Fuller 1979article on Incarnational Christology

This is the html version of the file http://www.luthersem.edu/word&world/Archives/2-1_Triune%20God/2-1_Fuller.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:0kVmARUX9PgJ:www.luthersem.edu/word%26world/Archives/2-1_Triune%2520God/2-1_Fuller.pdf+Incarnational+Christology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14


Page 1
Word & World 2/1 (1982)
Copyright © 1982 by Word & World, Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN. All rights reserved.
page 29
Pre-Existence Christology: Can We Dispense with It?
REGINALD H. FULLER
Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia
In pre-critical times there was no problem with pre-existence Christology. It had its
sanction in the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., John 8:58, 10:30, 13:3
and 17:5). Now that we cannot employ the discourse material of the Fourth Gospel as direct
evidence for the ipsissima verba of Jesus, some have sought to find sanction for it in Jesus‘ use
of Son of man as a self-designation. However, even if we grant that the title Son of man was
already fixed in pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptic for a pre-existent figure to be manifested as
eschatological judge and savior, and even if we grant that Jesus did use the term and use it as a
self-designation–all of which is greatly in dispute
1
–there is no indication anywhere in the
synoptic Son of man sayings of the Son of man‘s pre-existence.
Indeed there is fairly wide consensus today that the pre-existence Christology is a post-
Easter development. When exactly this development took place is not clear. Those who regard
Philippians 2:6-11 as a pre-Pauline hymn, and who interpret verses 6-7 as referring to a pre-
existent state, would date this development between A.D. 35 and 50 (so M. Hengel
2
). Those who
interpret the Philippian hymn in terms of a two-stage Christology–involving only earthly life
and post-existence
3
–would find the earliest occurrence of pre-existence Christology in 1
Corinthians (especially 1 Cor 8:6). Thereafter it is found in hymnic materials both within the
Pauline school (Col 1:15-20) and beyond it (Heb 1:3-4), in the Johannine prologue and (see the
references above) in the discourse material of that Gospel.
Hans Grass and others have argued that contemporary systematic theology should
abandon pre-existence Christology.
4
It is, they say, irretrievably mytho-
1
For a recent discussion of the Son of man problem, especially in its relation to pre-existence Christology,
see James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) 65-97.
2
M. Hengel, —Christologie und neutestamentliche Chronologie,“ Neues Testament und Geschichte, ed. H.
Baltensweiler and B. Reicke (Tübingen: Mohr, 1972) 43-67.
3
See, e.g., J. Murphy-O‘Connor, —Christological Anthropology in Phil. 2:6-11,“ Revue Biblique 83 (1976)
25-50.
4
Hans Grass, Christliche Glaubenslehre (2 vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973-74) 1.117-38.
page 30
logical. It has no basis in the self-understanding of the historical Jesus. It was unknown in the
earliest kerygma, which focused rather on the death and exaltation of Jesus. When it does appear
it is confined almost entirely to hymnic materials, and until the Fourth Gospel little attempt is
made to integrate it into the theology of those writings where it appears. When used today, it
shifts the focus of Christology away from the death and resurrection of Jesus, where the focus
properly belongs. It distorts the picture of Jesus as he really was, a truly human person, making
Page 2
him instead a celestial visitor from an alien world.
Grass asks whether pre-existence and incarnational Christology is the only way to express
the significance (Bedeutsamkeit) of Jesus for faith. A —sending“ Christology should be sufficient,
a Christology which speaks of Jesus‘ historical mission. Such a Christology would safeguard the
divine initiative behind the history of Jesus, and the presence of God in him. It would allow for a
distinction between the sending of Jesus and the sending of the prophets, for it would recognize
that the sending of Jesus was definitive, permanent, and universal in significance. It would speak
of pre-existence but in an —ideal“ sense, not of a real, substantial, or personal pre-existence. It
would speak of the election of Jesus of Nazareth from all eternity to be the medium of God‘s
final revelatory and saving act.
Such an interpretation is particularly attractive, since it is no mere reversion to the older
liberal Christology in which Jesus had the value of God for us because of the sublimity of his
teaching and human personality. Moreover, it allows for a God who acts, for human sin, and for
finality of God‘s redemption in Jesus Christ. On the other hand, it involves the abandonment not
only of the incarnation as traditionally understood but also, as Grass himself notes, the doctrine
of the Trinity. The question is whether this substitution of a —God in Christ“ Christology for
traditional Christology does justice to the biblical witness.
Let us try to deal in turn with the objections to the pre-existence Christology presented
above. The first objection is that it is mythological. This objection originates in part from the
theory that the pre-existence Christology was an importation from pre-Christian gnosis in the
shape of the so-called gnostic redeemer myth. This theory, originating in the History of Religions
School, enjoyed a long popularity, especially among the Bultmannians, but was conclusively
demolished by C. Colpe in 1961.
5
The publication of the Nag Hammadi documents more recently
has not materially altered the situation.
6
A series of articles by E. Schweizer from 1959 on
7
has
created a widespread consensus that the source of pre-existence Christology is to be found in the
Jewish speculation about the divine Wisdom. Is this speculation correctly characterized as
mythological? It would be if Wisdom were an actual being, somehow distinct from the being of
God. But recently J. D. G. Dunn has argued persuasively that Wisdom in this speculation is no
more than a personification of a certain aspect of God‘s activity:
5
C. Colpe, Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961). It is ironic that
my copy of this work was given to me personally by R. Bultmann, then editor of the series in which it was
published, for it was the demolition of one of the foundations of his life‘s work.
6
See the discussion in Dunn (as in note 1), 98-101.
7
E. Schweizer, —Zur Herkunft der Präexistenzvorstellung bei Paulus,“ Evangelische Theologie 19 (1959)
65-70.
page 31
—Wisdom never became more than a convenient way of speaking about God acting in creation,
revelation, and salvation; Wisdom never became more than a personification of God‘s own
activity.“
8
If this is so, then the identification of Jesus with God‘s Wisdom does not involve the
mythological idea of a pre-existent divine being, in some way distinguishable from the being of
God, becoming incarnate. What it is saying is that that aspect of the being of God which Jewish
thinkers had previously experienced has become now fully embodied in the life of Jesus. There is
really nothing mythological about this.
Page 3
Does all this have any basis in the self-understanding of the earthly Jesus? Since the
pursuit of the so-called —New Quest“ it has usually been held that Jesus‘ eschatological message,
his conduct, etc., all —implied a Christology,“ or they were an assertion of an —indirect
Christology.“ We have no intention of quarreling with that claim, and in fact we have frequently
advanced it ourselves. We would, however, for present purposes propose a substitute. What this
really means is that Jesus held what E. Schillebeeckx has called in a slightly different connection
(viz., with reference to the kerygma of the earliest post-Easter community) a —theology of
Jesus.“
9
That is to say, Jesus spoke and acted, even if he did not explicitly assert it in so many
words, that God was present speaking and acting through him. In fact, E. Fuchs, one of the
proponents of an —implied Christology,“ actually formulates this in terms of Jesus‘ —daring to
speak and act for God“ (this in reference to his conduct in eating with the outcast).
10
Now this is a far cry from a pre-existence Christology, and in fact at first sight it seems
rather to support H. Grass‘ proposed substitution, —God was in Jesus.“ Yet, as Jesus‘
eschatological proclamation shows, he regarded his activity as the eschatological culmination of
God‘s dealings with his people. The same God was present in him as had been present
throughout Israel‘s history.
11
Here we have the basis upon which the later pre-existence
Christology was to develop.
Nor was this view of Jesus unknown to the earliest kerygma.
12
True, the earliest kerygma
had no pre-existence Christology. Indeed, the earliest Christology is often characterized (see e.g.,
Acts 2:36 and Rom 1:3) as —adoptionist.“ A closer examination of it however indicates that the
earliest community continued precisely Jesus‘ own —theology of Jesus“ so far as the
interpretation of his earthly life was concerned. In fact we might describe the earliest Christology
as a —theology of Jesus“ interpretation of his earthly life combined with an explicit Christology
for his post-exaltation existence:
Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders
and signs which God did through him in your midst (Acts 2:22).
8
Dunn (as in note 1), 210.
9
A term coined by Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus (New York: Seabury, 1979) 545-50.
10
E. Fuchs, The Quest of the Historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1964) 11-31, especially pp. 20-21: —We are
certainly confronted by a very daring line of conduct on the part of Jesus: he dares to affirm the will of God as
though he himself stood in God‘s place.“
11
Cf. Mark 12:1-9; Matt 23:34-36 par Q.
12
The historical value of the kerygmatic speeches in Acts is much controverted. I take the mediating view
of E. Schweizer, —Concerning the Speeches in Acts,“ Studies in Luke-Acts, ed. Leander E. Keck and J. Louis
Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon, 1966) 186-93, that the christological nucleus of these speeches is pre-Lucan and
primitive. Luke‘s redaction interprets the earthly life of Jesus christologically, whereas the speeches interpret it in
terms of a —theology of Jesus.“
page 32
He went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for
God was with him (Acts 10:38).
Indeed we might regard the famous Pauline statement, —In Christ God was reconciling the world
to himself“ (2 Cor 5:19) as a survival of the primitive —theology of Jesus,“ a theology Paul can
Page 4
still use after he has accepted an explicit Christology for the earthly life of Jesus, and (what is
perhaps even more significant) at a time when he has already used hymnic materials affirming
pre-existence Christology.
It is perfectly true, as Grass has observed, that even after the introduction of pre-existence
Christology it remains, until the Fourth Gospel, rather peripheral. It is confined almost
exclusively to hymns, although where these hymns are quoted the pre-existence part of it cannot
be dismissed as irrelevant to the theological argumentation. In Philippians (if the hymn does
indeed feature pre-existence) it serves to reinforce the exhortation to humility. In 1 Corinthians
the portrayal of Jesus as the embodiment of Wisdom serves to counter the false notions of
Wisdom prevailing at Corinth. In Colossians the attribution of creation to the pre-existent One
serves to counter the Colossians‘ ascription of creation to the angelic powers, thus introducing a
dualism which undermined the kerygma by denying the salvability of creation.
13
At the same time
we must admit, however, that no effort is made by the New Testament authors until the Fourth
Gospel to integrate the pre-existence Christology to the rest of their Christology.
As for the next objection–that a pre-existence Christology shifts the focus away from the
death and resurrection of Jesus where it really belongs–this may be true of some Christologies
in the post-New Testament period, but it is not true of the New Testament (not even, I would
argue, pace Bultmann, of the Fourth Gospel) nor of the concern of the classical christological
definitions,
14
nor of the Reformation Confessions.
15
Treated rightly, therefore, the pre-existence
and incarnation Christology provides the indispensable basis for the right understanding of the
cross and resurrection.
The last objection to the pre-existence and incarnational Christology is that it distorts the
picture of Jesus as he really was, a truly human being and not a celestial visitor from an alien
world. Now this Christology never asserts in mythological fashion that the man Jesus was pre-
existent. The statements about pre-existence refer not to Jesus in himself, but to Wisdom, i.e.,
that aspect of the being of God which was incarnated in Jesus. True, in some hymnic passages
the antecedent of —who“ is —Jesus Christ“ (Phil 2:6; 1 Cor 8:6). But these passages do not have as
their antecedent simply —Jesus,“ and therefore I would argue that the relative clauses have as their
antecedent Jesus in his revelatory and salvific capacity. Strictly speaking, the relative clauses
speak of —that of God which is incarnated in
13
C. H. Dodd in his Cambridge lectures on Pauline theology (1937) used this word to justify the
development of pre-existence Christology in Colossians.
14
Cf., e.g., Athanasius, de Incarnatione.
15
In the XXXIX Articles of Religion, articles I-VIII reaffirm the doctrine of the traditional Catholic creeds
before continuing with the new soteriological emphases of the Reformation (articles IX-XVIII).
page 33
the man Jesus.“
16
Since therefore it is not Jesus as such who is thought of as pre-existent, and
since Wisdom is not a personal mythological being, but an aspect of the being of God, it follows
that the pre-existence Christology is not mythological, and that therefore it cannot have the effect
of making Jesus a celestial visitor from an alien world.
If this is the true interpretation of that Christology, have we not purchased our solution at
the cost of surrendering any real Christology? Does it not leave us after all merely with a
theology of Jesus? Is not Grass finally right, and can we not simply content ourselves with the
Page 5
assertion that —God was in Christ“? Now the Fourth Gospel goes beyond this. It alone, of all the
New Testament writings, has sought to integrate the Wisdom Christology with the earthly life of
Jesus. More specifically, it has integrated the Christology of the incarnation of the divine
Wisdom (or Logos, to use the language of the Prologue, though that language is not picked up in
the rest of the Gospel) with a Christology of the Father and the Son:
The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand (John 3:35).
The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father
doing; for whatever he does, the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son,
and shows him all that he himself is doing (John 5:19-20).
This Father-son language is not pure speculation, but is rooted in the undoubtedly historical fact
of what Schillebeeckx calls Jesus‘ Abba experience. The Johannine writer would claim that this
development is the result of a prolonged meditation on that experience under the guidance of the
Paraclete (or Counselor), whose function is —to take what is mine and declare it to you“ (16:14).
On one level this Father-son Christology is an exposition of the earthly experience of the man
Jesus. But because Jesus is the earthly manifestation of the divine Wisdom or Logos, his life is a
disclosure of a mutual relationship between God and the Wisdom-Logos in eternity. The earthly
life of Jesus has therefore disclosed the full mystery of what Jewish speculation had arrived at in
its poetic personification of the Wisdom of God. Wisdom is now disclosed to be a personal entity
within the Godhead existing in personal relationship with the being of the Father. This however
is neither mythology nor speculation, but a revelation disclosed in the actual earthly life of Jesus.
That which is incarnated in him (ho logos sarx egeneto, the Word became flesh) is a personal
reality sharing the being of God yet distinguishable from him (—what God was, the Word was,“
NEB
17
). The disclosure of God in action in the man Jesus results in a profound modification of
Jewish monotheism, but it is an enrichment of it, not its abandonment. The raw materials of the
doctrine of the Trinity lie in the historical life of Jesus as the Fourth Evangelist had come to see
it. If we are to be true to the profoundest understanding of the Jesus phenomenon, the pre-
existence and incarnation Christology cannot be abandoned. Rather, it is the foundation of the
Christian understanding of God.
16
I owe this phrase to my former colleague, Dr. Albert T. Mollegen, who used it in his Zabriskie Lectures
of 1979.
17
The Greek text of John 1:1 reads, —theos“–not —ho theos“–—en ho logos.“