In the 20th century, the study of Christology was center stage. Erickson discusses the debate over the last century in relation to the “quest of the historical Jesus,” “Christology from below,” “Christology from above,” and finally, his own “alternative approach.” I will explain and evaluate this debate and its importance for understanding the person and work of Jesus Christ from a biblical perspective.

The “Quest of the Historical Jesus” was a quest by many different scholars and theologians on understanding what Jesus was actually like and what He did. Erickson states, “Often underlying this search was the expectation that the real Jesus would prove to be different even from the Christ who appears within the Scriptures and who is in some sense the product of the theologizing of Paul and others.”[1] Unfortunately, some people would depict Jesus as an earthly man that was generally a good man who could effectively teach spiritual truths but not be the miracle-working, preexistent Second Person of the Trinity.[2] Adolf von Harnack contends that Jesus’s message was primarily not about himself, but about the Father and the kingdom. This was considered the classic statement for liberal theologians.[3]

In the early twentieth-century, there was much debate between the Jesus of history from the Gospels and the risen Christ of faith who the apostles believed in and preached. This caused people to study less on the actual events of the life of Jesus but on the faith of the church. This prompted the need for a new quest for the historical Jesus. There are primarily two perspectives and an alternative perspective for consideration.

Christology from Above

The first perspective is “Christology from Above”, the Christology of orthodoxy during the precritical era, that include three key features. The first is that the basis of understanding Jesus is not the historical Jesus, but the kerygma which is the church’s proclamation regarding Jesus Christ. The second is that there is a preference for Paul’s epistles and the gospel of John over the Synoptic Gospels when attempting to understand “Christology from Above.” The third is that faith in Jesus Christ is not based on by rational proof as the content lies outside the sphere of natural reason and historical investigation. Together, these created a statement that faith in the kerygmatic Christ cannot with certainty be connected with the actual earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth.[4] The strengths of this approach is the emphasis on the transcendent, divine aspects of Jesus Christ. The weakness of this approach is the minimizing, or overlooking, the humanity of Jesus Christ which could unbalance the perception of Jesus as unrelatable and inaccessible.

Christology from Below

The second perspective is “Christology from Below”, building belief in Jesus upon a historical search for who he was and what he did. There was some skepticism and some of the research was considered “Jesusologies” as the results were that Jesus was not much more than a human being. [5] The development of this perspective had many people provide reasons to discredit “Christology from Above”. Erickson explains, “If we rest our faith upon the kerygma alone, and not upon the historical facts of Jesus’s life as well, we may find ourselves believing not in Jesus, but in Luke, Matthew, Paul, or someone else.”[6] Another note was that history is all encompassing and cannot be separated by categories or people. This meant that the construction of Jesus should be developed in a similar manner of all other historic figures through historic research. The strength of this perspective is the filtering out of unnecessary subjectivity of others such as the first disciples. The weakness of this perspective is that there is still a necessity of faith in accepting the supernatural Jesus which starts to go back to the previous perspective.

Alternative Approach

The alternative perspective, the Augustinian model, there is an initial amount of faith from the kerygma (the apostolic proclamation of salvation through Jesus Christ) which enables a person to understand the data supplied while researching the historical Jesus Christ. This model does not entirely do either of the perspectives above (i.e. faith alone, historical reason alone) but together in a mutually dependent manner. Erickson explains, “Increased familiarity with the kerygmatic Christ will enable us to understand and integrate more of the data of historical research. Similarly, increased understanding of the Jesus of history will more fully persuade us that the apostles’ interpretation of the Christ of faith is true.”[7]

Musings from the Professor on the Topic

There are several topics in Christology that produce opportunities to answer a complex question with a complex answer. This is what I mean by that. If you ask me if the exterior wall of the den in my house is 10 inches or 10 feet, I would first have to disagree with the premise of your question, in order to answer the question truthfully, or to answer the question in a way that corresponds with the way things really are. The exterior wall of the den in my house is both 10″ thick and 10′ tall. That wall is not simply one, OR, the other. And, it’s not a contradiction for it to be both, because both sides of the answer addresses both sides of the complex question. So it is with Christology from above or below. For the Biblical Believer, if we are going to answer the question about the nature and work of Jesus Christ, we will have to address both his humanity (from below) and his deity (from above). There are aspects of his nature and work that are only related to his deity. There are aspects of his nature and work that are only related to his humanity. And, there are aspects of his nature and work that are related to both. Above and below also have another facet, the facet of faith and reason. Some would argue that Christology from above is a faith-based approach to Christology, and from below is a reason-based approach. It seems to me, that you can’t tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Jesus without employing faith and reason regarding his humanity and deity.

Now, that said, The Son of God is eternal, meaning that he has always existed. There was never a time when the Son of God was not. But, there was a time when the Son of God was not incarnate, Word-Flesh. We also know some things about Jesus by faith, some by reason, and some by both. When we think of the Son of God before the incarnation, we tend to focus on that which is from above and the way we know it in faith. When we think of the Son of God after the incarnation, we also tend to focus on that which is from above and the way way we know it in faith. So, here’s my point of watchfulness. Perhaps some adjustment is warranted …..

While skeptics and classic liberals tend to distill the so-called myths of Jesus down to Jesus the man which is known by reason, genuine biblically informed followers of Jesus often tend to over-emphasize the deity of Jesus Christ, and over-emphasize the role of faith, by comparison with the alternate, in the interpretation of all the events recorded in the New Testament in a way that misses the profound importance of his humanity, and the role his humanity plays in his person and work, each known by employing both reason and faith.

So, while I’m 100% opposed to enlightenment absolute rationality and the classic liberal view that reduces the Jesus of the Bible to a Jesus from below, just a man, known by reason alone, I am equally opposed to overlooking the profound importance of Jesus the man from below, known by some combination of faith and reason. What he does not assume he can not save. He is the Second Adam, of the line of Adam. He is the Son of God, and he Son of Man. And, he is known to us as such by means of faith and reason.

You can probably tell by now that my point of view is in some alignment with Erickson’s alternative model, with one eye open to overcoming the erroneous view which sees him as only, or mostly, human, known only by reason, AND the other eye open to overcoming the erroneous view which sees him as only, or mostly, divine, known only by faith.

Simply put, I affirm a combined above-below, faith-reason model of knowing him, and an above-below, Word-flesh model of describing him. My two cents…… Hope this helps. –Dr. Carrigan

Bibliography

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

---

[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 605.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 606.

[4] Ibid., 609.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 610.

[7] Ibid., 614-615.