I – It is Easter Sunday. I wrote this column for this occasion. First, let me say a few words about the title itself to make sure what this column merely talks about. Here, by dialogical is meant merely the fact that there are two sides of a reality. In this case, the reality in question is the hypostasis in the theological arena. By hypostasis is meant the two natures, divine and human, of the single person of Jesus Christ. In short, this column merely talks about a seemingly competing emphases on two perspectives: the divinity of Jesus on the one hand and the humanity of Jesus on the other.
II – Is the divinity of Jesus to be emphasized to the extent of relegating his humanity to the backstage? Or vice versa? Let’s take a little look at the classical formulation. It contains such terms as, “begotten not made,” “consubstantial with the Father.” This formulation is seen to have emphasized Jesus’ divinity to the extent that his humanity seems to have faded out if not lost at all.
In the 4th century, for example, Athanasius of Alexandria (292-373AD) strongly emphasized Jesus’ being God. This was perhaps a strong reaction to the heresy called “Docetism” (Gk. dokein = “seem”): holding that Jesus is God but is merely disguising as human being. It could be surmised, then, that the emphasis on Jesus’ divinity through centuries has obscured the human side of Jesus.
The effect of this theocentric emphasis is that Jesus is real albeit he is just in the realm of abstraction residing in the space of consciousness. That he is, thus, far (if not absent at all) from the existential, historical, experiential life of man, his followers in particular, let alone those who do not know him. That man is far from having intimacy with him.
III – In contemporary period, some theologians have reacted to this theocentric emphasis. They do not of course reject the divinity of Jesus. However, they seem to present the hypostasis in such a way that Jesus’ humanity is now at the forefront, while Jesus’ divinity is at the backstage. It seems to have been done in more or less the same pattern as in the past where Jesus’ divinity was emphasized to the extent that his humanity appeared to be relegated to the backstage. In other words, the weight of the scale has shifted from Jesus’ divine side to his human side. The scale has strongly tipped down at the human side of Jesus.
Let’s take some examples. In his book, Jesus Before Christianity, Albert Nolan stresses that his “interest is in the man [Jesus] as he was before he became the object of Christian faith” (p.1). This statement shows the emphasis on the humanity of this Jesus in history. In their book, Doing Christology, Wostyn and De Mesa also stress that “the difficulty is that they [creedal formulations] can only be understood when we realize that they are rooted in a specific Christian faith experience which is always culturally and historically conditioned” (p.6). It is about the faith experience of the early Christians which then formed part of the basis of the creedal formulation later. In the book, The Essence of Jesus, Arthur Rowe aims “to try and visualize the figure of Jesus as people have seen him between the 1st and 21st centuries” (p. 4). In other words, Rowe’s work is a sort of a historical survey on how people saw Jesus across the centuries, aiming to have a grasp of the real essence of this Jesus in history.
IV – Due to brevity of space, let me move on immediately to my personal reaction to these emphases. They seem to be competing in that, in the past, the divinity of Jesus was so strongly emphasized to the extent that his humanity was relegated to the backstage. The result could be that Jesus’ followers might know him very well but without experiencing him in their lives. It is possible. For to know Jesus is divine is one thing, to have an intimate relationship with him in one’s life is another. In this case, a dichotomy between mind and heart is not metaphysically impossible.
However, in contemporary time, it seems that the humanity of Jesus is so strongly emphasized to the extent of relegating his divinity to the backstage, a sort of a hundred-eighty-degree shift of emphasis. The result could be that, as Jesus becoming so familiarly, intimately human, man would forget that he is in reality, God in the first place.
What experiential fact today that would somehow, somewhat show this result? Let’s consider how some (if not many) wo/men take communion today. Transubstatiation is real. It is attested to by Jesus Christ himself in Lanciano, Italy, in the 8th century. But, in some (if not many) situations, the “host” appears to have been regarded ordinarily as if a Fita biscuit. Reverential fear appears to have been lost in taking in his body.
Upon reflection, one thing appears. Jesus’ humanity is in the forefront of consciousness, that he is but ordinary human being like us, while his divinity is at the backstage, that the respect due to God appears to have been gone.
V – In the order of ontology, Jesus is first of all, God, second, man. I think this sequential order determines the emphasis of the study of Jesus. The emphasis on the classical formulation, affirming his divinity, must be taken first. But, to stop at this juncture is to make Jesus a distant God, appearing only abstractly in consciousness. Therefore, it cannot, and should not, stop there! The existential, historical, experiential dimensions of Jesus as human person must be emphasized next. It is to make Jesus in touch with the human conditions in the world. Therefore, a balanced dialogical emphasis of the hypostasis is needed.