For a very long period of time (too long in my opinion), theologians confined their discussions of Christ to views embraced by their respective denominations, or traditions. This had the effect of confining the problems of Christology to the metaphysical (How can Jesus be both God and man at once?). In this century, the focus has shifted from metaphysical to historical considerations.

Since, as noted, Christology is a sub topic of Soteriology, it will not be possible to explore the former and ignore the latter. To drink the juice, one must squeeze the orange.

The very definition of a Christian is one who believes in and follows after Christ. For this reason, the Christian's understanding of Christ must be the heart of the Christian faith. Everything else becomes a secondary issue when compared to what a believer thinks about Christ. We must, therefore, give special care and deliberation while doing our Christology.

As we do our Christology, certain problems are going to arise. Some issues appear at one point in history, but do not occur before or after that point. We must examine each problem and form our own conclusions regarding the problems that arise.

For the sake of this introduction, I wish to put forth three contemporary issues which will affect the methodology of our Christology.

1. The relationship between faith and history.

• Can a proper understanding of Christ be based strictly upon historical data, or must it be posited by faith?

2. The relationship between the person of Christ and the work of Christ.

• Should we first determine our understanding of Christ's nature and then apply it to our investigation of his work, or should we approach the subject of his nature through a study of his work?

3. The literalness of the incarnation.

• Is the idea of the incarnation of God inherently mythological?

The first two questions deal with how we are to do our Christology; the third question addresses whether or not a Christology is at all possible.

A brief comment on the incarnation viewed as mythology is in order here. According to some, the idea that God became a man and entered human history is not to be taken literally. According to this idea, it is neither necessary nor possible for God to do so. There is indeed a paradox here; a concept which is quite difficult to grasp intellectually. The function of the paradox is to direct our minds beyond the natural to the supernatural. There is historical evidence that the Christology of the New Testament goes back to Jesus himself, rather than merely to the faith of the disciples. Also, the suggestion that the incarnation of Jesus is paralleled in the teachings of other religions simply cannot be sustained. The doctrine of the incarnation is radically different from the doctrine of divine immanence.

Perhaps the most instructive example for us of contemporary Christology is that of Wolfhart Pannenberg Jesus - God and Man . Pannenberg notes the following:

1. The task of Christology is to offer rational support for belief in the divinity of Jesus, for it is this which is disputed in the world today.

2. Christology must explore the relationship between Christ and the Judaism of his day. This relationship is essential to understanding his life and message.

3. We are limited, earth-bound human beings, and we must begin and conduct our inquiry from that perspective.