
By Piotr Malysz
The six essays contained in this volume collectively offer a picture of Martin Luther’s Christology that takes issue with its customary presentation as a diachronic series of contingent responses to crises and controversies. Luther’s Christological thought did, to be sure, become more self-aware and more precise, as he was compelled to respond to various challenges. But as these essays so admirably demonstrate, underlying Luther’s variegated Christological reflection was a fundamental and uncompromised insistence on the concreteness of the exchange of properties between Christ’s two natures. As Luther saw it, only when taken as concrete – that is, as reciprocally holding nothing back – can the togetherness of the natures in Christ’s person give adequate expression to his identity as Saviour, who as a person is never, not even conceptually, to be separated from his work.
Contrary to what the volume’s title might indicate, the essays do not restrict themselves to an analysis of Luther’s Christology. They also situate the reformer’s particular interpretation of the communicatio idiomatum more broadly within the Lutheran tradition. And, moving even further afield, they seek to uncover this interpretation’s forerunners in the early church, as well as proposing that Luther’s insights constitute a viable, though neglected, alternative to the speculative or overpsychologized modern depictions of Christ.
The opening essay, ‘The Word Became Flesh: Luther’s Christology as Doctrine of the Communication of Properties’ by Oswald Bayer, introduces the central themes of the entire volume. It situates the project of recovering Luther’s Christological metaphysic against the backdrop of the early-twentieth-century Luther Renaissance, which severed the reformer’s theology of the cross from the underlying ontology and then distilled this theologia crucis into an abstract epistemological principle. Against this one-sided depiction, Bayer presents Luther as a theologian firmly rooted in Chalcedonian dogma. What Luther inherited from Chalcedon were two emphases: (1) in Christ God is not impassible, and (2) in Christ there takes place not some monophysite fusion but a union of the two natures, a union that is very much concrete in its hypostatic actuality. Because Luther never lost sight of the soteriological intent of these two points, his Christology, according to Bayer, was a genuine breakthrough vis-à-vis the scholastic tradition, which saw any exchange between the natures as largely a matter of verbal predication and reciprocal application of names. Luther’s fundamental insight was that, in light of God’s philanthropic act in Jesus Christ, humanity and divinity could no longer be treated as essences abstractly predetermined and immovably fixed in their incompatibility. This led Luther to question Thomas’ philosophical denial of the natures’ reciprocal participation in each other, as well as Ockham’s axiom that there exists no proportion between the infinite and the finite. Likewise, Luther rejected any notion of a supposital union, whereby the hypostasis of the Son, as such, remains unaffected by the assumption of the human nature, which is reduced to a merely instrumental role. But the implications were even further reaching. Christ’s theanthropic actuality called for a revolution in language. There could now be no uniform concept of (logical) truth that would apply both to theology and philosophy. In short, Luther did not allow semantic logic to function as a straightjacket for capturing the event of God’s becoming flesh; it was rather the actuality of Christ as God and man that determined the content of these latter concepts, their interrelation, as well as the meaning of salvation. As Luther made the communicatio into the center of salvation-focused Christological dogma, the actuality of the exchange became the impetus for the happy exchange between Christ and the sinner.
…
[This review has appeared in Reviews in Religion and Theology 16:4 (September 2009), pp. 618-622. It cannot, therefore, be published here in its entirety.]
12 September, 2008 at 3:03 am
Mr. Malysz!
Great to hear about this volume. Thanks for posting your review. Just a question for you on this subject, since you’re the newest Luther expert… Have you ever looked at W. Elert’s “Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie”?
Rinas
——-
The Rev. Jody A. Rinas
Pastor
Trinity Lutheran CH (LCC)
Quesnel, B.C.
Canada
12 September, 2008 at 3:14 am
Rev. Rinas!
Very good to hear from you.
I am actually looking at Elert’s book right now (I inherited it a while ago form David Truemper of Valpo via some second-hand bookstore in Chicago). Unfortunately, I know it too superficially to be able to speak about it in an informed way. If you have read it, would you like to write a brief guest post about it on our blog? A post on Theodore of Pharan is guaranteed to be a hit
By the way, what on earth gave you the idea that I should be the next Luther expert? I think my goals are far more modest :) Besides, my dissertation work is on Juengel.
In Christ,
Piotr
14 September, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Especially in his treatment of the Greek fathers and the Nicene era Christology, Elert lays out in his “Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie” work (which took him 10 years to complete) many of the same points as listed above in this 2 volume set, and espouses a very real Theopascism which arguably the mature Luther does as well (see his Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ) since he espouse a mutually reciprocal, “2-way” communio naturarum in which the Divinity takes upon itself the idiomatum of the humanity as much as the Humanity does of the Divinity (and Andreae espoused such a theopascism too, much to the chagrin of Selnecker who complained to the Elector about it during that time of the making of the Formula for Concord.) Granted, with the exception of some that Elert found in history (such as the Monophysite Philoxenus of Mabbug), Luther is unprecedented in asserting such. On Christology, it is arguable whether or not Chemnitz really is the “Second Martin”, to me he is the “Second Phillip” on the Christological aspect at least.
Also, the soteriological influence on Greek Christology needs to be noted–the Impassibility of God is crucial for their theory of “theosis”–I mean, if God moves and is not fixed at a point (via these supposed Platonistic Divine Attributes), then you’ll never be able to attain through ascent to that point where one can grab whatever one can of the Divinity (whether you are pre-Palamite or Palamtie “energies” of God type)…But I rant..
15 September, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Stephen:
Thank you for your very informative comment. I was actually quite surprised that none of the contributors to “Creator est Creatura” as much as refered to Elert.
It is interesting to note that although it is some monophysites that could be seen as Luther’s distant ancestors, Luther’s integration of Christological ontology and soteriology (based as the latter is on exchange and communication) actually presupposes affirmation of Chalcedon’s definitio fidei. But, of course, Luther went further than that.
Robert Jenson credits Luther with being the first Western theologian to work out the full Christological implications of the Chalcedonian definition. Though the council carefully distinguished between hypostasis and natures, it failed, according to Jenson, to determine what sort of ontological category ‘hypostasis’ was. In light of what Chalcedon says about the natures, one may, in fact, conclude that ‘the “one hypostasis” is nothing actual, and that the natures’ union has no material consequences for the state or activity of either nature’. It was Luther who, in defiance of this Western apprehension, insisted that the hypostasis of the God-man is not merely, or practically, notional in character but is rather the real and only agent, the sole and active locus of the natures’ actualization.
Piotr
10 September, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.