När blev Jesus Guds Son?
(2009) In Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift 85(1). p.14-18- Abstract
- Popular discussions over Jesus as the Son of God are mostly predetermined by the Creed or by a ”Christology from above”. Against this background the question on when Jesus began to be called ”Son of God” might be answered in a reductionist way, giving priority to the oldest and least developed forms of Christology. As a matter of fact, however, historical-critical exegesis has shown that titles and names given Jesus in the gospels are diverse. Christological titles are confessions of faith that try to explicate the new and overwhelming experience of Jesus being raised by God after having died an ignominious death on the cross. The apparent negation of the message and claims of Jesus by his execution was refuted by God through his... (More)
- Popular discussions over Jesus as the Son of God are mostly predetermined by the Creed or by a ”Christology from above”. Against this background the question on when Jesus began to be called ”Son of God” might be answered in a reductionist way, giving priority to the oldest and least developed forms of Christology. As a matter of fact, however, historical-critical exegesis has shown that titles and names given Jesus in the gospels are diverse. Christological titles are confessions of faith that try to explicate the new and overwhelming experience of Jesus being raised by God after having died an ignominious death on the cross. The apparent negation of the message and claims of Jesus by his execution was refuted by God through his resurrection. In the light of this Jesus was interpreted anew through recollection of what had happened in combination with an ongoing reclecture of the Scriptures. The point in time when Jesus was assigned title Son of God was pushed back, and the meaning of the title was being deepended. ”Christology from below” led to ”Christology from above”. Jesus ”became” the Son of God, and he was believed to be so from the beginning! How is that paradox possible to uphold? Most likely through paying attention to the ever remaining dialectics between Jesus and the Creed. Also: Wouldn’t it be possible to simultaneously hold that Jesus became the Son of God – at resurrection, baptism, annunciation – and that he was the Son of God from eternity? Within the limits of a now out-dated ontology of substance, I contend that this was what the Chalcedonian dogma intended to say. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1468821
- author
- Hallonsten, Gösta LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2009
- type
- Contribution to specialist publication or newspaper
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Christology, Jesus
- categories
- Popular Science
- in
- Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift
- volume
- 85
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 14 - 18
- publisher
- Gleerup
- ISSN
- 0039-6761
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: Centre for Theology and Religious Studies (015017000)
- id
- 524306e9-d572-444a-978a-4ac66ddb9ddd (old id 1468821)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 09:14:20
- date last changed
- 2021-03-22 18:04:28
@misc{524306e9-d572-444a-978a-4ac66ddb9ddd,
abstract = {{Popular discussions over Jesus as the Son of God are mostly predetermined by the Creed or by a ”Christology from above”. Against this background the question on when Jesus began to be called ”Son of God” might be answered in a reductionist way, giving priority to the oldest and least developed forms of Christology. As a matter of fact, however, historical-critical exegesis has shown that titles and names given Jesus in the gospels are diverse. Christological titles are confessions of faith that try to explicate the new and overwhelming experience of Jesus being raised by God after having died an ignominious death on the cross. The apparent negation of the message and claims of Jesus by his execution was refuted by God through his resurrection. In the light of this Jesus was interpreted anew through recollection of what had happened in combination with an ongoing reclecture of the Scriptures. The point in time when Jesus was assigned title Son of God was pushed back, and the meaning of the title was being deepended. ”Christology from below” led to ”Christology from above”. Jesus ”became” the Son of God, and he was believed to be so from the beginning! How is that paradox possible to uphold? Most likely through paying attention to the ever remaining dialectics between Jesus and the Creed. Also: Wouldn’t it be possible to simultaneously hold that Jesus became the Son of God – at resurrection, baptism, annunciation – and that he was the Son of God from eternity? Within the limits of a now out-dated ontology of substance, I contend that this was what the Chalcedonian dogma intended to say.}},
author = {{Hallonsten, Gösta}},
issn = {{0039-6761}},
keywords = {{Christology; Jesus}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{14--18}},
publisher = {{Gleerup}},
series = {{Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift}},
title = {{När blev Jesus Guds Son?}},
volume = {{85}},
year = {{2009}},
}