Section 21: The Genus Majestaticum

The Self-Donation of God, chapter 9:

"The genus majestaticum posits that Christ's humanity possesses by communication the fullness of divine attributes when considered in the abstract. Chemnitz describes the genus thus: “so that when we speak of these matters in the schools we can be correct not only in calling Christ a man or saying that the Son of Man makes alive, but also we can then rightly speak in the abstract or in abstract language of the assumed nature as being united with the Logos. We can say that the flesh of Christ, which is united with the Logos, makes alive and that the blood of Christ cleanses from sin.” Vainio comments: “[t]he third genus . . . refers to the supernatural gifts and attributes Christ’s human nature receives in the hypostatic union. Since God’s attributes and essence are inseparable, these supernatural gifts and attributes are God’s essence.”
Gerhard observes that there was a difference between Lutheran theologians of the second generation as to whether one should speak of the glory of God communicated to Christ's human nature in the abstract. Some thought it was proper (notably Chemnitz and Johannes Brenz) others did not (notably Tileman Heshusius). Gerhard comments that this was ultimately a logomachy and not based on any substantive disagreement about the genus. Some claimed that considering the human nature in the abstract entailed thinking of only the essential attributes of his humanity. Therefore, since it was improper to say that divine attributes had been communicated to the human essence (this would entail the heresy of Eutyches, condemned by the fourth ecumenical council), it was not permissible to say that such glory had been communicated to the human nature in the abstract. Others disagreed and stated when a person considers the human nature of Christ in the abstract one must always think about it as it exists in the context of the hypostatic union. To be more exact, because the human nature is anhypostasis, it has never existed and never will exist, except in the concrete unity of the person of the Logos. It therefore follows that it must always be thought of as possessing the fullness of divine glory, because even when considered in the abstract the human nature was still the human nature of the Logos. This latter answer seems more satisfactory for of number reasons. First, terminologically speaking, it creates space for a clearer linguistic distinction between the genus majestaticum and the genus idiomaticum. Secondly, as we shall see below, it more closely replicates the Bible’s own manner of speaking about Jesus. This being said, it should be observed that the other position is technically speaking not incorrect, simply less terminologically precise.
In insisting on the full communication of glory to Christ's humanity, it should be observed that Chemnitz is not positing transmuting of humanity into divinity. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (as it is at present in many circles) this was a common charge of those among the Reformed communions who rejected this genus. As we noted earlier, both Calvin and Zwingli claimed that there was no communication of glory to Christ’s humanity and therefore his body was confined to heaven. From their perspective, since Lutherans believed that Christ’s possessed the fullness of divine glory and could exercise that glory by being present in many places at once (most notably in the Lord’s Supper) they must logically believe in the transmutation of Christ’s humanity into his divinity. Working from Chemnitz’s definitions, it is easy to observe that this charge is utterly without merit. The Lutheran claim is not the human essence is somehow mixed with the divine nature. Rather, the human possesses divine glory by communication within the personal union brought about by the Incarnation."

Review of my Book!

Check out this very nice review of my book. Much thanks for Charles for having posted it!

http://networkedblogs.com/M5aYp

Section 20: Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King

 

The Self-Donation of God, chapter 10:

"Although some theologians (notably Werner Elert and Wolfhart Pannenberg) have criticized this schema of the threefold office (triplex munus) first introduced into Lutheranism by Johann Gerhard, it is necessary for understanding the work of Christ. First, as we have shown in our extensive exegesis in the preceding chapters (which we will not repeat here), the threefold office of Christ is thoroughly biblical and is not something arbitrarily imposed on the text of Sacred Scripture. In fact, as we have seen, this schema is used repeatedly not in just a few biblical texts, but is pervasive throughout the New Testament and prophetic writing of the Old Testament. Because of its presence in the Old Testament, the Second Temple Jewish expectation of multiple Messiahs to fulfill these multiple offices makes a great deal of sense. Secondly, because Christ fulfilled the threefold office given to Israel and Adam, the threefold office is also useful for emphasizing the unity of God's works within the new and old creations. Just as God established human vocation in the beginning with Adam as the protological prophet, priest, and king, so too he elected prophets, priests, and kings in biblical Israel. Through the prophets he promised a coming Messiah would fulfill all these roles and that creation would be renewed through him. Finally God sent forth his Son to fulfill these vocations and bring about redemption. Recognizing this unity of divine agency in creation and redemption is useful for staving off the ever present threat of latent Marcionism.
Lastly, humanity is redeemed by Christ's fulfillment of the law through his active and passive righteousness. The law is not an abstract standard, but is fulfilled by human moral agents within concrete vocation within the created order. Therefore in order for the law to be fulfilled, Christ had to take up the human vocation as it had been established at the beginning of creation. Since the law is in fact identical with God's desired structure for the created order, fulfillment of the law by Christ as a divine-human agent is identical with the renewal and recreation of the world. Since the old structure of creation was mangled, it was necessary to recreate the world by a re-actualization of its original narrative and structure. If Christ were merely a man, his activity of fulfilling the law could not do this. Humans are not capable of creating anything by their actions, even if performed in obedience to God’s will. Nevertheless, since the activity and presence of the humanity of Jesus are identical with the divine person of the Logos, his human actions in fulfillment of the law were infused divine power and glory. By this human obedience, he did what only God could do and renewed creation. In order to accomplish this, Christ took over and fulfilled the offices of Adam, the protological prophet, priest, and king."

Section 19: Christ's Sacrifice of Praise

The Self-Donation of God, chapter 12:

"In examining Christ’s sacrificial work, we begin first with his fulfillment of the sacrifice of praise. As the possessor of the fullness of divine glory, Christ was utterly free from the law and therefore the archetype of Christian freedom. For this reason, any obedience that he rendered to the Father is not a legal obligation, but rather a sacrifice of praise: “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do.” (Jn 17:4). Indeed, Jesus’ own “glorification” (the revelation of his divine power through his death on the cross) is a glorification of the Father. In dying under God’s wrath and the most extreme opposition from sinful humanity, he still confesses God’s goodness and grace and therefore trusts in his vindication and exaltation by the Father: “Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” (Jn 17:1). Therefore Jesus dies glorifying the Father and confessing his faithful goodness.
Even Jesus’ lamentation on the cross (Mark 15:34) is itself a confession of faith in the goodness and grace of God. Jesus' dying words in Mark are, it must be remembered, a quotation from the prophecy of Psalm 22 and therefore cannot be separated from the liturgical function of lamentation. The Psalms were utilized as the liturgy of the Temple and therefore are all concerned in a sense with the praise of God for his goodness. Psalms of lamentation also assume the existence of and trust in divine goodness. One does not lament if they do not consider God to be gracious and good. Lamentation is faith’s response to appearances that contradict its trust in God’s goodness and graciousness. Those who do not believe God is good and gracious do not lament because the world is precisely as a non-existent or malevolent deity would have it. Therefore, Jesus in his lamentation maintains his faith in God’s Word, in spite of divine hiddenness and condemnation.
As the true human being, Jesus Christ displays perfect faith in God's goodness. Knowing himself to share all things in common with the Father and having this reconfirmed throughout his whole life through God's external Word (in the prophecy of the Scriptures, spoken to his parents, at his baptism and at Tabor, etc.), he trusted with a victorious faith in his own vindication (Heb 12:1-2). Adam and Eve, being surrounded by all good things, doubted God's beneficence at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By contrast, Jesus on the tree of the cross experienced the most extreme opposition, abandonment, and condemnation in his death. Nevertheless, unlike our first parents, he praised God and did not doubt his word of grace: "you are my Son with whom I am well pleased." It is for this reason that both Luther and Thomasius are correct, that Jesus could only redeem if he experienced the total abandonment and wrath of God. Jesus' active righteousness is rooted in his perfect faith in the face of total abandonment."

Section 18: God inside and Outside the Law

Sorry I haven't posted quotations from the book for a while. Here's today's.

The Self-Donation of God, chapter 6:

"In spite of this condemnation, God also speaks forth a second word, that is, the Word of the gospel. This countermove is possible because the law does not exhaust God's will. Although the law is God's holy will and God cannot deny himself (2 Tim 2:13), it is only one aspect of his will. God's being and will encompass and transcends the law and therefore the law does not exhaust it. God acts within creation, as we have seen, under different masks (larva Dei). Some masks are of law, and others are of the gospel. Although God binds himself to act according to the law and the gospel within these masks, he may "shuffle" them as he chooses in accordance with his hidden electing will. As Luther writes in The Bondage of the Will: "But God hidden in his majesty neither deplores nor takes away death, but works life, death and all in all. For there he has not bound himself by his word, but has kept himself free over all things." Indeed, that God is an electing and free God is shown in that his proper name is "I will be who I will be" (Exod 3:14, alternative translation). God more clearly explains this to Moses when he proclaims his name before him on Sinai: "I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD.’ ["I will be who I will be"] And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy" (33:19, emphasis added).
Therefore, God’s wrathful and gracious activities in creation cannot be reduced to the structure of the law. God does not merely judge non-compliance with the law, but propagates the human species in such a way as to spread original sin to each and every person. Each person, without choosing to be so, is a sinner from their conception (Ps 53:5) and object of divine wrath. Furthermore, despite the universality of original sin, the law of wrath and judgment is not applied evenly. Jacob and Moses were attacked by God for no discernible reason. The generation of Israel that was exiled to Babylon can hardly be thought to be worse than the generation that entered Canaan. In a word, although all are fallen and wicked, and therefore deserving of death and eternal condemnation, some suffer condemnation and others do not. Within Scripture, this mysterious reality of election is particularly emphasized in the books of Job and Jonah.
In that human beings are bound to self-justification, they wish the law to exhaust God's will (opinio legis). They wish to control God with the law and thereby protect themselves from the fact that God is utterly free, unbound, and electing. They therefore invent false images of God wherein he is subordinate to the larger reality of the law. Such images of God seek to domesticate him. According to these ideas, the existence of God still allows for free will. He is not identical the terrible power of fate, but rather the overseer of a vast system of law. Within this clean and neat system, all humans are given the opportunity to pull themselves up by their moral bootstraps.
Nevertheless, this concept of God is a false idol. God hidden in his majesty is utterly free, unbound, and sovereign. Although from the perspective of fallen humans this fact is terrifying beyond comprehension, from the perspective of faith this is the greatest comfort. That God's will transcends the law also means that his choice to elect and save need not be based on the law and human obedience to it. Though in saving humanity he will have to deal with the problem of the law (in that it is his eternal will!), the law does not determine his purpose to save."

The Relationship Between Work and Person in Christ

The Self-Donation of God, pg. 92:

"We will first discuss the person of Christ and then move his work. This way of proceeding is in accordance with the practice of traditional dogmatics and represents a convenient means of organizing the theological task. Nevertheless, much like the two natures, the person and work of Christ can be considered from two distinct perspectives: in the concrete (i.e., as they stand in their actual relationship to one another) or in the abstract (i.e., merely considered in themselves). Considered in the abstract, Christ's person and work may indeed be separated as two distinct things. Christ is a person with certain ontic properties, regardless of his actions. Considered in the concrete though, the person and work of Christ constitute a singular phenomenon. As we will see, created being is narratively constituted. My being derives its reality from my individual story as it subsists within the larger narratives of the old and new creations. In the same manner, Christ's timeless and transcendent divine person incorporates into itself (enhypostasis) the reality of his humanity. Because of the preceding history of Adam and Israel, the humanity of Christ from the moment of its conception stands in solidarity with human nature in general. This human nature has been previously determined by the narratives of creation and the Fall, and therefore Christ, as true man and true God must deal with these realities. Conversely, because Christ’s human is at his conception also free of sin and contains within it God’s infinite and creative divine life (genus majestaticum), it also possesses within its reality the pattern of a new redemptive narrative. This new narrative will be actualized in Jesus’ Incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. Hence, viewed in their totality, the two natures are constituted by the dynamic event of the coming of the Son of God into creation and assuming the total fallen narrative of human existence. In doing this, Jesus overcomes this mangled narrative by the counter-narrative of his death and resurrection. This narrative constitutes Christ’s redemptive work. Therefore, viewed in their concrete totality, one could say in a sense that the person is the work and the work is the person. Oswald Bayer characterizes Luther's understanding of the person and work of Christ in accordance with this: "Christ nature is his work- Christ work is his nature." Similarly, as Regin Prenter notes the Greek patristic theologians (notably Athanasius) in discussing the person of Christ never developed a separate treatise on his work."

Book Talk Interview This Afternoon on KFUO Radio

In case you didn't know, I'll be on KFUO this afternnoon between 2:30 and 3:30 CST to discuss my book. Click on the link and there is a link to the live stream on the website. Also, if you miss it, there is an archive and you should be able (if you're interested) to listen to it later.

http://www.kfuoam.org/programs/booktalk/