Systematic Theology Class

What is a good resource to introduce a group at church to systematic theology in a neutral manner? Any suggestions?

For example, one that gives multiple sides of an argument, has a Logos edition, but still available in hard copies for the class as well.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

JT (alabama24)

I will be interested to see what responses you get.

I don't have a recommendation, at least not at the moment. I would certainly want to have read said book before using it. I also think it is important that the book be readable and inexpensive, unless the group is well read and able to drop $50+ for a book study.

I took a quick look at Vyrso and found this, but have not read it: https://vyrso.com/product/39069/an-introduction-to-christian-theology

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715168#Comment_715168

Maybe this: https://vyrso.com/product/23684/christianity-101-your-guide-to-eight-basic-christian-beliefs

Again, I haven't read it.

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715173#Comment_715173

Yeah the class won't start until September so I will have plenty of time to review recommendations. I have also considered just writing my own but obviously that would be a good bit of work.

Everett Headley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715179#Comment_715179

This is a pretty open question without knowing you flavor of church, education of people, etc. There are several books along the lines of basics of Christianity, Bite-size theology, Intro to...

My suggestion is that if you have this much time, write your own. You will become intimate and confident in your material instead of just regurgitating something you just read back to them. You begin to master the material. As on of the most important pillars of Christian study, I wouldn't be lax on this at all, personally.

FWIW, I have used Grudem's and baby Grudem's for one on one with those who have no theology background to good success.

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715197#Comment_715197

This is a pretty open question without knowing you flavor of church, education of people, etc. There are several books along the lines of basics of Christianity, Bite-size theology, Intro to...

My suggestion is that if you have this much time, write your own. You will become intimate and confident in your material instead of just regurgitating something you just read back to them. You begin to master the material. As on of the most important pillars of Christian study, I wouldn't be lax on this at all, personally.

FWIW, I have used Grudem's and baby Grudem's for one on one with those who have no theology background to good success.

Oh trust me, I am very familiar with the material. My problem is I am not sure I actually have the time to write it myself. Our church is conservative, close to Southern Baptist. But the guys in the group want a broad overview and I wasn't familiar with a source that would cover a broad range of the topics.

James Hiddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715173#Comment_715173

Maybe this: https://vyrso.com/product/23684/christianity-101-your-guide-to-eight-basic-christian-beliefs

Again, I haven't read it.

[Y]

Norman Low

Two useful books that are not available in Logos:

Decide for Yourself by Gordon R. Lewis

Know What You Believe by Paul Little

Alan

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715215#Comment_715215

This might be something else to at least explore

https://www.logos.com/product/7799/introducing-christian-doctrine

Although the hardcover is about $20

John Kight

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715215#Comment_715215

Another option would be to use a resource like Millard Erickson's Introducing Christian Doctrine and filling in the gaps with supplemental material of your own as needed. Of course, you could really use any introductory systematic theology (I found that the abridged, less technical resources worked best in my context and allowed me more room to broaden the scope of discussion). I taught a class with this method last year and used Wayne Grudem's Christian Beliefs.

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715219#Comment_715219

Those are all very good suggestions, thanks everyone. And yes, I agree I will have to supplement some material with my own as well.

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715221#Comment_715221

Has anyone read Sproul's Everyone's a Theologian?

David Thomas

I don't know that it fits your definition of "neutral manner" but Wayne Grudem is pretty irenic in his presentations. Of course there is his resource in Logos - https://www.logos.com/product/8413/systematic-theology-an-introduction-to-biblical-doctrine but it is also reduced to a 20 session book in https://www.logos.com/product/26684/christian-beliefs-twenty-basics-every-christian-should-know Free MP3s of Grudem teaching a Sunday School class based upon the first book I linked can be found here - http://www.christianessentialssbc.com/messages/ The 20 session book is also available as a DVD curriculum here http://www.christianbook.com/christian-beliefs-life-transforming-truths-curriculum/pd/010008?event=ESRCG

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715223#Comment_715223

I don't know that it fits your definition of "neutral manner" but Wayne Grudem is pretty irenic in his presentations. Of course there is his resource in Logos - https://www.logos.com/product/8413/systematic-theology-an-introduction-to-biblical-doctrine but it is also reduced to a 20 session book in https://www.logos.com/product/26684/christian-beliefs-twenty-basics-every-christian-should-know Free MP3s of Grudem teaching a Sunday School class based upon the first book I linked can be found here - http://www.christianessentialssbc.com/messages/ The 20 session book is also available as a DVD curriculum here http://www.christianbook.com/christian-beliefs-life-transforming-truths-curriculum/pd/010008?event=ESRCG

Ah good find. Thank you!

David Thomas

A good resource that I have used (that is probably more in depth than you are looking for right now) is http://reclaimingthemind.org/product/complete-theology-program-dvd-and-workbook/

I went through this curriculum 3 times with different groups in my last church. Each of the 60 sessions takes about 2 hours to present and discuss. It was developed by 2 Dallas Theological Seminary grads who where on staff at Chuck Swindoll's church in Frisco, TX. It uses Grudem's "Systematic Theology" as a core text then rounds it out with Roger Olsen's "Mosaic of Christian Belief"

David Taylor, Jr.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715228#Comment_715228

A good resource that I have used (that is probably more in depth than you are looking for right now) is http://reclaimingthemind.org/product/complete-theology-program-dvd-and-workbook/

I went through this curriculum 3 times with different groups in my last church. Each of the 60 sessions takes about 2 hours to present and discuss. It was developed by 2 Dallas Theological Seminary grads who where on staff at Chuck Swindoll's church in Frisco, TX. It uses Grudem's "Systematic Theology" as a core text then rounds it out with Roger Olsen's "Mosaic of Christian Belief"

Yeah I have seen that, haven't been through it but like what I have seen, but as you guessed, that wouldn't really fit within our format (or budget). My budget with my ministry at church is my own piggy bank.... [:)]

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715248#Comment_715248

Erickson's Christian theology is more neutral than Grudem, shorter than Owen, perhaps a little too deep, but well divided into sections which you could skip or cover as needed. Available in Logos and $33 for the 1200 page hardcover on Amazon. If you are looking for something balanced which you can cover certain sections of in an overview class, where they will have the rest as reference, Erickson will be hard to beat.

BriM

I'm also starting a class like this for our church in September.

I'm making slides from Erickson Christian Theology 3rd Edition (https://www.logos.com/product/29621/christian-theology-3rd-ed), Grudem Systematic Theology (https://www.logos.com/product/8413/systematic-theology-an-introduction-to-biblical-doctrine ), Grenz Theology for the Community of God (Prebub in https://www.logos.com/product/43925/eerdmans-stanley-j-grenz-collection)and Grudem Christian Beliefs (https://www.logos.com/product/26684/christian-beliefs-twenty-basics-every-christian-should-know).

I have two groups in mind: upcoming leaders and recent converts and plan to run a single course covering the same topics but with the attendees breaking into two streams as appropriate for their level and interest. Hence I have the more advanced Erickson/Grudem/Grenz plus the basics level Grudem.

I hadn't thought of Erickson Introducing Christian Doctrine (https://www.logos.com/product/7799/introducing-christian-doctrine) but it looks interesting. (Not sure I want to buy it though - I've bought the full Theology in 2nd and 3rd editions and not sure I want to pay again for an abridgement of the same.)

We'll be mostly making our own material but will get copies of the reference books for the church library. I don't expect people will buy the textbooks.

elnwood

To add to your list, I hear great things about Bruce Milne's Know the Truth as a basic theology text. It has an endorsement from J. I. Packer and is on its third edition.

Rosie Perera

J.I. Packer's Concise Theology might be a good choice. It presents the subject in small topical chunks of a couple of pages each, which could easily be covered in a single session each. He is a very clear and precise writer. It is on sale right now for 60% off in March Madness, which ends soon. Worth picking up at that incredible bargain price, even if you don't end up using it for your class. And yes, it is still in print. High ratings on Amazon.

https://www.logos.com/product/155/concise-theology

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0842339604

James Chandler

I like Grudem's volume as well.

James Hiddle

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715228#Comment_715228

A good resource that I have used (that is probably more in depth than you are looking for right now) is http://reclaimingthemind.org/product/complete-theology-program-dvd-and-workbook/

I went through this curriculum 3 times with different groups in my last church. Each of the 60 sessions takes about 2 hours to present and discuss. It was developed by 2 Dallas Theological Seminary grads who where on staff at Chuck Swindoll's church in Frisco, TX. It uses Grudem's "Systematic Theology" as a core text then rounds it out with Roger Olsen's "Mosaic of Christian Belief"

Looks like another good resource thanks!

Josh

What is a good resource to introduce a group at church to systematic theology in a neutral manner? Any suggestions?

For example, one that gives multiple sides of an argument, has a Logos edition, but still available in hard copies for the class as well.

https://www.logos.com/product/7404/ryries-practical-guide-to-communicating-bible-doctrine

https://www.logos.com/product/2790/basic-theology

Mike Measley

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715402#Comment_715402

What is a good resource to introduce a group at church to systematic theology in a neutral manner? Any suggestions?

For example, one that gives multiple sides of an argument, has a Logos edition, but still available in hard copies for the class as well.

Lightner's Evangelical Theology. It gives the historical development of the doctrine, the major explanation. Points of difference among evangelicals. Well written. Inexpensive. Thorough enough for a good introduction.

https://www.logos.com/product/7745/handbook-of-evangelical-theology-a-historical-biblical-and-contemporary-survey-and-review

Floyd Johnson

Sorry for being so late in replying - I saw the post and some of the answers late last night after climbing into bed, but before turning off the light. This is my first time back on the net since then. There are four books I would recommend for self-study of theology. None provide canned answers, but lead to a good discussion of many of the issues involved.

I see that the first one does have a new edition from what I used years ago. It is Gordon Lewis Decide For Yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1620323257/?tag=fhj-20
The second and third are connected, but approach the subject slightly differently: Think, Act, Be Like Jesus (available in Vyrso):

http://bit.ly/1PtHWYU
The third uses the same themes, but rather than using a descriptive narrative approach, it provides a great deal of scripture for the reader to make his or her own decisions: Believe: Living the Story of the Bible to Become Like Jesus (a student edition is available via Vyrso):

http://bit.ly/1FtrQf4
The last book is another well-done self-study guide on theology, no spoon-feeding involved: Understanding Theology in 15 Minutes a Day (available in LOGOS):

http://bit.ly/Aaron-BLOG

JT (alabama24)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715687#Comment_715687

Thanks for those reviews Floyd! [:)]

Roger Kadeg

David -

Obviously, each author will have his own particular theological bent, but the previous suggestions all have merit. A great book for an overview of the whole field of theology - not just systematic - is Moody's Handbook of Theology by Paul Enns. One might find some useful material in it, and urge you to take a look at it. Two other texts to consider are Ryrie's Basic Theology (latest edition), or Understanding Christian Theology by Swindoll and Zuck (eds.). I have Erickson, Grudem & Geisler on Logos - I find them all useful. I also have Sproul's new text and older A.H. Strong's and Chafer's in print. One would have to select portions from any of these, and gear towards the target audience, As noted above, Grudem and Sproul tend to have more bias than Erickson. The abridged Erickson might be a good match for your needs. Note that Grudem, following the chapters in his text, took several years of weekly classes to teach through it to his church group - not sure you are looking for something of that duration. (Selected lectures are available for purchase here http://www.clearcutmedia.tv/us/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=3 . They were previously available for free at his home church site, but I see they have been removed.) May the Lord bless your efforts!

Lonnie Spencer

If you want something in Logos, I would take a look at "Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine" by John D. Hannah

https://www.logos.com/product/20426/our-legacy-the-history-of-christian-doctrine

What I really appreciate about this book is the way it is arranged. Instead of going era by era through Christianity, Hannah traces each doctrine through all the history of Christianity. This makes it much easier to keep the different stages doctrines have gone through without having to constantly jump around within different Christian eras

Hannah traces 7 categories of systematic theology-

Authority: Where to go for truth,

The Trinity: God as Three in One

The Person of Christ: Meet the God-Man

The Work of Christ: What the Cross Means for Us

Salvation: A Story of Sin and Grace

The Church: God's Gathered Community

The End Times: Fulfillment of our Blessed Hope

The four era's of Church history Hannah traces each doctrine through is-

The Ancient Church: 100-600

The Medieval Church: 600-1500

The Early Modern Churches: 1500-1750

The Late Modern Churches: 1750-Present

I think it gives people the right idea that doctrine has a long history and is not worked out in a vacuum of our generation or our denomination. As good as some of today's theologians may be, they are only standing of the shoulders of past theologians.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716236#Comment_716236

https://www.logos.com/product/20426/our-legacy-the-history-of-christian-doctrine

What I really appreciate about this book is the way it is arranged. Instead of going era by era through Christianity, Hannah traces each doctrine through all the history of Christianity.

Lonnie, thanks for bringing this to our (my!) attention. I like that approach of showing development. I am curious, how do you evaluate his tone toward other denom's or positions he might not agree with?

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715168#Comment_715168

I will be interested to see what responses you get.

I don't have a recommendation, at least not at the moment. I would certainly want to have read said book before using it. I also think it is important that the book be readable and inexpensive, unless the group is well read and able to drop $50+ for a book study.

I took a quick look at Vyrso and found this, but have not read it: https://vyrso.com/product/39069/an-introduction-to-christian-theology

I really like Justo Gonzales, and did not know about this one, 'bama. I would think this to be a good book to use, except that it doesn't cover (overtly) some basic, classic, doctrines (the Holy Spirit, for one).

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715173#Comment_715173

Maybe this: https://vyrso.com/product/23684/christianity-101-your-guide-to-eight-basic-christian-beliefs

Again, I haven't read it.

cool--I would think this could be a good one for an intro class, because of its size and attention to basic, key, systematic categories. I just don't know how he approaches it. I believe I have read stuff from him in the past, and with Hybels as an endorser, I doubt his is polemical in style.

Friedrich

What is a good resource to introduce a group at church to systematic theology in a neutral manner? Any suggestions?

For example, one that gives multiple sides of an argument, has a Logos edition, but still available in hard copies for the class as well.

I'm excited for you, David, sounds like an interesting class! I like Erickson for a good overview. I am not Reformed as he is, and his views will skew toward his theology, for sure--but that said, I do find his tone pretty irenic, his offerings balanced, and his scope thourough. AND I gave a copy of it to my best man in my wedding. [8-|]

I'd think the abridged Introduction to Christian Theology would be the route vs. his Christian Theology. The former is a third the size, at 440ish pages.

Maybe use Beliezikian as a basic, readable text and cast Logos on the screen for side by side comparisons of Erickson, Grudem, and Geisler.

Not mentioned here, and probably not as accessible for the common learner, I still think Oden has a good set. You might find it useful for his many references (and links to) historical works, many in Logos. He shows the unity in theology across many denominational streams. I have copied a big chunk of his opening chapter on Jesus Christ to get a feel for his narrative. the further one reads, the more he highlights theological subpoints and ties them to scripture and theological/historical development. This opening portion has more flowing prose (?):

CHAPTER 1

Why Christ?

AN UNFORGETTABLE LIFE

Christianity arose out of a particular human life ending in a disturbing, terrible death—then, resurrection. The meaning of Christianity is undecipherable without grasping the meaning of Christ’s life and death and living presence.
“Christ is the central spot of the circle; and when viewed aright, all stories in Holy Scripture refer to Christ” (Luther, Serm. on John 3:14, WLS I, p. 148; WA 47, 66). Luther compared the Scriptures to “A lute player who always plays only one little song”—Christ, promised and sent (Pentecost Serm., John 3:16 [1532], WLS I, p. 147; WA 36, 181). It is from Christ that Christianity derives its name, its mission, its identity, its purpose, its very life (Acts 11:26; John 15:1–5; Augustine, Hom. on the Epist. of John I, NPNF 1 VII, pp. 460–68).

Christian Teaching Is Personally Grounded

Christianity is a relation to a person. It is not essentially an idea or institution. It has defined itself in canon and tradition as a relation to Christ. He is the one to whom faith relates and in whom faith trusts. Gustavo Gutiérrez writes: “Being a Christian does not mean, first and foremost, believing in a message. It means believing in a person” (PPH, p. 130).
Christian teaching is therefore personally grounded. It lives in response to a personal life yet alive. Christian teaching only serves to show the way that leads to faith in this person. That the Christian community emerges and lives out of personal trust in this person is simply a fact (John Chrysostom, Hom. on John LVII, NPNF 1 XIV, pp. 204–206).
A consequent discipline—Christology, the study of Christ—has emerged in the attempt to understand this fact. Such an attempt to understand the identity and activity of Christ cannot be incidental to Christian teaching. It is central and specifically required if one is to reflect upon Christian worship, Christian community, or the Christian life. If one remains mute or inattentive at this point, it means that one has elected not to inquire into Christianity. We must try to understand why this person is so important in this religion and why he is finally attested as nothing less than God (Athanasius, Incarn. of the Word 15–21, LCC III, pp. 70–75). That is what Christology is all about. Christian teaching and the study of Jesus are inseparably bound.
Christians know God as the One revealed in Jesus. Other ideas of God are measured in relation to that idea of God known in Jesus. The approach to that idea of God knowable only through the history of Jesus must begin with the study of Jesus himself. This is distinguished from the view that assumes that Jesus is not knowable and that therefore one can only begin with the study of others’ proclamation about Jesus.

His Uncoercive Influence

It would be difficult to think of a single person who has affected human history more profoundly than Jesus of Nazareth. This alone would make the study of him significant. Yet this is not the primary reason he is studied. He is not studied as Alexander and Napoleon would be studied, for their enormous power or political sway over millions. His influence is not outwardly measured in terms of worldly power (John 18:36) but remains uncoercive, person-to-person, spiritual, subtly transforming, inconspicuous (Martyrdom of Polycarp, LCC I, pp. 152–57; Athanasius, Incarn. of the Word 46–57, NPNF 2 IV, pp. 61–67; Clare of Assisi, Testament of St. Clare, Francis and Clare, CWS, pp. 226–32).
The modern spirit of historical inquiry could not ignore the history of Jesus. His footprints are all over the Western literary, moral, and social landscape, and on every continent. Who has affected history more than he? No other individual has become such a permanent fixture of the human memory. He has been worshiped as Lord through a hundred generations.
Through the centuries Jesus has been memorialized in architecture, painted on frescoes, embedded in stone by mosaic designers, prayed to by opposing armies, praised in conflicting ways by poets, and interpreted diversely by philosophers. Western history would not be Western history without him. It would be strangely unhistorical if the historians accidentally ignored him or decided to study all figures except the one who has affected Western history most. Indeed it is puzzling when his name is carefully avoided in high-school history texts.
The intellectual and moral struggle that has ensued from his life has penetrated every corner of Western intellectual history, psychology, politics, and literature. One cannot understand human history without asking who Christ is and what he did and continues to do. No one is well educated who has systematically dodged the straightforward question of Christology—a question that committed Jews or Muslims may ask and study as seriously as Christians or agnostics or hedonists—Is Jesus the Christ?
Historical inquiry into Jesus cannot avoid at some point overhearing the question Jesus asked to Peter: “Who do you say that I am?” Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” remains the concise pattern for subsequent Christian liturgy and confession (Moltmann, ICT, pp. 175–78). In saying this, Peter stood in a personal relationship with another person, Jesus Christ—not with an idea, abstract system, or institution, but an actual you in a real relationship. The confession was not about Christ, but to him. Peter did not say: “I am willing tentatively to trust the hypothesis that you are the Christ” or “The historical evidence seems to lead to this probable conclusion.” One says “You are the Christ” only to one who is alive. If Christ is not alive, forget about Christian confession—there is no one to whom to confess.
The meaning of Jesus’ life and death has never been a permanently dead issue to any generation since his appearance. It remains even today a matter of intense debate as to who Jesus was and what his life and death mean. Deeper even than the mystery of his astonishing historical influence is the simpler, starker question that rings through Christian reflection: Cur Deus homo? Why did God become human?

The Question Required by the Facts

The Facts Briefly Stated

Date of birth: between 5 B.C. and A.D. 4. Place: Palestine. Ethnic origin: Jewish. Vocation: probably first a carpenter, then a traveling preacher of the coming rule of God. Length of ministry: three Passovers (John 2:13; 6:4; 12:1). Date of death: Friday, 14 Nisan (the first month of the Jewish year), probably, by our calendar, April 7 A.D. 30 (or by some calculations 3 April, A.D. 33). Place of death: Jerusalem. Manner of death: crucifixion. Roman procurator: Pontius Pilate (A.D. 27–33). Roman emperor: Tiberius.

The Decisive Question

Christology focuses not simply upon bare facts, but upon what this life meant and how these events have been interpreted—especially as they come down finally to a single, pivotal question: whether Jesus is rightly understood as the expected Messiah of Israel, Son of God, Lord—or not. There is no way to dodge artfully this question so as to conclude that Jesus might be partially Lord or to a certain degree the Christ or maybe in some ways eternal Son or perhaps truly God (Perpetua, Passion of the Holy Martyrs, Perpetua and Felicitas, ANF III, pp. 704–706; Justin Martyr, First Apology 35, FC 6, p. 72). Finally, he must either be or not be the Messiah. He must either be or not be lord.
There is no middle way or golden mean. This is the startling question that his life constantly asks. The nearer one comes to him, the more clearly he requires that decision. It is the unavoidable issue that the observer of Jesus’ life must finally come up against, for Jesus himself presses and requires that decision. To avoid that issue is to avoid him. To avoid him is to avoid Christianity altogether (Kierkegaard, TC, pp. 66–71).

The Incongruity of an Apparent Failure

The portrait of his life among us, as offered by presumably honest eyewitness rememberers, is poignant, simple, and stirring. The closer we come to examine it the more we are likely to be profoundly moved by it.
He was born of a poor family, of a destiny-laden but powerless nation that had long been humiliated and stripped of national pride. The earliest traditions report that he was born in a squalid stable among animals in an out-of-the-way village, a refugee baby of a fleeing family seeking to escape political tyranny and violent religious persecution. He grew up in another obscure Galilean town having the unenviable reputation that “nothing good could ever come from there.” He learned to speak a language that has long been virtually forgotten and that never produced a widely read literature. He is never said to have written anything except with his finger in the sand. He was obedient to his parents. He followed the law. He worked with his hands as a common laborer.
He became an itinerant preacher, and was called “rabbi.” He had few possessions. He lived constantly among the poor and identified with their lowliness, recognizing them to be uniquely blessed with promise. To them he preached the good news of the coming governance of God. His disciples were not brilliant leaders or worldly-wise strategists. They were simple folk, mostly involved in the fishing trade, a variety of ordinary people, including some reprobates, whose lives were stunned and reshaped by their unforgettable meeting with him.
Even in the face of angry criticism, he did not cease to dine and converse with sinners, to mix with the lowly and disinherited. His closest associates followed him everywhere but often resisted whom they followed. He intentionally took the form of a servant. He washed the feet of his followers. He reached out for other cultures despised by his own people and valued their gifts.
In his company were women who had suffered wrenching social rejection. He considered it an incomparably memorable event that he was anointed with oil by one who was viewed as a woman of ill repute. Of all the people who might have been able to grasp the fact that he was to be anointed to an incomparable mission, it turned out to be a harassed “woman who was a sinner”!
Remarkable things were reported of him. He touched lepers. He healed the blind. He raised persons from the dead. These events pointed unmistakably to the unparalleled divine breakthrough that was occurring in history—the decisive turnaround in the divine-human story of conflicted love. He taught by parables—often simply, sometimes enigmatically. He heralded a new age. He called all his hearers to decide for or against God’s coming reign. He called for a high ethic of accountability. His behavior was radically consistent with his teaching.
Unscientific and lacking the advantages of advanced education, he became a controversial teacher. His coming was not publicly celebrated except in one brief ironic moment (his entry into Jerusalem). His ministry was constantly misunderstood by those closest to him and especially by those who had vested interests in the managing of power. He was born to a racial group widely despised and rejected; but he himself became even more despised and rejected by many of his own people.
His enemies plotted to trap him and finally came to take his life. His closest friends deserted him when his hour had come to die. He knew all along that he would be killed. He agonized in a garden. Sweat poured from his face as he approached death. He was betrayed by one of his closest associates. He submitted to a scurrilous trial with false charges.
His end was terrible. His back felt the whip. He was spat upon. His head was crowned with thorns. His wrists were in chains. On his shoulders he bore a cross. Spikes were driven through his hands and feet into wood. His whole body was stretched on a cross as he hung between two thieves. He felt completely forsaken. All the while he prayed for his tormentors, that they might be forgiven, for they knew not what they were doing.
This is a sketch of the Gospels’ portrait of Jesus. It is this one whom the disciples experienced as alive the third day after his death. This is the incomparable person we are trying to study, whose extraordinary life we try to understand. The closer we make him the object of our study, the more we become aware that he is examining us.

Is There a Plausible Explanation?

How is it plausible that two thousand years ago there lived a man born in poverty in a remote corner of the world, whose life was abruptly cut short in his early thirties, who traveled only in a small area, who held no public office, yet whose influence appears greater than all others? How is it that one who died the death of a criminal could be worshiped today by hundreds of millions? This is the surprising disjunctiveness of his life, but not its deepest mystery. Why are people willing to renounce all to follow him and even die in his service? How is it plausible that two thousand years later his life would be avidly studied and worshipers would address their prayers to him? What accounts for this extraordinary influence?
Classic Christian teaching answers without apology: what was said about him is true—he was the Son of God, the promised Messiah, the one Mediator between God and humanity, who as truly God was truly human, who liberated humanity from the power of sin by his death on the cross. That hypothesis better explains what his life is and means than any alternative. It is theoretically possible for the study of Jesus to function without that hypothesis, but in practice it is exceptionally difficult, for one is forced to stretch and coerce the narratives to make any sense of them at all without that decisive premise. The documents give dogged resistance to the discarding of that hypothesis, because they think they know about his true identity. There is no other or better way to explain his extraordinary life. According to Christian confession, Jesus is either Messiah or nothing at all.

The Subject

Christology is that study that inquires critically and systematically into this person, Jesus the Christ. In him the fitting and true relation between God and humanity is alleged to be knowable. What that means is the subject of Christology.

The Unimportance and Importance of Christology

The systematic study of Jesus’ life is less important than trusting in the efficacy of his death. One may be saved by faith without passing an examination on Christology.
Yet his life and death remain the central interest of Christian piety and education. The events surrounding this individual are alleged to stand as the supreme truth of the history of revelation. The study of Christ implies the study of the divine plan for which humanity was created and the purpose anticipatively revealed toward which history is moving. In Christ God actively embraces fallen humanity and enables humanity to respond to God’s active embrace.
This is not a study that can be rightly undertaken by those who remain dogmatically committed to the assumption that nothing new can happen in history or that no events are knowable except those that can be validated under laboratory conditions.

The Study Occurs in Relation to a Worshiping Community

Christology is studied within the context of a worshiping community, just as Islamic theology occurs within the community of Islam. One cannot rightly study basketball and never see a basketball game. The “game” in this case is a living person, Jesus Christ. Where that person is regarded as dead, the game is not being played.
The New Testament itself frequently disavows that it contains an entirely new idea or understanding of God, for the one known in Jesus was already revealed in history before Jesus and in the Law and Prophets (Heb. 1:1–5). Yet in Jesus the reality of God is brought home and relationally received in an unparalleled way. The same God of Israel is experienced in an incomparably personal way through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Our purpose is to understand and teach Jesus the Christ as he has been understood and taught by those whose lives have been most profoundly transformed by him. If we were studying Hasidism or Sufism, we would hope the same of a Hasidic or Sufist interpreter. We would want to learn about the hasidim from those whose lives most profoundly embody their teaching. Christians also do well to study honestly the Vedics, Tao, Mishnah, Gemara, Tosefta, and Quran, while others are asked to take seriously the New Testament, and let the evidence be fairly presented.
There can be no denying that out of a two-millennia history in which Jesus’ life has been at times partially, wrongly, or self-interestedly remembered, vexations for humanity have also flowed—wars, divisions, inequities, and systemic injustices. A poorly developed, ill-formed understanding of Jesus Christ can limit our experience of Christ and collude with social sin. Hence it is imperative to think clearly about him if such distortions are to be avoided.

Ethical Consequences of Christology

Ethical Demands upon Christology

The incarnation is above all God’s own act of identification with the broken, the poor, with sinful humanity. God did not enter human life as a wealthy or powerful “mover and shaker” but came in a manger, amid the life of the poor, sharing in their life and identifying himself with the dispossessed. Liberation theology is poised to be profoundly strengthened by dialogue with classic exegesis.
There is embedded deeply in the best of early ecumenical teaching a pungent critique of sexual inequalities and of the propensity of male users of power to abuse that power. Gregory the Theologian argued in the fourth century that “the majority of men are ill-disposed” to equal treatment of women, hence “their laws are unequal and irregular. For what was the reason why they restrained the woman, but indulged the man, and that a woman who practises evil against her husband’s bed is an adulteress, and the penalties of the law for this are very severe; but if the husband commits fornication against his wife, he has no account to give? I do not accept this legislation; I do not approve this custom. They who made the Law were men and therefore their legislation is hard on women” (Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. XXXVII.6, NPNF 2 VII, pp. 339–40, italics added). When modern secularists assume that only they are capable of providing a critique of the dynamics of social oppression, it is well to be reminded of this powerful history of Christian social criticism.

Christ and Social Reality

Post-Marxist critics were not the first to ask about social location of interpreters or for an ethical clarification of the meaning of Christianity. There have been numerous times when the ethical consequences of the gospel have taken first place in the minds of those inquiring into Jesus Christ (notably Clement of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, Francis of Assisi, Menno Simons, Grotius, Zinzendorf, and the Blumhardts).
In certain periods of Christian reflection, it has become clear that it is not enough to speak of God’s own redemptive coming as if it lacked social consequence, but to spell out what that means for the increase of love and justice in society (as did Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Calvin, Hooker, and Wesley). This was especially an excellence of nineteenth-century Christianity (notably in such figures as W. Wilberforce, Phoebe Palmer, F. D. Maurice, W. Rauschenbusch, and W. Gladden).
P. T. Forsyth has argued that the moralizing of theology is an essential feature of all modern Christian thought (PPJC, chaps. 7, 9). This plea for ethical accountability in speech about God is justified. It is a test that much classical Christianity passes better than modern Christianity (Athanasius, Incarn. of the Word 46–57, NPNF 2 IV, pp. 61–67). But it also runs the risk of reducing the Word of Life to moralism (cf. Allison, The Rise of Moralism).

The Tradition of Voluntary Poverty

Some imagine that a high Christology necessarily tends to be neglectful of moral responsibility. Those who buy into the Marxist view of history tend repeatedly to sound this alarm. Insofar as such a distortion occurs, it is inconsistent with classical Christian teaching, where the assumption prevails that the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord has insistent moral meaning and social implications. Christians who call for an identification with the poor do so out of a long tradition of voluntary poverty, which follows from Christ’s willingness to become poor for our sakes.

On Not Confusing the Kingdom of Christ with State Power

Pope John Paul II, having been himself a pastor who struggled under fire against totalitarian regimes, has written of those who “claim to show Jesus as politically committed, as one who fought against Roman oppression and the authorities, and also as one involved in the class struggle. This idea of Christ as a political figure, a revolutionary, as the subversive man from Nazareth does not tally with the Church’s catechesis. By confusing the insidious pretexts of Jesus’ accusers with the—very different—attitude of Jesus Himself, some people adduce as the cause of His death the outcome of a political conflict, and nothing is said of the Lord’s will to deliver and of His consciousness of His redemptive mission. The Gospels clearly show that for Jesus anything that would alter His mission as the servant of Yahweh was a temptation (Matt. 4:8; Luke 4:5). He does not accept the position of those who mixed the things of God with merely political attitudes (Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17; John 18:36). He unequivocally rejects recourse to violence. He opens His message of conversion to everybody, without excluding the very publicans” (Puebla Address [1979], CF, p. 196).
Out of the cauldron of the Nazi struggle, the Barmen Declaration similarly pleaded for a distinction between the gospel and the political order and rightly rejected a political fixation that would assume “that the Church might be permitted to abandon the form of its message and order to its own pleasure or to changes in prevailing ideological and political convictions” (II.4, BOC 8.18). Barmen’s warning still needs to be heard: “We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State” (II. 4, BOC 8.24; cf. R. Shinn, D. Soelle, P. Berger, “A Politicized Christ,” Christianity and Crisis, 39 [1979]: 50–57).

A Word To Doubters

A central strength of the fiber of liberal faith has been that it has become difficult for liberals to raise the question of God apart from Christ and impossible to raise the question of Christ without probing its moral implications. Some who clearly recognize that Jesus is an excellent teacher and moral example have been unable to grasp, even when they tried, the reasons why Christianity still continues to speak of him as God, Messiah, Son of God, Lord, and Redeemer. Many morally concerned liberal Christians can honestly understand the church’s speech about the Father and the Spirit more readily than about the incarnate Son.
This study respects those whose integrity requires that they raise these ethical questions earnestly. To those who look for a time-tested clarification, this study reaches out. Two principles quietly prevail. First, some who wonder despairingly about the mystery of Christ have nonetheless already been deeply affected by him and may by study come to that recognition. Even those who may hate him (however difficult that is to imagine) can by stages move toward recognizing his hidden presence in their lives. Often those who most doubt his claims have been already addressed by those claims or they would not be so earnestly inquiring and doubting. Hence it is rightly said that doubters may be nearer to salvation than those still morally asleep.
Second, some who have been most actively engaged in social justice and political change who deny Christ’s deity nonetheless may remain profoundly affected by his continuing presence. Many are struggling for justice because they have first undergone the pedagogy of his meekness, peacemaking, and hope.
This principle, aptly stated by John Knox, remains applicable to a secularizing culture that is once again turning to the study of Christ: “Whether we affirm or deny, the meaning of ‘God’ is the meaning which Christ has given to the name” (MC, p. 7). H. R. Mackintosh remarks in the same vein: “The name of God has the final meaning that Jesus gave it.… He is an integral constituent of what, for us, God means” (PJC, pp. 290, 292).
Few understood better than Wordsworth how deeply the spiritual affections outdo the reasoning of secularizing humankind:

Pious beyond the intention of your thought;
Devout above the meaning of your will …
The estate of man would be indeed forlorn
If false conclusions of the reasoning power
Made the eye blind and closed the passages
Through which the ear converses with the heart.
(“The Excursion,” Book 4)

THE GOSPEL

Jesus Himself Is the Good News

Jesus did not come to deliver a gospel, but to be himself that gospel. The gospel is the good news of God’s own coming. The cumulative event of the sending, coming, living, dying, and continuing life of this incomparable One is the gospel.
The gospel does not introduce an idea but a person—“we proclaim him!” (Col. 1:28, italics added) The “him” proclaimed is one whose life ended in such a way that all before and after has become decisively illumined.
What was written about him was not written simply as biography, for biographies are written of persons who are dead and quite deactivated. A biography is a written history of a person’s whole bios (“life”). A biography of a person still alive is by definition incomplete. Rather the gospel is the account of a person who remains quite active, palpably present, whose heart still beats with our hearts, one who died who is now alive (Augustine, CG XIII.18–24, NPNF 1 II, pp. 254–61; Bonhoeffer, Christology).

The Gospel Defined

The Gospel a Summary of the Person and Work of Christ

Reflections on Jesus are often divided into discussions of his person and work, that is, who he was and what he did. The gospel unites these two: the person of the Son engaged in the work of the servant-messiah. These are one in the good news of human salvation. “Gospel” is the unique term that concisely summarizes and unites the person and work of Christ. Only this person does this work, which constitutes God’s good tidings to human history.
“Gospel” (euag̃gelion) is a distinctive New Testament theme, occurring over one hundred times. The term was embedded in Jesus’ preaching from the outset. His coming was announced as “good news of great joy that will be for all the people” (Luke 2:10; Cyprian, Treatises XII.2.7, ANF V, p. 51). “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent” (Luke 4:43; Tertullian, Ag. Marcion IV.8, ANF III, p. 355). The medieval Anglo-Saxon root (god-spell) meant “good news” or “glad tidings” (Anglicizing the Latin bonus nuntius). The gospel, Luther thought, is to be sung and danced (Intro. to NT, WLS II, p. 561, commenting upon David bringing the ark to the City of David, 2 Sam. 6:14).
The Second Helvetic Confession sparely defined the gospel as “glad and joyous news, in which, first by John the Baptist, then by Christ the Lord himself, and afterwards by the apostles and their successors, is preached to us in the world that God has now performed what he promised from the beginning of the world” (XIII, BOC 5.089, italics added; cf. Ursinus, CHC, p. 101). God is now fulfilling what had been promised all along (Origen, OFP IV.1, pp. 259–64).

The Gospel Expected by the Prophets

The good news of Jesus’ coming was understood as fulfillment of prophetic expectation, as in Isaiah: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation” (Isa. 52:7; Irenaeus, Ag. Her. III.13, ANF I, pp. 436–37). In Isaiah’s setting the good news referred to the return of Israel from exile, yet it prefigured Jesus’ proclamation of deliverance of all humanity from sin (Augustine, CG XVIII.29, NPNF 1 II, p. 376; cf. Calvin, Comm. III, pp. 99–101).

The Gospel of God

Paul defined the subject of his letter to Rome as the “gospel of God” (Rom. 1:1). Mark probably entitled his narrative “the gospel of Christ” (Mark 1:1). Both thereby stressed the transcendent origin of the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth.
Various modifiers of the term “gospel” suggest different angles of vision upon the same series of events, viewed as the gospel of the coming of God’s righteousness (Rom. 1:17), or the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24), or of power (Rom. 1:16; 1 Thess. 1:5), or of truth (Gal. 2:14; Col. 1:5), or of hope (Col. 1:23). Yet in all these angles of vision it remains the singular gospel of Christ, the good news of God’s own coming (John Chrysostom, Hom. on First Cor. XV.1–2, NPNF 1 XII, pp. 226–28; Melanchthon, Loci Communes, LPT, pp. 141–49; Barth, CD IV/2, pp. 180ff.).

The Earliest Christian Preaching

The Kerygma of Acts

The earliest interpretations of the meaning of Jesus’ life are found in the oral traditions that fed the preaching reported in Acts (M. Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity). That preaching has been sparely summarized (Dodd, APD, pp. 21–24) in these six points:
(1) “God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer” (Acts 3:18; 2:16; 3:24).
(2) This has occurred through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, of Davidic descent (Acts 2:30–31), “a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs” (Acts 2:22).
(3) “God raised him from the dead” (Acts 2:24; see 3:15; 4:10), making him Lord and Christ (Acts 2:33–36), and “exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel” (Acts 5:31).
(4) God has given the Holy Spirit to those who obey him (Acts 5:32). “Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).
(5) Christ “must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything” (Acts 3:21; 10:42). Having suffered as Messiah and having been exalted as Messiah, he would return as Messiah to bring history to a fitting consummation. So:
(6) “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).
These points summarize the earliest Christian preaching. Subsequent creedal confession would generally adhere to this sequence and build upon it (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds; SCD; CC; COC I).

Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life: Systematic Theology, Vol. II (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 1–13.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716271#Comment_716271

Another one not cited here is Jack Cottrell's work. He comes from a more Arminian perspective and at times is less irenic (he is a pretty staunch cessationist, for one.) But is is a very clear and cogent writer.

Here is something of his on Jesus:

CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE PERSON OF CHRIST

Just who is Jesus, exactly? And what exactly has he done in order to save us from our sins? These are the two most basic questions about Jesus, and they refer to the two subjects of the person of Christ and the work of Christ.
We must understand that these two subjects are intimately related. What is ultimately important to us, of course, is Christ’s work. What did he have to accomplish in order to bring us salvation? What does the Bible say he actually did in order to redeem us? These questions are crucial, but they cannot be properly answered without a consideration of the nature of the Redeemer himself. This is true because the scope and the power of the Redeemer’s work either will be limited by or will be made possible by who he is. If he is merely a human being, then his saving work will be severely limited to such things as leadership, teaching, example, and persuasion. But if he is also divine, then his saving work can include whatever the infinite power of God is able to accomplish.
In this chapter we shall present the doctrine of the person of Christ, and we shall see that the Bible does indeed teach that Jesus is not only human but divine as well. He is one person with two natures. Then in the next chapter the biblical teaching about the work of Christ will be set forth. The content of these two chapters together constitute the core of Christianity.

I. THE HUMAN NATURE OF JESUS

To anyone who knew him personally during his life on earth, Jesus’ most obvious identity would have been that of a human being. He lived as a human male in human society and did most of the things that ordinary human beings do. Indeed, he was “like His brethren in all things” (Heb 2:17).

A. The Biblical Picture of the Man Jesus

The Bible pictures Jesus as having a full and complete human nature. This includes first of all a real, flesh-and-blood human body. Since all of God’s earthly children “share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same” (Heb 2:14). He “was revealed in the flesh” (1 Tim 3:16); “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14; see Heb 10:5). Thus the human Jesus was subject to all the physical needs and infirmities of his human family.
Between his conception and birth Jesus inhabited his mother’s womb as any other baby did (Matt 1:18; Luke 2:5). When the time came, he was “born of a woman” (Gal 4:4; see Luke 2:7), being the seed or offspring of Eve the first woman (Gen 3:15), the seed or offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:16), and “a descendant of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3; see Matt 1:1). After his birth he had to be cared for as an infant (Luke 2:7,12) and protected from harm (Matt 2:13–15).
As a young child and youth Jesus “continued to grow and become strong” (Luke 2:40) and mature in age and physical stature (Luke 2:52). He was “brought up” (reared and nourished) in Nazareth (Luke 4:16), and was observed by his neighbors as part of the family of Mary and Joseph (Matt 13:54–56). He was known as a young man who earned his living as a carpenter (Mark 6:3).
During the rigors of his earthly ministry Jesus experienced the bodily limitations of any other human being. He got physically tired and weary (John 4:6), and he needed sleep (Matt 8:24; Luke 8:23). His body needed food and drink, and he experienced hunger (Matt 4:2; 21:18) and thirst (John 19:28).
Whether Jesus suffered from any kind of physical diseases we do not know. We do know that his body was subject to pain and death like that of any other human being, and indeed this ability to suffer and die was a vital prerequisite for his saving work (Heb 2:14–15).
Jesus’ human nature included not only a body, but also a human soul with all the sinless human feelings and emotions experienced by Adam’s race.1 One of the emotions most frequently attributed to Christ is compassion, which he felt when confronted with the needs and sufferings of others, e.g., hunger (Matt 15:32), sickness (Matt 14:14; 20:34; Mark 1:41), bereavement (Luke 7:13), and helplessness (Mark 6:34).
Jesus also felt love for those around him, including the rich young ruler (Mark 10:21); Mary, Martha, and Lazarus (John 11:5); and the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7,20). He also loved his disciples as a group (John 13:1,34; 15:9–13), and he loves all who love and follow him (John 14:21). His love included not only the objective concern for and desire for others’ well-being that is characteristic of agape (as in all of the above texts), but also the tender affection and friendship represented by the verb phileo (John 11:3,36; 20:2).
At the opposite end of the spectrum of emotions Jesus sometimes felt anger toward circumstances and people that displeased him. Some religious leaders were opposed to his healing a man on the Sabbath day. “After looking around at them with anger [orge],” Jesus healed the man anyway (Mark 3:5; see Rev 6:16–17). He was indignant toward those who tried to keep the children from him (Mark 10:14). John reports that at Lazarus’ tomb Jesus was “deeply moved” (John 11:33,38). The word used here is embrimaomai, which has the sense of snorting with anger and displeasure (AG). Warfield makes a good case that Jesus was here feeling rage and fury against the enemy death that had caused so much sorrow and suffering for his friends (“Emotional Life,” 110–117).
Jesus also felt joy (John 15:11; 17:13; Heb 12:2); indeed, “He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit” (Luke 10:21). On the other hand he experienced deep grief and distress. Isaiah 53:3 foretold that he would be “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” He was grieved with the sins and infirmities of men (Mark 3:5; 7:34), even to the point of weeping (Luke 19:41 [see 13:34]; John 11:35). His grief was especially strong in the Garden of Gethsemane, where he said, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death” (Matt 26:37–38; Mark 14:34).
No doubt the most intense human feeling Jesus experienced was the anguish and suffering that overwhelmed his soul in the face of the death he was to undergo because of our sins. As he was preparing for this ordeal, in Gethsemane he was “in agony” and “was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground” (Luke 22:44; see Heb 5:7). This is included in what Scripture calls his passion or sufferings (Luke 22:15; Heb 2:9–10; 5:8; and often).
All of the above emotions are indeed human, and Jesus no doubt felt them in his human soul. But these emotions may also be experienced by God himself, and thus are not absolute indicators of Jesus’ humanity. There are two other emotions, though, that would seem to be below the level of divine experience and which are thus true evidence of Jesus’ human nature. The first of these is astonishment. Jesus “was astonished” at the faith of the centurion who asked him to heal a servant (Matt 8:10, NIV), and he “was amazed” at the unbelief of his old neighbors (Mark 6:6, NIV). The same word (ekthambeo) is used in Mark 14:33 to describe the feeling that overwhelmed Jesus at the beginning of his Gethsemane experience: “And he … began to be greatly amazed” (ASV). The word is used of men in this sense in Mark 9:15; 16:5–6 (see Acts 3:11).
The other emotion felt by Jesus which can hardly be attributed to God is dread. The key word is tarasso, which has a gamut of meanings including “to trouble, disturb, terrify, startle, frighten.” It is used of Herod (Matt 2:3), Zecharias (Luke 1:12), and the apostles (Matt 14:26; Luke 24:38). It is used in Christ’s exhortation, “Do not let your heart be troubled” (John 14:1; see 14:27). Spicq says that when the word is used of individuals it “usually expresses simple uneasiness mixed with fear” (3:374). Three times it is used for Jesus: when he was “troubled” at Lazarus’ tomb (John 11:33), when he contemplated his destiny of the cross (John 12:27, “Now My soul has become troubled”), and when he spoke of his betrayal (John 13:21, “He became troubled in spirit”). Spicq says that in these three texts “trembling and dread are envisioned: Jesus was upset” (3:375). This experience of dread, he says, “emphasizes the real humanity of the innocent Christ” (3:376). We should note that this was not a fear of the unknown, but simply a dread of what he knew he had to endure for our sakes. This is the human emotion that led him to cry out in Gethsemane, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me” (Matt 26:39).
Our conclusion is that the Bible pictures Jesus as possessing a human nature in every sense. He had a physical human body and a human soul or spirit just as other human beings do.

B. Jesus and Gender

The NT pictures Jesus not only as a human being, but as a male human being. This may seem too obvious to mention, but in view of the claims of many feminists it must be asserted and demonstrated. Feminists in general are distressed at the idea that the Savior of the world would become incarnate as a male, thereby apparently supporting the notion of male headship. Thus they offer numerous ways of counteracting such an argument, including the assertion that Jesus was not actually male but was simply a generic human being. For example, Mollenkott (48) has claimed, “When New Testament writers refer to the incarnation of Jesus, they do not speak of his becoming aner, ‘male,’ but rather of his becoming anthropos, ‘human’ ” (see also Spencer, 22). Others declare that Jesus was actually both male and female in some significant way, especially in his psychological characteristics. His female side was manifested in such attitudes as compassion, suffering, nurture, tenderness, meekness, patience, humility, delight in children, and weeping (Torjesen, 17; Atkins, 67).
Such claims have no basis in Scripture, however.2 First of all, the implication that Greek terms for “male” are never used of Jesus in the NT is simply false. He is described as aner, “male,” in Luke 24:19; John 1:30; Acts 2:22; 17:31; 2 Cor 11:2; and Rev 21:2. The parallel word arsen, “male,” is used in Luke 2:23 and Rev 12:5,13. A second point is that anthropos itself does not always have the generic meaning of “human being.” Sometimes it is used to refer to the human race in general (e.g., Mark 10:27; Acts 5:29), but in the NT, when it is used for specific individuals, it always refers to males. There are no exceptions. This is why it is sometimes used interchangeably with aner (e.g., compare Matt 7:24,26 with Luke 6:48; compare Matt 17:14 with Luke 9:38; compare Acts 15:25 with Acts 15:26). This is also why anthropos is sometimes used for males as contrasted with females, as in Matt 10:35; 19:5,10; Luke 22:57–60; 1 Cor 7:1; and Eph 5:31. In the third place, it is completely arbitrary to declare that such characteristics as compassion, patience, humility, weeping, and love for children are “feminine” and are not natural to men as well as women.
The fact that Jesus was a male is affirmed from the beginning of the Bible to its end, from the masculine seed of woman in Gen 3:15 to the bridegroom in Revelation 21. From prophecy to promise to reality, Mary’s child was called a son, not a daughter (Isa 7:14; Matt 1:21,25; Rev 12:5). He is the Son of God (Ps 2:7; Matt 3:17; 17:5; Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5) and the Son of Man. He accomplished his messianic work in specifically male roles: Prince (Isa 9:6; Acts 3:15), King (Matt 21:5; John 18:37), high priest (Heb 2:17), and sacrificial lamb (Exod 12:5; 1 Cor 5:7; Lev 16:3,5; Heb 10:1–10). He is the bridegroom to whom we are betrothed (2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7; 21:2,9), the “Son over His house—whose house we are” (Heb 3:6). He reigns from heaven now as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:15; Rev 19:11–16).
It is true that Jesus was and is a human being in the very same sense that every man and every woman is a human being; he shares the humanity that we all share together. But this does not nullify the fact that he was a male human being. The biblical data show that it was God’s intentional plan to redeem the world not just through a human being but through a human being who is male. The Messiah’s maleness is not arbitrary or accidental (see Cottrell, Gender Roles, 166–169).

C. The Sinlessness of Jesus

Scripture testifies that Christ “has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). This means that he never willed to do anything sinful; he never did or thought anything contrary to divine law. He “committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth” (1 Pet 2:22). To his enemies he cried out, “Which one of you convicts Me of sin?” (John 8:46; see John 8:29; 15:29). He “knew no sin” (2 Cor 5:21); “in Him there is no sin” (1 John 3:5). He came in real flesh, but only in the “likeness” of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). The phrase “sinful flesh” alludes to the fact that the human body has come under the power of sin, but this did not apply to Christ’s body. His body was fully human in the truest sense, but it did not have any of the corruption caused by sin.
Someone may think that the absence of sin somehow means that Christ was less than human, since in fact all human beings do sin (Rom 3:10,23). Indeed, we often use our humanness as an excuse for sin (“I’m only human”; “To err is human”), as if sin were natural and expected from anyone truly human. The implication is that if Jesus were really human, he would have sinned! But this reasoning is seriously flawed. Sin is not natural for human beings; God made us as free-will creatures who are able to sin, but who are also able not to sin and indeed are commanded and expected not to sin. Rather than being a mark of true humanity, sin is a gap in or deviation from true humanness. The fact is that Jesus, just because he is the only one who never participated in sin either in body or spirit, is the only one who has a truly perfect human nature.
A question that often arises concerning Jesus’ sinlessness is whether or not it was possible for him to sin. This question cannot be answered with certainty. Many assume that he could have sinned since he was truly human; others (including myself) reason that he could not sin since he was truly God. What complicates the issue is that, although he had two natures (human and divine), Jesus was just one person with one center of consciousness and one will. His sinlessness therefore was just as much an accomplishment of his human nature as his divine nature.
Those who aver that Jesus could have sinned use two basic arguments. One, Heb 4:15 says that he was “tempted in all things as we are.” If he was not able to sin, then the temptation would not have been real and similar to ours. Two, if he was unable to sin, then his value as an example for our own holy living is negated. What is the use of trying to follow “in his steps” (1 Pet 2:21–22) if his sinless steps were the result of a divine nature that we do not share?
In my judgment, even if Jesus could have sinned, this cannot be established by these two arguments, since they are not conclusive. That Jesus was truly tempted cannot be denied (Matt 4:1–11; Heb 2:18; 4:15), and he surely felt the force of the temptations whether he could have succumbed to them or not. As Joseph Stump says,3 we can subject pure gold to the most extreme test, all the while knowing it will stand the test because we know it is pure gold. The test is no less real, even if the result is not in doubt.
Likewise, that Jesus’ sinless life was in some sense an example for us cannot be denied (Matt 11:29; 16:24; John 13:15; Eph 4:20; Phil 2:5; 1 Pet 2:21–22). But this does not imply that Jesus lived a sinless life just for the purpose of providing us with an example, i.e., just to show us that it could be done. This is in fact a false notion, and is an aspect of the christological fallacy. Jesus did not come for the purpose of showing us how to live a sinless life but to be the sacrifice for our sins. Some aspects of his life, e.g., his attitude of unselfishness (Phil 2:5), do provide us with an example; but the crucial aspects of his life are those things that are unique about him and that we cannot imitate, e.g., the incarnation itself (Phil 2:6–7), his atoning death (Phil 2:8), and his efficacious resurrection and victorious enthronement (Phil 2:9–11).
The fact that Jesus’ life was an example for us at all is actually incidental to the main purpose of both his incarnation and his sinlessness. In particular, the sinlessness of Jesus’ life was necessary so that he could be an acceptable sacrifice for our sins. He was “a lamb unblemished and spotless” (1 Pet 1:19) who “offered Himself without blemish to God” (Heb 9:14). If he had committed even the least sin, he would have been a guilty sinner (Jas 2:10). In such a case he could not be our Savior, but would himself need a savior.

D. Heretical Views of Jesus’ Humanity

That Jesus had a fully human nature has always been the accepted belief of Christendom; any other view has been regarded as heretical. One such heresy is known as docetism, which is the teaching that Jesus did not have a real human body. The name itself comes from the Greek word dokeo, which means “to seem, to appear to be.” Those who taught this view said that Jesus only appeared to have a physical body; what others saw as a body was actually a phantom or apparition.
This view was first developed under the influence of the Gnostics, who held to a dualistic view of the universe and declared that all physical matter is evil and can have nothing to do with spirit or with the true God. Thus if Jesus is truly God and truly good, and if he is truly our Savior, he cannot have a physical body, since such a body is inherently evil. This view was already appearing at the end of the first century and seems to be the very falsehood John is condemning in 1 John 4:1–3, where he says that only the spirit of antichrist would deny that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” See John 1:14; 1 John 1:1; see also Luke 24:38–39.
Another heretical view of Jesus’ humanity is known as Apollinarianism, named for its advocate Apollinaris, a church leader in the mid-fourth century A.D. This is the view that Jesus had a body, to be sure, but he did not have a human soul or mind. Instead, the divine Logos took the place of a human spiritual nature in the person of Jesus. His human nature was limited to the fleshly body; all his psychological, intellectual, volitional, and spiritual activities were experiences of his divine nature alone. In fact, the Logos was so closely joined with Jesus’ flesh that it was the source even of the biological life of his body. The Logos and the flesh were so conjoined or fused that the flesh itself became glorified or divinized (see Kelly, 292–294).
The early church as a whole rejected Apollinaris’s view, and any view that denied the full humanness of Jesus. They rejected the idea that Jesus’ flesh was made divine since this would mean that not even his body was truly human, thus making Apollinarianism little different from docetism. But most significantly they declared that without a complete and genuine human nature, Jesus could not be a true Savior. They properly reasoned that whatever aspect of humanity was not possessed by Jesus could not be redeemed by Jesus (Kelly, 296–297). As Heb 2:17 says, “He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God.”

E. The Necessity for Jesus’ Full Humanity

This leads us to our final point concerning the human nature of Jesus, namely, the necessary connection between his full humanity and the efficacy of his saving work. If Jesus were not fully human, he could not perform the work necessary to save us from our sins.
One thing that is at stake is the reality of his saving death and resurrection. Only a person with a real human body could sacrifice his life and suffer death (Heb 2:14; 9:22), and then be raised bodily from the dead (see 1 Cor 15:12–19). “For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor 15:21).
A second thing that is at stake is the totality of our salvation. As mentioned above, the early Christians rightly perceived that, regarding any aspect of human nature, if Jesus did not assume it, then he did not save it. This applies to the soul or spirit as well as to the body. Our entire being is involved in sin and is corrupted by sin; therefore our entire being is the object of God’s salvation. If Jesus saves us by identifying himself with us as sinners, and by taking our place and suffering the consequences of sin for us (2 Cor 5:21), then he must be like us in all respects.
The final reason for the necessity of Christ’s full humanity is that his availability as our Mediator depends upon it. The one who stands between us as sinners and the holy God is “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). His work as high priest, including both his offering himself as the perfect sacrifice (Heb 2:17) and his present mediatorial work (Heb 4:14–16), depends on his having experienced human life on our level (Heb 2:10–18).

Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2002), 224–231.

Lonnie Spencer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716264#Comment_716264

Friedrich- I would say that "Our Legacy" is very even handed, as far as my limited perspective goes. It is written from a historical point of view trying to give an overall snapshot of Christian doctrine. I think he does a good job summarizing the beliefs of the different groups of Christendom- Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. It is a historical survey book- the section on authority covers only 34 pages- which I believe would facilitate any church study group interested in the big picture of church doctrine. I too would be interested in how someone like MJ would think of this book from a Catholic perspective or someone from a Orthodox perspective. Does "Our Legacy" fairly represent their Christian beliefs?

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716346#Comment_716346

Friedrich- I would say that "Our Legacy" is very even handed, as far as my limited perspective goes. It is written from a historical point of view trying to give an overall snapshot of Christian doctrine. I think he does a good job summarizing the beliefs of the different groups of Christendom- Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

Thanks, Lonnie

Bill Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716522#Comment_716522

A little more formal and from a Reformed perspective, is Louis Berkhof's Summary of Christian Doctrine, which is 35% off with March Madness.

Matt Hamrick

I am Southern Baptist so will highly recommend Grudem Systematic Theology and Allison Historical Theology. Both are available in Logos and print.

BriM

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/715221#Comment_715221

I found that Erickson's Introducing Christian Doctrine is having a third edition coming out in August.

Also, I note that Grudem's Systematic Theology has almost every sentence highlighted in the Logos community highlighting so I guess that is very popular.

Friedrich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/716552#Comment_716552

I found that Erickson's Introducing Christian Doctrine is having a third edition coming out in August.

cool!

Also, I note that Grudem's Systematic Theology has almost every sentence highlighted in the Logos community highlighting so I guess that is very popular.

lol! . . . that's got to be helpful . . . [:P][8-|]

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/717172#Comment_717172

Also, I note that Grudem's Systematic Theology has almost every sentence highlighted in the Logos community highlighting so I guess that is very popular.

lol! . . . that's got to be helpful . . .

In addition to that: Popular Highlights only counts what has been highlighted at all, not the details of the highlight or the user's intention: I tend to use grey highlighter for dubious passages, maybe some others mark up bad logic, faulty arguments or heresy (e.g. with bold double strikethrough on a warm orange glowing fire...) [;)] .

Grudem is very popular, since he writes on a lower level of "theologese" and is a good communicator. And the layout of his ST, with hymns, references to other STs from around the theological spectrum and annoated bibliographies per chapter is really great. That said, the heavy tome with its several pounds weight for several dozen chapters is surely not the right thing for the participants of the course - and in all topics that are relevant for Grudem, he is everything but balanced or even neutral (as a charismatic neo-calvinist with strong gender-compatibilism convictions he forcefully tries to push his ideas in these areas, much less conciliar than in the chapters unrelated to those topics). Btw you won't find my highlights popular in it, since I only own the paper version.

For a neutral and more lay-friendly ST (saturated in scripture but not prooftexting like older works), I'd strongly suggest "Practicing Christian Doctrine" (currently locked in a bundle not yet shipped from Logos, I own the Kindle edition) by Dr. Beth Felker Jones, who also features on Faithlife's new TH200 mobile Ed course (which seems to be even further away from shipment).

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/717611#Comment_717611

My two favorite systematic theologies are Jack Cottrell's and Wayne Grudem's. Very informative and practical!

DAL