1
Introduction
An acute appreciation for the person of Christ has rightly preoccupied a panoply of scholars and debates throughout Christendom ever since Jesus of Nazareth emerged onto the scene, so much so that a much larger work would be required to review how christological studies have evolved to their current form. However, this introduction will briefly survey the current discussions underway in this integral subset of theology in an effort to draw attention to a pressing need for further investigationâa clearing in the Christological forest. Thereafter, this introduction will outline the argument of this book that, if proven, will help satisfy the need that is revealed, particularly as it pertains to the christological presentation of the Lamb in the Apocalypse of John. Ultimately, this project will stipulate that Johnâs unique use of Lamb (áźĎνίονâarnĂon) throughout his Apocalypse paves the way for a multifaceted christological presentation of Jesus Christ that is dependent on the paradoxical theme of glory in humility. After this argument is introduced in this opening chapter, a presentation of how this work is organized will betray exactly what the reader can expect from this study as it pertains to its scope and aim.
Identifying the Clearing in the Christological Forest
Contemporary Christological Scholarship
Most christological works today fit one of three categories: (1) they study the person of Jesus on a more general level by perusing the New Testament (NT) for pertinent passages and presentations, (2) they choose to focus on one Christo-centric book (most often of Johannine origin or one of the synoptics) or a divine characteristic of Christ in an effort to exhaust one of his many important attributes, accolades, or activities, or (3) they investigate Christology on a historical level in an effort to yield why and how the church worshipped Jesus immediately following his earthly ministry. The strength of each of these approaches is easily identified by enlisting the help of a popular analogy. The first approach (what might be called the general approach) is able to survey the entire landscape of the christological forest (the NT) and take into account as many of the trees (pertinent passages) therein. The second (the focused approach) zeroes in on one magnificent tree (important christological passage), or grouping of trees, thereby eliciting a deep appreciation of one specimen belonging to a much larger biome. The third (the historical approach) helps explain how the christological forest emerged in the first place as it traces the many individual considerations back to their roots (which, in this case, involves Jesusâ original socio-historical localization). This illustration demonstrates both the variety of ways to study Jesus and what each of these methodologies is uniquely capable of yielding as it concerns his identity and ministry.
That said, it is incumbent upon this introduction to identify the gaps in the research that exist in todayâs christological scholarshipâclearings within the forest in need of cultivationâso that a more complete and, by proxy, more sophisticated understanding of Christ can be achieved. To this end, it must first be acknowledged that most christological studies conducted on a more general levelâthat is, those taking into consideration what the entire Canon or New Testament (NT) revealsâbuild their cases by making much use of what may be called âchristologically richâ or âchristologically inclinedâ books/passages. This trend is witnessed in Contours of Christology in the NT, edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Therein the contributors betray exactly what they believe to be of most value in christological study by means of the order in which they organize their chapters and how much space is devoted to each section (synoptics, Pauline literature, other). It is clear from their choices that Mark is deemed most valuable as it comes first in the canonical presentation. This no doubt comes as a result of two phenomena: historical-critical scholars have assigned Mark an early date and source-critics believe content in Mark is fundamental to both Matthew and Luke. For these reasons, many like Simon Gathercole argue that any Christology that can be yielded from Mark is especially compelling to skeptical critics as it is an early reflection of what Jesus said about himself and what the church believed. Therefore, it is little wonder why so much christological cultivation has been conducted on Mark in recent years.
However, similar attention is spent on the other synoptic gospels, the tension between the three, and the distinct portrayals of Jesus contained within them. For reasons similar to what has already been said of Mark, many believe that much can be yielded from these similar and yet distinct accounts of Jesus and his activity on the earth. Parallels and contrasts within these works and their comparison to Mark afford much information concerning who Jesus was believed to be. One helpful survey of the distinctions and similarities between the synoptics and what they say about Christ is found in Witheringtonâs The Christology of Jesus, in which he parses the historical Jesus by means of his interactions with others, his deeds, and his message as presented in his recorded teachings.As Jesusâ life and ministry occupy the majority of these works, it is no wonder why the synoptics are pursued by many scholars in order to understand their shared principle character.
However, some of Paulâs letters were written even before the synoptic gospels. Because of their early date and critical acceptance, Pauline...