Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T18:53:12.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Revelation, Redemption, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Charles T. Waldrop
Charles T. Waldrop
Affiliation:
Skidmore CollegeSaratoga Springs New York 12866
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his important book The Shape of Christology, John Mclntyre argues that revelation cannot provide an adequate foundation for the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ. He contests Karl Barth's derivation of this doctrine from revelation, and he concludes that Barth and other neo-orthodox theologians place far too much emphasis upon revelation, which is a ‘second-order model’ in early Christianity. As an alternative, Mclntyre contends that a viable doctrine of the divinity of Christ must be based upon redemption, not revelation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 1978 , pp. 501 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 501 note 1 McIntyre, John, The Shape of Christology (London: SCM Press, 1966)Google Scholar. The work was also published by Westminster Press, Philadelphia.

page 501 note 2 This argument plays an important role in supporting Mclntyre's major thesis, which is that christological thinking involves a wide range of ‘givens’, models, and methods. Mclntyre contends that no one given (such as scripture), no one model (such as revelation), and no one method (such as exegesis) should be allowed to overshadow the significance of other givens (such as Christ's contemporary presence), other models (such as the model of the two natures), or other methods (such as the historical method). His argument against the development of the doctrine of the divinity of Christ from revelation is intended to show that the revelation model cannot, by itself, establish crucial christological affirmations and that, therefore, it must be augmented by other models.

page 501 note 3 McIntyre, p. 168.

page 502 note 1 ibid., p. 154.

page 502 note 2 ibid., p. 169.

page 502 note 3 ibid., pp. 144–46.

page 502 note 4 ibid., p. 154.

page 502 note 5 ibid., p. 150.

page 503 note 1 ibid., pp. 147–50.

page 503 note 2 ibid., pp. 150–51.

page 503 note 3 ibid., p. 151.

page 503 note 4 ibid., p. 144.

page 504 note 1 ibid., pp. 151–52, 157.

page 504 note 2 ibid., p. 157.

page 504 note 3 ibid.

page 504 note 4 ibid., p. 155.

page 504 note 5 ibid., p. 157.

page 504 note 6 ibid., p. 161.

page 505 note 1 ibid., p. 157. Italics mine.

page 505 note 2 ibid., p. 160. The footnotes which Mclntyre gives from Barth are as follows: “Church Dogmatics (ET) IV/2, 1958. Cf. II/I, pp. 16f.” Op. cit., p. 99. Note that the first of these two references does not indicate a page number.

page 505 note 3 In our view, there is no major shift in Barth's position. In contrast to Mclntyre, we believe that throughout the Church Dogmatics Barth maintains a concept of revelation which might be indicated by the formula B (A) reveals B (E) to C (Holy Spirit). However, to be true to Barth, in this formula A would not designate the ordinary man Jesus as it does in Mclntyre's models, but rather the human nature of Jesus Christ, which is a creaturely reality but not a complete person in itself. For a more thorough analysis of this problem than can be given here, see my recently completed Ph.D. dissertation, Karl Barth's Alexandrian Christology, (Harvard University, 1975), especially chapters two and three. See also our discussion of Barth later in this paper.

page 506 note 1 McIntyre, p. 160. McIntyre's discussion of whether Barth is Nestorian is included here because it indicates graphically that McIntyre concludes that Barth conceives of Jesus as a complete human person over against the person of God. In a moment, we shall argue that Barth's position is different from this interpretation.

page 506 note 2 ibid., p. 161.

page 506 note 3 ibid., p. 157. McIntyre refers to the Church Dogmatics, 1/1, p. 340.

page 506 note 4 ibid., p. 167.

page 507 note 1 ibid.

page 507 note 2 ibid.

page 507 note 3 ibid., p. 168.

page 507 note 4 ibid.

page 509 note 1 ibid., p. 158.

page 509 note 2 ibid., p. 163.

page 511 note 1 ibid., p. 167.

page 511 note 2 For a more complete defence of this claim than can be given here, see Waldrop, , Karl Barth's Alexandrian Christology, pp. 158–184 and 58–82Google Scholar. For clear affirmations that Jesus Christ is God himself, see Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, ed. Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F., trans. Thomson, G. T. and others, , 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936–1969)Google Scholar. Hereafter, references to this work will be designated CD. For the statement ‘Jesus Christ is God,’ see CD 4/1, p. 22. For the corresponding statement in the original German, see Kirchliche Dogmatik (hereafter designated KD), 4/1, p. 22. For additional statements identifying Jesus with God, see CD 4/I, pp. 79, 126, 128–29,:57 (KD, PP 83, 138, 140–41, 171). For the claim that Jesus of Nazareth is ‘by nature God’, see CD 4/2, pp. 95, 71 (KD, pp. 105, 77).

page 512 note 1 CD I / I, pp. 349–50 (KD, p. 321).

page 512 note 2 CD 1/2, pp. 162–63 (KD, pp. 177–78).

page 513 note 1 ibid.

page 514 note 1 For an interpretation of Barth which is similar to ours, see Welch, Claude, In This Name: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Contemporary Theology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952), pp. 161–180.Google Scholar

page 514 note 2 CD I/I, p. 345 (KD, p. 316).

page 514 note 3 ibid., pp. 349–83 (KD, pp. 320–52).

page 514 note 4 ibid., p. 363 (KD, p. 333).

page 514 note 5 ibid., p. 358 (KD, p. 329).