Beyond ‘Functional’ and ‘Ontic’ Christology
“The whole category of divine identity and Jesus’ inclusion in it has been fundamentally obscured by the alternative of ‘functional’ and ‘ontic’, understood to mean that either Christology speaks simply of what Jesus does or else it speaks of his divine nature. Once the category of divine identity replaces those of function and nature as the primary and comprehensive category for understanding both Jewish monotheism and early Christology, then we can see that the New Testament’s lack of concern with the divine nature of Christ is by no means an indication of a merely functional Christology. We can see that throughout the New Testament texts there is a clear and deliberate use of the characteristics of the unique divine identity to include Jesus in that identity. Once we have rid ourselves of the prejudice that high Christology must speak of Christ’s divine nature, we can see the obvious fact that the Christology of divine identity common to the whole New Testament is the highest Christology of all. It identifies Jesus as intrinsic to who God is.”
~ Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology In The New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 42.
April 6, 2008 at 12:28 p
This bifurcation between functional and ontic Christology is what led the Arians to be the Bible-toters in the Nicene debate. Being-in-becoming, my friend.
April 6, 2008 at 4:18 p
What’s a good book on being-in-becoming?
April 6, 2008 at 9:58 p
Jungel’s “Gods being is in becoming”. I have it if you’d like to borrow it.
April 8, 2008 at 10:54 p
What ever happened to Impassibility? The point to this is that Christ, as the God-Man, could never have His relationship with the Father touched, or made seperate! And God does not become, save once by incarnation. And this was for His humanity “dwelt” or tabernacled amomg us..(John 1: 14). All the rest of this “becoming” is useless!
April 8, 2008 at 10:59 p
sorry that was separate!
April 8, 2008 at 2:13 p
The theological point that we can take from Bauckham here is that the “divine identity” does not need to be impassible. If being is static and essentialist, then impassibility necessitates changelessness. But the Incarnation proves otherwise, and this is the great scandal towards the Greek mind – the man Jesus Christ, who cried after birth, and had to learn how to speak, and had to be potty trained because he would shit everywhere; this man, who is just like us, is God very God. If Christ is the lens through which we understand God (and I believe that he is), and if the Incarnation is an example of “becoming” (as you even admitted), then I don’t think it too strong to say that God’s very being is in becoming, for His is a being-with and a being-for-us.
April 8, 2008 at 3:04 p
If by this you mean the Incarnate Church on earth “becoming”? That would be acceptable, but still demands close biblical word and doctrine or teaching. If you mean Christ Himself, no He must remain as the Scripture states carefully..One without sin, who could not sin, and was always sinless: “For such an High Priest became us, Who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” (Heb. 9:26) In this sense He is always Impasssible: the Father & the Son in constant communion…”As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father..St. John 10: 15, see also verses 17-18 and 30. Nothing can touch this relationship not even death! There is only one Last Adam! (! Cor 15:45) Incarnation yes, but not mere humanization! We must stay close to Scripture and it’s words. Exegesis must prefer human theology!
May 9, 2008 at 7:45 p
Irish –
I am new to this theology stuff but I have a question for you in regards to your last comment. Are you saying that Christ was not fully human? When I say fully I mean 100% the same as us.
I am reading Richard’s book for the second time this week and love it by the way.
May 9, 2008 at 8:40 p
No, not at all, He was fully human, but without a fallen sin nature like you and I. Therefore He could not be tempted in this manner…tempted to sin, but not from a fallen sin nature. He is always and forever the perfect God-Man, without sin. But as St. Paul says: “The one not knowing sin (His personal nature sinless, and not really able to sin in and from Himself) on-behalf-of-us, He made sin (for our sake HE made Him to be sin), that WE might become the righteousness of God IN HIM.” (2 Cor. 5:21…paraphrase mine)
We really cannot press this any further, His personal ontology..God-Man, and sent and eternally generated by the Father! And as incarnate somehow the sinlesss one…the Lamb of God, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to you/us to God.” (1 Pet. 3:18)
To God be the glory: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The whole Godhead was involved in our redemption, Heb. 9: 14.
May 9, 2008 at 8:45 p
*in order to bring you/us to God.