Butler UniversityDigital Commons @ Butler University

Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS College of Liberal Arts & Sciences

1998

Change in Christology: New Testament Modelsand the Contemporary TaskJames F. McGrathButler University, jfmcgrat@butler.edu

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences at Digital Commons @ Butler University. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Scholarship and Professional Work - LAS by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Butler University. For moreinformation, please contact fgaede@butler.edu.

Recommended CitationMcGrath, James F., "Change in Christology: New Testament Models and the Contemporary Task" Irish Theological Quarterly / (1998):39-50.Available at http://digitalcommons.butler.edu/facsch_papers/56

Permission to post this publication in our archive was granted by the copyright holder, SAGE Publications (http://itq.sagepub.com/). This copy should be used for educational and research purposes only. The original publication appeared at: McGrath, James F. “Change in Christology: New Testament Models and

the Contemporary Task,” Irish Theological Quarterly 63/1 (1998): 39-50.

DOI: not available

AL QUARTERLY

)1,; interest. The interest of the faith .he modem biographer. The Gospel mode of preaching and faith, and knowledge of the historical Jesus

not chaos, in life of Jesus research sce in pace!" He has no reason to be e present situation at least promotes ding of the historical dimension of the place of the historical Jesus in eed the reassurance that the Jesus of Christ of their faith. There is a seri­

-esent publishing frenzy. Because of 1 of Christian faith, research in the , responsible scholarship free from ;al nature. The ethical issue is not

is unethical scholarship. There is ity, but we are dealing here with an es Christian faith but which can con-

Jesus available on Iy to believers, i.e.. those eliever.- have to recogni7.e that they are deal­<:h historical information about the historical said thaI non-believers sec a refracted Jesus

1.

he Jesus of hiStory needs to be seen as part of lemL

James F. McGrath

Change in Christology: New Testament Models and the Contemporary Task

Throughout most of the modem period there has been an intense inter­est in the subject of doctrinal (and in particular Christological) develop­ment in both the New Testament and the later Church. The purpose of this paper is to review different models of development which have been sug­gested, and to suggest a way out of the impasse between the two major views which have predominated this field of study. The three views which we shall be considering may be summarized as follows: Firstly, there is the syncretistic view of development, which suggests that changes in doc­trinal formulation have occurred primarily due to the influence of contact with new religions or cultures; in other words. doctrine is said to have developed by accretion from outside. Secondly. there is the organic view of development, which considers the changes which have occurred in doc­trinal formulations 10 have been an outworking of the implical ions of what was present in the system of belief from the beginning. Lastly, we will be considering the view that changes in doctrine are due to pastoral concems. in the sense thut new formulations arose as traditional doctrines were applied to, or defended in. new situations.

The first viewpoint we have mentioned, the syncretistic model. is per­haps best known through the work of scholars like Wilhelm Bousset and the History of Religion School. This viewpoint is not short of modern defenders, such as Maurice Casey, whose recent work. From Jewish Propher to Cemife Cod,' sums up well the way in which this model is con­ceived to work. As Christianity movcd outside its original Jewish setting, it slowly ceased to be a jewish phenomenon. As more and morc Gentiles joined the movement, the character of its beliefs became steadily less and less Jewish. A number of other scholars have suggested that Samaritan beliefs played a similar role in the transformalion of Christian doctrine.'

It cannot be denied that there is a cenain amount of plausibility about this viewpoint. and that there is thus al least some truth in it. The differ­ences between, for example, the Sermon on the MOllnt and the creed of Nicaea are striking, and are to a large extent to be attributed to a change in the culture or setting of Christianity, as it moved from Palestinian soil

I, Cambridge: James Clarke and Co" 1991. 2. So e,g. R. E. Brown, The CommuniTY uf the Belcwed Disciple, London: Ge.offrey Chapman. 1979; Michael Goulder. 'The Two Roots of the Chri"tian Myth", in John Hick. (ed.), The Myth of Gud lncarnafl'. London: SCM Pre"", 1977, pp. 64-86: Idem.. "'The Samaritan Hypothesis". in Michael Goulder (cd.), IncanllJlion and Mwh. The Debare ConTinued. London: SCM Pre"" 1979, pp, 247-250.

39

1 IRISH THEOLOGIC A l. QUARTERLY40

and established TOots among philosophically minded Greeks. [t can hardly be said to be implausible to tlrgue (J\ong these lines: Jews were strict Jnonotheists; Gentiles were po[ythei~ts: there/ore, lh~ affirmatioll that Je~us is divine ll\lIst be a Gentile phenomenon.'

Ho\vever. despite its apparent plausibility, this model of doctrinal development suffers from certain difficulties. Firstly and most impor­lantly. this model does not do justice (() the continuity which exiSl~ ill doc­Irinal development. The earliest Christians were Jews. and already within the first g.ener'l1ion we find lewish Christians making striking aHirmation, concerning Jeslls." Abo. there seems tQ be a continuity traceable in cenain areas right the way through from Jesus to the G()~peJ \.)1' John, such <lS in the usc of Wisdom l:mguagc. imagery and categories.' Even in the lak~\

Slrala of the New Testament. we find Christi<lns who have a strongly Jewish self-identity <lnd wh(1 are working fi)T the Ill()\t part with Jewish moti t\ and j l1l<.lgery. The predominance of Jewish tl1ode~ of thought CO(l­

tinued even after Christinnity had been transplanted to Gentile ~()il.' and this i~ due to the fael. largely ignored by Immy advocates of thi~ modeL that conversion implies that the adoption of beliefs is primarily one way. th(Jt is, it i~ primarily the convert who adopts the beliefs of the group 10

which he or she i~ converting. In light of these points. the syncretistic Illodel appears 10 be an inadequate explanation of the phenomenon of doc­trinal development.

The organic model is gener<llly :lssociated with more conservative scholarship_ and has been Championed in recent years by scholars such as C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn.' This view obviously docs better justicc to the continuity between earlier and later ~tages o[ development, since

3. Mod.:rn retormlllali(ln$ ot Ih" approach g~ll<:r~IIy lend to aVOid lhe now discredilCd kWI~h v' Helleni~li(' appro3.;h. while t(\<':USIn~ on the fael Ihm IIH::ir "'ere genl,lin~ differ­cn~'cs of religion Jnd ,'ullure betwe"'l1 1ll0~1 Jew~ and most Gel)tik~,

4. A" MaTlin HCll:oel hl\~ noted In ,I f,unous phr",e. "more happencd In thi" pcnod ,,1 Ie" than two dccades than In tht' who!'; Ill' tilt' neXI ,eVel) ,,;cnlurics. up to the lime when the doc­trine of Ih'" early Ch\lrcll wa~ compleled" (711/' SOli uj God. LoIllJon. SCM Pre~s. 1976. p.2). See also Illy ;tr1Icle. "Johannine Chnsl1anlty - Jewish Chnshan'ly·)". III KOII/l/lli" VIlLI (1996). pp I-20. 5. Cf. h.mes Dunn. Chri~,t(l/"g.\' "1 11r" Makins. I.ondon: SCM Press. 19~92_ ,,;h. 6: Gese. Hanmul, "Wi,dom. Son of Man. alld the Origin, l\f Christology: The Con~\Stcnl

Dewl"pmenl of Biblical Theology". HfJT 3 (I ':lSI). pr. 23-57: M..lrtin Hengel, "Jesus as I'vk~sianll' Teacher of Wi~doll1 and 'he Bej!IllIllngs or Chnswlugy". III Sl/(",('.~ til Early Chrl.l1o!0!l.I'. EUlllburgh: T &T C1"rk, 1995. pp. 71-117: Ben Wlthcnngton. JCSI/." II/(' S(lge. Edinburgh: 1 &1' Clark. 1994. Sec funller QUf dhcus,ion below. /',. Thi, poinl beeQme$ ve,rj clear in Jcan Da1llelou', book. Til<' TiJeo/(lg., (1/ Jewish Chri.~/IfII/1I.", London' D:lnon, LOIlgmiln and Todd. 1964. where even GCll1ik Chr",;,111 aUlhors who t1emOIl!'lrale app:Hently 3mi-Jewish lcndcneil:s (.,ueh ..IS 19nallu,j are slill found co hold belid$ whIch are f"I!nl,llatcc\'i)r lhe mOSI pan in Jewish calegoncs and image\. Cf. especially ChapleT I. 7. C. F. 0, Moule. The Or/gill ofChri,\!v/"/!.'. Call1brjd.!:~ Univer~ity Press. 1977: Dunn. op. ~·it.: set: also Dunn', review of Casey in "The M.aklllg of CbflslOlogy - Evolution or Unfolding')", in Joel B. Green <lnd Max Tum~r. Jesus ,,/N(/wr,'lh: Lord (/11(1 eimsi £'''''(1\',' 1m tile His/onC(I! j""us (//1(/ Nt'w Tnll1lJ/f'lI/ Chrts,,,lo}::\·. Gralld Rapids: Eerdm~lIs. 1994. pp.431-452.

CHANGE 1

this continUIty is at the heart of th the later rorrnulations arc simply a in the original Christ event. There be appealed to as an illustration belween various stages.~

However. it may be ~aid in critic vide <l phlll~ible catalyst or expJam compare:-; the Johanll ilie portrait ( example. one cannot help but feel place in (he interve::ning period. \ beliefs and formulatiom. is also SI thc development or change seem tenm of what will hnppen 'natura trines and beliefs. Thus we find R ers that the later developments wei of who Jesus llnder~tood himself II our present discu~~jol\ wou Id have Ius, ill order to explain why John lillctive manner thaI he did. '" We h~

syncreli"aic ex planal iOlls: they falill tri ne, especially those which lOok I and the fact that the later stages af

thus left with a problem confronti logical development: the one prov tice to the evidence of cOJltinuily. ' as a description or the course whi, vide a convincing explanalion us t( ing) change:-; occur in Christian he!

This leads us on to the ('hird mOl

we ha.ve classed as a 'p3sloral prCUI because iI suggests Ihal devl'!opll1c tradition and environment, and Christian beliefs and traditions 1(

g, In addnion to Dunn. O,ri.\I(J/ogy. -ce al; 9. "Old .Ie~u, Kn()w He Was God?". I.JT!J ) If) Nee.. TCI!t,lIII/,II/ Christo!o>:\', London: Gc 10. See hIS CO/ll/ll/((u/v ol/he Be/ol'cd Di.~,

II. Br()wn's prOp()~ed ~ppeal to Samaril JohannlnC christology al~{1 flounders on th! Ihi, pCrlod. and the essenli~l ~imil~rity of v found in Jewi.<h ~ource.<; of a similar dale. Mc.:b PH tIm .sl,lbJ~<':I, particularly nil' 1'1

318f: und "Moses as <.iud and King", in Jm:1 /11 /V!C'IIU!n of E. R. COOdf'lUlUgh, Lelden: F 12. This" nOl really a criticism in many ( which we have classed liS proposing :I~ .

course which lilt' deve!opmt:J1( took an( N.:vt;;rthd~S\. II I .... Important lhat the queSli,

CAL QUARTERLY

Ihically minded Greeks. It tan hardly along t!1ese lines: Jew:> were ~lrict

ists: therefore. the aflinnation that :nomellon .-' lauSibi lity. thi~ model of doctrinal lirliculties. Firstly and mo~t impor­to the continuity which exists in doc­stians were J~ws. and already within lri~ti.1ns mak.ing stri king affirmat ions to be a continuity traceable in tenain sus to the Gospel of John, such ns in I'y and categorie:>.' Even ill the late:-.t ind Christians who have a strongly )('king for the most pan with Jcwi~h

lLe. of Jewish modes of thought COI1­

~en transplanted to Gentile soil," and :d by Illany advocates of lhi~ model. ption of beliefs is primarily one way. ho adopts the belief~ of lhe group to ight of these points, lhe ~yncretislic

'planation of the phenomenon of doc-

associated with more conservative "d in recent years by scholars such as lis view obviously does beneT justice Id later slages of development. since

generally lend 10 avoid th~ now discredited ing on the [a<;' Ih,u Iheir were genuine dlfter­ews and lIIost Genlile,. phrase. "more happened in this pcrillu (If les, t seven cemuries. up to the time when the Jo," £' Sml (~fGud. Llllldon: SCM Pres~. IQ76. p 2> I - Jewish Christian IIi)". '" KOlllllll1U VIII.\

ing. London: SCM Press, 19~92. eh. 6: Ge'e. Ie Origins of ChrislOlogy: Thc Consistent

(19SI), pp. ~3·57; Mnrtll1 Hengel. "Jesus a, ;inninp uf Chn';lolugy". In SllIdi"., ill "'wh' )p. 7~-117: Ben Withcnngtun. JIfJlI.\ the So/;('.

r discussion helow. D:mie)ou', boo\.., Th" Theol"g\" of J""'is"

d ·t'<)lId, 196-1. where even GenIi Ie Christi~n

eWI.,h tcntlCnCll" (suc:h 'I> 19l1:Hins) urc ,till the most p:111 in JeWIsh CUlcgones :~d Imag.:s.

. Cambricl~" UniversilY Pre". 1977: Donn, op. 'The Making of ChriSiology - E\"()luli,'n or cr, Jesus "f N<lwrelh .. LVld (//1</ Ch,.;,,/ £.1'.1"11\"., ChJ"i.(/olog\". Gram! Rapid,. Ecrdll1:Hl'. 1994.

CHANGE!N CHRtSTOLOGY 41

Ihis cOnlinuity is at the heart of thi~ model. In the view of these scholars. the laler formulations are si mply an unfolding of what was present in flue£:

in the original Christ event. There are numerous recent studies which may be appealed to as an illustration of the way continuity can be lraced between variou:'> stages:'

However. it may be .~aid in criticism of these views Ihalthey fail 10 pro­vide a plau~ible catalyst or explanation for these development~. When one cot1lpare~ the Johatltline portrait of Jesu~ with thaI of the Synoptics. for cX<Jmpk. one cannot help blll feel that the development which has taken place in lhe intervening period. while a development out of the earlier beliefs and formUlations. is also something more thall this: that IS 10 ~ay,

Ihe development or change seems too greal to be explained simply in lerms of what will happen 'nalur<llly". in the absence of stimulii. to doc­trines and beliefs. Thus we find Raymond Brown, <I scholar who consid­ers that the later developments were a valid outworking of and expression of who Jesm understood him~elr to be.~ still appea.1ing 10 what in terms of our present dj~cussjon would have to be classed a~ a 'syncretistic' slimu­Ius, in order 10 explain why John developed his Christology in the dis­tinctive manner thaI he did. lO \\le have already seen the difficult)' with such syncret ist ic explanation~: they rai I 10 do justice to the continuity in doc­lrine. especially those which took place within the New Testament period. and lhe fact that the later slages arc jllst a\ Jewish as the earlier." We are lhus left wilh II problem confrollling these twO major views of ChriS10­logical development: the one provides an explanalion without doing jus­tice to the evidence of continuity. whereas the other, whi Ie more accurate as a de~criplion of Ihe course which developmenl followed. faib to pro­vide a convincing explanation as to why ~uch (often quile drastic or strik· ing) changes occur in Christ ian beliefs.':

Thi~ lead" LIS on 10 the third model which we will be con\idcring. what we have classed a" a 'pa"loT<l1 preaching' model. for want of a beller tenn. beC<lll~e it sugges!s that development occurs due to an interaclion between tr<ldition and environment. and more specificDlly the application of Christ ian beliefs ,md tradilions 10 lhe needs of <I particular Chri ... tian

8. tn ~d<.Jlllon to Dunn. Chrilwlog.\'. ,e~ abo H~n~el, op. Cil . :Jnd Gese. op. CII l). "[)Id k.'l" Know He Was God')·-. 111"U 15 (1985). pp.74·79: S~~ abo his All IlJImtlllct'OIl 10 Nell' Tn/(lllwill Cllri.I!Ologr. London: Geoffrey Chaplrlarl. 1';)94. <.:h. 10 ~nd passim. 10. S<:e his CommuniI' (~/lh(' Bci<m:'d DIS~'lplt', pp. 34ff. II. Brown', proposcll appeat lv Samanll,nl~1ll a, a ~limulu., to the development or .Iohanlllne chrJ.~(ology atso llounders on the bck of clear evidel1ce for S~IlW[ltan bellds in lh" period. and the essential ,imil:!"ty or whal i. found in Samantan suurce, With what l' found III Jewl'h soure~s of " sinHt:!1 dule 011 lh,s i~sue seo;; funhcr the work or Wayne Meeb on 1111., -sub)~<:t. p'lnl<:ul~rly Tlu' ?mphel·Killx. ~)den: E. J. Bnll, 1967, p. 211). 318f: >!nL! "Moses us God and Klllg". 10 J:lcol1 Nell~ner (ed.). Religion.< ill All/i'll/II\": E.<S{I)'" in Me 1110/"1' of E. R. (ioodcl/(H/gh, LClden- E. J. Bnll. 1968. p.3<'i4. 12. TIlI.< " nOI really a critiCislll in many e',.~e,. SInce many of lh", ,tudles of ChnstoJogy which we haw dlSsed as proposing an 'orgalllc' model were cUIKcrned unty wllh the course which Ihe develupmenl tuuk amI not wllh the cause, of that development. Newrl!l,'k',. it IS Important lhul the 4ue,'ion 'why' be addressed lind an"wC"r~d

42 IRISH THEOLOG leAL QUARTER LY

community. A number of scholars have proposed models along these lines, although often using somewhat different methodologies aod approaches. '-' What these various suggestions have in common is their conviction that doctrine takes on new shapes and forms as it is used to respond to new needs. new questions and issues. and new settings. Tn the work of Maurice Wiles," the emphasis is on conflict in particular as a stimulus: as chal­lenges arose from within or from outside the community, the need to argue for and think through more fully the implication of these particular beliefs was greatly increased.

This view has an obvious advantage over the previous two which we have had opponunity to consider, because it holds 10 both a cOnlinuity in development and to a change in setting as an explanation of the develop­ment. Another significant advantage of this view is that it has been expounded as a sociological model in the work of two significant scholars in the field of the sociology of knowledge. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann.'~ Berger and Luckmann have made important contributions to the study of how human worldviews are constructed and maintained, and it is thei r work on the defence of worldviews which most interests us here. They refer to the process by which societies are maintained against factors which threaten their existence as legitim£Jt;oll. Legitimation refers to the action of apologetic and polemic which the upholders of an ideology or worldview engage in as a means of defending the plausibility structure of their beliefs. Reinforcing beliefs may be likened to reinforcing a building: in the process of strengthening a structure which has come under increas­ing stress and has been weakened thereby, the structure is expanded and additions are made which, alt.hough originally intended simply to preserve the original structure, actually cause it 10 take on a new shape. Thus, in the case of Christology. when different views and interpretations arose of ambiguous aspects of the canonical evidence, or when questions which had not previously arisen began to be asked, the need (0 defend a particu­lar view or belief necessitated clearer definition. the finding of proof texts and supporting scriptures (often ones which had not previously been related (0 the question of Christology), and other such activities which in fact proved (a be not merely a defence of the beliefs, but an expansion of them as well.

We may now tllm to the New Testament to see whether this last model does justice to the evidence found there. and for this purpose we may focus in particular on one stream of Christology which we have already

13. The term 'pastoral preaching model' is taken rrum Jerome Neyrey. Christ is Communiry, Wi\mlllgton. DE: Michael Glazier. 1985, p. 271. Similar models, in that they focus on development as occurring as Christian tradition and belief is related to new con­crete situations, are proposed by Wayne Meeks, ''The Social Setting of Pauline Theology", Interprelolion 37 (982). pp. 266-277; and Maurice Wiles, The Makillg of Chris/iall Dodritlf:. Cambridge University Press. 1967. 14. Op.cil.. p. 19. 15. The Social COlmrucrion of Realif)·. A Trearise in the Sociology oj Knowledge. London: Allen LanefPenguin Press, 1967, eh. 2.

CHANGE INt

mentioned above, namely the use of the focus of much recent interesl,'6 , detail: our main concern will be to d whether conflict and the rise of ne' appear to have been j mportant fael which occurred in the use of this lat

There is general agreement thaI. (and analogous terms such as Word being from God, but to the Wisdon personified and thus spoken of as il even personality. 17 Granted, Wisdoll of God, just as Philo refers to the here we are clearly dealing with an transcendence. God, it was believed act directly with the world, and yet. contact with them and revealed him~

two contrasting beliefs, 'figures' SI

importance, for they could be spokl or as none other than God himsel emphasized. Wisdom was thus prin about God.'o

The starting point for t.racing Christian use of wisdom language f. from the more general fact that Je parables, and other such modes of schools!' we have several instance Synoptic Gospels as speaking as Wisdom's spokesman.22 Jesus' fame

16. So much has been wrillen on Ihis ~ubje( not be given. In addil10n (0 me works Witherington. the interested reader is reJim recent dictionaries for additional bibliog.rap~

17. ct". the evidence and discussion found in aile God. Glle Lord Early Christian Del'O/ioll Press. 1988. eh. 2: Christopher Rowland, ClIIi 18. Cf. Karl·Joser Kuschel, 80m Before AI! GOllfried Schimanowski, Weisheit l/Iul MI'SJ

1985. pp. IOSff. 19. Judaism in New Testament limes had:ll seventl eentune,. as lhe work of Manin Helll UlndoTl: SCM Press, 1974: Tile' Hellenizati, London: SCM Press, 19119. 20. There may, of cuurse. have been indivi~

who understood Wisdom as lilerally a seeon can know of with cenai my are those c.J\pr<',<:" found in that literature whIch we have outlil' 21. On this sec especially the recent work 0

The Aph"ri.~tic Teaching of Jem.~ (SNTS 1\ Press. 1989. 22. EspeCIally in the Q matc.riaL cr, Wilher

I

AL QUARTERLY

~ proposed models along these lines, ~nt methodologies and approaches.'-' in common is their conviction that

1T1S <Is it is used to respond to new lew senings. In lhe work of Maurice !l particular as a stimulus: as chal­tIe the community, the need to argue npJication of these particular beliefs

~e over the previous two which we au&c it holds 10 both a continuity in 19 as an explanation of the develop­; of this view is that it has been the work of two significant scholars Iwlcdge, Peter Berger and Thomas ave made important contributions 10

are constructed and maintained, and jvicws which most interests uS here. :ieties are mainlained against factors itimatioll. Legitimation refers to the jeh the upholders of an ideology or efcnding the plausibility structure of be likened to reinforcing a building: :rure which has come under increas­~rcby, the struClure is expanded and ;iginally intended simply to preserve [to lake on a new shape. Thus, in the views u!Jd interpretations arose of

ev,idence, or when questions which asked, the need to defend a particu­definition, the finding of proof texts es which had not previously been ). and other such activities which in e of the beliefs, but an expansion of

lment (0 see whether this last model here. and for this purpose we may Christology which we have already

is l.aken from Jerome Neyrey. Christ is 'r. 1985. p. 271. Si milar models. in thaI they In tradition and belief is relaled to new con­s, "The Social Selling of Pauline Theology", Maurice Wiles. The Making (If Chn'slion

uise in the Sociology ofKnowledge. London:

CHANGE TN CHRISTOLOGY 43

mentioned above, namely the usc of wisdom language. This area has been the foclIs of much recent interesl,'6 and we need not review the subject in detail: our main concern will be to delennine, to whatever extent possible. whether conflict and the rise of new issues in the Christian community appear to have been important factors in spurring on the developments which occurred in the use of this language and imagery.

There is general agreement that, in pre-Christian Judaism, 'Wisdom' (and analogous terms such as Word and Spirit) did not refer to a separate being from God, hut to the Wisdom (or Word or Spirit) of God himself, personified and thus spoken of as if it had an independent existence and even personality. Il Granted, Wisdom is frequently spoken of as a creature of God, just as Philo refers to the Logos as a 'second God'.13 However, here we are clearly dealing with a metaphorical way of 'buffering' God's transcendence. God, it was believed in Hellenistic thought," did not inter­act directly with the world. and yet Jews believed that God had come into contact with them and revealed hi mself to them. In order to maintain these two contrasling beliefs, 'figures' such as Wisdom came to be of great importance, for they could be spoken of as separate. subordinate figures or as none other than God himself. depending on what needed to be emphasized. Wisdom was thus primarily a metaphor, a way of speaking about God.!O

The starting point for tracing the development of the specifically Christian use of wisdom language for Christology is Jesus himself. Apart from the more general fact that Jesus often spoke in proverbs, riddles, parables, and other stich modes of speech characteristic of the wisdom schools/' we have several instances in which Jesus is presented in the Synoptic Gospels as' speaking as if with the voice of Wisdom. as Wisdom's spokesman." Jesus' famous words, 'Come to me, all who are

16. So much h3S been written on this subject. that detailed bibHographical references can­not be given. In addition to Ihe works already cited by Dunn. Gese. Hengel and Wilhenngton. the interested reader is referred to Ihe anicles on Ihe subject in numerous recenl dictionaries for additional bibliography. 17. Cf. the evidence and discussion found in Dunn. op. cit., pp. 168-176; Larry W. HUrL:ldo, Olle God, Of/e Lord. EflrI\' Chrislian Devotion and Ancient Jewi\h Monorheism. London: SCM Press. 19S8. eh. 2: Christ~pher Rowland, Chrislian Origil1.~. London: SPCK, 1985. pp. 351'1'. 18. Cf Karl-Josef KUSChel. 80m Before All Time!, London: SCM Press, 1992. Pl'. 195rr: Gottfried Schimanowski, Wei!heil lind Me.<.!ta,~, Tiihingen: J. C. B. Mohr (PMI Siebeck). 19R5, pp. IOSff. 19. Judaism in New Testament times had already been subject to Hellenistic Influence for several centuries. a. the work of Martin Hengel has shown. See his Judaism and HelJel!i.wl. lAlndon: SCM Press. 1974; "'''e 'Hellel1i~o!ion' ofJU&U'O In the FirSI CeIllIlT)' afler Christ. London: SCM Press. 1989. 20. There may. of course. have been individuals, in panicular among the common people. who understood Wisdom as literally <I second figure alongside God. but the only views we can know of with certain£)' are those c:.:prcssed in the literalUre of the time, and it is the view found in lhat hterature which we have outlined here. 21. On this sec especially the recent work of RonOlld A. Piper. Wisdom ill Ihe Q TradiliOI1. The Aphori.~ti(' Teaching of Jt!SIIJ (SNTS Monograph Series. 61), Cambridge University Press. 1989. 22. Especially in the Q material. CL Witherington. op. cit.. Pl'. 211-236.

4<\ IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERI,Y

weary and heavy Jaden .... (Mall. II :28-30) appear to allude to the sort of language used of Wisdom, such as is found in Sir. 5 J :26, where the author encourage~ the readers to "put Ithcirl necks under her [l.e. Wisdom's] yoke". lind in neighbouring verses, to 'draw near' and to 'find rest'. The different versions of one of Je.~lIs' sayings found in Luke II :49-51 and Mall. 23:24ff suggest thaI at least Matthew idenlified Jesus' voi<.:e here with thai of Wisdom. When we remember thai the Spiril and Wisdom were not clearly distinguished al this stage, bUI were almosl interch,.mgeablc ways of speaking about God in his interaction with the world and with man,:" then the emphasis at the sian of all four Gospels (and throughout Luke and John in particular) on je"us being filled wilh the Spirit is also significant.1-l

However, in Jesus' own teaching we do not find any evidence that he identified himself wilh pre-cli,,>'lelll Wisdom, i.e. with a rigure existing wilh God in heaven prior 10 his appearance Oil ealth. However. when we move on to study slightly laler literature in the New Te~tamellt, we can see a significanl change in precisely this area. A major hymnic passage which de~cribes Christ in wisdom language is to be found in Colossians I: J5­20." Whether thi!> hymn i:- pre-Paulioe. Pauline or posi-Pauline need nOI concern us here. What is important here i~ thai this passage uses wisdom language to declare Christ's supremacy. allributing to him a role in cre­alion. Wisdom was ~poken of as the image of God, firstborn. one who existed before creation and through whom all things were brought into ex.islence." Evcn a cursory reading of such passages from early Jewi~h lit­erature as Baruch 3:9tl and Sir. 24 makes clear that wisdom language <lod imagery form at least a major parl of the background to CoLI: 15-20. Here then, as in the Gospel material we have surveyed already. we are io the realm of wisdom motifs. Yet there are important differences as well which must be accounted for, since it can hardly be denied that the Colossians hymn goes further than anything in the Synoptic Gospels in its daring use of wisdom language.

23. So e.g. Dunn. op. cit, p. 266: C. 1-1. Talbert" 'And tht' Word B.xam.: Flesh': When"". 11] Abrahalll J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Mce!-s (cds.), Tlu: fll/ure of Chri:;/Oiogl' F..fstlrs III

HOllor uf Leonder E. Ked. 1vlinncapolis: Fomess Press. 1993, ppA5L 24. For more odailed discussi~)(l of 'h<:' ~ubJe<.·t o( the re13tiollship between .Ie~us and wis­dom ChnslOlogy. the reader is agam reJerr",d to the ex.cdlem reeent 'lUdies by Hengel. Gest': and Witherington which havc ;lilcady been clled frequently above. In the Sillltilludn' (~r

Enoch. we abo nod the Messiah described a~ embodying or bCUlg fillet! with God'~ Spiri1. the SPirit or Wi sdorn. Th is wa, apparenlly a widespread theme not only In early ChnSllanity. but also in contemporary Judaism. 25. On thIS passage. III addition to the CUJHmemaJ1e~, see N. T Wright, "Poetry and Theology 10 Colossians I: 15-20", in The Climw; of the' Cuvmant, Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 199 L pr. 99· I J9; Du nn, op. ci I., pp.187- 194: al SQ Jame, Dunn and James P. Mae!-c)'. Nell'

Jesl<1l71cllf T//{:,-,I,,::'.I· in {)i<Jlo[;uc, London: SPCK. 1987. pp 54-64: P. Beasley-Murray. "ColOSSians t: 15-20: I\n Early Chri"li'ln Hymn Celehrating the L<:>rd"hir of ChriSt". 10 D A. Hag.ner and M. J. Hauls (cds.). Pauline Studlcs: Essavs Proell1"d til Pmf ,.. F. {JrtlCC on/us 70111 Birlhda)', E"cler: PaternQSfer Pre~$, 1980. 26. Cf. r.:f.:rence~ in Dunn and Mackey, op. eil., pp. 561'.

CHANGE LN

Can the differences be Clccounte come to the fore since Jesus' tim believing that they can. In Paul' Christian church appears to have be in Christianity. This is important fl teslamental passage~ which we citel after a long de~cription of personi f involvement in creation, 10 identify the Torah!27 In this context the pain understood 10 be making is Ihat al the Law. including describing it a!

Wisdom, were to be found, not in T hymn makes good sense in the cont concerned about many of lhe same flie' over the Torah seems likely tl wisdom language, and thus providt ill the development of wisdom Chri

However, it must be stressed metaphorical langUage. This beeo] related epistles Colossians and f Colossians has a p<lrallel, howev, malerial in Col. I is often considen: necessary conclusion. On Ihe contr< Eph, I concerning God's eternal pia and our election in Christ. is an eXI in poelic language in Col. I: 15-20.

27, cr, Bar. 4:1: "She is the book of God's SIr. 24:23: "Allthl~ i~ no other 'han th~.Bo

La", O\al Mos~s cnllllned on us". 28. Notc the similarities of language bCI Galati3J\S and ROlHao~) in which Paul i. a Gentile Christians to be .,;ircumdsed alld su further dIscussion or the background uf Co Teadlcl> in Colo$saeT', in B. Lindars and S. TlWa/llel/l. Studie:.f in Honour of c. F: n. A ~ 15-,1.1 I; JameS D. G. Dunn, "The Co\olSil [ji/,lic1I76 (1995). pp. 153·1S1. 29, See (unher W. D, Davies. Pmd alld !<l al~() Wnghl. op. cit.. p. 118. I'ahllps tile la( guage. 3S we have seen above. is connec/cd the conlc>;t of debalC between his communil 30. There are three possible relaliol\~hjp~

Pauhne; one Illay be Pauhne and the o(her these is in fact Ihc case docs not affect tlK' \ ou~)y a very close re)atio)1shi p between Iht: t author, ur tht: ono: i~ the Wllr~ (,f '0111O;:()II(~ ,

other. and thu~ represents Ihe earliest intcq agreed thai, if the Jailer type of n:la(il)n~hi~

11Ir1her on Ihi.s see Andrew Li ncol n. I'.j,!te"ia, Word. 1990. pp. >;Ivii-Ivi: C L. Mitton. Jh. Pre~s, 1951.

I

'At Ql:ART£RLY

8-30) appear to allude to the sort of 'nund in Sir. 51 :26. where the <luthor rJ necks under her li.e. Wi$dom'~l

't1raw near' and to 'find rest'. The lyings found in Luke 11 :49~51 and [all11.: wide nt ified Jesu s' voi ce here .bel' thatlhe Spirit and Wisdom were e. but were almost interchangeable ,nteraction with the world and with of <111 four Gospels (and throughout s being IIlled with the Spirit is also

~Ie do not flnd any evidence that he Wisdom. i.e. with a figure existing arann' on earth. However, when we tf': in the New Testament, we can see area. A lIwjor hymnic passage which : is to be found ill Colossians 1: 15­nco Pauline or post-Pauline need not lI;re is that this passage use~ wisdom lCy, allributing to him a role in ere· ~ image of God, firstborn. one who whom all things were brought into rsuch passages from early Jewish lit­akes clear th<lt wisdom language and the hackground to Col.\ : 15-20. Here lave surveyed already. we are in the ~ important differences as well which hardly be denied that the Colossian~

he Synoptic Go:,;pel., in its daring use

:rI. " .And the Word Became Flesh': When "". s (<:(k). Til<' Fill/Ire o{Chri5wl",f<''' E.I'san;1I tr",s~ Pre~" 1993. pp.45t. xt of the relalionshlp between Jesus and Wl-'­

o the excelkm recenl slOdie, by Hengel. Ge<;e cited frequently ahove. In the Sllllilj/lld", (If • embodying or being tilled With Oou\ Spirit. tly a widespread lheme nOI unly in early m, 'Illil1Clllllrie s. "ee N. T. \V right, "Poelry and nun of /IU' envellom. Edinburgh: T&T Clar\... ; abo .l:lme~ Dunn and Janles P. Mackey. lYe" Sl'lK. 1987. pp. 54-64: P Hea,.;ley-Murray. Illn Celehrating th", Lordship 01 Christ", in D, llUdi,'s: L.'·,WV.I Presen(u! /0 Prof F. F. BTllet: ''', 19~O, cit.. pp, 561'.

CHANGE IN CHRISTOLOGY

Can the differences be accounted for by the fact that new issues had come to the fore since Jesus' time? The present writer is not alone in believing that they can. fn Paul's time the main controversy in the Christian church appears to have been over the ongoing place of the Torah in Christianity. This is important for our discussion, since the two inter­testamental passages which we cited in the previous paragraph both go on, after a long description of personified Wisdom alongside God and of her involvement in creation, to identify this personified Wisdom of God with the Torah!" In this context the poillt which the Colossians hymn would be understood LO be mak.ing is that all the things that the Jews attributed to the Law. incluuing describing i{ as the very embodiment of God's own Wisdom. were!O bc found, not in Torah, bUI ill Christ. This rcading of the hymn makes good sen~e ill the context of Colossi'ms. which appears to be concerned about Jll,lJly of the Same sort or issues as Galatians.!' The con­Ilict over the Torah seems likely to hnve spurred on the creative usc of wisdom language. and thus provides a plausible explanation of this stage in the development of wi.,do01 Christology/J

However, it must be stressed that here we are still dealing with metaphoric;)] language. This becomes clear if we compare the closely related epistles Colossians and Ephesians."" Nearly every portion of Colossians has a parallel. however smaiL in Ephesians. The hymnic material in Col. I is often considered an exception to (his, but this is not a necessary conclusion. On the contrary, it would appear (hat the material in Eph. I concerning God's elernal plan to bring all things together in Christ, allo oor eleclion in Christ, is an expression in prose of what is expressed in poetic language in Col. I: 15-20. The assertion Ihat Christ i.~ before all

27 Cf, B,II", 4, I: ··She is the book uf Gl>d's wrnmandments, the Law thai stanll" for ever"; Sir. 24:23: "/\llthi, is nl> other thar! thc Bool-. of the Covenant of lhe Most High God. lhe L<lw lhal Mosc~ enjoined on us", 28. Note the "imilarilies of l<lnguage between Colusslans and olber letter, buch a" Galalians ono R()l1lan~) in which Paul i, argull1g agalll,t oPPl>ncn!~ who would compel Gentile Christian~ to be c:irwrnCised and submit themsclves to the voke of the Torah, For furlher dis<:uSSIOIl of the b~ckground of Colos.<;ians see Morna Hooker. "Were there False Tcadlen. in Col()~,.;~e')". in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (ed~.). Chris/ (lilt! Spm/ 111 the New Tes/amem Srudil'.\ i/l HOlI'lItr (If C F. D. MOltle. Cambridge UnIversity Pres". 197~, pp. :1 15-3~1: James D G, Dunn. 'Tbe Colos<;itln Phllosopby: A Conlidcnt Jewish Apologia'·. Ribilca 76 (1995), rr. 153-1~1.

29 See further W. D. DaVie,. P"wt om! Rnhhin;c J"do;".",. London, SPCK, t948, ell. 7: abo \Vright. or. Cll., p, Il~. Perllap~ (hc faci Ihal M<luhew ill particular us",s Wisdom lan­guage. as we have seen ahove. IS conne..·led 10 his presenlal10n of Jc,.;u, ~~ a new Mo'e'. in the context of debate between hi, c<"lllmufilly and the leader, 01 lhe synagogue, 30. Thcft' are three pusslbll' relationship> between the two epislles: they may both be Pauline: une may be Pautine and the other not: rhey may b01h be post-Pauline. Which of these j, III fact the ca~e docs 110t affect the validity of thi.s coonplln~l>ll, since Ihere IS olwj­ou,lya very close relation,hip belween the two ktters: cllJlcr Ihey are the worl-. of the same "Ulhor, or Ihe one is the work ()f 'l>meone who wa, deeply inlluenced hy the work of lhe other. and lhu~ represent,.; the e<lrh~,t Interpretmion we have of the other (it is genera11y agrc~d Ihal. 11 the lattcr type ot rcla! ionshi p e\ iSb. Ephe,.;ians i, Ihe I~le[ l>f the two) Fur funher on this see Andrew lincoln. £1'"('\;0/1., (\\'"onJ Biblical Commentucy). Dalla" Tcxa~:

Word. 1990. pp, xlvii-Ivi: C L. Mitton. Til" El'fS11e 10 lite EphC',\'lwl.~. Oxlord: Clarendon Press. 195 I.

45

I

46 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

things and that aU things were created 'in him' is a poetic way of express­ing that it was God's eternal purpose that (Ill things should find their ful­filment 'in him' ." This is similar to the use of pre-existence language in the rabbinic writings, where certain things exist in the mind of God, in God's eternal plan." In particular, if the passage is Pauline (or earlier), then it would seem unlikely that a literal pre-ex.istence and involvement in creation is intended.1)

The situation is different however when we arrive at John's Gospel. In John, we find what began as a metaphor beginning to be understood much more literally. Whereas the prologue to the GospeL which uses the same sort of wisdom language as the Colossians passage,'" could be understood, if taken on its own, in a metaphorical way, we find throughout the Gospel a presentation of Jesus as one who is conscious of being the Son of Man who quite literally came down from heaven, and who thus can reveal to human beings what he has seen there. It would seem likely that here 100

the development which has taken place can best be explained in teons of the conflict setting in which the Fourth Gospel was composed.

It is generally accepted that a controversy with 'the Jews' (i.e. with the local synagogue of which the Iohannine Christians had been a part but from which they had now been expelled) lies in the background of the Fourth Gospel. and it is further largely agreed that Christology formed the focus of this conflict.J~ Two pivotal points in the conflict)" were Jesus' qualifications to be revealer (frequently in contrast with Moses) and the exalted status auributed to Jesus by the Johannine Christians (which, in the eyes of the community's Jewish opponents, was blasphemous). The former controversy is summed up in the Jewish objection found in John 9:29: "We know that God spoke (0 Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he comes from", and the latter in that found in passages like

31. Cf. G. B. Caird, Pau/:1 Lerrers From Prison, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976, pp. 175­17R. 32. Thi1> is not 10 propose a hard and fast di,lim:llon betwcen 'real" and 'ideal' pre-exis­tence, since existence ill the mimi of God appea.r:c; to have been wn,ideroo perhaps even more real than earthly e,\lstencc. However. even in laler literature (e.g. TIle Shepherd of Hermas) the pre-eXistence of Christ is paralleled by the pre-existence of the Church. See also the language of 'election' before the foundation of the world in I Peter I:20, and also Caird. op. cil.. p.I77. 33. For a detailed discussion of tnc development of the doctrine of Christ's pre-existence, see Dunn, ChristolOllY, and Kuschel, op. cit. Despite objections, Dunn's view th~l P~ul did not himself have a pre-existence Christology, or at Icast did not have one which was intended to be understood as anything other than a metaphor, appears very likely to be cor­rect. 34. A wisdom background i1> generally accepled. ro addition 10 the commentaries, cf. John Ashton, "The TransfomlalioJl of Wisdom. A Study of the prologue of John's Gospel", NTS 32 (1986), pp. 161-186; D. Moody Smith, Tile Theology of lhf Gospel of John, Cambridge University Press. 1995, pp. 17-20. 35. So e.g. Brown, C",,,,,,,mily, pp. 40-47: J. L. Martyn, Hi,<lOry ami Theology ill rhe FOUrTh Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979', passim: John Ashton, Understandillg the Form" Gospel, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. pp. 162·! 81. 36. \Vhether these issues were the centre of debate simuhaneously or at different times in the history of the communiI)' is difficult to know WIth any cenainly.

CHANGE I.

John 10:33: "Though you are ani context, the Johannine Christian: order to defend lheir worldview. this controversy and John's distill( tradition are connected. Traditi( Christianity) which used the langt Messiah or Son of Man" could be the claim that Jesus, as Messiah, i: Moses, whom some claimed had: whom all Jews believed had there or Man had pre-existed in heaver heavenly things in a way that no a the one in wholll the Spirit, Wisdo a decisive and permanent way, COl

incamation of one who can be spc none other than God himself, an< Father. TIlat Ihese were the issues duced the Fourth Gospel, and tha they sought {Q respond to the obje opponents, seems almost beyond that here too, conflict and the enSl nation of the direction in which th, up, used and developed in the Joh.

We have thus seen in the brieJ from the Pauline and Johannine beliefs and traditions on the one Church in its setting and environr explanation of the way doctrine de continuity between earlier and la[( nificant difference which must be causative factors,

From the beginning, we have r lerm or title under which OUf mo Although it is definitely necessary is a need for one term (such as '~

will distinguish this model from ot ways in which this model may developmenlQI model,-'8 in (hal it t

direct continuity between the earlie at least within the New Testament simply saying the same thing; but

37. Although, again, probably not origina lea.)l n01 thinking through (he logical imp' guage. .38. rn the sense gi ven to Ihis term by C. F. op. cil., pp. I-I I and paSSlltl.

:AL QUARTERLY

1 'in him' is a poetic way of express-that all thing~ should find their ful­

the use of pre-existence language in things exist in the mind of God, in , the passage is Pauline (or earlier), :ral pre-existence and involvement in

when we anive at John's Gospel. In lor beginning to be understood much : to the Gospel, which uses the same :sians passage/' could be understood, I way, we find throughout the Gospel ~ conscious of being the Son of Man heaven. and who thus can reveal to

e. It would seem likely that here too lce can best be explained in terms of rth Gospel wa~ composed. roversy with 'the Jews' (i.e. with the mine Christians had been a part but .eiled) lies in the background of the Iy agreed that Christology formed the

points in the wnl1ict'" were Jesus' ntly in contrast with Moses) and the the Johannine Cluistians (which, in

I opponents, was blasphemous). The 1 the Jewish objection found in John .1oses, but as for this man, we do not e latter in that found in passages like

son, Oxford: Clarendon Pre,s, 1976, pp. t75­

ist inction between 'real' and .ideal' pre-ex i~·

Jpt:~ 10 have been considered perh:lps even even in hiler lilcrall1fC (e.g. The Shepherd or cloo by the pre-existence of the Church. See ndation of the world in J Peter 1: 20, and al,o

\lent or lhe docuine of Christ's pre-exislence, Despile objeelJons, Dunn's view thaI Paul did :y, or a1 least did nOI have one whil:h was han a metaphor, appears very likely to be cor·

lIed. In addilion 10 the commentaries, cf. John Sludy of Ihe prologue of John's Gospel'". NTS Ie T!re(>/ogy of rhe Gospel oj Joll/!, Cambridge

J. L. Manyn, Hi.~/()ry and Thcn/<lgy ill rh<' 1', passim; John Ashlon, Understal/dil/g t1,,' 91, pp. 162-181. dehate simul1aocously or :II differenl times in now wilh any cenainty.

CHANGE IN CHRISTOLOGY 47

John 10:33: "Though you are only a man, you claim 10 be God", In this contex{, the Johannine Christians needed to engage in legitimation in order to defend Iheir worldview. It would seem plausible to suggest that Ihis conlrover~y and John's distinctive developments of Ihe ChrislOlogical tradition are connected. Traditions in Judaism (and perhaps also in Christianity) which used the language of pre-existence in reference to the Messiah or Son of Man·n could be taken literally and appealed 10 to bolster the clai m Ihat Jesus. as Messiah, is the revealer of heavenly things. Unlike Moses. whom some claimed had ascended to heaven from Mr. Sinai, and whom all Jews believed had Ihere received revelation from God, the Son of Man had pre-exisled in heaven, and thus was able to rcveal God and heavenly things in a way that no other could (cf. John 3: 13). And Jesus. as the one in whom Ihe Spirit. Wisdom or Word of God had come to dwell in a decisive and permanent way. could thus be said to be God incarnale, Ihe incnrnalion of one who Can be spoken of as sep<lrate from God and yet is none other than God himself, and thus worthy of honour alongside the Father. That these were Ihe issues confronting the community which pro­duced Ihe Fourth Gospel. and that these were among the ways in which Ihey sought to respond to the objections and issues raised by their Jewish opponents, seems almost beyond question. It thus seems valid to assert that here too, COnniel and the ensuing legitimation can provide an expla­nation of lhe direction in which these Christological tmditions were taken up, used and developed in the lohannine community.

We have thus seen in the brief examples which we have considered from Ihe Pauline and Johannine circles how the interaction between beliefs and traditions on the one hand, and the issues confronting the Church in its setting and environment on the other, can provide a viable explanation of the way dOClrine develops, one that does justice both to the continuity between earlier and later stages and also to the amount of sig­nificanl difference which must be explained in terms of some catalyst or causative factors.

From the beginning. we have noted tJle difficulty of finding a single lerm or title under which our model of development may be classified. Although it is definitely necessary for clarity of definition, and thus there is a need for one term (such as 'pastoral preaching') to be found wh.ich will distinguish this model from others, it would seem that there are many ways in whi<.:h Ihis model may be described. Firstly, this model is a developmental model;'" in that it emphasizes that there is a definite and direct continuity between the earliest and latest stages of the development, at least within the New Testament period. This is not to say that they are simply saying the same thing; but if there is one thing that is becoming

37. Although, again, probably nO( originally IOlended to be laken entirely literally, or al Ieasl nOl thinking lhrougb the logical implication, of :I liteml undersliUldi ng of ~uch Jan­guage. 38. In Ihe sense given to this lenn by C. F. D. Maule in his lmponam ,vork on thi~ subject. op. cil.. pp. 1- II and passim.

48 IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

clear to more and more people lOday. it is that to say the S<lme thing or make the same point in a new context, it is frequently necessary to say somelhing quite different. And in a world in which heavenly beings. Wisdom, pre-existence and other such concepts were CUITen\. and what today would be deemed 'mythological' modes of expression were the norm, lhe developments and difference~ between the earliest and hllest stages of New Testament Christology would not have appeared as great ,IS they do to us. These ex:pressjon~ ec.1ainly should be considered to have been. in the context of their age. a valid. if not indeed a necessary, re-expression of the impact of ksus. This is not to suggest that we must usc the S<lme terminol­ogy and concepts today. bUI simply thaI. just as certain concepts are useful lor expressing {he significance of Jesus for people today, images and mOlifs like Wisdom and pre-existence were useful for accomplishing the same purpo~e in the selling in which they were first used.'"

This model may .. Iso be classed as an el'olurionary model, in the sense Ihat it does have strikjng similarities to the dyn<lmic process involved in biological evolution through natural selection. for evolution through nat­ural selection suggests precisely that an interaction between genetic her­itaoe and environmenl occur:;. On the one hand. Ihe genetic inheritance ofe>

the organism provides a limiting factor in a simjJar way 10 the function of tradition in the process of development: evolution does not involve sud­den changes from one type of organism to another. but rather proposes that slight modifications occur which push the organism in a particular direction out of the many possible directions it could take. On the other hand, the en vironll)ent acts a~ a selecting factor, making certain develop­ments likely to be preserved a~ fruilfuL while making others unlikely to continue or to lead in useful directions. In Gl parallel way, lhe environment in which Christianity finds ilself provoke~ a grea{cr emphasis and deeper renection on certain aspects or Christian belief. drawing forth and enCOllr­<lging certain tendencies r(lther than Olhers. ,,,

However. a couple or clarifications should be made. 'Evolution' is onen used pejoratively to refer to views which suggest drastic changes in. Christology."' Evolution does produce major changes over long pef/ods 01 time. and it would seem fair to say thaI in some ways Christian doctrine has changed quite drastically over the centuries. However. the evulution of quite different types of animal might be better compared to the changes which have laken place in the concept of God between the patriarchal period and our time. than to the development or Christology within the

39. The deVelopment whKh IS pO$lh::d her(' IS OUI nec""sarily linear. and there- is no ';U£­geslJon Ihat then: i, a ck:n' move either from bener.t<> worse Of from worse 10 beller. All that IS beme s~id IS Ihal development, lake place which rllilkt' Chflstl<lolly heller o;ul1ed for. and Ihus lIlore likely 10 survJ\'e nnd 'llccecd in. a new environment. . . . 40. In term s of Ihe analogy we lIsed e~rl ier. here we have the appearance ot a r~lller dll­Cerenl kind of annllal. but through u pron's' nOI of tf~n,plantaljon from (lut..qdc. bUI or developme III OUI of what lhe anil1l;J[ aln;ady has. 41. Cc. Moule. op. CIL Dunn. "Making of Chnslology".

CHANGE [)\

New Testament period. In {he Ne development, and even in the deve Council of Chalcedon, we do not justifiably regarded as the appearar thus seem legitimate to class our term is understood as we have outl

More imponantly, we should po cidate One theory by appeal to ant carious course of action. All that is between two different models of dl to note thai they are similar inasn between environmenr and heriragf ment, rather than either one or 1

pressed. and provided its limitatio mind, the parallels can slill perhap:

We have also noted from the beg as a pastoral preaching model. This the authors of the various New i repeating tradition, but also drawir answer questions. settle doubts and for which they wrote. Tradition ne' in which it is taken up and applied I we have already noted. this model relates to a specific model of the WI

develop. However, it must be stres in a reduclionisl sense, like many ( sociology of religion, but rather in logical reflection never takes plae from a specific cultural-historical c

Whichever of these teons one m, most significant aspects of this mo, appear to have found a model whi and difference which is to be found tory of the Church's Chrislology, an model is not just of hislOrical inten the work of theology today," inasrr sion Ihat we today, in order to be fa relate it to our culture, setting and Tesrament authors did in their own I

useful inasmuch as, while it sels for

42. New Testamem scholars have recenlly Heikki Riiisanen, in his Bt!J'ulld New T"'Ilum cerni ng the need for co-operalion between ~ llleologians. and the need for bi blical St'hohu implications of lheir hislorical study might il1lended as one small allempl to begin rc~P(

CAL QUARTERLY

y, it is that to say the same thing or txt, it is frequently necessary to say a wOl'ld in which heavenly beings, eh cOlilcepts were current, and what I t moJ~ of ex pression were Ihe nonn. [ween the earliest and latesl slages of .ot have appeared as great as they do .uld be considered to have been, in the ieed a necessary. re-expression of the t that we must use the same lenninol­lal, just as certain concepts arc useful lS for people IOday, images <Inc! mOlifs ~ useful for accomplishi ng the same were firSI used.)O s an evolutionQl)' model, in the sense ; to the dynamic process involved in selection, for evolution through nat­

I an interaction between genetic her­e one hand. the genelic inheritance of tor in a similar way to the function of lent: evolution does not involve sud­niSin to ,mother, but ralher proposes ~h push the organism in a particular jirections il could take. On the other cting factor. making cel1ain develop­tfuI. while making others unlikely to ns. In a parallel way, the environment Ivokes a greater emphasis and deeper tian belief. drawing forth and encOur­others:") )ns should be made. 'Evolution' is ews which suggest drastic changes in :t' 1l\~ljor changes over long periods of that in some way~ Chrislian doctrine be centuries. However, the evolution ght be better compared to the changes cept of God between the patriarchal velopmem of Christo logy within the

is not nccc"arily lmear. ~nu Ihere i, no sug­1) bettt'r to wur~e or Irom wurse 10 be-ller. All lace which make Chri~\lanily heller "ulleu lor. in. a new environment. , h~J\: we huve lilt: ~pp~(\rance of a rather dif­;~ nOI of transpl~nlalion from olilslIJe. bUI llf

haS. :tuistology"

CHANGE IN CHRISTOLOGY 49

New Testament period. In the New Testament period of Chrislological development, and even in the developments which look place up until the Council of Cha1cedon. we do not have anything that would appear to be justifiably regarded as the appearance of an entirely new species. It would thus seem legitimate to class our model as evolutionary, provided this term is understood as we have outlined here.

More importantly, we should point out that here we are seeking to elu­cidate one theory by appeal to another, which is obviously a rather pre­carious course of action. All thai is being done here is to draw an analogy between two different models of development in two different fields. and to note that they are similar inasmuch as Ihey both posit all intemoioll berv.'een environment and heritage as producing and directing develop­ment, rather than either one or the ofheI: The analogy should nOI be pressed, and provided its limitations are clearly recognized and kepi in mind, the parallels can still perhaps be helpful and illuminating.

We have also noted from the beginning that this model has been classed as a pastoral preaching model. This phrase is used because it captures that the authors of the various New Testament documents were not simply repeating tradition, but also drawing out implications from it in order to answer questions, sell1e doubts and defeat opponents among the Churches for which they wrote. Tradition never stands in isolation from the:: ~et1ing

in which it is taken up and applied to the lives of individuals. Likewise. as we have already noted. this model is a sociological model. inasmuch as il relates to a specific model of the way in which worldviews and ideologies develop. However, it must be stressed that this model is nOI sociological in a reductionist sense, like many of the earliest works in the field of Ihe sociology of religion. but rather in the sense that it recognizes that theo­logical renection never takes place in a vacuum, and is never isolatecl from a speci fie cultural-historical context.

Whichever of these tenns one may feel mosl appropriately captures the most significant aspects of this mode.], what is most impon<1nt is that we appear to have found a model which does justice to both the continuity and difference which is to be found between the various stages of the his­tory of the Church's Christology, and indeed other doctrines as well. This model is not just of historical interest, bUI has importanl significance for the work of theology todaY,J1 inasmuch as it would seem a valid conclu­sion that we today, in order to be faithful 10 lhe message of Jesus, need to

• relate it to our cullure, setting and worldview, just as the various New Testament authors did in their own times and contexts. This model is also useful inasmuch as, while it sets forth the task racing us, it does not claim

42. New TeSUl.menl scholars have recently received a challenge from lhe Fillmsh ,cholar H.::ikki Rilisiioen, ill his Beyond New Teslan/em rheulugy. London: SCM Press. 1990. con­ceming l.he need for co-operarion belween students of lhe New Testament and syslematic theologians. and fhe need for biblical scholar.. [0 lake lhe further step of discussing what Ihe implication. of their historical ,lully might be for contemporary theology n)i~ nrllcle is inlended as une small ancmpl to begin responding 10 lhal challenge.

so IRISH THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

that one particular type of conclusion (e.g., 'liberal' or 'conservative') must always be the necessary outcome of the ,task of theology as outlined according to this model. If the conclusions were obvious and the answers dear-cUI. dialogue and discussion among theologians of different back­grounds and presuppositions would not be as urgent as they in fact are. Hopefully this anicle will provide a useful outline of Ihe way theology was being done in New Testament limes, and thus provide a canonical foundation for those seeking to wrestle with their Christian heritage on the one hand and their modern setting on the other,

Speaking Morally: T Debate Between Ric and Stanley Hauerw.

Speech. Voltaire said with charac race to conceal thought. Poetic sp speech "framed for contemplation speech framed to be heard for its above its interest of meaning ... inscape of speech for the inscape's : religious speech. function descripti speak effectively to those outside 0

itics? These continue to be major q spite of the influence of Wittge responses 10 its emphasis Oil makin: methods and terms of the sciences ture and empirical content.

This two-pan paper examines om in contemporary Christian eth i, McConnick. S.L and Stanley HaUl for Christians to speak to each othel Muslim and non-religious commur

, rational suicide. Because of the rcpu issues involved. this exchange has The first section of the paper outlinl vides some analyses from the study guage. [n the conclusion. we lay ou the exchange.'

The McCormick-Hauerwas Deba!

McCormick, arguably the most ir logian in America, had Ihis to say at ieal essay:

1. Humphry House. The JO/lrnals and Papel Universily Press. 1959). 289. 2. In its original form. this paper was given, Study of Chrislian Ethics held at WycJiffe H