Current lecture study notes are posted below. For a printable/downloadable version for each lecture, click on the link provided next to each lecture title/date. New notes will be posted after the lecture is presented. Scroll down for the lectures in sequence.
This page was last modified on Monday, March 29, 2010
Lecture 16 - February 2, 2010 (downloadable/printable notes)
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1. For those who are in the church, the deity of Jesus Christ is something that we often take for granted. What we don’t always agree on is what the deified Christ is like or not like. However, the non-Christian world for the most part doesn’t see Jesus deified in anyway. Their view tends to be that Jesus was just a man who was either misunderstood, deranged (crazy), or at the worse simply made up and/or highly exaggerated in order further the disappointment or delusions of his followers.
2. In many ways the deity of Jesus Christ sits at the pinnacle of the controversy concerning the Christian faith for people both in and out of our faith. Do we believe that Jesus is the Son of God and what does that mean in our system of belief is a question that most of us struggle with?
3. While Jesus in mentioned in some extra biblical resources, for the most part antiquity is silent about the man Jesus. The reason early history is silent about Jesus is for the most part who cared what was happening in an obscured part of the Roman Empire. Rome was the center of the world and Jerusalem and its area of the world was only noticed when it misbehaved (70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies).
4. Consequently only the followers of Jesus and later on the early Church itself cared to note and preserve for antiquity what this brilliant young Rabbi proclaimed about the Kingdom of God and His relationship to God.
5. So to understand who Jesus is we must turn to the Christ of faith as proclaimed through the Bible (see page 700, Erickson)
6. Erickson starts with Jesus’ self-consciousnesses, in other words, who did Jesus believe Himself to be.
7. As is stated, Jesus did not make an explicit claim about His deity. He did not say “I am God.” However, He did say many things that would be inappropriate if made by someone who was less than God.
8. For example, “His angels” in Matthew 13:41, His Kingdom (Luke 12:8-9; 15:10), “your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:50), the Prologue of the Gospel of John, and of course the “I am says” in John just to name a few (see Erickson and the Gospels for more references) .
9. For references outside the Gospels, see Hebrews and Paul (page 705). Note Philippians 2:5-11 on page 706 of Erickson for discussion starters on deity of Jesus.
10. Significance of the Resurrection (page 708). Especially Pannenberg points on the resurrection (page 709).
See 1 Corinthians 15 for further discussion on the importance of resurrection.
Full Deity of Historical Departures from Belief in the Christ
11. Ebionites - The name Ebionite simply means “poor” and at one time was applied to all Christians, then only Jewish Christians, and finally to particularly heretical Jewish Christians.
12. Before we go any further, let’s clarify what we mean by heretic. In German, the word heretic and candle are rather similar. The story is told of a scholar who was studying in Germany went into a store and in German asked for “four heretics”. The story keeper wanting to be helpful asked “what he wanted them for.” The man still not catching on to what German word he used for candle said “to burn for Advent.”
13. To which some who are zealous for orthodoxy might be thinking amen, “Burn them.” But if the truth be known most, if not all, heretics were sincere people trying to understand the Christian faith in their own context, asking very important questions from the perspective of faith, and seeking to lead others in what they thought was a fuller understanding of the faith (Heretics: For Armchair Theologians by Justo Gonzalez and Catherine Gunsalus Gonzalez, page 2).
14. The seeking to lead others was what often got those with “heretical views” in trouble. Usually heretics were left alone as long as they kept their views to themselves or repented of their beliefs.
15. In a nutshell, a heretic is and was anyone whose teachings the church at large considered or considers to be erroneous or dangerous to the faith. The problem is it is often very difficult to determine who is “the church at large” and who is “the heretic.”
16. Before the great Ecumenical Councils of our Faith, there was not a clear and agreed on understanding of what was our faith. Today many people believe that anyone who doesn’t believe in “full inerrancy”, “six day creation”, pre-tribulation historical pre-minimalism, speaking in tongues, being slayed in the Spirit, and etc. is a heretic. However, the catch word in the Southern Baptist convention is not “heretic” but “liberal.”
17. Most people look at heretics from a negative standpoint as someone who was or is threatening the great teachings of our faith, and granted there are those who were dangerous to our faith as we know it today. However, can you explain why heretics might have been or even still might be beneficial to our Faith?
18. Primarily they asked questions that needed to be asked, even though their answers were often rejected by Orthodox Christians. Some believe, and I agree, that by posing such questions and even giving disagreeable answers they helped the church clarify its beliefs.
19. The Ebionites asked questions concerning the deity of Jesus, virgin birth, and the nature of law in relationship to our faith. For the most part, the Ebionites were the descendents of the Judaizing movement that we see in Paul’s letters. So it is understandable that they rejected Paul’s teachings and the authority of his writings.
20. Their big difference was in how they saw Jesus as an ordinary human being possessing unusual gifts and abilities but not the supernatural gifts of righteousness and wisdom (See Erickson page 711).
21. Arianis – Another view concerning the deity of Jesus Christ that challenged orthodoxy is the teaching of the Alexandrian presbyter named Arius around the 4th century. According to Erickson, this movement had a real chance of becoming orthodoxy (page 711). The question He asked “Is the Son eternal, as is the Father?” To which the answer was no. The question was not was the One who became incarnate in Jesus existed before the incarnation but whether He existed from all eternity. Remember, the doctrine of Trinity stated that Jesus was begotten by the Father eternally and born of the virgin Mary. There are two births so to speak; one “begotten” not born and the other born but not “begotten” of Mary. Arius said Jesus was not eternally begotten as was the Father. Also remember that this is the real sticky part of the doctrine of the Trinity which says that the Word was begotten by the Father, but has always eternally existed as the Father has existed. J
22. The logic was that if Jesus was not fully eternal then He was not fully and truly divine. Many people believed as Arius and the controversy grew and the chant of Arianism became “There was when (He) was not.” It took over 300 bishops gathering at Nicaea in 325 A.D to decide the issue.
23. Turn to page 712, Erickson for more information. Let’s discuss Arius’ view that Jesus was not begotten but created. Paul’s view of first born of creation, what does that mean (see Colossians 1:15, Erickson page 714)?
24. See handout #27 (Historical Christological Heresies) as review.
25. Functional Christology verses Ontological Christology. In other words, what he does verses who He is (see Erickson, 717-719).
The Humanity of Jesus
26. See Erickson page 722. According to Erickson, the importance of the humanity of Jesus cannot be denied. I believe that of the two, his humanity and His deity, the humanity of Jesus is the part that most evangelical Christians have the hardest point in getting right.
27. The problem all along, since creation, has been the gap between humanity and God. For one, the problem is ontological because how can the finite be compared to infinite? But as we have seen the problem is also spiritual and moral. These are distinctions created by sin, and its consequences of separating us from our creator. The purpose of the incarnation is to bridge the gap between sinful man, and sinless, perfect God. The purpose of the incarnation is to provide for our salvation.
28. To do this, Jesus’ intercessory ministry depends on his humanity. I Timothy 2:5 speaks of the significance of Jesus’ humanity when he says: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ” (see Erickson, page 723).
29. What is the Biblical evidence that speaks to Jesus’ humanity? See Erickson, page 723, and handout # 31 [The person of Jesus Christ]. If time permits, we will use both.
30. Docetism – (see handout #27) Docetism is in essence a Christology heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. Plato taught that there were gradations of reality—meaning that spirit or mind is greater than body or material being. Matter thus came to be thought of a being morally bad, much like some people see sexuality as being bad or sinful. Aristotle taught the ideal of divine impassibility—meaning God cannot change, suffer, or be affected by anything that occurs in this world. According to Erickson (page 729), these two beliefs have significant differences but somehow agreed that the world we live in is evil. The material world, the stuff we are made of, is bad and inherently evil.
31. Docetism takes its name from the Greek meaning “to seem or appear.” Hence Jesus only appeared to be human because to be made of the stuff of this world means that somehow Jesus was inherently evil. God could not have become material because matter is evil, and God himself was perfectly pure and holy.
32. Therefore a lot of the Gospel of John was written to proclaim that Jesus was flesh and blood (see handout).
33. Apollinarianism – Apollinarius took a very narrow view and understanding of John 1:14 “the Word became flesh” by saying that the Word took not the whole humanity of Jesus but only the flesh, that is, the body. I believe most Christians today are followers of Apollinarius because most people just see Jesus’ humanity as being that of flesh and blood only (see “handout 27 continued”).
34. The Sinlessness of Jesus – Hebrews 4:15 is at the heart of the argument for the sinless state of Jesus’ humanity. In fact, I believe that Jesus “not sinning” is the only part of Jesus’ humanity that we cannot relate to. It is what makes his humanity perfect.
35. See handout #33, the Peccability verses Impeccability of Christ.
Lecture 17 - February 9, 2010 (downloadable/printable notes)
Doctrine of Christology and Incarnation (continued)
The Unity of the Humanity and Deity in the Person of Jesus Christ
1. So far, we’ve talk about the deity and humanity of Jesus and what each has meant. Tonight we come to the formable task of talking about the two coming together in the person of Jesus Christ. Erickson says that this is one of the most difficult theological problems that theologians undertake, ranking up there with the Trinity and the relationship of human free will and divine sovereignty (page 740).
2. It is difficult because the unification of the divine and human within Jesus posits the combination of two natures which are by definition worlds apart and very contradictory in nature. But according to Erickson, the unification of the two natures are necessary to further bridge the gap between God and sinful humanity.
3. In other words, if the redemption attempted on the cross is to be carried out, it must be both the work of the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ. According to Erickson if the death of the Savior is not the work of the unified God-man, it will be deficient at one point or the other.
4. What further complicates our endeavor is the Bible has no direct statements about the relationship and the two natures, except maybe of Jesus in Gethsemane praying “not my will be done, but thy will be done.” Two wills refers to two natures… or so we believe.
5. According to Erickson, “what we must do is draw references from Jesus’ self-concept, his actions, and various didactic statements about him” (page 741). Hence we turn to the Biblical material (Erickson, page 741).
6. After looking at the Biblical material, we turn to how the early church chose to make sense of essence of the material.
7. The key points of the Incarnation were resolved in the Nicene orthodoxy of the 4th century, primarily in response to what some thought were threats to proto-orthodoxy. Proto-orthodoxy is a term used to suggest the prevailing main stream Christian thought before it became the official orthodoxy position of the church.
8. The first point is that in becoming incarnate the divine word of God did not cease being fully God. As church father Gregory of Naziansen put it, “remaining what He was, he assumed what He was not.” This is one of the best or maybe the best summary statement we have of the doctrine of incarnation.
9. In other words, remaining all the deity that the eternal Word was before the Incarnation, in Jesus, He became fully human in every sense except one; He didn’t sin. He retained(s) all the divine attributes of eternality, impassibility, and immortality, even while taking up or “assuming” the human attributes of a human being like suffering and mortality.
10. Proto-orthodox or orthodox Christians (like Gregory of Naziansen) spent a lot of time thinking about what was “assumed” because there was a certain Christian theologian in that day named Apollinarius who believe that the Word assumed a human body and a living soul, but not a rational soul (The History of Christian Theology by Phillip Cary, page 171, Part 1 of Teaching Company manuscript).
11. In the ancient world plants, animals, and human beings all have souls. Plants and animals have biological souls (or a life force) and human beings have rational souls. The rational soul is what makes us a human being, rather than simply an animal. Anyway, Apollinarius said that Jesus did not “assume” our intellect or our rational soul, but only our body. The very thing that some people felt made us different from animals and plants he didn’t assume.
12. The Word did a rational soul transplant and simply replaced human mind and reason with the divine mind and reason. (Keep in mind that one understanding of the Word was Divine Reason.
13. Again, I believe that most people today are very Apollinarian in their understanding of Jesus. He was simply man in his body only, not in his mind and heart. God simply poured into a human form.
14. But yet, if the Incarnation is God’s attempt to bridge that gap between Himself and sinful humanity (to heal the damage done by the fall), then something has to be done about the human heart and mind. Hence Gregory came up with another saying, “Whatever is not assumed is not healed.” Jesus has to be fully human in every aspect of our body and nature if He is going to fully redeem all of human nature.
15. The orthodox Christian’s view of the doctrine of Incarnation is based on Nicene Trinitarianism: “The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, The Holy Spirit is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, The Son is not the Holy Spirit” and yet “There is one God and only one God.”
16. Part of the Creed goes like this… “I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made of one essence (or the same essence) with the Father.”
17. One of the most important theologians of the early church who spoke on the doctrine of Incarnation was a man named Cyril of Alexandra. He wanted to make clear the continuity of the Holy Trinity throughout the doctrine of Incarnation so he added “the same one.” The same one who is begotten eternally from the Father…the same one is born of the Virgin Mary, suffers and dies. The same one. “The same one who remains what he was, assumed what he was not.”
18. He also spoke of a hypostatic union (see McKim, page 135). Hypostases is the word for what there are three of in the Trinity. There are three persons or hypostases in the God head. A hypostatic union speaks of the union of the divine and human in the person of Jesus Christ.
19. Because of this union, there is a communication or sharing of attributes (Latin, communicato idiomatun) between the divine Logos (Word) and the man Jesus. There is just one Jesus of the properties of both man and God is shared with each other.
20. So that when Jesus suffered and died, the second hypostases of the Trinity suffered and died. Jesus is crucified; therefore the Word of God is crucified. In addition, you’ve got this flesh, the flesh of Jesus, is the flesh of God. It becomes “life giving flesh” (Gospel of John). Why? Bbecause the flesh of the man Jesus is the very flesh of God, the Word.
21. Now for God to suffer that is one thing, but for the Father to suffer that’s another. God the father didn’t suffer, but God the Son could, and did suffer and die on the cross.
22. This doctrine did run into opposition in the form of “Nestorianism” (see Erickson, 743). Nestorianism tends to split the divine person and the human person in Jesus apart. They are united but there are really two separate hypostases in Jesus. You cannot really say they are the same person.
23. The fourth ecumenical council (451) at Chalcedon is another important council that will define a great deal about the doctrine of incarnation. It represents a correction of sorts to the third ecumenical council, in Ephesus (431) in which Cyril spoke of Jesus as having “one nature after the union.”
24. Chalcedon council said that there was not one nature that came out of the union but two natures. While there is one person not two in Jesus Christ there is two natures-the divine and the human. Two natures that do share with one another as the previous council had stated, but still two distinct natures that don’t become one nature in Jesus Christ.
25. In other words, in Jesus Christ there is not a third kind of being that is born. It is not like the divine nature and the human nature get all mixed up and become something else in its entirety—like if you cross a horse with a donkey, you get a mule. Jesus is not a mixing up of two things.
26. The Chalcedonian statement of faith went like this: “One and same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten who is understood in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation…” (Erickson, page 746).
27. With the two natures there came the debate of how many wills. The sixth ecumenical council in A.D. 681 settled that. This one seemed rather easy. If there are two natures there must be two wills. Jesus in the Garden “not my will, but Thine be done.”
28. Two wills, two natures, one person, fully divine, fully human, the gist of the doctrine of Incarnation (see Erickson page 747 for further material concerning the two natures and one person).
Before we begin today’s lesson quickly go over chapter 36 on Virgin birth.
1. Traditionally the work of Jesus Christ has fallen into three categories or functions: his revelatory role, his rule, and his reconciling work (page 779, Erickson).
2. As a side note, much of the theology we are doing in this class is traditional in nature. The reason being: we (including myself) need to get clear on the basics fundamentals of our faith before we consider the more fringe ideas of faith and practice that people are exposed to these days.
3. Of course, as I said many times in our class, the crazier and more fringe beliefs are more do-overs of historical heresies than new ideas. But nevertheless in theology as well as life, you need to learn to walk before you run, or you will fall on your face.
4. Back to the task at hand, the three offices or functions of Jesus Christ (prophet, priest, and king) came to commonly describe the work commissioned by the Father for the Son to do.
5. Dale Moody , in his book The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, states this by saying “since the time of Eusebius of Caesarea (the 3rd and 4th century), it has been said that Jesus is priest, king, and prophet.”
6. According to Moody:
In discussing the relation between the prophets, kings, and priests of the Old Testament and Jesus, Eusebius said: “And it has actually come down to us that some also of the same prophets have by anointing become typically Christs, so that they may be referred to the true Christ, the divine and heavenly Word, who is the only High Priest of the Universe, the only King of creation, and the only supreme Prophet among his Father’s prophets.
The Prophetic Work of Christ:
7. In all four of the Gospels, the role of Jesus as a prophet is on the lips of Jesus himself (Mark 6:15, Matt 13: 57, Luke 4:52, John 4:44). In addition, others saw Jesus as a prophet as well (Mark 6:18, 8:28, Matt. 16:14, Luke 7:16, 39; John 9:17).
8. When you read the scriptures, Jesus and Moses are compared in many ways. One way is as a prophet in which is to New Testament prophecy what Moses was to Old Testament prophecy. Moses received the commandments and Jesus gave the new commandments as appeared in the first five teaching sections of Matthew’s gospel (Moody, page 368).
9. In addition Jesus was a prophet that fulfilled prophecy. In Peter’s preaching, he specifically identified Jesus with Moses’ prediction in Deuteronomy 18:15 “The Lord will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people” (Acts 3:22).
10. His message was both an expression of his words, but also who He was. In fact in many ways, you cannot separate Jesus from what He says and does, and from who He really is.
11. His message followed the prophetic forms of the Old Testament with woe and weal (well-being) and doom and deliverance. In the Old Testament, prophets like Amos were reminding people “woe to you who long for the day of the Lord” (Amos 5: 18). Jesus in same tradition gave seven “woes” to Scribes and Pharisees, land blasting them for their hypocrites’ and self-centeredness.
12. The message itself centered on the Kingdom of God and its values. The Pharisees’ hypocrites and self-centeredness was sure to exclude them from the kingdom of God and a true understanding of its values. In fact according to Jesus, the tax collectors and prostitutes would make it into the Kingdom ahead of them because they had no understanding of its concerns or values. The Kingdom values are the rule and will of His Father to which both Jesus and the Father want to be done on earth as is done in Heaven.
The Rule of Jesus Christ
13. When we refer to the Kingship of Christ, we are not just referring to the rule of a weak and ineffective king, but this is a powerful and sovereign Lord. The King James version of the Bible is exactly right when it translates ruler in 1 Timothy 6:15 as potentate. Potentate is a strong and sovereign ruler who rules with a strong hand.
14. To emphasize the sovereignty of Jesus, the Bible uses such strong words as “king of kings” and “Lord of Lords.” In addition, He is the “King of kings” and “Lord of lords” that follows in the lineage of David, the greatest king of the long line of Kings that Israel came to follow.
15. The Psalms speak of the rule of the monarchy and ideology of a Davidic kingship and they are seen as proclamation of the Kingship of Christ—the Anointed One. The confessions of Peter at Caesarea Philippi (Mark 8:27-33) and Jesus before Caiaphas in Jerusalem (Mark 14:61f) indicate how much the belief in Jesus as the Messiah was a part of the faith in Hellenistic Jewish Christianity, even though the title Son of David is not used (Moody, page 380).
16. Davidic Christology also penetrated into the apostolic preaching in the Acts (2:22-36, 13: 16-41) and Romans (1:3). Paul writes in Romans “Born of the seed of David; Declared Son of God by His resurrection from the dead” (1:3). This is not to mean that Jesus became Son of God at the resurrection as some might say who believe in Adoptionism. Israel was the son of God by adoption (Exodus 4:22f; Hosea 11:1), and the kings of Israel were too (2 Samuel 7:14), but this was never the basis of relationship between Jesus and God. He was eternally begotten, not created, nor adopted. According to Moody, this Roman passage instead means that Jesus, the Son of David, was “pre-destined to be the eschatological judge at his second coming” (Moody, page 380).
17. Therefore, the Kingship of Jesus is also strong and sovereign because Jesus was the “Son of God” as king. This claim, the Sonship of Jesus, has its roots alongside the Davidic kingship of Jesus and is blended together in Psalms 2:7 and even in the prophets (2 Samuel 7:14-16).
18. It is also proclaimed by Mark’s gospel numerous times by voices from heaven (1:11; 9:7), voices of demons (1:24; 5:7), sayings by Jesus (12:6; 13: 32) and finally a Roman centurion (15:39).
19. Both the kingly roles of Jesus as the Son of David and the Son of God, according to Moody, converge or come together at the resurrection from the dead, as in Romans 1:3f (page 381).
20. Before we conclude talking of the Kingship of Jesus, we must talk about Jesus as the “Son of Man.” Of all the titles and names of Jesus, the Son of Man seemed to be His favorite, or at least the one He used of himself the most. Kingship seems to be the chief concern when the Messiah is designated Son of Man, not just His humanity.
21. The major source for this term that Jesus used is the kingly vision in Daniel 7: 13f which reports the coming of the Son of Man before the Most High God. It reads:
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Son of Man, and he came before the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which will not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.
22. The kingly role of the Son of Man appears more frequently in the Gospel of Mark than in any other Gospel. The central passage on the kingship of Jesus is the combination of Psalm 110:1 (The Lord says to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool) and Daniel 7:13 as found in Jesus’ response to the high priest Caiaphas (14:62) when asked about Jesus being the Messiah. His response was: “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The risen Son of Man, the Lord of Lords, who sits at the right hand of the Father will come in glory and put every enemy under His feet. Strong is the power and authority of the Son of Man. Paul says it the best, a “name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”(Philippians 2: 9-11).
23. In addition, this coming of the Son of Man in the clouds according to the Gospel of Mark is used to describe the authority of Jesus to forgive sin and exercise His Lordship of the Sabbath (2:10,28). Such an authority and resolve is not that of a weak king of some insignificant kingdom, but is the strong potentate who is the King of kings and Lord of lords of the universe.
24. In addition, the sufferings of the Son of Man in Mark indicates that Jesus did identify Himself with both the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 who according to Moody (page 382) was destined to become the glory of the Father after he suffered many things. It is interesting that suffering of the Son of Man is something that would bring glory to God, but would be something that is not in accordance with the Father’s changeless and perfect nature. Remember “Deipassionism,” God suffers, rather than “Paterpassionism”, the Father suffers. God the Father is not incarnate and does not assume what he is not. The Father did not assume our suffering and death; therefore God the Father does not suffer and die. Besides, if God the Father suffers and dies then who rescues Him from our human condition?
Lecture 19 - March 2, 2010 (downloadable/printable notes)
The Reconciling Work of Christ
1. The Bible has many references to Jesus interceding for His disciples while He was on earth. One of the most obvious is the priestly prayer in John 17 where He prayed that they might have his joy fulfilled in themselves. What Jesus did for His disciples then He does also for us now. Romans 8:33-34, Paul declares what can condemn us or bring any kind of charges against us because of Christ Jesus. Hebrews 7:25 and 9:24, we are told that we can draw near to God because we have a Savior that appears in the presence of God making intercession on our behalf.
2. What is the focus of this intercession? According to Erickson (page 787) on one hand it is justificatory, because Jesus presents His righteousness to the Father for past, present, and future sins. It is also logical that Jesus would continue asking that His followers might be sanctified and kept from the power of the evil one as everyone waits for His return. In addition, every prayer that a believer prays is usually concluded in the name of Jesus Christ, giving us the hope that our needs, wants, and concerns are heard because of Jesus.
3. The heart of the priestly work of Jesus is personal sacrifice that He is seen to have made. We call that work the Doctrine of Atonement in which we will talk in depth about in a few minutes. In short, what happened on the cross that changed the human situation and why?
4. In the meanwhile, let’s look at what Erickson calls the two basic stages of the general work of the intercession of our Lord (page 788). One is His humiliation and the other is His exaltation.
5. His humiliation starts with His incarnation. Philippians 2:6-7 certainly states that Jesus emptied and humbled himself to become a human being. The move downward, so to speak, wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination an upward promotion (at first at leastJ).
6. So what the Word gave up in coming to earth must have been immense, yet what were the attributes of God he gave up (if indeed he did give them up) and what happened to them during that time? Some of the attributes we’ve talked about before: omnipresence, omniscience, impassibility, suffering, and dying to name some.
7. But in “assuming what He was not” where did these attributes go? I never have really thought about this. According to Erickson, there are several possible positions as to what Jesus did with his divine attributes, see pages 789-790.
8. Suffering, Death, and Descent into Hades further humiliation (see Erickson, page 790-794).
9. The second stage of the Work of Jesus Christ is exaltation. Resurrection, Ascension, and Session at the Father’s Right Hand, and Second Coming (see Erickson page 795-780).
10. It is one of the weaknesses of our textbook that Erickson doesn’t see fit to give more attention to the very thing that He calls “so important”—the resurrection (page 795). Consequently as we come closer to Easter we’ll turn our attention to the resurrection in more detail.
11. Ascension – see Erickson on page 796. One thing is evident that as I read the New Testament much more is made of the Ascension in the early Biblical churches than in most modern day Baptist churches (to which I can come closer to speak of than other denominational doctrine and preaching in which I know even less about). I am not sure exactly why?
12. In fact according to Philip Cary in his lectures (The History of Christian Theology, part 1, page 17), “one of the interesting things about Christian theology is, it doesn’t start with what some scholars call the historical Jesus. It starts with the Christ of faith being worshiped.” The earliest writing of the Christian faith are not about the earthly life of Jesus, but that of Paul and some fragments of hymns and prayers that point toward the early practice of worshiping Jesus as the resurrected Savior now sitting at God’s right hand.
13. Look at Peter’s preaching at Pentecost, Acts 2:22 ff. Evidently when the Spirit of God came up the believers at Pentecost, some of their fellow Jews thought that our ancient Jewish Christian forefathers were drunk. Peter stands up and seeks to enlighten them by saying that the same Old Testament Spirit that came upon the Prophets of old have come upon these people. And the message that is coming from these people is good news to the whole world. They are preaching the good news of Jesus and what’s happening right now. These folks are not drunk but they are reacting to the Holy Spirit which Jesus has sent to them. Very striking because in the Old Testament, it is God the Father who sends His Spirit on the prophets. The same Jesus who was crucified 50 days ago, and has been raised from the dead is now ascended into heaven. He is exalted “lifted up” there with God sitting at the right hand of the Father. So here is the picture “God the Father in heaven, Jesus at his right hand, the Holy Spirit being sent by Jesus down from heaven, falling from heaven like tongues of fire, and dwelling in this Christian community so that they can speak the Gospel”(page 25). In other words, this is the God we worship seated at the right hand of the Father… now let me tell you the rest of the story. According to Cary all theology should be done from the Christ of Faith that is the ascended Lord sitting at the right hand of the Father. We look back and we look forward from this vantage point of faith.
14. From this vantage point we see the other part of Paul’s great Christological hymn that God has exalted Him and given Him a “name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11). Now see Erickson page 796 for his take on the Ascension.
15. Second coming later part of the course.
Doctrine of Atonement
16. In the Doctrine of Atonement according to Erickson, we come to a crucial point of Christian faith, because it is the point of transition, from the objective to the subjective aspects of Christian theology (page 799). Here systematic theology is directly touching in our lives. This doctrine makes our salvation possible.
17. Hopefully we will also see, as a transition doctrine, how other doctrines of our faith affect our understanding of Atonement. For example, if God is extremely holy, righteous, and demanding then humans will not be able to satisfy him easily, and it is more likely that something extra might have to be done in order to satisfy Him. On the other hand, if God is indulgent, permissive, or even an apathetic being who does not care if human beings have “a little fun” along the way, then as long as things don’t get out hand it may be sufficient to simply give them “a little encouragement and instruction” (page 800).
18. If Christ is merely a human being, then His work and death is only as a perfect example of what He was supposed to do. However, if Jesus is God, His work went immeasurably beyond what we are able to do for ourselves; he served not only as a perfect example of what a human being was supposed to be like but as a sacrifice for us.
19. The doctrine of humanity colors the atonement as well because if human beings are spiritually intact then they probably can, with a little bit of effort, fulfill what God wants of them. However if humanity is totally depraved and unable to do what is right no matter how much they try then a more radical work on our behalf needs to be done.
20. Theories of Atonement (see page 800 Erickson, and handout #64).
Lecture 20 - March 9, 2010 (downloadable/printable notes)
Continuation of Doctrine of Atonement
1. Ransom Theory (see Views of the Atonement handout # 64) – This particular theory of atonement is one of the oldest and has been called by some as the classic view (Erickson page 810). Origen was the earliest developer of this theory and he called the atonement the great cosmic drama.
2. The drama arose from a struggle between light and darkness, between the forces of good and evil. The assumption was that the devil was in charge or at least in control of this world. According to Erickson, Origen and the advocates of this theory believed that Satan had stolen or in some way established control over humanity. So that Satan was the governing power in the world (1 John 5:19; discuss humanities condition, bondage and total depravity. I personally don’t like the term total depravity, because of the imagery that it brings up). For Origen and others, humanity’s big problem is their enslavement to Satan. Anselm rejects Origen’s ransom theory because he doesn’t believe that Satan has a “right of possession” over humanity. Humans belong to God and to no one but God. Even the devil belongs to God (true or false; See Erickson page 814).
3. He further justifies his thinking by Paul’s comments to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “…you are not your own; you were bought at a price.” So he asks “from whom were we bought? It must have been from the one who we were enslaved to” (see Erickson, page 810).
4. Jesus himself said that he had come to offer his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). Then to whom was the ransom paid? God? No! Who would pay a ransom to himself?
5. Notice that in all of these theories there is scripture that can be used to back up these beliefs. What we preach and believe is not always a matter of finding words, verses, or even passages in the Bible to support, but it is how what we believe fits into the overall understanding of what we know is true of God and our faith.
6. This is an interesting, and as we can see, biblical metaphor yet it does have its problems.
7. So who was the ransom determined by, paid to, and accepted by? It was Christ’s blood that was the payment (the devil set the price), and Satan was the one who received the payment.
8. Of course the whole ransom thing didn’t turn out the way Satan planned it. Christ is resurrected, mankind is liberated, and Satan is left holding the bag so to speak. Satan, the crook and liar, has been deceived by God. The good guys have won.
9. The problem has to do with God deceiving the “great deceiver” (Erickson, page 811). Even Origen himself said, “Yes, Satan was deceived, but it is more correct to say that Satan deceived himself rather than God deceiving him.” Gregory of Nyssa flat out admits that God deceived Satan, because of God’s love for humanity and after all Satan deserved it. According to Jesus Satan is the great deceiver the father of lies; but do we believe that this “means justifies the end,” and that God would stoop to the level of the devil? For further discussion, see page 812.
10. Satisfaction Theory is a very interesting theory that dates back to Anselm in the 11th century. The question that Anselm sought to answer was “why couldn’t God just forgive sin?” Which is asked frequently today. God is God so why not just forget and forgive all of our shortcomings and insults? As Christians we are supposed to overlook and forgive what other people do to us, why shouldn’t God? And the question that I think is important to our study of the incarnation, why does God have to become human and die in order to redeem sinners and make atonement?
11. In order to explain, Anselm focuses on what is the issue of justice and mercy. He introduces the concept of “satisfaction” which means literally “to do enough.” The basic idea is how do you make we make up for what we have done.
12. This theory takes sin seriously. Anselm was writing as a medieval thinker who believed that God could not be hurt, could not suffer, but He could be insulted. His honor, like a king or Feudal Lord could be insulted, and like most medieval thinkers they understood that that was more serious than insulting a peasant.
13. To Anselm sin didn’t hurt God but it did dishonor Him. And because it did dishonor and insult Him this transgression was more terrible a crime than against any king or person of noble birth. It is our failure to render God his due. Consequently we owe God big time because we are insulting and ignoring the wishes of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He is the sovereign ruler of the universe and we do not have the right to disobey Him. All honor and glory should go to Him, but it doesn’t!!!
14. So how do we make up for ignoring God or how do we “make satisfaction” for our transgressions? Justice for Anselm was a matter of rendering to God what is due Him, plus any penalty that He may see fit. But the problem is how do we pay an infinite debt to an infinite and eternal King of Kings, Lord of Lord? The answer is that we cannot!!!!
15. Now to the question of mercy. Justice is giving what is each their do. If someone does good we reward them, if they do bad we punish them. Justice either way is served. However, what is mercy? Let’s say that your child is being bullied by another child at school, in fact he beat your child up and broke his nose. You are mad. You go to the principal and the principal calls the bully in and tells him that since this is first offense (that he knows of) he is going to be merciful and let him off this time. If he promises to not do it again. To you and your child this isn’t mercy, it is injustice. Certain forms of mercy really add up to injustice.
16. Forgiveness is great and wonderful, but forgiveness without any kind of satisfaction or penalty is really not mercy or forgiveness at all (see Cary, The History of Christian theology, part 2 page 45). In fact, it is giving in to evil; simply letting wrongs go without correcting or punishing them.
17. Another point to make according Anselm is that “satisfaction” is not the same thing as punishment. Satisfaction is a kind of penalty that you pay, but it is not punishment (Cary, page 47). Because Anselm doesn’t want to say that God punishes the innocent for the sake of the guilty. That according to Anselm would be an injustice. However, what if one voluntarily took on the punishment that was due another? Would a judge do that? But as long as the money is paid back then the judge might forgive the sentence? Think along that line.
18. But why? Some would say it is because God is love and would rather receive payment than inflict punishment but according to Erickson that is not Anselm’s take on the matter (See Erickson, page 815).
19. Concerning the incarnation, Anselm believed that when Christ became human, he did so to make satisfaction for our sins. Here is why? We have an infinite debt that we owe God but we can’t pay an infinite debt because we’re finite. As human beings we owe this debt, but we can’t pay it. Only God can pay an infinite debt. Only humans owe the debt, so God becomes human so that the only one who can pay the debt is also the One who owes the debt. So as a human being, he owes the debt; as God, he pays the debt. He has to be God and man in one in order to both owe the debt and pay the debt (Cary, page 47).
Why is Anselm’s theology so important? According to Cary:
Anselm’s theory of atonement has a long history in the future of Western theology, especially in Protestantism, and there are later theologians who advocate a doctrine of vicarious or substitutionary atonement that owes a great deal to Anselm, but is willing to say what Anselm is not willing to say, that Christ was punished in our place (Cary, page 48).
20. Now turn to page 616 in Erickson for the sum up of the theories.
21. Turn to “The Central Theme of Atonement” Chapter 39, page 818.