Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)

2012 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Brinkman, Martien E.: Is There a Reciprocal Relation Between Anthropology and Christology?

is There a Reciprocal Relation...?

any that Jesus embodies. So, the historical Jesus plays an essential role, but he does not exhaust the meaning of the transhistorical Christ.9

This is an insight that is repeatedly emphasized by Asian theologians and artists — not only in a Hindu context but also in a Buddhist one. In a certain sense, one can agree with this insight — Christ is more than the historical Jesus (John 1:1-4; Ephesians 1:9-10 and Colossians 1:15-20) —, but if it is placed too emphatically in the foreground, it will inevitably lead to the trivialization of the importance of Jesus’ earthly life. For Panikkar, historical mediators are more or less arbitrary manifestations of the second person of the Trinity who represents the (ontic) relation between the humane and the divine. They are important as appearances but not essential for the relation in question.

One could, however, critically ask if the identification of the divine (the Father) with the concrete life of Jesus of Nazareth is not so strong in the Gospels that the medium (his life, his humanity) is in fact the most authentic expression of the message (divine nearness). And one could also ask if it is not precisely this identification that also challenges us to become aware of the divine presence within the constraints of our own historical existence. In other words, is human confidence in the historical concrete not precisely the characteristic of the human answer to God’s desire to make his ‘dwelling among us’ (John 1:14)?10 11 It was always the intention of the Christian tradition to show that Jesus’ earthly existence was essential (and not accidental) for the way in which he was connected with the divine. If his earthly life had been more like that of Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito, Idi Amin or Pol Pot, then the way in which he could have been brought into connection with the divine would also have been different. So, his earthly life matters. It is as concrete human existence revelation.

It was especially the Dutch Roman Catholic theologian Piet Schoonenberg (1911-1999) who struggled his whole life long to underscore the importance of Jesus’ earthly life for the way in which he embodied God as Word (divine Logos). He did that by showing how Word as focus of a Christology ‘from above’ and Spirit as focus of a Christology ‘from below’ presuppose each other in Jesus’ life. He speaks about Jesus who in his whole human existence was ‘supported by the Word and driven by the Spirit’. ‘Both make Jesus the Son of God, so that Word and Spirit Christology have the same rights as explanation of Jesus’ divine sonship’.11 Here, the Spirit represents the divine power that inspired Jesus to his concrete life choices and the Word represents everything that he heard from the Law (Torah) and Prophets as coming from God. Without Jesus’ concrete life driven by the Spi9 R. Panikkar, Trinity and the Religious Experience of Man, 53-55.

10 W. Strolz, ‘Panikkar’s Encounter with Hinduism’ in: J.D. Gort et al. (eds), Dialogue and Syncretism: An Interdisdplinary Approach (Currents of Encounter, Vol.I) (Amsterdam-Grand Rapids: Rodopi- Eerdmans 1989) 151 (146-152); V. Ramachandra, The Recovery of Mission: Beyond the Pluralist Paradigm (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 87 and A. Karokaran, ‘Raymond Panikkar’s Theology of Religions: A Critique,’ Vidyafyoti 59 (1994) 670 (663-672).

11 P. Schoonenberg, De Geest, het Woord en de Zoon. Theologische overdenkingen over Geest-christologiefThe Spirit, the Word and the Son: Theological Reflections on Spirit Christology) (Averbode-Kampen: Altiora-Kok, 1991), 134: “In zijn hele menselijke werkelijkheid wordt Jézus door het Woord gedragen en door de Geest gedreven. Beide maken Jézus tot Zoon van God, zodat Woord- en Geest-christologie beide gelijke rechten hebben als uideg van Jézus’ goddelijk zoonschap.”

2012/1 SÁROSPATAKI FÜZETEK 19