Chapter Six: Jesus Christ
Part 7: The Content, Permanent Validity, and Limits of Classical Christology and Soteriology
(VI.7, p. 285). This brief part is divided into three subdivisions. In the first, Rahner lays out the theology according to which God descended from heaven and, in the form of Jesus, made satisfaction for our sins. In the second, he states that this classical theology, while permanently valid, must still be explained for people today. In the third, he argues that the greatest limit of the classical Christology and Soteriology is that it may suggest that the death and resurrection of Jesus are singularities, accomplished once and for all, rather than an event in which all humanity may participate.
(VI.7.a, p. 285). The “classical” Christology of the Church is the topic of this subdivision. Rahner wants to show that his transcendental Christology is at least compatible with the classical Christology of the Church’s tradition (A). He then characterizes the classical Christology as a “descending” Christology. It starts from the premise that God “descended” from heaven and was born as a man. This Christology is of course legitimate, but it can be misunderstood as suggesting that God merely wore the disguise of humanity (B). With this “descending” Christology comes a soteriology of satisfaction. Jesus made “satisfaction” for our sins by dying for us (C).
A. Preliminary Remarks (VI.7.a.A, p. 285). Rahner promises, under the next heading, to offer a brief summary of classical Christology, the Christology that he asserts is a straightforward development of the “late” Christology that can be found in the NT. He states that this “classical” Christology is to be measured against the original experience of the risen Jesus. Rahner assumes that the “functional” statements of NT Christology (e.g., Christ “gave himself for our sins,” Gal. 1:4) imply “ontological” statements (e.g., Chalcedon’s one person in two natures). So it is legitimate to link classical Christology and late NT Christology, despite their differences. “The Word became flesh” is a statement of late NT Christology, and it expresses the classical Christology of Nicaea, the Christology of the Father and Son as one in being.
B. The Official Christology of the Church (VI.7.a.B, p. 286). The official Christology of the Church is a “descending Christology,” which Rahner described on p. 212. This descending Christology begins with the assertion that “God in his Logos became man.” Implicit in this is the doctrine of the Trinity. The Logos is “born of” and “expressed by” the Father in an eternal “generation.” The Logos assumed a complete human nature in a union called “hypostatic” (i.e., the natures are not mingled, but all human attributes are borne by this hypostasis or person). Although the human and divine natures exist in a single hypostasis, nevertheless the two natures differ. The subject, Jesus Christ, does not arise out of the natures and cannot be reduced to one or the other. Rather, he is the “subject” of the pre-existent Logos.
Then Rahner explains some of the implications of this classical Christology. Because the natures are unmixed, he says, we have to affirm that the influence of the Logos on the human nature of Jesus is like the influence of God on other free creatures (287). The human reality of Jesus is not merely an "instrument" of the Logos. Rahner cautions the reader to be wary of the heresy known as "monothelitism," the heresy that there existed in Jesus Christ only one will, the will of God. The danger of this heresy is that it would make the man, Jesus, little more than an instrument of God. We must rather emphasize Jesus' own free will. "The created subjectivity [of Jesus] is distinct from the subjectivity of the Logos," says Rahner, "and faces God at a created distance in freedom, in obedience and in prayer, and it is not omniscient" (287).
How can we say that the eternal Son of God died, for example, or that Jesus of Nazareth is God? God cannot die, and a man cannot be God. We say that the Son of God died, and that Jesus is God, Rahner states, by means of the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, that is, the interchange of predicates. The experience of faith requires such an exchange of predicates. The doctrine of hypostatic union defends the legitimacy of the titles of majesty applied to the NT Jesus.
C. Classical Soteriology (VI.7.a.C, p. 288). Since at least the time of Anselm of Canterbury, the Church has taught that the obedience of the Son, confirmed in the sacrifice of the cross, “represents infinite satisfaction vis-à-vis the God who was offended by sin” (288). God accepted the satisfaction of Christ on behalf of humanity. The Son’s obedience satisfies God’s justice and liberates us from the penalties imposed for sin. We are saved because Christ paid the price of our sins. This is the Church’s teaching. But it may wrongly suggest that Jesus’ death was merely the propitiation of an angry God, and not also a self-sacrifice in which every faithful person participates.
(VI.7.b, p. 288). In this brief section, Rahner argues that the incarnation prevents Jesus from being seen as one in a line of prophets. It may blind us to Jesus’ role in the context of Hebrew prophecy. To be sure, Rahner does not deny the uniqueness of the incarnation. He emphasizes that Jesus is God’s own gift of self. He insists that God is not represented by someone other than and different from God. He even concedes that the classical theology of Incarnation may be for some the only way of expressing the relation between Jesus and God. It has permanent validity.
But even those for whom the classical theology is the only way to express the relation between Jesus and God, even they have an obligation to explain the classical theology. They have to show that this classical theology is not just mythology in the pejorative sense. This is, in a sense, the justification for Rahner's own theology. He is trying to widen the discourse so that it can be understood by modern humanity.
| Questions? Mark Fischer would love to hear from you. Send him email! MarkFischer@roadrunner.com |
To learn about the printed version of Foundations of Karl Rahner, Click here. |
For more information about Mark Fischer, select his name. |