University

certain

“person”

this decisions

cate, taken

on psychological

right jiven

be

their way,

as

again

the

prove beings?

concept raises

human

tionship

An

1.

Andet

the persons,

One

treated

context,

ancillary

Something

obvious

whose refers

to

nonhuman

membership

to

to

the

no

attention

Press,

being

way

is expect After

biological

is imply

of

to

in

The

the

more

further

particularly

like

impaired

to

to Jesus

person

though

freedom

1979),

it

of

response

integrity,

effect

like

colloquial

Theological

and

a

define

all,

mammals

is

that

a

responding

value complicated

for

of

from

this

small

Concept

person

ch.

question

specifying not

in

in

identity,

others.’

of

doubtless

example,

all

are

perspective

5.

of personhood

the

a

limiting

that

we

a to

respect

in

wonder

who

particular

useful

horse

not

action sense

is

Pcter(Singer,

the

first

assign

of

of

not to

but

persons

what

for

than

other

why

question

the connected

for place.

or

underlies

categpy

the

in

this

is

that

30

-3- simply—or

whatever

them

to

a

one’s

which

in

preseion

limited,

theological

proliferation

species.

defining

fungus.

it

of

creatures

challenge

be

Practical

in

Why

terms

some

means

the

Perspective

that

of

freedom

when the

aclnowledged

the

our

with

arguments

what

not

This

or

have

reason

like

from

full

“person”

is

Ethics

even

tbb

is

categorization

reflecting

would

whose

not anthropology

our simply

that

of

sense

distinguishes

these of

of

answer,

Person

questioned

(Cambridge:

this

primarily—to

one’s

action,

technical

simply

for

cannot

humanity

huriariiikeF/t

Jesus

be

ability

and

of

the

speak

could

perspective,

as

on

however,

the to

phycal

was

personhood

and identical

havifh

would

communi

our

refer

Cambridge

of

word.

needs

easily of

whether to

terms.

himself

our

in

üpZ’

human

status

others

make

some

have

once

have

ad

rela

only

be

In

the

of

to

to

a

might The

as

ern the

den to being, for

in

Needless

biblical

theologicat

lighted some

noted,

made

brings of

the special

perspective, or

scribed character

to

reflection seen

ness

University

Uncle

and

creatures

such

the

this

assigning

Concept

Jesus.

kind conformed

philosophical

As

2.

3.

4.

of

and

image

(albeit

THE

asa aspect

be

See,

For Christian the

Charlie

See

in

this

can

it

counsel.

phrase one

Tragedy: in

significance

Hebrew

as

of

thought

other

to

God’s

Press,

Thomas

happens

most

e.g.,

in

consequence

THEOLOGICAL

of

of

scripture

persons,

technical

on

chapter

be of

before

anthropology

way

say,

a

“person”

of

Is

the

human

Jesus

less

Stanley

references

God

Further described

1977),

Not

this

remains

(Rom.

the

important

Person

Over

image

confession

if

Aquinas, or

in

confident

and

to

God.2

the

Much

is

biblical

identification it

Greek,

which

to the

(2

is

in

Hauerwas,

127—31.

being.

Investigations

have the

use

will

a

8:29;

against theological in

to

by

term

argue

Cot.

the

(Gen.

unexplored

central

OF

of

(albeit

Summa use

humanity’s

Theological

Given

as

vein)

touchstone

of

be

way

in

a

being

good

the

New,

It

understanding

a

of

Person a

“person”

the

cf.

4:4;

because

THE

of

spite

‘Must

that

case

follows

Job

matter

these

of Jesus

1:26—27; Theologiae

ROOTS in

a

distinctiveness

the

I

role

that

term

that

reason

7:17;

rather

the Christian

Col. where

place

Cot.

but

of

of

discussion,

there

PERSON

needs a

Peripective

term

in

suspicions,

Patient

as

in

one

Jesus

the

the

He for

claim

of that

the

but

is

“person” in

1:15),

15:49)

savior.

the Christian

Ia,

to

indirect

the

our

Jesus

Is

to

cf.

cf Ethics

are

any

term

looks

absence

term

to

OF

“person”

if

q.

Still

Be

be

of

with

created

Eccl.

give

Old

that

5:1).

human

93,

being be

good

claims

a

human

so granted

(Notre

is

Christians

My

applies

to

THE

Person

plays

in

art.

of

characteristic

3:19.

made

however,

Testament,

the

serious

one)

explicitly it

that

order,

his

reflection

Uncle

vain

of

humankind

While

theological

restored 1.

is

in

beings

Dame,

about

CONCEPT

an

to

divine

any

image.4

being.

the

first

of

the that

see

a

theology

Be

in

Charlie,”

important

central

consideration

early

Genesis

equivalent

only in

a

md.:

it

scripture

the

and

salvation

identified

are

the

Patient?

it

on is

image.

(Col. As

particular

it

From

illumines

Noire

of

the

Christian

meaning

to

foremost creature

acquires

reasons

ultimate

in

is

human

2,

already

role

can

mod

be

Thtthftd

Psalm

high

3:10)

Or,

bur

role

Dame

for

31

The

this

de

in he

in

be as

My 8, 32 Difference& Identity The Conceptof the Personin TheotogicatPerspective 33 characterization ofJesus as God’simageseems to be related to certain wasunderstood to be truly distinct from the other two (and thus not terminologicaldevelopmentsin the intertestamental literatur.yhere simplya more or less transient manifestation of some underlyingdi the phrase “imageof God” is applied to the figureof divineWisdoml vinereality) and yet inseparablefrom them in life and action (so that Alreadyin the Old Testament, Wisdomappears as a distinct aspect or the three persons are not three gods in the way that Peter, Paul, and •6 manifestation of the divine being who is active alongsideGod in the Mary are three independently subsisting human beings) from this workof creation (seeProv.8:22—31). In the later Wisdomof Solomon, specificallytrinitarian perspective,the justificationof Christians’con she is conceived as a sort of mediator between God and creation and, fessionofJesusas SaviorLiesin the fact that he is one of these persons. in this capacity,is described as “an image of [God’s]goodness”(Wis. Of course, the term “person”was not invented for this purpose, and 7:26). Jesus himself is identified explicitly with divine Wisdom in the consolidation of trinitarian language was complicated somewhat 1 Cor. 1:24 (cf. Matt. 11:19; Luke 11:49), and the affirmation in by the fact that the Greek theologians who hammered out the or

Colossiansthat “all things were created in him. . . through him and to thodoxform of the doctrine shied away from the word prosopon(the him, and he is before all things, and all things are sustained in him” Greek cognate of the Latin persona)in favor of the philosophically (Col. 1:16—17)also seems to reflect earlier descriptionsof Wisdom as morerespectablehypostasis.Terminologicalvariations aside, however, the agent of creation (see, e.g., Wis. 7:22). the trinitarian controversyestablishedthat the Father, Son, and Spirit But if the New Testament succeedsin givingdefinitehistoricalform werenot to be understood as masklikemodificationsof some ontolog and content to the somewhat shadowyfigure of Wisdom by identify icallyrnoe fundamental divine nature, but rather as that most basic ing Jesuswith the image of God, this move raisesquestions about the realitywhich gives the divine nature its specificform.7 character of Jesus’relation to God. As the one described not only In short, while in ancient Greek thought the categoryof essenceor as the “reflectionof God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’svery nature was primary, the trinitarian controversy of the fourth century being,” but also as “Son,” Jesus is evidently superior to the angels led Christians to the conclusion that the concept of person was pri (Heb. 1:3—14).But is he therefore equal with God? The witness of mary.Father, Son, and Spirit were not names for variations or modes the New Testamentwriters seemsambiguousat first glance (John 1:1; ofsomeprimordialdivine essence,but were in fact constitutive of that 10:30; 20:28; but cf. Mark 10:18;John 14:28), and it was not until essence.It is therefore not owing to the properties of an impersonal the fourth century,when faced with Anus’sclaim that the Wordmade (orprepersonal)divine nature that God is God; rather, God’sdivinity fleshwasa creature, that the Council of Nicea explicitlydeclared that is a function of the relationshipsbetween the three persons.8Put in the Word (or Son) who became incarnate was “of the same essence” other words,“God”does not so much name a particular kind of being (homoousios)as the God whom JesuscalLedfather. But even this defi as a communion of persons whose existence is characterized by the nition did not solvethe problemofJesus’relationship to God, because qualitiesof simplicity,unity, omnipotence, omniscience,and the like. it remained unclear how it was possibleto affirrnthat.theFatherpnd

the Son shared the same essence without either rendering them in 6. But though we take it for granted that there arc three persons and names, we do

. . . is life which is produced by the distinguishableor, worse,implyingthat Christians wordogs not imagine.. . three different lives. Rather it the same Father,preparedbythe Son, and dependson the willof the HolySpirit” (Qregoryof Nyssa, instead of one. “An Answer to Ablabius: That We Should Not Think of SayingThat There Are Three These parallel threats were answered through a terminologicalin Gods,”in Christotogyof theLater Fathers,ed. EdwardR. Hardy [Philadelphia:Westminster, novation that entailed distinguishing the father, Son, and Spirit as 1954],262). 7. “The person is no longer an adjunct to a being, a category which we add to a a Trinity of three “persons”sharing one divine essence. Each person Concreteentity once we have firstverifiedits ontologicalhypostasis.It isitselfthehypostasis ofthebeing”(John D. Zizioulas,Beingas Communion:Studiesin Pcrsonhoodand the Ghurch 5. See also Philo of Alexandria’s descriptions of Wisdom (or Logos) as the divine [Cresnvood,N.Y.:St. Vladimir’sSeminaryPress, 1985], 39). which it is: the imagein Legamallegoria1.43 and Ge confusionstinguarum146—47(in Phulo,10 vols., Loeb 8. “Thus God as person. . . makes the one divine substance to be that ClassicalLibrary [London:William Heinemann, 1929—62],vols. I and 4). one God” (ibid.,41). by Eerdmans,

communicable be After in is

Francisco: properly what

(Ge words,

to it term’s tarian The to

by to within son to subject entails sons.”

the oneness they unity

extension, 34 to detennmed” 12. 11. 10.

does

terms

be

9. We identify God

other, Tnmtate

the Trinitarian

autonomy be

is

persons

modern See In Ibid., “The

we

coinhere

governed

all,

defined defined

in

roots.

primary

may

Insofar

the

the loving a

require

talk

does of HarperSanfrancisco, the

1991), of

of

or

imagine

is

trinitarian

equally definition that 4.22; 289. words

every

some

the

(Catherine the

theological the

discussion not existence

by begin

about 12 by

are not

Western 426—27,

by Cf. cited

Obviously, commitment

itself.9 which

or as

doctrine where

possession

Father, reference

Holy

in that of an

by

divine

not

(concrete)

the WolfhartLPanncnberg,

render God

concrete

we

self-sufficiency.1° the of

by

each

the in

what abstract of of divine Mowry

a any context

Spirit’s) Aquinas,

omrnunionof medieval 430. JESUS the

to pointing know Trinitarian

the person Boethius

is concept other

Son,

ascription

act.

other divine

be

thus

such we nr its

to 1991], persons

divine

the

of LaCugna,

someones)’

conceived

comes of

or

one use

and the Because

of

are Summa

certain theologian

two, is

relationship on nature”

addresses

primary

use AS

ourselves.

in

out oth undifferentiated 69).

each

not

of

by

pp. father, in

given as

Holy

persons personhood from;

such it

of

be God the relations Theologiae,

A that reference the 7—10

to Systematic

(“divinae Indeed,

is shared tE

one

the. talk

shown

harithese Richard for what PERSON Spirit,

application

define impossible person

to as

human a

efulld above.

Son, the

if Us:

term way have to

know independent about of to

“person” a naturae

qualities Ia, person

question The origin

the Theotogy,

God of

to

then to

to

and

some is

derives

that q.

tohuman St.

in

sphere Trinity

therefore

be

her

of singleness, speak

any

other 29,

three incommunicabilis is means

by Victor,

to Holy

common

of it

God

consistent in

each art. equally

(generic)

or

is

one

vol. cannot define

arguing

or and

the itself

Difference

of

from

predicated

illegitimate,

his in

two 3).

of that

entities; characteristics.

Spirit. a

rathet Christian

Jesus’ 1

term

ofhon or

is person

characterized their

beings

the

relationships (Grand to

by rather divine

what but

is equally these

be

that be

itself thing,

precisely

with “person” existentia”)

“person”

In

&

than (and,

triunity, defined is Life

allvyg a

rather, Rapids:

“an weds

Identity

other a person

God’s cannot

most trini

“per

than

per

but

the Sñ but

the in by

by jn

judgment persons. has in one in definition.”4 not minister passim) personal,” pointed

Seminary power the relationship our these refers the as thing Spirit stimulus the the common niscience, distinguishes 13:3; their (John The

•ut 13. 14.

which

the

history. We

the

personal,

one use life Father, Concept

amount nothing

of Vladimir See

divine

three

1

precisely

are (e.g.,

first

of are 15:26;

if

one

these Press,

of Cor. of

out,

by

given Karl

Jesus’

for

(Matt.

the

they definition

equally

given (John but

Jesus the

omnipresence,

In

place,

of

is

the in

the

self-conscious, Rahner, nature

to

where

Lossky, the

to 1985),

to

Spirit,

15:24—28).

them its In

three

1 the

describable any

is stand

term

andthrough

(John personhood

the

Cor. to a

Son, Father,

do

3:16—17

to of

simply

short, content 5:22—27) emergence

Person

Jesus

definition

persons

case, 113.

what In

The know

Nazareth, other

ti

as

persons—the with

(with possible “person”

and

with the

12:3;

or

3:16)

persons. Trinity

ins

in

remains

to

a linage

and

allowing

the

they

to

something can Likewise,

function his Theotogicat

persons

and

only each its

etc.),

be even

and

1

whose is

or rational, (New

of

of

Holy would

John whom and

to

attendant

reminds satisfying

not neverthel

a do

since

pars.)

sent

in

personhood,

other. the

authority of

Quite

person

whom the

though Likeness

and York:

not

the

reducible terms

of

the

Son

sovereignty Spirit. 4:2).

of

he theological

be Perspective

(John Jesus

God’s_ key

about

the it

and share.’3 his or Herder

doctrine

Trinity

us

the of

is

the

or

the

is is

qualities

some

of This

they

to

relational),

being Trinity. God

that

And the

(Matt.

is

not not himself

Word—made

4:34;

contrary, these

the mu be

understanding

impossibility

and Father

to

raised

since (Crestwood,

do are

kind

one As

Jesus’

described general

to this

any

the

particular

what one

of Herder,

concept

5:24,

not Jesus relationships

of

28:18;

concerned,

be Vladirifrtosskhas

h1e the

is

who

the

Spirit

general

of

shared

has of

(Rom.

omnipotence,

status

understood a

but

it their

relate

description 1970),

the

Trinity bis

30,

criteria

is,

certaii. Father N.Y.:

is

in

is

committed

ci.

of of

flesh.

bears

simply

relationships

for

to

equipped three

personhood terms 36,

personhood

nature

definition

1:4)

as

John

the a St.

104—5. to

be

“the

example,

common

a

to

Vladimir’s through

Jesus and

37,

of kind

witness

As

person person by

visible any

divine

of

guide to

to

3:35;

does

“the only

that

om

and

the the the

his

all be be

35

to in of

of

of err,?, ci

I

I

.1 36 Difference & Identity The Concept of the Person in TheologicalPerspective 37

1the same wayJesus relates to them. At the same time, however, that can claim to be personsonly in virtue of a relationship with him and the personhoodof the father, Son, and Spiritis inseparablefrom their in dependence on him.”16 standingin mutuallyconstitutive, albeit diverse,relationshipswith one another seems to rule out the possibilityof the term “person” being REPRESENTATIONAND SUBSTITUTION predicated of creatures. - o And yet closerattention to the particular formofJesus’personhood Is this way of understanding human personhood consistent with the suggests that it may be possible to conceive of nodivine prsons. commitmentto the integrity of the other that was placed at the core ‘: Jesushimselfdeclares that his missionas the Son sent from the Father of Jesus’identity in chapter 2? There it was argued that the chief is continued in the missionof the discipleswhom he, in his turn, sends threat to personhood is the process of occlusion in which the other forth: “Whoever welcomesyou welcomesme, and whoever welcomes is neither acknowledgednor accepted as a person in her own right. me welcomes the one who sent me” (Matt. 10:40; cf. Mark 9:37; Instead, she is either regarded as fundamentally the same as oneself, Luke 9:48; 10:16;John 12:44—45;17:18). In a manner analogous to or,to the extent that her differencefromoneselfis recognized,her full Jesus’representation of the one he callsfather, the disciplesrepresent personhoodis questioned. Doesn’t the thesis that we are personsonly Jesus in and to the world as this Father’s “Son.” By entrusting his byvirtue of Jesus’intercession for us constitute just such a processof discipleswith the ministry that identifies him as the second person occlusion,since we appear to count as personsonly to the extent that of the Trinity,Jesus effectivelycalls them to share in the life of the our individual distinctiveness is subsumed under (and thus hidden Trinityin a way that identifiesthem as persons. behind) that of Jesus? - If the possibilityof human personhood is understood to depend on It is with concerns of this sort in mind that Dorothee Söl1)has Jesus treating people in a particular way,it followsthat the disciples’ insisted on the need to conceive of Christ’s work on our behalf as status as persons does not depend on any specificqualities they pos a matter of representation rather than substitution. A substitute, she sess. Their personhood rests entirety on their election by Jesus.15As noe displaces someone and thereby renders that person superflu persons, they are commissioned to represent Jesus in the same way ous; consequently, a Jesus who is our substitute leaves us no place that Jesus represents the God he calls father, but their personhood beforeGod. Insofaras Jesuscomespreciselyto secure us such a place, is not constituted by their fidelityto this mission.It is establishedin Söllearguesthat he ismore accuratelyconceivedas our representative stead by the fact of Jesus’ representing them before God as friends (Stetlvertreter,literally /‘placeholder]’).’7While a substitute implicitly (John 15:13—15),for whom he prays (John 179;cf. Liike 22:31—32) undermines our distinctivenessby taking our place, a representative and consecrates himself (John 17:19), so that they might join the affirmsit by keeping a place open for us.’8 communion he shares as a person with the father (John 17:21, 26). Sölle maintains that Christ’s status as our representative must be conceivedas provisional,on the grounds that genuine representation This theme is taken up and developed in the E{stle to theHebre anticipates the time when the person for whom a place is held whereJesusis described as a priest who is able to intercede on our be ill be able to occupy it in her or his owriight.’9 When representation half beforeGod (2:17; cf.4:15; 6:20; 1John 2:1). If Christ is a person becausehe is the Son, then we are personsinsofaras Christ intercedes ‘ 16. Ibid., 207. Cf. KartBartR; ChurchDogmaticsIhereafter CD], 13 vols., ed. G. W. for us by claiming us as fellowsons and daughters of the father. In Bromilcyand T. F Torrance (Edinburgh: Clark, 1956—74),111/2,135: “the ontological the words of Hans Urs von Baithasar, “This Jesusis a person. Others determination of all men is that Jesus is present among them as their divine Other, their Neighbour,Companion and Brother.” 17. Dorothee SoIIe,ChristtheRepresentative:An Essayin Theologyafter the “Deathof God”(London: SCM, 1967), 103—4. 15. “It is irnpossibIexQbeome a person except by becoming a brother of the ‘first 18. Ibid., 55. born’” (HansUrs(on BakhasariDramatisPersonae:PersonsinChrist,vol.3 ofTheo-Drama: 19. Ibid., 105;cf. 107—12. TheologicalDramaticTheory,trans. Graham Harrison [San Francisco:Ignatius, 19921,249).

I 38 Difference& Identity The Concept of the Person in TheotogicatPerspective 39

is permanent, she argues,it ceasesto be representationand becomes unitedin him.Specifically,it wasunclearwhetherChrist,insofarashe substitution, in which the effectivereplacement of the one “repre wasconfessedto be consubstantialboth with God and with human I sented”makesit impossibleto affirmthat she or he has irreplaceable kind, should be described as one person or two. Either alternative valuebeforeGod.Although Sölle’spositiondivergessharplyfromthe posedseriousproblems:the formeroption seemedto suggestthat in idea (onwhichthe Reformersin particularinsisted)that humanbeings Jesusdivinityand humanity had been blended into some third sub are never ableto hold their ownbeforeGod apart fromChntid3es stance,whilethe latter riskedthe specterof twoparallelChrists,with pose the question of how Christ’sministryof represening us before the divineWordshadowingthe human beingJesus. God can be permanentwithout makingour own presenceredundant. The christologicalformula adopted at Chalcedon addressedthis Sölle’sdiscussionof the relationshipbetweensubstitutionand rep issueby declaringthat while the divine and human natures in Christ resentationreflectsmodernconcernsaboutthe valueofthe individual, retainedtheir separateintegrity(havingbeen joined “withoutconfu but the issuesshe raises echo far older concerns about Christ’sre sion,withoutchange”),they neverthelesssubsistedas a singleperson, lationship to us. The christologicaldebates of the church’s early or hypostasis(sincethey were united “withoutdivision,without sep centurieswere alsodriven by the need to clarifywhat had to be true aration”).This “hypostaticunion” between the divine and human about Jesus if his work was to be defended as the salvationand not naturesmeant that Jesus’variousexperienceswerenot to be divided the occlusionor annihilationof other human beings.Clearly,ifJesus upbetweenhisdivinityand humanity,but weresimplyto be attributed ., e’ were the unique Savior of the human race, he could not be captive to JesusChrist as the one Wordmade flesh.In this way,the forceof ;HJ tdin)in the samewaythat the rest of us were; at the sametime (as theChalcedonianformulawasgrtmmaticaJrather than metaphysical: I ‘ suggestedby biblicalpassageslike Gal. 4:4—5and Heb, 2:14—18),it rather than try to explainhow divinityand humanitywere united in wouldbe impossiblefor him to intercedefor us ifhe werenot like us. Christ,the Councilsimplydecreedthat to identifyJesuswasto iden Howare thesedemandsforsimilarityand differenceto be reconciled? tifythe divineWord, and, likewise,that the Wordwas identifiedby The issueofJesus’distinctivenesswaslargelysettledwiththe formal pointingto Jesus.21 definitionoforthodoxtrinitarianismat the Councilof Constantinople A reviewof the objectionsraised against the Chalcedonian for in 381, where the Wordmade fleshwasdefinedas one of three con- mulaisbeyondthe scopeof the present study,but even the Council’s substantialdivinepersons,each equalin divinityto the other two.By defenderssoonrecognizedthat the claimthat Jesuswasjust one hypo contrast, articulatingJesus’likenessto the rest of humankindproved stasisraised the question of what kind of hypostasishe was. In the a more intractable problem(Gregoryof Nianzus>(who had played courseof the trinitarian controversy,“hypostasis”had come to be de a significantrole in workingout the trinitarian languageadopted at finedas the particularinstantiationof a nature, so that, for example, Constantinople) establisheda touchstone for subsequent debate by Peter and Paul constitute distinct human hypostases,and the per arguingthat Jesuscould redeem the whole human person only if he sonsof the Trinitycould be characterizedas divinehypostases.Since himselfwere fullyhuman.2°This principleacquired dogmaticstatus Chalcedoniansworkedinitiallyunder the presuppositionthat a nature in 451, when the Council of Chalcedon confirmedthat Christ was couldbe presentonlyii instantiatedin a distincthypostasis,defenders consubstantial(homoousios)with humankindas wellas with God; but of the Councilhad to explainhow it was possibleto say that Christ assent to the principlethat Jesuswasfullyhuman as wellas fullydi had two natures if one of them was “anhypostatic”(i.e., without a vine did not translateinto agreementon how these two natures were correspondinghypostasis). Inasmuch as the Councils of Nicea and Constantinoplehad af 20. ‘That which he has not assumedhe has not healed; but that which is united to his Godhead is also saved” (“ToCledonius the Priest against Apollinarius,”in Ep. CI, Cyrilof Movementand Jerusalem,Grego Nazianzen,vol. 7 of TheNiceneand Post-NiceneFathers,2nd series, ed. 21. Eric W.Gritsch and Robert W.Jenson, Lutheranism:TheTheological Philip Schaffand Henry Wace [Peabody,Mass.:Hendrickson, 1995 (1894)], 440). ItsConfessionatWritings(Philadelphia:Fortress, 1976), 93—94. ‘- ,‘ I C

40 firmed human if own. Christ’s cians nature.23 stasis point the hypostases) metaphysical that vided God the bush It a we sense. nation tinguishes without conclusion, ority synonymous characterize Spirit for and stasis Development same” one 1995),

manifestation 22. it 23.

24. is

In certain

can nature Orthodox

Trinity,

Cappadocians

of this

was of

the and

is Grillmeier Technically, For (Anastasius,

On 186—89,

answering

argued

appeared are into

that hyposrasis Eastern

Individual

of

that

identity? conceive not

human essence

either

ontological a

one

“hypostasized,” Christologies see (physis).

How

a mutuality also Christ’s of review among

hypostatically

the

Jesus’ it

grammatical writer were first Doctrine Aloys

the Christendom 277—82,

assumption hypostasis

that

was (ibid.,

distifiifiiyostases, with

of (ousia),

three Doctrina the

could

of of

nature But Chalcedonians, to human

an this Word

saw of Grillmeier, ontologicatly

them;

identity

creatures, the

the a

within trinitarian respect [Chicago: 284) undermine

proved while

Paul 437—38.

undifferentiated

matter developed

and priority no

divine and

search question,

freedom Jesus patrum nature (600—17001, problem had points

that

by the

of

without the

freedom to

the distinct level,

that Christ

the

was

contrast, Jesus for essence University

distinction helpful. controversy

of

no christological de

hypostases as

be of

became

whether out for after

idea a

a incarnatione in anhypostatic

consensus

Godhead

the of

prior

the that corresponding in conceptual

this the nature whom

fully that affirming vol.

Christ

Peter, Christian

persons; 451,

the and

characteristic

that

but

hypostasis

claim

trinitarian of even

As

conclusion

between of 2

we

to the nature human turned persons essence flesh the of Chicago

humans

could

they controversy

the the

Christ and

Verbi, as The

cannot already that

was decisive staunch Tradition, framework was the two

in

that

rather,

“persons” alike.

was

divine on Christian essence

Word; “ousia

of

do

the equivalent 6.1;

divine.22 terms

only Press,

three

if of

over

that the

human

human

lacked

ontology inacity Chalcedonians

he

issue not

conceive Thus,

he merely cited

the

the Chalcedonian

of

vol. noted, on and distinction

the

be capable tended and 19741,

essence

the had

Tradition: but

the

is

divine

exhibit

[ackèda that was

2.2 Trinity Difference in

second

said nature by

in to nature

subsequently

divine

It

being hypostasis Jaroslav a

nature (London:

divine the declaring in the between

a reaffirmed 81).

the the to

human of

followed

or developed

of to

fully

light A

conceptual or be eighth supporting persons between [physis]

ii

was the feared

roses

be

the

trinitarian

Cappado person in History

essence Pelikan, functionslly

nature:24 &

concrete

relation.

that

persons: hypostasis important Mowbray, present it general church human

combi

Father Identity of century,

hypo unreal, are that

of

on hypo

that of

dis

the the

(or di The this pri

i by the

of the

is to

a Theology nature. Histoncal indicating Who of

or puts exisfas human in specifically ther, a ically, over nature

the at does

ture restricted the are hd individuating ployed tinguishing source the without and The 26. 25. natural

set

of human occlude God Christ

all;

In

The

hypostasis

ontotogically

human

Concept single, it

to “The In Ts

Spirit.

nature

Son, without

not restoring Without

of

this

instead, Lectures,

the Jesus? as Trends other

is

have nature

persons rather

to

assumed that life;

ontologically

idea

the

reconfigured

follows distinction

thereby force

hypostasis,

way,

and answer

by

freedom

the

trinitarian

personal but.. words, the of

iiature

Christologtcal the characteristic and loss

Son,

a

that 1999). it.

any

than the

hypostasis

means separate

of it

Spirit.”

particularity

hypostasis their

the Doctrinal the

without to

principle

can not

The

humanity

the Person hypostasts

6s itself,

or

prior

the between

loss

the

Word’s conclusion

assumed

a

of ‘nature,’ of

but hypostasis

unity

be

divine

derivative

that

given

sense question Word it

as Moreover, the

hypostasis.25 Themes

hypostasis God

of in Conundrums,” of to mayiherefore filling

argued

human

which

from a

that substance Theotogicat could

the divinity26

of the

the

second

manifestation in taking or

in of apart

of

Word. constraints

by is

the [New Word life

Wdid

that a

lGod].

other

divine be “sharing a the

that

opened

therefore of

that

of

the nature

nature of

Trinity itself”

way characterized

from

the York:

is ...

how and flesh

person

the

the

space

claim take unpublished Because Perspective it

Word

makes is the

properly

human

Correspondingly,

anhypostatic hypostasis

nature,

which

has

not [God] Fordham (John divine Word.

the on

two to

could

to

extends

in

on

to human

in

free

of that a

all restricted

of “personal”

lacked no

the

particularity

created the

spade

natures individual

a Meyendorff,

personal as

beings.

of

the

the

did became,

way

not

nature conceived

The

University hypostatic MS

they

to in

every “the

mutual

human

them

nature

the

trinitarian the nature”

for Trinity)

adopt

of not

subsist

a

that to personal,

solution

character

are

could

human the

John priority Trinity. its

human the

subsisting

could

freedom

existence Byzantine

exclude Press,

existence.

love indeed, would sphere: own

the Scottish

subsists

not

of (Kathryn(1’anndr,

a

possibility

without as

instantiation

Meyendoff

rather

be

father, ‘acting’

human . substance

. claim also

hypostases of 1974],

hypostasis

limited lay

the is

of

beings

joined Journat

of displace Theology: a

the

(specif

human

any

person the.

within

in nature

in

way be

Jesus’

active source

than 154).

God some

Son,

that

the Fa

dis

na /4

de

to or of of

41

or ‘i.

in

;% - --

I 42 Difference& Identity TheConceptof thePersonin TheotogicatPerspective 43

“new Adam,” in whom every [human being] finds his [or her] PERSONHOOD AND REPRESENTATION own nature realized perfectly and fully,without the limitations of the anhypostasiswas which would have been inevitable if Jesus were only a human As alreadynoted, the point of the doctrine personality.27 to affirmthat the divine Word was Jesus’ sole and entire identity. BydefiningJesus’human nature as anhypostatic, the church made it In other words, the incarnation is not the election of the partiqil clearthat the secondperson of the Trinity did not take the flesh of man Jesus as apEon to the exclusionof all other humñbings, but an independentlyexistmj}iifrñanbeing hilt rather became man by rather the election of all human beings to be persons in and through assuminghuman nature. In other words,the fact that Jesus’human the particular man Jesus. naturewas anhypostaticdid not mean that it lacked any hypostasis Yet way this of understanding Christ’s work of representation has at all, but that it had one divine hypostasisas its identity. Thus, at two outstanding problems.First, the suggestionthat Jesus eaablishes the sametime that his human nature was declared to lack a separate human nature as a hypostaticallyopen space that we can filLems to humanhypostasis,it was affirmedto have been “enhypostasized”by imply a to that there comes point where we need assumeresponsibility (andthereforeto be “enhypostatic”in) the divine hypostasisof the for fillingit—a possibility odds principle at with the that our accep Word.In thisway,thagQryoLenhyflQ siscQmRicnentedthat of tance by God is at no point conditional on our own merits or abilities. anhypostasisby affirmingthe concrete particularityof Jesus’human Second, when Christ’srole is defined as the essentiallypassive one of lifeover againstany suggestionthat his humanitywas featureless- I taking our as seems not placeur own particularity human persons generic. to be secured at the price of obscuringJesus’ particularity:by human In order to explainthe significanceof this point for our existence confessingJesus’humanity as anhypostatic, we seem to reduccit to aspersons,it is necessaryto be more preciseabout what it means to an ontologicallyempty space. According to the witnss of the Johan saythat our personhoodderivesfromJesusrepresentingus as persons nine literature in particular, love characterizes the relationship of the beforeGod. Exymqlogicafly,to One divine persons with one another and with ourselves;but representsa tree, for example,by painting a picture of it or writing either love or be loved by someone whose personhood is seerniDgly a poemabout it; whilethe tree itselfmay not be at hand, it is made detached from his flesh-and-bloodexistence? present—andthus made known as the particular tree it is—forthe These difficultiescan be resolvedonlyby providinga fuller account oneseeingthe picture or reading the poem. In a specificallysocial of Christ’sperson. If human beings remain permanently incapable of context,representationdescribesthe workof standingin for another securing a place before God, then clearly,Christ’swork as our repre asher or his official(in the sense of publiclyrecognized)proxy.for sentative must involvesomethingmore than the negative condition of example,an attorney representshis client in a court of law; and, on not taking our place before God. It is certainly important that Chriit a largerscale,a Senator representsher constituentsin Congress. leaves us space to be persons; but for this part of his work to be of The scope of a representative’sactivity depends on the setting. any use to us, he must also actively and effeçtjvelysecure_.that_space In a rehearsalfor a graduationceremony,for example,someonemay for us. While the claim that Jesus’human nature is anhypostatic is a be chosento represent the keynote speakerin the processionor on necessarycondition of our being able to be counted as persons, it is the dais.Such a “representative”need have no personalknowledge not sufficient,sinceit doesno goodforChrist to leaveusspacebefore whatsoeverof the one beingrepresented;he merelymarksher place God unlesshe alsomakesit possiblefor us to occupyit. Tjiç_qjstion. intheceremony.The scopeofrepresentationis greaterin a legislative is how our occupyingthat space can be said to depend on øirist’s context.Whilethe legislatormaybe personallyacquaintedwithonlya presencefor us without renderingEdvn presenceredundant. tinyfractionof her constituency,she neverthelesswillneed to possess 27. Mcyendorff,ByzantineTheolog’y,159. ageneralsenseof their interestsin orderto representthem effectively. before case 44 her Moving degree gous have Ile ally trial estranged the convince 2 more the acceptabte the which the

that well ize God before alongside “justified” to fRom. are (Heb apart ed.

IV/1,

(Philadelphia:

Cor.

28.

Though

As

H. attribute

this

competently.

work

Old lead

sacrifices acceptable

be requires client

lawyer. difference

135. Jesus

to

interpreted

acknowledges See,

fully

R.

from

our

2

we

God

God of 5:21)

8:17),

termed work still

that

Mackintosh

11) Testament

for of

God

identification

of

are

the

parties.

(priestly)

(or

s’

aware

is. the

Westminster, (1

Jesus’

example, leads

can

further the

reconciliation

Because our

‘Justification’

of in

interests,

a

acknowledged in

whom himself Cor.

Jesus “personalized”)

only of

comprehensive

“personalization.”

in detailed

lies

interpreting an

be

writer

Christian

our

his justification

one of

mediation.

and].

God’s

Jesus’

]ohntCalvirR

elaborated

1:30; attorney

begotten

along

could representative, in

us

thus

the

work

he

acceptability

Jesus

1960),

biblical on

the

but

of

S.

as with

is

knowledge

facts

cf. sight

work

Stewart

the

our

represents

Hebrews

only

of

“not

theology

with fact

actually

11.15,

is

fellow

does

Rom.

by

his

(John us

representation

Son, institutes

spectrum,

In

the

as

behalf, of to writer

in

character (i.e.,

is

foreshadow.

God

than and

that

ashamed”

(Edinburgh: activity

God

a

this

our

Jesus

terms

not

term

priestly

In

8:34). direct

(as

in

heirs’

EricdrichSchleiermacher Jesus

14:16;

effects

of (see that

of

as

but

to any situation); a us

sense, that

the many that

merely though

the

his

traditionally persons

priest

oftwo

understand

a

to

result

after

Chnstiar

especially of

God insofar creates

event,

defense

with

present

of insofar

Clark,

ci. client to the

reconciliation

Jesus’

God

justification His

Christians

as

deny

even

does call

speak God

1 the

treats

related

of Levitical

in involving

Christ

1928), John

Religzun,

intercession

the it

as

the

as

Jesus if

representation

attorney

the

as

sisters

model context

the

that

actually needed

not

Heb.

its he

Difference

used

his his

claim for

conditions them

he

§104.

trinitarian

2:1),

principles.

most

content and ed. is representing

have The

simply

role human

“fellow

us,

priesthood

accomplishes

is,

and

to

of betweenthe to 9:24—26; a

John

Cf.(BartICD, that in

to

Chrptiqn

as it

far

renders Christians

character to

dedicated

but at

represent

as

children”

&

does

followed might a

be

brothers

persons)

T.

greater

use

dfnd capital

analo

Identity we

is

beings McNeill

under

heirs”

made

actu

sense

of

first,

that

Fatth,

not

the

are

cf. us

us

of

us

as

persons tice our Nor As representing God hypostatically that conviction

Christ, “sees” Because of trinitarian in seeing depends see boast means 31), saw we Even human acceptable. not ceptability “personalized”) language The

29.

One

what

creation,

At

our

have

of guilt

us

Concept

a

actually

it

so

does See in

alout

as

quality

the

with

bearing

as us

in

that an in way representative

beings the by

pp.

is

the

we

entirety been

as

good

same of a the as

his

individual

communion putting seen

of

74—75.

God

of fashion (or

to

A

as

different

we

creatures

are is world

us, changes

persons

classical

Christian

we

work

the

work

open

PERSONHOOD understand witness are parallel justified. our

understood

righteousness)

at

time,

are because

cannot

Jesus

by

not

possess

Person

on

seen

the

own

us

must

refusing of

genuinely

of

space

consist

our

persons

human however

is

the way. in

redemption Lutheranism,”forensitmeaning

intercedes

before

that in

time

an may

belief

by in possession;

of

arbitrary,

be

the we

be

on

a being

facts

Theological

impartial

God

persons)

this

for

court God’s

separated

have be to

confessed

are of

to our

in

place

being’s

that

God,

(defined,

us

persons.

process be

(and

drawn of

is look its

as

relating

in

worthy;

oi

of

imputed

willfully

our to

on

acceptable

seeing,

as

such right

creation

God’s

he

Christ,

but

Jesus

AND

apart

taw.

this Perspective

observer.

at

occupy

personhood

though

our

account.

situation.

from

holds here

as

is

her

neither

objectivity

Because

once

and

is

rather,

The the

by

seeing

genuinely

does

behalf

from

in

the

turned

it

to

or WITNESS

with

the

comparison

(Gen.

open

through

facts fitting,

redemption is

God

“in

testimony

him

us

again,

After

second

far

We

is

what

not

Jesus act we

us

the

before

Christ,”

our

for

it

is

for

away

more apart

of might would

1:4, as

are

the

are

visible of

something

good

all,

Jesus’ event

though

as

God

status persons us.

constitutes

our our

point)’irsofar

God’s

not

worthy

case

10,

with

of God sharers

from

it from

than

just only

they

because no

own

situation

that

has

a

is

only

justified

of

sake

12,

that

as

character

the

the a

in seeing less

s

in

creation.

Christ.29

God.

define

confirm

done truly

because

persons

central we

efforts.

our

18,

as

in

a

Christ

and

God’s

prac

easily

us

truth

than

way

God

one

cn

the

25,

are

ac

In (or

as

to

in it. 45

as

a

is 46 DifferenceS?Identity TheConceptof thePersonin TheologicalPerspective 47

witness in the sentencing phase of a trial provides an analogy to the another’sexistence that would be necessary to establish her or his idea of a third party confirming someone as a person in the eyes of personhood.Forexample,howeverpowerfula mother’switness to another, thereby rendering her justified in a way that she would not childmaybe, it isincapableofsheddingmuch light on her child’siden be apart from that witness. For example, the purpose of bringing the tity as a spouse or parent. Moreover, even if someone had the kind mother of a convicted murderer to testifr is not primarilyto disclose of comprehensiveknowledgenecessary to illuminate every aspect of new facts about the lifeof the guiltyparty.Tobe sure, a mother put on another’sidentity, the fact that this potential witness has her own the stand will undoubtedly relate a great many such facts, but that is specifichypostatic identity means that she could not fullyrepresent not the point of her testimony.What she has to sayin no waychanges anotherwithout effectivelyannthilating herself as a distinct person in

the defendant’sguilt. Its aim is rather to encourage the jury to “see” her own right, and thereby subverting the value of her testimony as - the defendant a new elL in way—as a person whom they have the re the witnessof an “other — 1’’c Ot):C. sponsibilityto treat as a person, in spite of the evil that the defendant Dostoyevskygave classic formulation to theseinhereritj’,tt limits on has done. Moreover, such witness is unique and irreplaceable: only humanwitnessin Ivan Karamazov’sstory of a peasant woman forced the mother is in a position to “personalize”her child in this particular to watch her son hunted down and killed by the local landowner’s way; she alone is in a position to establish that person as her son or hounds: daughter. I do want a mother to embrace the torturer who had her The idea that our status as persons is bound up with the wit not she forgivehim ness given by another has certain affinitieswith relational models of childtorn to piecesby his dogs!If she likes, can personhood. Instead of focusingon our role in establishingand main for herself, she can forgive the torturer for the immeasurable has no taining relationships,however (astrategy that renders the personhood sufferinghe has inflicted upon her as a mother; but she of comatose, psychotic,and other mentallyimpairedpersonsproblem right to forgivehim for the sufferingsof her tortured child. She atic), the categoryof witnessemphasizesthe extrinsic character of oiç has no right to forgive the torturer for that, even if her child personhood by highlightingits dependence on the relation that some-. wereto forgivehim!31 one else (viz.,Jesus Christ) assumeswith respect to us, regardlessof The problemIvan identifiesis twoJd. firstny one person’switness the level or quality with which w&reciprocate.The I come ideätha to another is only partial; second,lt is nontransferable. So while the to conceive myselfas a person because other human beings treat me motherin the story can forgivethe torturer for the wrongdone to her, as such also has somepsychologicalplausibility:if all those me around she cannot forgive him for the wrong done to her child. No one but suddenlyceased to treat me like a person, I think it likely I that would the child can affirmhis relationship with the torturer in the face of start to doubt my personhood. Faced with forces attempting to erode the evilthe latter has committed againsthim. FromIvan’sperspective, my sense of personhood in the present, my ability to maintain some evenGod does nothave therightto forgive the torturer, becatse God sense of myselfas a person in such circumstances would in all likeli did not sufferthe wrong. hood depend on my experience of having been treated like a person Of course, it is Dostoyevsky’scontention that Ivan is wrong:Qod in the past.3° doeshave the right to forgiveand exercisesit through the intercession The problem, of course, is that the testimony other human be of Jeiis Christ. The question is how appeal to Jesus can escape the ‘i ings might give to our personhood can never be more partial: than inherent limitations of human witness. Ivan’s challenge allows that P) no human being has the comprehensive knowledgeof the of totality our being affirmedas persons can avoid the charge of “cheap grace”

30. Primo Levi argues that life in the Nazi death camps approximated to just such a ituation. See his Survivalin Auschwitz:TheNazi AssaultonHumanity (NewYork:Collier, 31. fyodor Dostoyevsky The BrothersKaramazov,vol. 1, trans. David Magarshack “ 1995), and The Drownedand theSaved,ed, Erroll McDonald (New York:Vintage, 1989). (London:Penguiri,1956Y,287. possibility

that is ingly irreplaceable that victim

incorporate lar fragmentary only

48

concrete

case

does

personhood

if cannot

Jesus’ or

of

not

the

of

the

enough

the

finding

character be

and

witness

smother

torturer

torturer,

met. standpoint

is unsubstitutable

understood

to a

We

to

our way

of

of

constitute

our this

are

his

all

personhood.

beyond

of

personhood

means

own merely

back

the

to

particularity,

victim,

integrity

at us

entail this

that

human

the

as

The

apparent

Jesus’

can

persons

problem

an without

ar

next

testimony.

transcend honoring

witness

these

persbn.

impasse.

chapter can

deprvfiig

of

Difference

conditions

how

do

must

of

In

the

To

explores so

the

a

the

partial

the

Jesus

either be

in

&

person.

pa

able

ex

a

seem Idem

who

w

an

t

rh

to

r

[Ivan

:timony

that

ièm

hbrt,

reveals piction guarantee ble in whom relationship as distinctiveness, Matt, ñd our 310—Il. ionships ther as to

one

w

the the A

our

the

1.

with

personhood.

by

encompasses God Karamazov’s is

possible See

to

it 26:38—44 divinity account

aLl

his

Son precisely window

of

that

hand,

threaten appears the

Wolfharc:

can between Jesus authority

witness her sufficiently

(Matt. the

to

kind

solution we

sustain

or

of

of

as the

onto

this

same

what

This

Pannenbe

and can

his that the

story The

personhood a

the

of our to

the

one 3:16—17; of

person has

unwavering

existence

the

Father absolute be

the pars.; us

kind

challenge whole

comprehensive

establishes the

to uniqueness

of

divine

been

he

vindicated

as

sovereignty Jesus

this

the

inner

Personhood

unsubstitutability

whose

calls of

persons Systematic

Luke

is

given of

torturer

commitment dilemma 17:5

persons. matched commitment

with -4-

as

our

form

Father

highlights

commitment

identity Jesus’ a

23:46).

49

and and

as

(Matt.

person.

which without

lives;

Theology,

of

Christ of persons

challenges

to

is

So, God is

pars.; by irreplaceability

identity

God’s

suggested

secure chaiFateristic

but

is Far

28:18;

the

the

an

for to

vol.

defined to

betraying

(John

of

onyby

cf.

the on

from

Father’s apparent

last example, to

the

triune

1

persons

as Christians John our John

the

(Edinburgh:

the other

5:30;

chapter other

by “Son.”

diminishing

from

identities an

other

one

life,

the

5:22).

the 5:37; witness

as

of

that

contradiction

ci. act is Jesus’

beginning necessary

he

persons. integrity all Jesus’ biblical

incompati

4:34;

ended:

Clark, hand, to Moreover,

of

marks

12:28)

Likewise,

the calls

explain witness

to

witness

would

Jesus’

6:38;

Jesus story

1989),

rela

any

de

Fa

on

his

In of

to to

to

1

I