Systematic Theology
Christology
The person of Christ — two natures, biblical christology, kenosis, contemporary christologies
Christology, the doctrine of the person of Christ, is the ground on which the most decisive controversies in Christian history were fought. It turns on a single fundamental question: who is Jesus Christ, and in what sense may he be confessed as both God and man?
The definition of Chalcedon (451)
The four negative adverbs
| Greek | Latin | Heresy excluded | What it affirms |
|---|---|---|---|
| ἀσυγχύτως | inconfuse | Monophysitism (Eutyches) — the two natures fuse into one | The natures remain distinct; divinity does not absorb humanity |
| ἀτρέπτως | immutabiliter | Apollinarianism — the divine nature “transforms” the human | Each nature retains its essential properties unaltered |
| ἀδιαιρέτως | indivise | Nestorianism — two distinct persons coexist in Christ | The unity of the person is real and indissoluble |
| ἀχωρίστως | inseparabiliter | Nestorianism, in a further form — the natures may be “separated” | The hypostatic union is permanent, even at the cross and in the tomb |
Christological heresies
| Heresy | Protagonist | Central error | Condemnation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arianism | Arius (†336) | The Son is a creature — “there was when he was not” | Nicaea I (325) — homoousios |
| Apollinarianism | Apollinaris of Laodicea (†390) | Christ has a human body and soul, but the Logos replaces his human mind | Constantinople I (381) |
| Nestorianism | Nestorius (†451) | Mary is Christotokos but not Theotokos — two distinct persons in Christ | Ephesus (431) |
| Monophysitism | Eutyches (†456) | After the incarnation, one nature only — the humanity absorbed | Chalcedon (451) |
| Monothelitism | Sergius of Constantinople (†638) | A single will in Christ, to safeguard the unity of the person | Constantinople III (681) |
| Adoptionism | Paul of Samosata (†after 272) | Jesus is a man “adopted” as Son of God at his baptism (Ps 2:7) | Synod of Antioch (268) |
Before the conciliar formulas, the New Testament itself presents a rich and plural christology. Its authors approach the person of Christ from differing angles, without contradiction but with complementary emphases.
Christologies of the New Testament
The Johannine Logos (John 1:1-18)
The prologue of John is the highest christological text in the New Testament. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος — in the beginning was the Word, a term at once Stoic and Jewish for the divine reason ordering the cosmos. The Logos “was with God” (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) and “was God” (θεὸς ἦν), the anarthrous predicate carrying a qualitative force: of divine nature. This text is the scriptural foundation of Nicaea I and of a christology “from above”, moving from the Logos to the flesh.
Son of Man (υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) — the title Jesus uses of himself, drawn from Dan 7:13-14. It is deliberately ambiguous: a human being, as in Ezekiel, or the apocalyptic figure coming on the clouds, as in Daniel. Jesus claims authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), lordship over the sabbath (Mark 2:28) and a coming in glory (Mark 14:62).
Eschatological Adam (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:45) — Christ is the second Adam, undoing what Adam did. Form of God (Phil 2:5-11) — the kenotic hymn: subsisting ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ, he empties himself (ἐκένωσεν), taking the form of a servant. Image of the invisible God (Col 1:15-20) — firstborn of all creation, in whom all things hold together.
Great High Priest (Heb 4:14–5:10; 7–9) — Christ is at once priest and victim, the one who offers and the offering. His priesthood is after the order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4): eternal, non-hereditary, royal and priestly at once. Heb 1:3 calls him the radiance of God’s glory and the imprint of his substance (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ).
The christological titles
| Title | Greek or Hebrew | Sense and force | Key text |
|---|---|---|---|
| Messiah / Christ | מָשִׁיחַ / Χριστός | The Anointed, the awaited eschatological Davidic king. Jesus reinterprets the title: a suffering Messiah (Isa 53), not a conqueror | Mark 8:29; Matt 16:16; John 4:25-26 |
| Lord | Κύριος | A divine title: the Septuagint renders YHWH by Κύριος. The central paschal confession is “Jesus is Lord” | Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11 |
| Son of God | Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ | A unique sonship — not adoptive but ontological | John 1:14; 3:16; Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4 |
| Logos | Λόγος | The pre-existent divine Word-Reason made flesh; the foundation of Johannine christology | John 1:1-14; Rev 19:13 |
| Saviour | Σωτήρ | An imperial title — Augustus was Sôtêr — reclaimed for Jesus alone | Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Titus 2:13 |
Between the New Testament and the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon, the Church gradually forged the technical language in which to express its faith in Christ. The process was theological and political at once; the emperors played a decisive part.
From Nicaea (325) to Chalcedon (451)
| Stage | Problem | Conciliar answer | Technical term |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nicaea I (325) | Arius: is the Son creature or God? | The Son is ὁμοούσιος with the Father — of the same divine substance | Homoousios |
| Constantinople I (381) | Apollinaris: does Christ have a complete human soul? | Christ has a complete human nature — body, soul and human mind | Full humanity |
| Ephesus (431) | Nestorius: is Mary Theotokos? One person in Christ or two? | One person in Christ; Mary is Theotokos because she bears the divine person | Theotokos · hypostasis |
| Chalcedon (451) | Eutyches: do the natures fuse after the incarnation? | Two natures, divine and human, united without confusion in one person | One person in two natures |
| Constantinople III (681) | Monothelitism: one will in Christ or two? | Two wills, divine and human, the human freely submitted to the divine | Dyothelitism |
Ousia, hypostasis, physis
The christological debate required a precise philosophical vocabulary, a borrowing that itself provoked controversy. Ousia (οὐσία) means substance or being; hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) a concrete subsisting person; physis (φύσις) nature. The trinitarian formula runs: one ousia in three hypostaseis. The christological formula runs: two physeis in one hypostasis. What is “substance” in trinitarian theology is “person” in christology, and the terminological complexity caused endless misunderstanding — much of the monophysite controversy turned on incompatible usages rather than incompatible faith.
The hymn of Philippians 2:5-11 is the most meditated text on Christ’s voluntary abasement. The theology of kenosis (κένωσις, emptying) attempts to answer a hard question: how can the Son of God “not know” (Mark 13:32), “learn obedience” (Heb 5:8) and “be tempted” (Heb 4:15)?
The kenotic hymn (Philippians 2:5-11)
Three readings of the kenosis
Christ did not divest himself of his divine attributes; omniscience and omnipotence remain his. But he does not exercise them according to his human will. The kenosis is functional: he veils, or refrains from using, his divine glory during the time of his humiliation. The “not knowing” of Mark 13:32 belongs to the economy of the incarnation, not to any real limitation of divinity.
Gottfried Thomasius (1853) and the Lutheran kenotic theologians held that in the incarnation the Logos really divested himself of certain relative divine attributes — omniscience, omnipotence — while retaining the absolute ones such as holiness and love. The position was influential in England, with Gore and Forsyth, but remains contested for risking a division of Christ’s person.
The classical Reformed distinction: active obedience, whereby Christ obeys the law perfectly throughout his life (Rom 5:19), and passive obedience, whereby he bears the penalty of sin at the cross (Isa 53). Both are imputed to the believer in justification. The distinction is fundamental to Reformed soteriology (Owen, Turretin, Westminster) — and underlines that the whole of Christ’s life is redemptive, not the cross alone.
Karl Barth and radical christocentrism
For Barth (Church Dogmatics IV.1-3), christology is the key to the whole of dogmatics. God’s election is an election in Christ: in Christ God determines who he will be and who humanity will be. Christ is at once the electing God and the elect man, “the man for others”. This radical christocentrism excludes any knowledge of God apart from Christ: the “natural light of reason” affords no access to him.
Wolfhart Pannenberg and christology “from below”
Pannenberg (Grundzüge der Christologie, 1964) proposes a christology “from below”, beginning with the historical reality of Jesus and above all with the resurrection, understood as a historical event and not merely an act of faith. It is the resurrection that retrospectively discloses Jesus’ divinity. The method deliberately inverts that of the councils. Rather than descending from pre-existent divinity to assumed humanity, it proceeds from the man Jesus and discloses his divinity in the light of Easter.
Contextual christologies
| Movement | Christological emphasis | Representatives |
|---|---|---|
| Liberation theology | Christ the liberator of the oppressed — the gospels read from the standpoint of the poor and of Luke 4:18 | Sobrino, Boff, Gutiérrez |
| Feminist theology | Christ as inclusive — his maleness is not normative for a salvation that is universal | Ruether, Schüssler Fiorenza, Johnson |
| African theology | Christ as Ancestor, Healer, Chief — African categories allowing an inculturated christology | Nyamiti, Bujo, Pobee |
| Asian theology | Christ in dialogue with Buddhist and Confucian traditions — a christology of “the way” or of fullness | Pieris, Koyama, Song |
Primary sources
- Definition of Chalcedon (451). DH 301-302.
- Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV/1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.
- Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus — God and Man. London: SCM, 1968.
Studies
- Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition. 2 vols. London: Mowbray, 1975-1995.
- Macleod, Donald. The Person of Christ. Leicester: IVP, 1998.
- Wellum, Stephen J. God the Son Incarnate: The Doctrine of Christ. Wheaton: Crossway, 2016.
Quiz — Christology
What do the four negative adverbs of Chalcedon exclude?
- Arianism, Sabellianism, Donatism and Pelagianism
- Monophysitism, Apollinarianism and Nestorianism in two forms
- Monothelitism, iconoclasm, gnosticism and Marcionism
- Adoptionism, modalism, subordinationism and tritheism
ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως