Christology

==Definition and approaches==

''Christology'' (from the [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] {{lang-grc|Χριστός|Khristós|label=none}} and {{lang-grc|[[wiktionary:-λογία|-λογία]]|[[wiktionary:-logia|-logia]]|label=none}}), literally 'the understanding of Christ',{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=108}} is the study of the nature (person) and work (role in salvation){{refn|group=note|name="work"|The work of Jesus Christ:
* Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen: "soteriology, the doctrine of salvation"{{sfn|Kärkkäinen|2016}}
* biblicaltraining.org: "The Past Work of Christ, The Atoning Savior";<ref group=web>{{cite web| url = https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/work-jesus-christ-summary/systematic-theology-ii/bruce-ware| title = ''The Work of Jesus Christ: Summary''}}{{Dead link|date=December 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>; "Present work of Christ: work as mediator and Lord";<ref group=web name="Work.present.future">{{cite web| url = https://www.biblicaltraining.org/work-jesus-christ-summary/systematic-theology| title = ''Lecture 8: The Work of Jesus Christ: Summary''| access-date = 2 March 2019| archive-date = 6 March 2019| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190306043931/https://www.biblicaltraining.org/work-jesus-christ-summary/systematic-theology| url-status = live}}</ref> "Future work of Christ: work as coming judge and reigning king"<ref group=web name="Work.present.future"/>}} of [[Jesus in Christianity|Jesus Christ]].{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n. 5}}{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}<ref group="web" name="EB_Christology">{{Cite web |title=Christology {{!}} Definition, History, Doctrine, Summary, Importance, & Facts {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology |access-date=2023-05-10 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en |archive-date=1 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190301011303/https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology |url-status=live }}</ref><ref group="web" name="CathEncycl_Christology">{{Cite web |title=CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Christology |url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm |access-date=2023-05-10 |website=www.newadvent.org |archive-date=3 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703041424/http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>{{refn|group=note|name="Definitions"|Definitions:
* Bart Ehrman: "the understanding of Christ";{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=108}} "the nature of Christ{{snd}}the question of Christology"{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=171}}
* Bird, Evans & Gathercole (2014): "New Testament scholars often speak about "Christology", which is the study of the career, person, nature, and identity of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n.  5}}
* Raymond Brown (1994): "[C]hristology discusses any evaluation of Jesus in respect to who he was and the role he played in the divine plan."{{sfn|Brown|2004|p=3}}
* Bernard L. Ramm (1993): "Christology is the reflective and systematic study of the person and work of Jesus Christ."{{sfn|Ramm|1993|p=15}}
* Matt Stefon, Hans J. Hillerbrand (Encyclopedia Britannica): "Christology, Christian reflection, teaching, and doctrine concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Christology is the part of theology that is concerned with the nature and work of Jesus, including such matters as the Incarnation, the Resurrection, and his human and divine natures and their relationship."<ref group=web name="EB_Christology"/>
* Catholic Encyclopedia: "Christology is that part of theology which deals with Our Lord Jesus Christ. In its full extent it comprises the doctrines concerning both the person of Christ and His works."<ref group=web name="CathEncycl_Christology"/>}} It studies Jesus Christ's humanity and divinity, and the relation between these two aspects;{{sfn|Ehrman|2014|p=ch. 6–9}} and the role he plays in [[Salvation in Christianity|salvation]].

"[[Ontology|Ontological]] Christology" analyzes the nature or being<ref group="web" name="thinkapologetics.christology">{{Cite web |last=Chabot |first=Eric |date=2009-05-11 |title=THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM: Jesus- A Functional or Ontological Christology? |url=http://thinkapologetics.blogspot.com/2009/05/jesus-functional-or-ontological.html |access-date=2023-05-10 |website=THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM |archive-date=19 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181119000728/http://thinkapologetics.blogspot.com/2009/05/jesus-functional-or-ontological.html |url-status=live }}</ref> of Jesus Christ. "Functional Christology" analyzes the works of Jesus Christ, while "[[Christian soteriology|soteriological]] Christology" analyzes the "[[Christian soteriology|salvific]]" standpoints of Christology.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Chan |first=Mark L. Y. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQJ74t0aE4C&dq=ontological+christology&pg=PA59 |title=Christology from Within and Ahead: Hermeneutics, Contingency, and the Quest for Transcontextual Criteria in Christology |date=2001 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-11844-7 |pages=59–62 |language=en |access-date=14 March 2023 |archive-date=14 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214055527/https://books.google.com/books?id=9NQJ74t0aE4C&dq=ontological+christology&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q=ontological%20christology&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref>

Several approaches can be distinguished within Christology.{{refn|group=note|Bird, Evans & Gathercole (2014): "There are, of course, many different ways of doing Christology. Some scholars study Christology by focusing on the major titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, such as "Son of Man", "Son of God", "Messiah", "Lord", "Prince", "Word", and the like. Others take a more functional approach and look at how Jesus acts or is said to act in the New Testament as the basis for configuring beliefs about him. It is possible to explore Jesus as a historical figure (i.e., Christology from below), or to examine theological claims made about Jesus (i.e., Christology from above). Many scholars prefer a socio-religious method by comparing beliefs about Jesus with beliefs in other religions to identify shared sources and similar ideas. Theologians often take a more philosophical approach and look at Jesus' "ontology" or "being" and debate how best to describe his divine and human natures."{{sfn|Bird|Evans|Gathercole|2014|p=134, n. 5}}}} The term ''Christology from above''{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16-17}} or ''high Christology''{{sfn|Brown|2004|p=4}} refers to approaches that include aspects of divinity, such as Lord and Son of God, and the idea of the [[pre-existence of Christ]] as the ''[[Logos (Christianity)|Logos]]'' ('the Word'),{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|pp=16–17}}{{sfn|Brown|2004|p=4}}{{sfn|Pannenberg|1968|p=33}} as expressed in the [[wikisource:Bible (American Standard)/John#1|prologue to the Gospel of John]].{{refn|group=note|{{bibleverse|John|1:1–14|ESV}}}} These approaches interpret the works of Christ in terms of his divinity. According to Pannenberg, Christology from above "was far more common in the ancient Church, beginning with [[Ignatius of Antioch]] and the second century Apologists."{{sfn|Pannenberg|1968|p=33}}<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bobichon |first=Philippe |date=2011-01-01 |title=Filiation divine du Christ et filiation divine des chrétiens dans les écrits de Justin Martyr |url=https://www.academia.edu/7279912 |journal=In: Patricio de Navascués Benlloch – Manuel Crespo Losada – Andrés Sáez Gutiérrez (dir.), Filiación. Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígenes del cristianismo, vol. III, Madrid, pp. 337-378 |access-date=27 March 2021 |archive-date=14 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231214055527/https://www.academia.edu/7279912 |url-status=live }}</ref> The term ''Christology from below''{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|p=16}} or ''low Christology''{{sfn|Brown|2004|p=4}} refers to approaches that begin with the human aspects and the ministry of Jesus (including the miracles, parables, etc.) and move towards his divinity and the mystery of incarnation.{{sfn|O'Collins|2009|pp=16–17}}{{sfn|Brown|2004|p=4}}

==={{anchor|Person of Christ}}Person of Christ===
{{See also|Prosopon|Hypostatic union|Trinity}}
[[File:Christ Pantocrator niche Holy Trinity Meteora.jpg|thumb|[[Christ Pantocrator]], Holy Trinity's monastery, [[Meteora]], Greece]]

A basic Christological teaching is that the person of [[Jesus in Christianity|Jesus Christ]] is both human and divine. The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ apparently (''[[Prosopon|prosopic]]'') form a duality, as they coexist within one person (''[[hypostatic union|hypostasis]]'').<ref name=Erickson >''Introducing Christian Doctrine'' by Millard J. Erickson, L. Arnold Hustad 2001, p. 234</ref> There are no direct discussions in the [[New Testament]] regarding the [[Hypostatic union|dual nature]] of the Person of Christ as both divine and human,<ref name=Erickson /> and since the early days of Christianity, theologians have debated various approaches to the understanding of these natures, at times resulting in ecumenical councils, and schisms.<ref name=Erickson />

Some historical christological doctrines gained broad support:
* [[Monophysitism]] (Monophysite controversy, 3rd–8th centuries): After the union of the divine and the human in the historical incarnation, Jesus Christ had only a single nature. Monophysitism was condemned as heretical by the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (451).
* [[Miaphysitism]] ([[Oriental Orthodox]] churches): In the person of Jesus Christ, divine nature and human nature are united in a compound nature ('physis').
* [[Dyophysitism]] ([[Eastern Orthodox Church]], [[Catholic Church]], [[Church of the East]], [[Lutheranism]], [[Anglicanism]], and the [[Reformed Church]]es): Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, after the Incarnation; articulated by the [[Chalcedonian Definition]].
* [[Monarchianism]] (including [[Adoptionism]] and [[Modalism]]): God as one, in contrast to the doctrine of the [[Trinity]]. Condemned as heretical in the [[Patristic era]] but followed today by certain groups of [[Nontrinitarians]].

Influential Christologies which were broadly condemned as heretical{{refn|group=note|Heretical Christologies:
* Docetism is the doctrine that the phenomenon of Jesus, his historical and bodily existence, and above all the human form of Jesus, was mere semblance without any true reality. Broadly it is taken as the belief that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his human form was an illusion. Docetic teachings were attacked by [[Ignatius of Antioch]] and were eventually abandoned by [[Proto-orthodox Christianity|proto-orthodox Christians]].{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}}
* Arianism, which viewed Jesus as primarily an ordinary mortal, was condemned as [[heretical]] in 325, exonerated in 335, and eventually re-condemned as heretical at the [[First Council of Constantinople]] (381).{{sfn|Ehrman|1993}}{{sfn|McGrath|2007|p=282}}
* Nestorianism opposed the concept of hypostatic union, and emphasized a radical distinction between the two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ. It was condemned by the [[Council of Ephesus]] (431).
* Monothelitism held that although Christ has two natures (Dyophysitism), his will is united. The doctrine was promoted by Emperor [[Heraclius]] and Ecumenical Patriarch [[Sergius I of Constantinople|Sergius I]] as a compromise position between Chalcedonianism and various minority christologies. It was condemned as heretical by the [[Third Council of Constantinople]] (681).}} are:
* [[Docetism]] (3rd–4th centuries) claimed the human form of Jesus was mere semblance without any true reality.
* [[Arianism]] (4th century) viewed the divine nature of Jesus, the [[Son of God (Christianity)|Son of God]], as distinct and inferior to [[God the Father]], e.g., by having a beginning in time.
* [[Nestorianism]] (5th century) considered the two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ almost entirely distinct.
* [[Monothelitism]] (7th century), considered Christ to have only one will.

Various church [[#Controversies and ecumenical councils (2nd-8th century)|councils]], mainly in the 4th and 5th centuries, resolved most of these controversies, making the doctrine of the [[Trinity]] orthodox in nearly all branches of Christianity. Among them, only the Dyophysite doctrine was recognized as true and not heretical, belonging to the Christian [[orthodoxy]] and [[deposit of faith]].

===Salvation===
{{Main|Salvation in Christianity|Atonement in Christianity}}

In [[Christian theology]], [[atonement]] is the method by which human beings can be reconciled to [[God in Christianity|God]] through [[Christ]]'s sacrificial suffering and [[Crucifixion of Jesus|death]].<ref>"Atonement." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005</ref> Atonement is the [[Forgiveness#Christianity|forgiving]] or pardoning of [[Christian views of sin|sin]] in general and [[original sin]] in particular through the suffering, death and [[resurrection of Jesus]],<ref group=web name="CED">Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 11th Edition, [http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atonement ''atonement''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326021550/https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/atonement |date=26 March 2023 }}, retrieved 3 October 2012: "2. (often capital) ''Christian theol''

a. the reconciliation of man with God through the life, sufferings, and sacrificial death of Christ

b. the sufferings and death of Christ"</ref> enabling the [[Reconciliation (theology)|reconciliation]] between God and [[Genesis creation narrative|his creation]]. Due to the influence of [[Gustaf Aulen|Gustaf Aulèn]]'s (1879–1978) {{lang|la|Christus Victor}} (1931), the various theories or paradigmata of atonement are often grouped as "classical paradigm", "objective paradigm", and the "subjective paradigm":{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=2}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|pp=11–20}}<ref name=Aulen>[[Gustaf Aulen]], Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement, E.T. London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1931</ref><ref>[[Vincent Taylor (theologian)|Vincent Taylor]], ''The Cross of Christ'' (London: Macmillan & Co, 1956), pp. 71–77

2</ref>
* Classical paradigm:{{refn|group=note|The "ransom theory" and the "Christ Victor" theory are different, but are generally considered together as Patristic or "classical" theories, to use [[Gustaf Aulén]]'s nomenclature. These were the traditional understandings of the early [[Church Fathers]].}}
** [[Ransom theory of atonement]], which teaches that the [[Crucifixion of Jesus|death]] of [[Christ]] was a [[ransom]] [[Sacrifice#Christianity|sacrifice]], usually said to have been paid to [[Satan]] or to death itself, in some views paid to [[God the Father]], in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of [[Original sin|inherited sin]]. Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory,{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=8}} calling it the {{lang|la|[[Christus Victor]]}} doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil, but defeated the powers of [[evil]], which had held humankind in their dominion.;<ref>Leon Morris, 'Theories of the Atonement' in ''Elwell Evangelical Dictionary''.</ref>{{refn|group=note|According to Pugh, "Ever since [Aulén's] time, we call these patristic ideas the {{lang|la|Christus Victor}} way of seeing the cross."{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=1}}}}
** [[Recapitulation theory of atonement|Recapitulation theory]],{{sfn|Pugh|2015|pp=1, 26}} which says that Christ succeeded where [[Adam]] [[fall of man|failed]]. [[Divinization (Christian)|Theosis]] ('divinization') is a "corollary" of the recapitulation.{{sfn|Pugh|2015|p=31}}
* Objective paradigm:
** [[Satisfaction theory of atonement]],{{refn|group=note|Called by Aulén the "scholastic" view}} developed by [[Anselm of Canterbury]] (1033/4–1109), which teaches that [[Jesus Christ]] suffered [[Crucifixion of Jesus|crucifixion]] as a [[Substitutionary atonement|substitute]] for human [[sin]], satisfying God's just wrath against humankind's transgression due to Christ's infinite merit.<ref>{{citation|last=Tuomala|first=Jeffrey|year=1993|title=Christ's Atonement as the Model for Civil Justice|journal=American Journal of Jurisprudence|volume=38|pages=221–255|doi=10.1093/ajj/38.1.221|url=https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/19|access-date=11 December 2019|archive-date=17 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617080410/https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lusol_fac_pubs/19/|url-status=live}}</ref>
** [[Penal substitution]], also called "forensic theory" and "vicarious punishment", which was a development by the Reformers of Anselm's satisfaction theory.{{sfn|Taylor|1956|pp=71–72}}{{sfn|Packer|1973}}{{refn|group=note|name="Penal substitution"|Penal substitution:

* Vincent Taylor (1956): "the ''four main types'', which have persisted throughout the centuries. The oldest theory is the ''Ransom Theory''{{nbsp}}[...] It held sway for a thousand years{{nbsp}}[...] The ''Forensic Theory'' is that of the Reformers and their successors."{{sfn|Taylor|1956|pp=71–72}}
* Packer (1973): "Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon and their reforming contemporaries were the pioneers in stating it [i.e. the penal substitutionary theory]{{nbsp}}[...] What the Reformers did was to redefine {{lang|la|satisfactio}} (satisfaction), the main mediaeval category for thought about the cross. Anselm's {{lang|la|Cur Deus Homo?}}, which largely determined the mediaeval development, saw Christ's {{lang|la|satisfactio}} for our sins as the offering of compensation or damages for dishonour done, but the Reformers saw it as the undergoing of vicarious punishment (poena) to meet the claims on us of God's holy law and wrath (i.e. his punitive justice)."{{sfn|Packer|1973}}}}{{refn|group=note|name="Baker.2006"|Mark D. Baker, objecting against the pebal substitution theory, states that "substitution is a broad term that one can use with reference to a variety of metaphors."{{sfn|Baker|2006|p=25}}}} Instead of considering sin as an affront to God's honour, it sees sin as the breaking of God's moral law. Penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God's wrath, with the essence of Jesus' saving work being his substitution in the sinner's place, bearing the curse in the place of man.
** [[Governmental theory of atonement]], "which views God as both the loving creator and moral Governor of the universe."{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=17}} 
* Subjective paradigm:
**[[Moral influence theory of atonement]],{{refn|group=note|Which Aulén called the "subjective" or "humanistic" view. Propagated, as a critique of the satisfaction view, by [[Peter Abelard]]}} developed, or most notably propagated, by [[Abelard]] (1079–1142),{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=18}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=18}} who argued that "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.{{sfn|Weaver|2001|p=18}}{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=19}}
** [[Moral example theory]], developed by [[Faustus Socinus]] (1539–1604) in his work {{lang|la|De Jesu Christo servatore}} (1578), who rejected the idea of "vicarious satisfaction".{{refn|group=note|Christ suffering for, or punished for, the sinners.}} According to Socinus, Jesus' death offers humanity a perfect example of self-sacrificial dedication to God.{{sfn|Beilby|Eddy|2009|p=19}}

Other theories are the "embracement theory" and the "shared atonement" theory.<ref>Jeremiah, David. 2009. ''Living With Confidence in a Chaotic World,'' pp. 96 & 124. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, Inc.</ref><ref>Massengale, Jamey. 2013.''Renegade Gospel, The Jesus Manifold''</ref>