Durham E-Theses A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ BRAND, THOMAS How to cite: BRAND, THOMAS (2020) A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/13636/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ Thomas Brand Department of Theology and Religion Durham University Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2020 1 A Trinitarian Christology of the Fourth Word from the Cross The Commmunicatio Idiomatum, the Modal Distinction, and the Forsakenness of Christ Thomas Brand Abstract The fourth word from the cross, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ is the focus of this work. I exegete the fourth word in the context of the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and define έγκατέλιπές (forsaken) as left undefended. I describe the Christological doctrine of the communication of idioms and survey its application to the fourth word in Patristic, Scholastic, and Reformed writing, and wider literature up to the nineteenth century. I then argue for a modal distinction between person and nature in the Trinity with a focus on the theology of Thomas Aquinas. The Trinitarian and Christological explorations enable me to construct the following argument to which this thesis is a response. If Christ is forsaken by the Father, through the communication of idioms, God the Son is forsaken. The person of the Son is modally distinct from the divine nature. Therefore, the divine nature is forsaken at the fourth word. In my threefold response to the above argument I argue first that persons experience in and according to natures, and that persons, not natures, relate because divine persons are subsistent relations. Secondly, I argue that the mutual indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in perichoresis continues unbroken at the fourth word. Thirdly, that according to the unity of the works of God ad extra, the Triune persons are united in will at the fourth word. My argument is chiefly built on arguments from Cyril of Alexandria, Bonaventure, and Aquinas. I defend my thesis in light of the Reformed doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, against charges of Nestorianism, and against a counterargument from Social Trinitarianisms. My thesis aims to uphold historic orthodoxy in opposition to contemporary trends towards divine passibility. 2 Declaration This thesis is the product of my own work and does not include work that has been presented in any form for a degree at this or any other university. All quotation from, and references to, the work of persons other than myself have been properly acknowledged throughout. Statement of Copyright The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the author’s prior written consent and information derived from it should be acknowledged. 3 Acknowledgements My gorgeous wife Natalie (already Doctor Brand) has been an incredible support, encouragement, and inspiration through my research; and our three daughters Georgiana, Beatrice, and Arabella have been so patient with me. Thank you, my four lovely girls, I love you so much. I am extremely grateful to Lewis Ayres, my supervisor, for guiding my thinking, expanding my horizons, and restraining my desire for philosophical precision in the face of the overwhelming mystery of God. I am also grateful to my dear friends who have encouraged and challenged my thinking and writing in reading through the manuscript. Mark, your challenging suggestions have always stretched my mind. Zhyvov Dmytro Mykhailovich, thanks for the awesome study days and conversations. Edward, your clarity of thought about the truth of Scripture and your grammatical care has improved this work. Andrzej, thank you for your engaging suggestions. I am thankful for my brilliant parents David and Angela. My father has been a constant encouragement and my mother read the manuscript four times and picked up many errors. My doctoral studies would not have been possible without the generous financial support of the Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches. Thank you. I also want to thank the dear saints at Binfield Heath Chapel for their patience with me when I started my doctorate. During my research I listened to the complete works of Johann Sebastian Bach. I close my acknowledgements as Bach closed his manuscripts. Soli Deo Gloria. 4 For Natalie 5 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Declaration 3 Acknowledgements 4 Introduction 10 Focus 10 Scope and Method 12 Interpretation of Scripture 13 Provenance and Context of the Study 18 Outline of the Work 21 I. What is the Significance of Christology for the Fourth Word? 23 1. What is the Meaning of έγκατέλιπές? An Exegesis of the Fourth Word 23 The Seven Words from the Cross 24 The Darkness and the Loud Voice 26 The Relation of the Fourth Word to Psalm 22 29 The Covenantal Aspect of the Fourth Word 32 The Fourth Word is not Mentioned in the Remainder of the New Testament 35 What is the Meaning of έγκατέλιπές? 36 2. Communicatio Idiomatum and Historical Interpretation of the Fourth Word 40 Hypostatic Union 41 Communicatio Idiomatum 43 What is the Historical and Theological Connection Between the Hypostatic Union and the Communicatio Idiomatum? 47 A Survey of Interpretations of the Fourth Word with Reference to Trinitarian Theology and the Communicatio Idiomatum 53 6 Reflections on the Survey and the Development of the Communicatio Idiomatum 121 II. How can the Fourth Word be Understood with Reference to the Communicatio Idiomatum and the Modal Distinction Between Person and Nature in the Trinity? 125 3. The Communicatio Idiomatum, Perichoresis, and the Cross of Christ 125 Development of the Doctrine of Perichoresis 126 Scriptural Teaching 127 Definition 128 An Argument against Moltmann for the Continuation of Perichoresis at the Fourth Word 131 4. The Theological Trend Towards Divine Passibility 137 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 137 An Historical Passibilist Thread 143 A Paradigm Shift 144 5. What are the Distinctions between Persons and Nature in the Trinity? 146 What is the Divine Nature? 149 What is a Divine Person? 156 Divine Persons and Divine Simplicity 165 Subsistent Relations 167 The Distinction between Divine Persons and the Divine Nature 171 Patristic Origins: οὐσία and ὑποστάσις 172 A Modal Distinction Between Nature and Person in the Trinity: Scholastic Description in Aquinas and Turretin 176 The Modal Distinction in Trinitarian Theology and the Hypostatic Union: are the Distinctions Between Christ’s Person and his Natures Real or Modal? 182 Implications of the Modal Distinction between Persons and Nature 183 7 6. Trinity, Communicatio Idiomatum, and the Fourth Word 189 Cyril of Alexandria and the Assymetrical Predication of Attributes in the Communicatio Idiomatum 190 Bonaventure and the Manner of Predication in the Commicatio Idiomatum 193 Aquinas and Subsistent Relations 195 Positive Statement of the Central Thesis 199 Redoublement in Theological Language: Further Aspects of the Proposed Solution to the Problem of the Modal Distinctions and the Communication of Idioms 211 III. Responding to Further Objections 216 7. Does the Central Thesis that Persons Experience in Natures Entail Nestorianism? 216 Defending Against Nestorianism: The Communicatio Idiomatum and the Forsakenness of Christ 218 8. Penal Substitutionary Atonement and the Fourth Word 222 Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Atonement before the Reformation 223 The Centralisation of the Doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Reformed Tradition 224 The Meaning of έγκατέλιπές, Penal Substitution, and the Theological Context of the Fourth Word 228 Theological Language, the Fourth Word, and Divine Impassibility 229 9. Social Trinitarianisms and Three Self Theories of the Trinity 234 An Overview of Social Trinitarianism 234 An Objection to my Central Thesis from Social Trinitarianism 237 Is the Methodology of Social Trinitarianism Orthodox? 239 Social Trinitarianism and Three Self Theories of the Trinity 243 A Response to the Social Trinitarian Counterargument 246 8 Conclusions 250 Summary of findings 250 Theological Method I: The Inseparability of the Person and Work of Christ 251 Theological Method II: Why Christology Must be Trinitarian 251 The significance of the central thesis for Contemporary Theology 252 Bibliography 254 9 Introduction Focus Ό Θεός μου ό Θεός μου, είς τί έγκατέλιπές με;1 The fourth word, spoken by the dying Lord Jesus Christ from the cross in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark presents a profound mystery. The question that dominates this work is, what is meant by the fourth word in the context of Trinitarian theology and Christology? My interpretation of the fourth word is grounded in exegesis of the crucifixion narrative in Mark’s Gospel, with a focus on defining έγκατέλιπές in Mark 15:34. I offer an interpretation that accounts for the way that the fourth word is spoken by God the Son incarnate to God the Father: a Trinitarian interpretation.