief. It

shows this characteristic through the entire peoples supernatural sense of the faith [sensus

fidei] when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful it manifests a universal consensus

in matters of faith and morals.... The people unfailingly adhere to this faith, penetrates it

more deeply through right judgement, and applies it more fully in daily life (LG no.12). It

is, therefore, the entire people, united with the bishops, who cannot err in matters of

belief. However, the last sentence quoted summarizes not only the task of the whole

people, but equally, if not indeed especially, the task of the theologian the people

16


17/24

unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply through right judgement, and

applies it more fully in daily life. Much of this text can surely be understood as applicable

to the theologians work.

Furthermore, the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes no.44 states that the

purpose of the work in which theologians are to engage is in relation to the Word of God,

the revealed truth. Gaudium et spes no.62 noted the evident fact that harmonizing culture

with Christian thought can be difficult, but stresses that, far from having the faith, the

difficulties can stimulate a more precise and deeper understanding of that faith. In this

light, the council exhorts theologians to be ready to respond to new problems from

researches and discoveries in various disciplines that have important bearing on life itself.

They are also asked to find new ways to present their teaching, ways that will at one and

the same time respect the limits of their science, and the situation of their students. In

pastoral care, theologians are asked to make use not only of theological principles but also

of the findings of secular sciences, especially psychology and sociology, to assist others to

come to a more mature faith life. All of this calls for collaboration with experts in many

fields. Gaudium et spes encourages such work in the hope that theologians will then be

able to present the Word in a way more suited to our contemporaries.

On another note, the document expresses the explicit hope that more of the laity

would become theologians. This move is a clearly intentional shift in direction considering

the long history of fear of lay theological teaching. The laity has responded well to this

call and their presence as theologians faces the Church with a new situation and challenge.

In no. 62 ofGaudium et spes, the council concludes that theologians should be accorded a

lawful freedom of inquiry, of thought, and of expression for the proper exercise of their

vocation. However, the revised Code of Canon Law qualifies this freedom in Canon 218

by adding ...while observing the submission due to the magisterium of the Church. How

the theologian can enjoy academic freedom while giving appropriate submission to the

magisterium had been hotly debated. Surely, to insure sound teaching is a primary

episcopal responsibility. Yet, since teaching is the primary gift of the theologian, it is

inevitable and necessary that the two offices relate to one another. It is the same Holy

17


18/24

Spirit that endows the people of God with the teaching office exercised by the hierarchy,

and also bestows the vocation of the theologian on others for the better service of the one

same people of God. Hence, fundamental contradiction between the two cannot continue,

because the Spirit cannot and does not work against Itself.

But, in Donovans view, disagreements continue to arise. They are unavoidable.

Gods gifts pour into the Church both through office-holders and through members who

hold no office. Only God, the gift-giver, knows where these gifts are leading. Rahner

suggested that the only thing capable of bringing unity to the Church on the human level is

love, that love which allows another to be different, even when it does not understand

him. Conclusively, Donovan firmly stated that when it comes to testing the validity of a

gift, office-holders should not extinguish the Spirit, but should test all things and hold fast

to what is good. This is because history is already replete with attempts made by some

office-holders to thwart the work of the Spirit. Nevertheless, she admonishes that every

charism involves suffering because it is painful to fulfil the task set by the gift and, at the

same time, to endure the opposition of another within the Church. Such is the anguish and

joy in following the vocation of a theologian.

Donovan raised a very topical issue here. Yet, it must be noted that the freedom

which she is seeking to the theologians is not a feasible one. This is because the vocation

of the theologian could not be likened to those of other secular sciences. Though theology

is not being read and taught by many of the laity, and even outside the institutions

governed by the Church, the fruits of these are, in the final analysis doled out to the

members of the Church. Therefore, the Church reserved the right to vouch for the safety of

the faith of her members. Theologians may be free to think and inquire about whatever,

but not so free to express whatever strange doctrines they deem fit because the recipients

of these doctrines are adherents and members of the Church.

Toward Full Communion: Faith and Order and Catholic Ecumenism. By Jeffrey

Gros in Theological Studies Vol. 65, no. 1. (March 2004): 23-43.

18


19/24

At the time of the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church launched on a

renewed self-understanding of herself as Church and its relationships to other churches

and ecclesial communities. She has moved irreversibly into the path of dialogue with other

Christians with the goal of the restoration of full visible unity. In pursuing this goal, the

Catholic Church encourages collaboration, spiritual solidarity, common witness and

mission as well as careful dialogue to resolve those elements that still divide the churches.

The most widely known results of these dialogues are the bilateral agreements that have

involved the Catholic, Orthodox, and Reformation Churches on key issues such as

justification, Christology, the Eucharist, and ministry. These dialogues and proposals

between two church bodies provide careful and measured steps toward that visible unity to

which the Churches are committed together. However, a forum for multilateral dialogue inthe Faith and Order movement also exists and encompasses the full range of Pentecostal,

Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant, Catholic, and Evangelical churches. Thus, Gros reviews

the contribution of this latter dimension of the Catholic ecumenical program.

The movement that encouraged the return to the Christian sources and a revaluation

of the divisions in Christianity are rooted in the 19 th century. Before that, Catholic scholars

had been drawn, from time to time, to a reconsideration of other churches. In 1919, Pope

Benedict XV met with a Faith and Order delegation, but declined to permit Catholic

participation in the organization. The 1928 encyclical of Pius XI, Mortalium animos, set a

negative tone to Catholic approach to Faith and Order and ecumenical work in general,

until practically the eve of the Vatican II. The threat of indifferentism and relativism

plagued Catholic leadership. The Holy Office, by 1950, acknowledged that the ecumenical

movement derives from the aspiration of the Holy Spirit while reasserting Catholic

exclusivist claims. On the eve of the council, Catholics were present at the 1957 North

American Conferences on Faith and Order as well as the 1960 World Council of Churches

meeting. Many of the observers sent to represent their churches at Vatican II were from the

Faith and Order movement. In 1968 the Holy See joined the Commission on Faith and

Order and appointed official representatives. From this period onwards, some observers

19


20/24

have claimed that Catholic collaboration reflects a firmer commitment than that of many

full member churches of the World Council.

Various elements of internal renewal laid the ground work for the entry of the

Catholic Church into the Faith and Order discussions. Vatican II opened the way for

dialogue and encouraged it as the method to move toward that unity for which Christ

prayed and to which the Catholic Church is committed. The commitments of the council

and subsequent reaffirmations by Popes have not allayed all fears of the return motif in

Catholic ecclesiology. However, after Vatican II, the Pontifical Secretariat for Promoting

Christian Unity quickly laid out principles of dialogue. These principles follow closely the

experience gained in the Faith and Order Movement. Initially, the approach of Faith and

Order was in comparing and contrasting positions on the sacraments, formulations of the

faith, and contrasting positions on the sacraments, formulations of the faith, and

ecclesiology. Nevertheless, at Lund in 1952, a shift occurred from the earlier comparative

ecclesiology approach to a Christocentric methodology with a strong emphasis on the

common sources of Scripture and Tradition. The second methodological consideration that

needed to be clarified was the distinction between convergence and consensus. Both are

not synonymous. On the one hand, consensus means that sufficient agreement has been

reached so that a doctrinal issue, such as justification, is no longer church dividing. On the

other hand, convergence provides a framework of agreement within which more work is

necessary for full unity to be achieved. The third methodological consideration that

emerges is that of reception. As trust builds and common programs of dialogue become

possible, the dialogue of love passes to the dialogue of truth. The third phase occurs

when churches move from dialogue to evaluation and action, the reception stage.

Now, what are the theological contributions of Faith and Order movement on the

pilgrimage toward visible unity? Faith and Order movement have awakened in the

churches the desire and need for koinonia ecclesiology, for a full communion in faith.

Also, it has contributed towards this full communion in faith by its theological proposals

on the Tradition and its articulation in a common expression of the Apostolic Faith.

Furthermore, the most widely known work of the modern ecumenical movement is the

20


21/24

contribution to convergence in the churches understanding of baptism, Eucharist, and

ordained ministry. These efforts enabled a deepening of convergences. Bilateral dialogues

can build on these convergences producing sufficient consensus for specific churches to

act toward full communion. Finally, the question of authority may be the most challenging

doctrinal issue in the ecumenical movement. For the moment, patient and fraternal

dialogue are offers from Faith and Order. Vatican IIs promise of ecclesiological renewal

by return to the sources, openness to ecumenical dialogue and attentive listening to the

signs of the times has been productive for the renewal of all Christians, Catholics

included. The work of Faith and Order has been a key component of this expansive

program. Scholarly work on both sources and new contexts will surely serve the unity of

the Church in its task of renewing the human community.

The aim of Faith and Order movement is, indeed, a heroic one. It is a response to

the prayer of Jesus Christ, that they may be one. Yet, the pertinent question here is

whether the aim of this movement is a feasible one, especially with the Catholic Church.

Anyone who knows the Catholic Church well will easily acknowledge that she believes

that she is the authentic and correct Church founded by Christ. As she enters into dialogue

with other Churches, she usually does same in order to make her truth evident to these; in

order to bring them from dim light to the full-blossom light in a way. She is not too ready

to compromise her doctrine and faith just to be in communion with one Church or the

other. She sees herself as the guardian of the truth founded by Christ. In this light, then,

one seriously doubts the physical possibility of the efforts and purpose of the Faith and

Order movement. Will the Church forgo her revered Sacraments or will she compromise

the supremacy of her Roman Pontiff? In fact, what does she go into dialogue to achieve, if

not to win other to her side? From this vantage point, it can be quickly grasped that the

purpose of the Faith and Order movement is a physical impossibility.

21


22/24

Is Creation Eternal? By Ilia Delio in Theological Studies, Vol. 66, no. 2 (June 2005.):

279-302.

The question of whether or not creation is eternal is certainly not a new one. From

earliest times, the idea of an eternal creation was favoured by pagan philosophers and

mystics alike. The Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo was formulated in the second

century to warrant against such an idea and to affirm Gods transcendence. The question

arises anew today in light of the current scientific worldview, marked by evolution, which

has impelled new models of divine action to emerge. For Ilia Delio, though contemporary

models of divine action address the question how God creates, and less attention is

directed to the question why God creates, yet the philosophical enigma should always

prevail, why something and not nothing? Therefore for her, the centre of concern should

be the why and not the how of creation. She thinks that finding out the why of

creation will aid in understanding whether divine action in creation is eternal or not.

Consequently, using Bonaventures theology, she argues that divine action occurs within

the context of relationship, grounded in the Trinitarian relationships of the Father, Son and

Spirit.

Delio highlighted creatio ex nihilo and its full import. This doctrine ofex nihilo was

formulated in the second century A.D. and emerged because of the early Churchs battle

against Marcionism and Gnostic dualism, both of which proposed the formation of the

material universe by a demiurge. Creation out of nothing has the merit of excluding both

the dualistic idea that matter is eternal, intractable and probably unredeemable and the

pantheistic idea that everything is divine, emanating from the divine Being itself. The term

ex nihilo underscored the idea that God creates a world truly distinct from God himself.

However, the doctrine ofcreatio ex nihilo posed a problem of an ontological gulf between

God and creatures and, a fortiori, between God and the soul. Athanasius and Cyril of

Alexandria attempted to bridge this gulf by explaining the Incarnation as kenosis, as the

self-emptying of God. This gave rise to Kenotic theology. However, contemporary

theologians are revisiting kenotic theology less in terms of its Christological formula in the

Incarnation than in a Trinitarian understanding of God whereby God empties himself to

22


23/24

make room for another. An understanding of God as kenotic love gives rise to a view of

divine action that is relational. God could not share love in a finite way if he were not

infinitely communicative within himself. God, therefore, acts not as an actor but as a lover

in relationship. Love not only indicates to us what God is but who God is for us. Since

love can never be isolated or autonomous without in some way sharing itself, Delio argues

that love is the basis of divine action because it is the basis of the Trinity.

The question of divine action is the question of the divine itself. When one speaks

of Gods action, what kind of God is one speaking of? If God is love and if love by nature

involves a relation to another, the highest perfection of love demands that each of the two

persons in love shares that love with yet another. It, therefore, takes three to love. Hence,

the basis of the Trinity for Bonaventure resides not in substance but in the person of the

Father. The Father is without origin and thus the fountain fullness of goodness; thus, the

Father is primal and self-diffusive. It is the person of the Father as self-communicative

love who communicates himself in a personal way to one other, the Son. The love between

the Father and the Son is expressed in the person of the Spirit. The key to Bonaventures

Trinitarian theology lies in self-expression. The Father completely expresses himself in

one other than himself, namely, the Son. As the expression of the Father, the Son is Word

or exemplar of all the divine ideas. The Word, therefore, does not exist as a self-sufficient

entity but precisely as the expression of the Father. When one says that all things are

created through the Word (Jn.1:3) one is saying that the Father expresses himself in the

Son and this self-expression is the basis of the infinite Word as well as finite existence.

According to Delio, therefore, God creates because God is freedom-in-love and

desires to share love in a finite way as a more perfect expression of the infinitely fecund

divine life (p. 295). The integral relationship between the Trinity and creation, seen

through the lens of Bonaventures theology, raises the question: was there ever a time

when creation was not? While it is true that God does not need creation since fecundity is

realized within the Godhead, still without creation there would be no means for Gods

goodness to be expressed. It is only because of creation that Gods goodness is good. In

this respect, God did not decide for creation once upon a time. Creation is neither

23


24/24

chance nor necessity but a fundamental expression of God as love. Here, Delio departs

from Bonaventure, who opposed the eternity of creation. For Delio, creation is eternal

when one considers the primacy of Christ and the self diffusive nature of the love of God

since creation is the infinite expression of Gods love for the Son in a finite way. Thus,

with an air of finality she firmly stated: Since Gods love is eternal and eternally

expresses itself in a finite other, indicated by the primacy of Christ, we may suggest that

creation too is eternal.... Gods eternal act of love yields to an eternal act of creation. For

God is an outgoing, dynamic, Trinitarian communion of love, and God simply would not

know what to do without a lover who could respond in love not only infinitely but finitely

for that, indeed, is the perfection of love (pp. 301-302).

Just as it was noted in the beginning, the question about the eternity or temporality

of creation has long occupied the interest of both theologians and philosophers. This goes

a long way to show the gargantuan work done by Delio here. Notwithstanding the

foregoing, she left some questions unanswered. Firstly, though borrowing the theory of the

Trinity of Bonaventure, she indirectly subordinated the Son to the Father, for she believes

that the Son, the Word, is not a self-sufficient entity but exists only as the expression of the

Father. This goes contrary to the Catholic belief about the co-equality of the persons of the

Trinity. Secondly, to consider creation as a necessity emanating from the inner nature of

the Fathers love is to deny Gods freedom to create and to make his a slave of his love.

There is creation because God thought it wise to create or willed to create, not because the

nature of his love compulsively demands creation. At this point, one will not be too quick

to assert the eternity of creation.

24

jesus -- god and man

Documents