TheContradictory Christ
JCBEALL
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©JcBeall2021
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2021
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2020951048
ISBN978–0–19–885236–0
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198852360.001.0001
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Forallwho’vesensedthecontradiction,andtoanywho’veyettodoso...
Preface Aim
Thisbookhasoneaim:toadvanceacontradictorychristology–andthereby acontradictorychristiantheology–asconciselyaspossiblecompatible withuser-friendliness,andwithanemphasisonthebigpictureratherthan intricatedetails.Assuch,thebookdoesnotansweralldetailsthatacademic theologiansorphilosophersorbiblicalscholarsmayraise;futurediscussion enjoysaninvitationfromthefuture.Thepointofthecurrentworkistoput theaccountinbroaderconversationsbeyondacademicjournals.(Thisisn’t tosaythatthebookisa‘tradebook’–itisn’t–orthatit’swrittenwithaneye specificallyonthemythical‘generalreader’,butthebookiswrittenwithout pausingateverypotentialacademicconcern.)
Previouswork
Substantialpartsofthismaterialwerefirstpublishedin TheJournalof AnalyticTheology (JAT)asasymposiumonmyinitialdefinitionanddefense ofContradictoryChristology(Beall,2019a).Despitetheoverlap,thisbook presentssignificantnewaspectsoftheaccount,includingpositivereasons foracceptingtheaccount,comparativecommentsonsalientalternatives,a handfulofnewobjectionsandreplies,andabriefglimpsetowardsfuture workonaunifiedapproachtowardsthetrinity.
Futurework
Thisbookfocusesonchristology,andinparticulartheso-calledfundamentalproblemofchristology(muchmoreonwhichthroughoutthebook), namely,theapparentcontradictionofChrist’sbeingfullyhumanandfully divine.Thebookisintendedtobethefirstinatwo-bookseries(ofsorts), thesecondfocusingindepthonthetrinity.Thefinalchapterofthisbook
(viz.,§6)sketchesafew–butonlyaveryfew–preliminaryissuesinthe directionsofsubsequentwork.
Hope
Myhopeisthatreaderswhoareatleastnotdogmaticallycommittedtothe standardoff-the-shelfstoryoflogic(viz.,so-calledclassicallogic)findthis booktobenotonlyinterestingbutilluminating–perhapsevenliberating, looseningonenotfromthedemandsofarationalchristiantheologybut fromthedemandsofalogicallyconsistentone,allowingonetoshakeoff thescalesandaccepttheinconsistenttruthinitsscandalousbutawesome glory.
Icarrynoillusionoffinalachievementinthiswork.Elementsofthe fulltruth,weknownotexactlywhichones,arevastlybeyondus.Butas responsible,systematicthinkersweareobligedtogivethetrueandcompleteas-possibleaccount,tothebestofourabilities.Thisbookisastepinthat direction.Bymylights,thetruetheoryofChristisinconsistent:itcontains contradictions,claimsthatarefalsebut,critically,alsotrue.Conveyingat leastthatmuchismyhope.
Targetaudience
Thetargetaudienceisgenuinelyinterdisciplinary(and‘transdisciplinary’ andsoon);it’saverybroadandvariedaudience.Thisbookiswrittenin awaythatisintendedtobeaccessibletoboththeologiansandphilosophers; however,thebookchieflyaimstomakeatheologicalcontribution,written andreadbytheologianswhoarenotonlyinterestedinhowbesttomake senseoftheapparentcontradictionofChrist,butarealsointerestedinthe pursuitofsystematictheologyasasystematictruth-seekingenterprise,an enterprisetherebysubjecttotheuniversalconstraintsoflogicandthespace oflogicalpossibility.
Conventionsgoverningstyle
Religiousnamesandadjectives:spelling. Whileitsrationaleremainsunclear tomeInonethelessfollowstandardEnglishconventioninusinguppercase
‘C’,‘J’,and‘M’whentalkingaboutChristians,Jews,andMuslims,understood asthosewho,respectively,accepttargetchristiandoctrine(formypurposes, doctrineandcreedsaffirmedatleastupthroughtheCouncilofChalcedon in451),jewishdoctrine,andislamicdoctrine.Inturn,andasreflectedin theprevioussentence,Iuselowercaseletterswhenthetargettermsare inadjectivalposition.Onerationaleforthisissimplyaesthetic.Scattering amultitudeofuppercaselettersalloveraPagemakesforAesthetically displeasingPages.Anotherrationaleisthatmychosenconventionisin keepingwithrelatedconventions,includingthecommonobservationthat onecanbeaPlatonistwithoutspendingone’slifedreamingofplatonic essencesorengaginginplatonicrelationsorevenendorsingallplatonic doctrines.Thesameconsiderationsapplytochristologicaltheories(any christology),whicharesystematicaccountsofChrist.Ifaspecificchristology isunderdiscussion,suchasConciliarChristology(perTimothyPawl’swork) orevenContradictoryChristologyasspecificallydevelopedinthisbook, uppercaselettersmaybeused–butevenhere,Iadmit,there’sverystrong pressureagainsttheuppercase.
Quotationmarks. Iusesinglequotationmarksinwhat,atleastinphilosophy,isoftencalledthe Analysis convention.Onthisconvention,single quotationmarksareusedinthreeverydifferentways,wherethegivenusage isalwaysclearfromcontext.First,Igenerallyusesinglequotationmarks tomentionwords,aswhenImentiontheword‘mention’.Ialsousesingle quotationmarksfordirectquotation,aswhenIdirectlyquoteProfessor Dr.OliverCrispwho,inconversation,oncerepliedtosomethingIsaid bysayingnothingmorenorlessthan‘Verygood.’(Theonlyexceptionto thedirect-quotationconventionisexceedinglyrare:viz.,adirectquotation withinadirectquotationwithinadirectquotation.Thisissorarethatfurther commentontheconventionisunnecessary.)Finally,Iusesinglequotation marksforscarequotesor(equivalently)shudderquotes,aswhenIsaythat enjoyable‘pains’mightnotbepainsatall.Asalways,communicationrests largelyoncontext,andwhenitcomestoquotationconventionscontextis thecure.Andifonewantsarationaleforadheringtothegiven Analysis convention,Iturntotworationales.First,onceagain,thereisanaesthetic one:singlequotationmarksdothejobwithoutclutteringpages.Secondis Ockham-ish:whyusemoremarkswhenfewerwilldo?
Emdashes. Hereagain,Ifollowthegiven Analysis stylebyspellingan emdashasanendashflankedbythesingle-spacecharacter–asIdoin thissentence.(Theother,perhapsmorecommon,wayofspellingemdashes doessowithoutspaces—asdoneinthisparentheticalremark.)The Analysis
spellingiscleaner;ituseslessink;andmostimportantisthatit’saesthetically morepleasing,atleastbymylights.Sincebothspellingsoftheemdashdo thetrick,Iusethecleaner,less-ink-usingandaestheticallymorepleasing one.
Displayingorlabeling/listingsentences. Iofteneithermention(occasionallyuse)sentencesbyeitherdisplayingthem,asin
Thissentenceisdisplayed. orlabelingorlistingthem,asin
1. Somesentenceistrue.
A14. Sometractorsaregreen.
CD. Sometreesaregreenlikesometractors.
Always(except,perhaps,inthisinitialexample),contextmakesplainwhat’s goingon–whetherthesentencesaremerelymentionedforsomereason,or whetherthey’rementionedforpurposesoflabeling,buttheneitherusedin someway(e.g.,indirectlyusedviaascribingtruthtothesentencesolabelled) orjustmentionedbywayoftheirnewtags.ThereasonI’mhighlightingthis conventionisnotthatit’sunfamiliarorrequiresexplanation;I’mhighlighting theconventiontoexplainanotherconventionusedalotinthebook.The targetconventionconcernsuseoflabels.Inparticular,Ireferto(1)–the firstsentenceabovelabeledbythenumeral‘1’followedbyaperiod(thefullstopdot)–by‘(1)’butrefertoA14andCDjustso–noparenthesesrequired. Thedifferenceisthatthenumeral‘1’,muchlikethefull-stopdot(theperiod), hasaverystandarduseinEnglishwhileneither‘A14’nor‘CD’do.Thelatter tagsarealwaysinterpretedperthegivencontextofuse;thenumeralforthe numberoneand,likewise,thefull-stopdotarealwaysinterpretedpertheir standardandwidespreadmeaningsunlessthecontextotherwisemakesthe matterabundantlyclear.Ofcourse,theremaybeanargumenttotheeffect thatflanking‘A14’and‘CD’withparenthesesunifiesthetargetconvention withtheparenthesesflanking‘1’in‘(1)’.That’strue,buthereagainiswhere aesthetics–andgeneraleaseontheeyes–swimstothesurface:whyclutter thepagewithfurthermarkswhennonewoulddo?Theunifies-convention argumentdoesn’ttipthescales.
Chapterrelativityoflabels. Thereisonemoreconventionrelatedtousing labelsforsentences:namely,thatifsentencesareenumeratedusingstandard numerals,suchas(1)above,thelabelischapter-relative.Ifonewereto flipthroughsubsequentchaptersandsee‘(1)’inthepages,onewouldbe
prefacexi mistakentothinkthat(1)above–inthepreface(viz.,‘Somesentenceis true’)–isbeingdiscussed.Theconventionrequiresthatonestaywithinthe chapterandlookfortheexplicitintroductionofthelabel‘(1)’inthatchapter, andthesentencesolabelledisthesentencebeingdiscussed.
Chapters,subchapters,etc. Exceptinthispreface,referencetochapters, subchapters,etc.arealmostalwaysgivenby‘§’followedbythetargetnumber, sothat‘§2’referstoChapter2,‘§2.1’referstoSection1ofChapter2,andso on:thefirstnumeralfollowing‘§’isthechapter,thesecond(ifasecond)the sectioninsaidchapter,thethird(ifathird)thesubsection,andsoon.
Authorsandtheirwork. Irefertoanauthor(e.g.,RichardCross)anda pieceoftheauthor’sworkwhenItrulysay,forexample,thatCross(2011) givesasuccinctbuthighlyilluminatingandequallyinfluentialdiscussion ofthefundamentalproblemofchristology–thefundamentalproblemconfrontingthecorechristiandoctrineoftheincarnation.Here,‘Cross’in‘Cross (2011)’denotesCrosswhiletheparentheticalitemdenotesthegivenwork, namely(andhereisanotherconvention),Cross2011.Whenanauthor’s (sur-/last/family)nameimmediatelyprecedesanumeral(usually,thename ofayear)oranumeral-cum-letter(e.g.,‘2020a’orthelike)–separated onlybyoneoccurrenceofthespacecharacter(viz.,‘’)–theresulting expressionisbeingusedtodenotethegivenauthor’swork,nottheauthor, sothat,asabove,‘Cross2011’denotesonlyCross’givenwork,notCross.In short,‘Cross(2011)’denotesbothRichardCrossandalsoCross2011,but ‘Cross2011’denotesonlyCross’givenwork,namely,Cross2011.Similarly, whenparenthesesencloseacommaflankedbyanauthor’snameandthe nameofayear(withorwithoutanalphabeticalsubscript),suchas‘(Cross, 2011)’,theentireexpression–parenthesesandall–referstothework andonlythework.Asimilarconventionapplieswhenmultipleworks arecited,exceptthatsemicolonsareusedtoseparatetargetitems,asin ‘(Coakley,2002;Cross,2011;McCall,2015;Pawl,2016;Rea,2003;Stump, 2003)’.
Anunsolicitednoteonreadingthebook
Thechaptersareordered,moreorless,inatypicaldependencyseries.There’s oneexception.§2ofthisbooktalksaboutlogicalconsequence(‘logic’,for short),itsroleintruetheories(and,hence,inthetruetheology),andwhat, bymylights,isthecorrectaccountoflogicalconsequence.Despitemyefforts tomake§2auser-friendly,from-scratchpresentation,somereaderswho’ve
neverstudiedthemainstreamaccountoflogicalconsequencemayfind§2to beavery-low-gearchapter.Ifyouaresuchareader,myadviceistoread§2 forthebigideas,andslidepastthedetails.Subsequentchapterscanbemostly understoodwithoutanunderstandingofalldetailsin§2.(Mostly.Thereare afewtechnicalissuesinsubsequentchaptersthatturnontechnicalitiesof thegivenaccountoflogic,buttheyarenotmandatoryforthecentralideas inthebook.)Thecorethesesofthebookcanbeunderstoodwithouthaving fullcompetenceofthegivenaccountoflogicalconsequence.
Acknowledgments
MikeReaandSamNewlands:they’vebeengenuinelyinvaluableresourcesfor theprojectfromearlyon.Bothhaveshapedtheresultingaccountmorethan theyknow.Theyarenotonlyextraordinaryphilosophers;theyaregenerous intheirengagement.During(too?)manyNotreDameCenterforPhilosophy ofReligion(CPR)seminarsonmywork,NewlandsoftendefendedmypositionagainstRea’sobjectionsbetterthanIdid.Ijusttooknotes.Withouttheir helpandencouragement,thisprojectsimplywouldn’t’vebeencompleted–fullstop.
TimPawl:Pawl’sworkonchristologyshowsupalotinthisbook,not becauseit’strue,andnotjustbecauseit’sfalse,butbecauseit’snowone ofthefront-runningcandidatesinthelong-runningquestforaconsistent christology.Pawl,fromdayone,hasbeenagenerousinterlocutor,afierce critic,andasteady,reliablesourceofextremelydry–thinkhot,crushing, desert-like–humor.
A.J.Cotnoir:Cotnoirremainsasourceofphilosophicalandtheological ideas.Withouthishelpthisprojecteitherwouldbeworseorwouldn’tbeat all.
OliverCrisp:hisworksparkedmanyofmyownthoughtsonmanytopics inthisbook.Moreover,Crisp’sgenerousinteractionwithmewhilewewere CPRfellowsatNotreDame–andespeciallyat‘hightable’dinnerstogether–wasenormouslyhelpful.
AndrewTorrance:hisengagementwithmyworkduringa2019visitto LogosinStAndrewswasextraordinarilyhelpful,notonlyinforcingclarityof myviewsbutinexposingmetoTorrance’sownincipientexplorationsalong thelinesof‘paradoxicaltheology’.
JATSymposiasts:InadditiontoCotnoirandPawl(above),bothThomas McCallandSaraUckelmangenerouslyengagedwithmyworkina Journal ofAnalyticTheology symposiumonmyinitialpositionpaper(Beall,2019a). Thesefourthinkersdeservespecialthanksnotonlyforpointingtoapparent problemsbutforprovidingtheencouragementtofixtheproblems.
2018–19fellowsattheNotreDameCenterforPhilosophyofReligion:KimberleyKroll,DawnEschenauerChow,MeghanD.Page,PatrickKain,and, onceagain,OliverCrispwerewonderfulcolleaguesatNotreDame’sCPR.
Theirgenerousbutseverelycriticalfeedbackprovedtobetremendously helpful,evenmoreusefulthanweeklyveganoutingstoIndiaGarden.
Late-draftfeedback:I’mgratefultoMitchellMallaryforextensivefeedback thatimprovedthefinaldraft,andalsotoJoshuaCockayne,JustinHarrison Duff,MatthewJoss,ViBui,andJonathanRutledgeforlate-draftcomments.
Indexingandcomments: JosephLuriedeservesspecialthanksnotonlyfor feedbackonalatedraftbutfordoingmuchoftheindexingforthebook.
Fourotherswhoseinfluencehasbeenverystrong: RichardCross,inhis workandinouroccasionalcorrespondence,remainsaninvaluablesource formythinkingonthetargettopic(s).InadditiontoCrossIshouldagain mention ThomasMcCall’swork;itintroducedmetoanalytictheology, andhiscommentshavepushedtheworkinimportantdirectionsthatI wouldn’t’veotherwiseconsidered.Iamalsoverygratefulto SusanaGómez, whoprovidedenormousencouragementandinspirationinmanyways,not onlyinherownworkbutalsoinconversation.Lastlyinthiscontext,but innowayleast,Ihappilyacknowledge Philip-NeriReese,OP,whoprovided tremendouslyinsightfulcriticismsofmycontradictorytheology;Iremain verygratefulforthetimeandeffortthatheinvestedearlyon.
Inadditiontothepeoplementionedabove,therearesomephilosophers whohavebeenparticularlyhelpfulovertheyearsindiscussingideasthat havefedthisbook.Beforelistingtheothersonestandsout:namely, Graham Priest.Asreferencesthroughoutthebookreflect,Priestwasanearlyadvocate ofcontradictorytheories;hiscareerhasbeenasteadyforceinsearchofgluts (i.e.,‘truecontradictions’).Mywork,ontheotherhand,haslongbeenmuch (much)moreconservativethanPriest’s,withmyworkreflectingnexttono gluts–notnone,butnexttonone.Still,withouthisworkandwithoutour manyconversationsandcollaborativeprojectsoverthelasttwentyyears,this workwouldlikelynotbewhatitis–infact,itmostdefinitelywouldn’tbe.
Others withwhomI’vediscussedelementsofthisprojectareDonald Baxter,RebeccaBrewsterStevenson,LauraFrancesCallahan,Colin Caret,DustinCrummett,FrancaD’Agostini,RasaDavidaviciute,Natalja Deng,C.DanielDolson,SeanEbels-Duggan,ElenaFicara,Patrick Greenough,JaredHenderson,GraceHibshman,JustusHibshman,Dominic Hyde,MengyuHu,ThomasHofweber,AndrewJaeger,NathanKellen,David Lincicum,BillLycan,StephenOgden,HitoshiOmori,ColinMcCulloughBenner,ChrisMortensen,DanielNolan,MartinPleitz,StephenRead,Greg Restall,DavidRipley,GillianRussell,JeremySakovich,SharonSouthwell, AndrewTedder,JohnTroyer,ZachWeber,andNicoleWyatt.
acknowledgmentsxv
Administrativehelp:JoyceZurawskiofNotreDameprovidedseamlessly efficientadministrativehelpduringearlystagesofthisproject.Hercompetenceandefficiencyallowedmetofocusonthebookprojectwithoutneeding eventoblinkovercriticaladministrativeissues.
Copyright/overlap:perPreface,substantialpartsofthisbookwerepublishedin TheJournalofAnalyticTheology asasymposiumonmyinitial paperonthetopic(Beall,2019a).Myhopeisthateventhosewho’ve carefullyandexhaustivelyreadthesymposiumwillfindthatthisbookbetter illuminatestheoverallaccountandanswerskeyquestionslefthanginginsaid symposium.
Institutionalacknowledgement:I’mgratefultoboththeUniversityofConnecticutandtheUniversityofNotreDameforresearchsupport,andlikewise toUNAM’sInstituteforPhilosophy,MelbourneUniversity,andboththe LogosInstitute and ArchéCentre attheUniversityofStAndrews.
Finally,I’mgratefultoKatrinaHigginsforbeingwhosheis.
JcBeall NotreDame
TheWordbecamefleshandmadehisdwellingamongus. John1:14
...bothmanandGod:ontheonehandborn,onthe othernotborn:ontheonehandfleshly,ontheother spiritual:ontheonehandweak,ontheotherexceedinglystrong:ontheonehanddying,ontheotherliving.Thatthesetwosetsofattributes,thedivineand thehuman,areeachkeptdistinctfromtheother,is ofcourseaccountedforbytheequalverityofeach nature.
Tertullian, TreatiseontheIncarnation (trans.Evans1956)
[The]oneLordJesusChrist,theSonofGod,begotten fromtheFather...trueGodfromtrueGod,ofone essencewiththeFather,...Whobecauseofushumans andbecauseofoursalvationcamedownandbecame incarnate,becomingman,sufferedandroseagainon thethirdday... TheNiceneCreed
...ourLordJesusChristis...oneandthesameSon,the self-sameperfectinGodhead,theself-sameperfect inhumanity;trulyGodandtrulyman...oneandthe sameChrist,Son,Lord,only-begotten,recognizedin twonatures,withoutconfusion,withoutchange,withoutdivision,withoutseparation;thedistinctionof naturesbeinginnowayannulledbytheunion,but ratherthecharacteristicsofeachnaturebeingpreservedandcomingtogethertoformonepersonand subsistence,notaspartedorseparatedintotwopersons,butoneandthesamesonandonly-begottenGod, TheWord,Lord,JesusChrist...
Chalcedon451
ContradictoryChristology
InthischapterIpresenttheprincipalthesisinaconcise,big-pictureway. Subsequentchaptersfillinmoredetails.
1.1Thelongstandingchristologicalquest
Thefamiliarchristologicalquestisaquestto‘consistentize’–togivea consistentaccountof–Christ.Foraflavorofthefamiliarquest,thinkofJews andMuslimsandanyotherreligiousorreligiouslyinclinednon-christian informedthinkers.ThinkevenofearlyChristians.
• Atfirst,Jesusisseenasjustanotherhumanperson.
• ...andthensomeseehimasaverywisehumanperson.
• ...andthensomeseehimeventuallyasaprophet,inlinewithpast prophets.
• ...andthensomeseehimevenasthelong-promisedmessiah– the christ.
• Butseehim–thewalking,talking,sweatingChristJesus–asGod?!
Here,evenwhenonerecoversfromtheshockofaseeminglyblasphemous andclearlyscandaloussuggestion,incredulityquicklysetsin:
• AGodMandoesn’tevenmakesense!ChristJesusishuman.Howcan ChristJesusalsobedivine?
• Theveryideaisnonsense,sparkingcontradictionsateveryturn...
...Andthen,asiffromthewilderness,avoicecriesout:
• ...ahh,butChristJesus’beingGodisnotcontradictoryifChristJesus isnotreallyahuman,andhencenotahumanpersonatall...
Andsogoeswhatweallknowasthelongstandingquesttoconsistentize Christ.Othervoicessteadilyfollowthefirstbutindifferentdirections:
• ...ahh,andit’snotcontradictoryiftherearereallytwopersonsinvolved inChristJesus,thehumanpersonJesusandthedivinepersonChrist...
...andyetothervoices:
• ...ahh,andit’snotcontradictoryifChristJesusisneitheragodnor ahumanbutinsteadhassomehybridnatureoverlappingwithbut differentfromGod’snatureanddifferentfromournature...
...andsoon,including:
• ...ahh,andit’snotcontradictoryifthepredicatestrueofChristJesus (e.g.,‘divine’,‘human’,etc.)arenotreallythesamepredicatesthey appeartobe–theymeansomethingdifferentfromhowwestandardly usethem.
...andsoon.Andtherearemany,manymorevoicescryingout,each tryinginever-elaboratewaystoadvanceacontradiction-freeaccount ofChrist.
Intheend,I’vecometothinkthattheresponseofnon-christianthinkers ismoretellingthanthemanyconsistencyquestershavenoticed.Thelongstandingchargefrominformednon-christianthinkers(boththeistsand non-theistsalike)isfamiliar: thatChristisboththeoneandonlygod(viz., God)andisashumanasanyhuman iseithercontradictoryornonsensical. Thelatterhornshouldberejected:theclaimclearlyhassense(meaning);it’s preciselythescandalousandjarringsensethatsharpensthefirsthorn,and scandalousandjarringmeaningismeaningallthesame.It’salongtheselines thatnon-christianthinkersappeartohavelongseentheapparenttruthof Christ.Bymylights,it’stimetoacceptthetruthasitappears:contradictory.
Anditisn’tjustnon-christianthinkerswhoseetheapparentcontradiction.Reflective,truth-seekingChristianshavesensedthecontradictiontoo, andtheyhavetwistedandsquirmedtoavoidit:witnessthelongparadeof heresies(e.g.,onlypartlydivinebutfullyhuman;onlyapparentlyhumanbut fullydivine;andsoonandsoonandsoonandsoon...andon...),eachan attempttoexplicitlyavoidthecontradiction,eachpartoftheongoingquest toconsistentizeChrist.
ThequesttoconsistentizeChrist–thequesttogiveaconsistentsolution towhatRichardCross(2011)famouslydubbed‘thefundamentalproblemof christology’–enjoysalong,fascinatinghistory;andthequestcontinuesin fullforceupthroughtoday.ButIbelievethatthequestshouldend.Ibelieve thatchristianthinkersshouldacceptthecontradictionofChrist.
1.2Thecentralthesis:Christthecontradiction
Christisacontradictorybeing.Sogoesthecentralthesisofthisbook.Atthe cruxofchristiantheologyisacontradiction:namely,ChristJesusisabeing ofwhomsomeclaimsarebothtrueandfalse.That’sit.
ThatsomeclaimsarebothtrueandfalseofChristisnotaclaiminvolving newmeaningsof‘true’or‘false’.Likewise,thatsomeclaimsarebothtrueand falseofChristisnota(sotospeak)kenoticorpartialordegree-theoretic claim;it’snotadisguisedwayofsayingthatsomeclaimis(say)partlytrue butfullyfalseofChristor,theotherway,fullytruebutpartlyfalseofChrist. Thesimplethesisofthisbookisthatsomeclaimsarebothtrueandfalseof Christ–fullstop,nonewmeanings,noplayingwithwords.
AwitnesstothecontradictorytruthofChrististhefamiliarconclusionof thefamiliarfundamentalproblemofchristology(Cross,2011):
1. Christishuman.[Given]
2. Christisdivine.[Given]
3. Christismutable.[1:humannatureentailsmutability]
4. Christisimmutable.[2:divinenatureentailsimmutability]
So,bylogic,(3)and(4)entailthatChristisbothmutableandimmutable. But,atleastonstandardusage,‘mutable’and‘immutable’express contrary properties.Contrarypropertiesareonesthatarejointlyhadonlyatthecost ofcontradiction.Andthetargetcontradictionismanifesttomany:it’strue thatChristismutable(becauseChristishuman)butit’sfalsethatChristis mutable(becauseChristisdivine).Andthisisbutoneofmany(many)such contradictionsentailedbyChrist’stwo-naturedbeing–bytheincarnation ofGod,onepersonbothfullyhumanandfullydivine.
Thefundamentalproblemofchristologyissimpletosee.Onorthodoxor standardchristiantheory–bywhichImeanChalcedon-constrainedchristology(viz.,CouncilofChalcedonIat451)–Christisthedivine,omniscient Godwho,withallhumans,exemplifieshumannaturewithitsinnumerable
limitations,includingimperfectknowledge,imperfectunderstanding,and soon.1Theapparentcontradictionisvivid,fueledbythefoundationalrole ofChristinorthodoxchristianity.Anomniscientbeingcouldnothave ourimperfectunderstandingofthepainsandfrustrationsofourlimited epistemicstatesunless–andhereistheprobleminanutshell–thebeing werenotomniscient.Theapparentcontradictionfuelsthepullofthekenotic traditioninchristologywhich,againstorthodoxchristianity(myprincipal focusthroughout),putspriorityonexactlyoneofthetwonatures.Thepull ofkenoticchristologyarisesfromthesimplecontradictionof,ononehand, Christ’sneedingtobeimperfect(limited,etc.)inordertohavetheexperience ofimperfect(limited,etc.)agents,but,ontheotherhand,Christ’sbeingGod andtherebywithoutimperfections(limitations,etc.).
Thefundamental‘problem’ofchristologyissimpletoseefromtherole thatChristoccupies:theChristfigureistohavethedivineandessentially limitlesspropertiesoftheoneandonlyGod(i.e.,propertiesthatimpose nolimitsonGodbeyondlogicallimits)butChristisequally–andnotin somewatered-downfashion–tohavethehuman,essentiallylimit-imposing propertiesinvolvedinhumannature,limitsessentiallyinvolvedinbeing humanjustlikeyouandme.2TherolethatChristoccupiestherebyappears todemandacontradiction:allofthelimitlessnessofGod,andallofthe limitsofhumans.Thewaythatthiscontradictionisachieved–theway thatChristrealizestheapparentlycontradictoryrole–isexactlyasthe standard(Chalcedonian)accountseemstoimply:thehavingoftwocontrary natures,theonedivineandtheotherhuman.Conciliartextswithinstandard christiantraditionuselanguagelike‘passibleandimpassible’and‘capableof sufferingandincapableofsuffering’(Tanner,1990,p.162),buttheexplicit contradictioncomesquicklyfromplainparaphrasesofsuchstandardterms (e.g.,‘incapable’as‘notcapable’etc.).
Onthechristologybeingadvancedinthisbook,Christplaysthefoundationalroleofhavingallofthefeaturesrequiredtofullyexperiencesuffering
1 MyclaimsaboutChalcedonarenotintendedastheendpointofthecarefulhistorical analysisandinterpretationreflectedintheworkof,forbuttwoexamples,Anatolios(2011) andDaley(2018);however,myclaimsthroughoutareintendedtoreflecttheveryrealapparent contradictionswithwhichthelonghistoryofchristianthought,fromhistoricaltophilosophical totheologicaltopastoralperspectives,continuestograpple.
2 Oneshouldneverforgetthatevenifdivinenatureandhumannaturehavesimilarproperties butinimportantlydifferentdegrees(e.g.,omniscienceversuspartialknowledge,etc.),thelimits oneachhuman-naturepropertyarefirmlycapped(sotospeak);otherwise,wehumanscouldbe justasunlimitedasGod,whichrequiressomepossibilityinwhichwehumans are asunlimited asGod–andthisisdeeplyagainstthegrainofstandardchristiandoctrine,somuchsothat,by mylights,itcountsasanabsurdityinthetruetheology.
thecentralthesis:christthecontradiction5 exactlyasweexperienceitwhileattheexactsametimebeingworthy ofworship(notjustworthyofrespect,notjustworthyofreverence,but worthyof worship)andincapable–notcapable–ofsuchsufferingor imperfectunderstandingofsuchsuffering.ThecontradictionofChrist,on theproposedchristology,arisesnotbecauseofsloppythinkingbychristian thinkers;itarisesbecauseChrist’sfoundationalroleinchristiantheology requiressomethingcontradictory–andtherebysomethingextraordinary, unique,andawesome.Ofcourse,iflogicitselfrequiredthatacontradiction–thelogicalconjunctionofasentenceanditslogicalnegation–entails outrightabsurdity,thenthecentralthesisofmyaccountwouldbeabsurd andimmediatelyoffthetable.Butlogicitself(i.e.,thecorrectviewoflogical consequence)doesn’truleitout–anissuetowhich§2isdevoted(viz.,the questionof how theaccountavoidslogicalabsurdity).Andsothequestion iswhethertheapparentcontradictionofChristisveridical,ofwhetherthe truechristologyislogicallyinconsistent–anissuetowhich§3isdevoted (viz.,thequestionof why theaccountshouldbeacceptedoverthestandard consistency-clingingaccounts).
Christianshavelongembracedtheradicalnessoftheincarnation,not assomethingfashionablyradical(say,‘far-out’or‘cool’or‘woke’or whathaveyou)butratherasdeeply,soberly,fundamentallyradical,cutting totheverywarpandwoofofreality,theunionofthedivineandthehuman intoneithertwopersonsnoranewhybridnaturebutratherasjustwhat theincarnationis:theoneandonlyGodwhoisadivineperson(inthat heisdivineandheisaperson),whoisahumanperson(inthatheisa humanandheisaperson),andwhosestrikingbeingisfoolishnessby normal,mainstreamstandards.Thepropertiesessentialtosucharadical beingcontradictoneanother:unchangeablebutchangeable,perfectbut imperfect,abletosinbutunabletosin,all-knowingbutignorant,andon andonandonandonand...withcontradictionsenfleshedbythebeing whoseroledemandsnothingless.
Thereisbutonegod(viz.,God),mostholy,perfect,andunchangingin suchqualities;andtoclaimofahuman–ashumanasyouandme–that heispreciselytheoneandonlygod(viz.,God)istoeitherfoolaround withtheusageofwordsortolandinapparentcontradiction.Confrontation withsuchapparentcontradictionimmediatelybuterroneouslyelicitspoetic interpretationoftheclaim,mereanalogy,figuresofspeech.Thecentralthesis ofthisbookisratherthattheapparentcontradictionsaretrue–fullstop, nopoeticlicenseinvolved,noanalogicalbuffersrequired.Theincarnation doctrine,whichisbyalllightsradicalanddifficulttobelieve,isapparently
