The Spiritual Sacrifice of the Incarnation: Epistemological Considerations by Companionship and Devotional Christology

The Spiritual Sacrifice of the Incarnation 

Epistemological Considerations by Companionship and Devotional Christology 

• Introduction

• Three Different Anthro-Authenticities

• Devotional and Companionship Christologies

• Edenic and Eschatological Perfection

• Postlapsarian Anthro-Authenticity: The Chief Catalyst of Salvation History

• Devotional Christology as the Sacrifice of the Second Person of the Trinity

• The Spiritual Sacrifice of the Incarnation

• The Nature of the Sacrifice of the Incarnation: Physiology, Epistemology and Love 

• Devotion to Divine Empathy Through the Sacrifice of the Logos

• Companion Christology as the Development of Jesus Christ

• Companionship with “One Like Us in All Things But Sin”

• Jesus Presents the Perfection of the Cosmological Paradox

• The Practical Effect of Companionship Christology

• Conclusion

The incarnation is the miracle of God’s union with us in a way that is so intimate, it marks one of the unique aspects of the Christian religions.  This dogma proclaims that ultimate deity becomes truely human, yet remains fully divine at the same time.  In other religions mingling between divinity and humanity plays out differently.  Celestial beings (gods) may become human, but not stay divine, or celestial beings may come down and “act” human, but still retain their full divinity or it is even the case that humans become divine, leaving their humanity behind.  Because of the singularity of this dogma, when discussing the person of Jesus a Christian will hone in on the divinity of Jesus, which often leads the believer to an alienation from the humanity of Jesus.  Or the Christian may over identify with Jesus as a human and lose sight of his singularity in history.  Any given believer will tend to fear the heresy of the opposite end of their spectrum, which leads to impassioned debates about the nature of who Jesus is.  While the information offered in such debates does engender interest and cognitive stimulations, often it does not lead anyone closer to the person, Jesus Christ.  At times it may even enflame concupiscent wrath or pride and divide fellow Christians rather than unite them as one body composed of differing parts.  

 

The purpose of this treatise is to explore the sacrificial nature of the incarnation of the Logos by focusing models of christology away from the classical  “high and low” to a more pastorally pragmatic framing of “devotional and companionship”.  The lens through which we shall do this is going to be a speculative exploration christological epistemology, which hopefully will lead to greater devotion to the Logos, who undergoes sacrifice, and greater companionship with Jesus as “one like us in all things but sin”.

In the first section we will began by generally reviewing the theological field of christology.  We will set about defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low.  Our reorientation will start with an exploration of the concept of perfection, beginning with the bookends of postlapsarian reality, the First Parents in Eden and the Citizens of the New Jerusalem.  We will round out our discussion of perfection by considering the three concepts of perfection as put forth by Thomas Aquinas.  This will lead us to an understanding that the perfection of the incarnation is a perfection initially suited to postlapsarian reality, not the perfection of Adam.  We will discuss how the perfection of postlapsarian reality is a perfection that is practiced not reached, and involves a process of development.           

In the second section we will begin exploring the idea of a devotional christology.  We will foster devotion by exploring the incarnation as an act of sacrifice by the Logos.  We will start with seeking to understand the nature of sacrifice in general.  Then we will proceed to speculating on how a communication system setup for humans to express to God might look if God uses it to express to humans.   We will discussed the usual understanding of that sacrifice as one of “confinement” in a body, and add to that an understanding “emptying”of divine favors such as omnipotence and omniscience in order to experience this postlapsarian world.  Next we will thwart monarchial heresy by applying Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the “two knowledges” of Christ.  We will unpack the Logos’ sacrifice of self in order to demonstrate perfection for this postlapsarian world, that is, learning to express love through perfect striving.  Lastly we will apply devotional christology to devotion in our own lives, developing skills for sacrificing our very selves in our most intimate parts.

In the last section we will focus on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology developed.  We began by recounting some common problems caused popular piety’s quasi-apollinarian christology.  This treatise will make the bold assertion, through technical definition, that though Jesus is one like us in all things but sin, “doing wrong” is not always sinful, because sin implies culpability.  Any “evil” action Jesus did without knowledge or willful participation, these being limited by the sacrificial emptying of the incarnation, is not a sin.  We will develop a speculation concerning Jesus as our singular postlapsarian example of perfection, perfect striving.  This striving is the filling of the lack of goodness (evil) that allows Eden to develop towards the Eschaton.  Lastly we will give a brief reiteration of the practical effects of prayerful engagement with a companionship christology.

  

Three Different Anthro-Authenticities        

In this section we will began by generally reviewing the theological field of christology.  We will set about defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low.  We will discuss perfection as applied to the incarnation and define it as perfect striving. In the next second section we will begin exploring the idea of a devotional christology. In the last section we will focus on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology developed.  

Devotional and Companionship Christologies

In an academic setting, when one hears the term “christology” one would immediately think ontologically or in terms of literary genre of the New Testament.  The classic categories are “high” and “low” or christologies from above or below.  The beginnings of “christology” develop in the patristic era when a hellenized culture interfaced with legal and public Christianity bringing philosophy to bear on the life of Christians.  There came a grappling with the issues of belief concerning Jesus in his person as both God and Man.  Most famously the camps broke down between Antioch, a semitic stronghold holding a low christology and Alexandria, an intellectual speculative hub of the ancient world (having Alexander’s library there) which proffered a high christological view.  

High christology, also known as incarnation or preexistent christology, takes as its starting point the preexistent son or word of God that becomes incarnate.  It’s starting point for soteriology is, “The almighty God has become incarnate” in order to save us.  Low christology begins with understanding Jesus as a human, situated in human history. The starting point for low christological soteriology is, “what can we gain from the life of this human Jesus who is the same person as the almighty son of God?”   

If properly executed, each christology ends at the same point, that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.  But each approach tends one towards dangerous dogmatic grounds.  For low christology, there is the tendency toward the heresy of monarchial subordinationism, adoptionism, or even as far as seeing Jesus as a “great person”, but not God.  For high christology, there is the danger of everything from Aryanism, to apollinarianism, to docetic christologies and more, which attempt to play up the divine at the expense of the truly human.  

The hellenized philosophical playing field where all of these ideas were parsed was an attempt to synchronize and sell a semitic religion, which had a palestinian worldview, to a hellenized gentile population, which had differing concerns and cosmological views.  This synchronization had to be done while retaining what was essential to the semitic cosmology.  Hence we witness high alexandrian christology and low antiochian christology.  This evangelization by fulfillment crystallized our views of Jesus in a framework that is helpful, but hyper-focused.  This evangelization gave us the grammar for understanding the person of Jesus, true God and true man.  It also gave us a development of many superfluous or culturally bound notions of Jesus that came out of the hellenization of Christianity.  There was a cultural development of christology which unfolded as a shift from superfluous semitic notions to superfluous hellenistic notions for the purpose of evangelizations.  The historical fact of this shift in an orthodox manner allows for the notion that such shifts are still possible.  The superfluous in Christology is the speculative.  As long as it doesn't go against our dogma, true God and true man and is recognized as “speculative” we can accept it, reject it or develop speculation with no controversy. In the ancient world, the antiochian school was there to safeguard the essentials of the original semitic cosmology and culture.  The Alexandrian school was there to be speculative in such a way that people can come to know who Jesus actually is, but in a way accessible to them.

 A problem we see now with these differing approaches is the academic problem of theological disputatiousness revolving around which school of thought is “correct”.  Christology becomes a positivist endeavor where factoids are marshalled to browbeat one’s fellow Christians in academic competition.  In this exercise, the scriptures become a battlefield bifurcated into camps of high chritsological works and low christological works and scripture scholarship or engagement becomes a proof texting for a thesis.  When one is engaged in this type of competitiveness, there is always suspicion of the orthodoxy of the “other side’s” view and even worse their motives.  In such a case christology becomes an exercise of grammar and diction to puff up ego instead of a methodology for approaching Christ.   

The view that “both sides are right” is very off putting and anxiety provoking for some, especially concerning religious differences.  The stakes seem to high to be wrong.  In order to defend the divisive competition, some may want to quote Paul from 1 Corinthians, “I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”  Paul here is decrying divisions in the corinthian community between those who follow him and those who claim Peter or Apollos.  But typical of Paul, the end goal is not to win debate.  Rather it is to put one’s self in right relationship to God the Father through Jesus Christ.  

In that same letter he says, “Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or the present or the future: all belong to you, and you to Christ, and Christ to God.”  This seems to mean that you use whatever is available to reconcile yourself to the Father through Christ.  The agreement from the first passage is not necessarily agreement on factoids or approaches, though there are certainly places where this is necessary.  But also that you can agree that multiple approaches are compatible.  One major example from this letter is the topic vegetarianism.  He breaks down a practical application for how to go about the differing beliefs concerning vegetarianism in chapter 8, where he starts with the reminder that “knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up.”  Paul has no problem with a carnivorous diet even if the meat was sacrificed to idols.  But he also reminds readers that we don’t want to scandalize each other, either by needless reprimand or flagrant disregard.  

Paul works beautifully with his understanding of conscience, a concept we explored in the former treatise Relativism, Conscience, and The Magisterium.  Our interest lies in the fact that in his letter he did not demand submission the the view he saw as “right” or even “better”.  He allowed for a variety of beliefs and practices and sculpted a view that helped that variety thrive as such, but with mutual respect and love.   In this same letter Paul uses his famous body analogy, which is directly applied to individual gifts and their use, but the wider context seems to allow even for a certain level of belief and knowledge, in order to allow for people to get their spiritual bearings regarding their relationship to The Father through Christ.

We have noted that at times the study of christology becomes over academic and prone to theological disputatiousness  and this becomes divisive.  We have also noted that the original millue of philosophical reflection on christology was a situation of cultural synchronization for the purpose of effective evangelization.  This treatise seeks a recharacterization of christology such that philosophy is a tool for approaching Christ, not a war, where notions of Christ’s personhood are weapons.  To that end we will take the orwellian strategy of renaming our fields in order to reframe them.  Instead of breaking into camps of high and low, instead of getting over invested in divine processions, natures, and personhood perhaps we should instead make the christological breakdown thusly, companionship christology and devotional christology. This reframing is spiritually practical.  One does not engage in christology so that he or she can “be right”.  Our language implies that christology is engaged in so that we can come to have an experience of Jesus Christ, while recognizing that the effective approaches are variable.  

Hopefully no Christian would find a problem with a fellow Christian seeking skills for better devotion toward Christ.  Hopefully no Christian would deny a fellow Christian who seeks a deeper companionship with Christ.  Instead of “high” christology, we have devotional christology, a christological approach which seeks guide one who engages in it toward better or clearer way to approach Jesus as the incarnate son of God.  Devotional christology seeks to inspire its practitioner toward a deeper appreciation of God’s plan in Christ for salvation through grace, God’s love of humanity, and God’s unbreakable promises, which are kept.  By engaging in devotional christology the practitioner should be moved to deeper humility in worship.   Devotional christology is “high christology”, but high christology that has a purpose, to come into relationship with Christ in a particular way as God.  

Instead of “low christology” we have companionship christology, a christological approach which seeks guide one who engages in it toward better or clearer way to approach Jesus as a fellow human, one like us in all things but sin.  It is a way of coming to know Jesus as emmanuel “God with us”.  When coupled with devotional christology it becomes a way to understand how God experiences companionship with us through the sacrifice of the incarnation.  The practitioner should garner a better ability to pray to and seek communion with Christ because of an experience of Christ who understands us as a fellow human and is filled with compassion.  The practitioner of companionship christology will also be suited to meditate on Jesus’ vulnerability, especially in the passion and suffering of Christ.  This experience can be  a window into Jesus’ love for us and a lens by which we can frame and understand our own suffering as humans.   

Edenic and Eschatological Perfection

Jesus is our example of anthro-authenticity, he is the perfect human whom we can look to.  In order to elaborate in a more clear way concerning both companionship christology and devotional christology it will help to draw out three types of perfection in christianity, edenic, eschatological and postlapsarian.  The remainder of this section will illuminate the three, with this part being edenic and eschatological and the last part postlapsarian, the condition in which the incarnation demonstrates perfection.

In the Summa Saint Thomas Aquinas stated that, “A thing is said to be perfect in so far as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection thereof.”  He goes on to assert that “the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity.”  On the face of it, this assertion has two senses one that is static and one that is dynamic.  The idea that perfection is exhibited at some sort of objective attainment hints as a static situation of completion, where nothing more needs to be done. Yet at the same time when Aquinas applies perfection to christian life, there is no sense of rest.  Rather it is applied to Christian life and it’s summation as “charity”, which is a dynamic process. 

Often when we seek to understand what perfection looks like we look back to the foundation of human life, the Garden of Eden and the relationships of the people therein, the First Parents.  Or we may look forward to the future Eschaton, where the blessed abide in perfection in heaven.  From these we get two differing sense of static perfection.  The Garden is the simple, rural, natural, intimate and consists of two people in deep relationship with God and each other, they possess original justice.  The Eschaton is the New Jerusalem, it is complex, urban, macro-social, and consists of a population of saved humanity that is described in the Book of Revelations as “a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue.”  In the New Jerusalem they possess the beatific vision.  

Each of these situations points at differing types of interhuman perfection and differing ways that humans perfectly relate to God by their relationships with each other and their environments.  By reflection on the second chapter of Genesis or various parts of the Book of Revelations we can garner excellent fodder for understanding various ways to calibrate ourselves toward perfection.   But these perfections are static and do not seem to be reflective of our situation now.  They clearly suite the first part of Aquinas’ understanding of  perfection as quoted above.  But what they  mean as it relates to the second part “christian charity” is hard to grasp because, by their stasis and lack of progress or development, their situation is so utterly different than ours.  In ST P2 Q184 A2 Thomas Aquinas goes on to parse distinctions between “types” of perfection.  He States,

Hence we may consider a threefold perfection. One is absolute, and answers to a totality not only on the part of the lover, but also on the part of the object loved, so that God be loved as much as He is lovable. Such perfection as this is not possible to any creature, but is competent to God alone, in Whom good is wholly and essentially.

Another perfection answers to an absolute totality on the part of the lover, so that the affective faculty always actually tends to God as much as it possibly can; and such perfection as this is not possible so long as we are on the way, but we shall have it in heaven.

The third perfection answers to a totality neither on the part of the object served, nor on the part of the lover as regards his always actually tending to God, but on the part of the lover as regards the removal of obstacles to the movement of love towards God,

The first type of perfection that Aquinas describes is proper only to God, because it assumes perfect love based on perfect knowledge of the object of love, and only God has perfect knowledge.  This perfection presents as the most static of the three.   

Next Aquinas describes a love where the lover “from their end” loves perfectly, that is their will and desire is perfectly attuned, but the knowledge that the lover has of the object of love is in some way deficient.  Aquinas offers this type of love as the type of love humans have for God in the eschaton, presumably because human knowledge will never attain perfect knowledge of God.  We would add that whatever “original justice” means for the First Parents would also be this type of love they.  Aquinas deduces that this love is a static fulfillment of human nature.  His reason for asserting that we will never have it here is because we are “on the way”, assumedly to fulling out our maximum available data about God.  

But, this hyper rigid psycho-spiritual compartmentalization is not reflective of the experience most have of their inner self.  Given that we are temporal creatures who are everlasting (temporally immortal) as opposed to eternal (beyond time), we are in need of some aspect of flux in order to allow time, itself a manifestation of flux.  Aquinas seems to see our knowledge of God as reaching a maximum, possibly because we don’t want to get “to close” to full knowledge.  But Aquinas is also well aware that God is infinite.  This leaves open the possibility that a dynamic temporally located reality can increasingly grow and/or change in knowledge and understanding without ever reaching full comprehension.  Perhaps the second type of perfection, present in the Eden and the New Jerusalem, is not as static as first presented.

The two bookends of postlapsarian reality are where we most often look to formulate our judgments concerning perfection and the direction we need to head to reach it.  This is completely understandable in terms of the static ideal Aquinas points to in his first two varieties of perfection.  But if the Israelites had lived in the desert as they perceive they would need to live in Israel, they would have never made it to Israel, because they would have been standing still when they should have been moving.  We discussed the dangers of seeking a perceived static perfection in the former treatise Aneusomy Syndromes and Eschatological Retention 

To be master of one’s self means that God is not the master, and that one is able to attain perfection in and of one’s self.  So in secularism what one has is a sense of progression toward a perfection by means of reason applied to experience.  The goal of perfection also implies some sort of stopping point, a rest and balance where there is no more need for progression.  The problem is that the standard of perfection is influenced by our postlapsarian state and therefore not clearly visible to us.  It is an ever moving goal post that shifts and changes in every way conceivable.  We are seeking impassibility, a stability and rest in perfection, but where that rest is truly warranted seems undefinable, so modern progression is progressing blindly toward an ever shifting destination.                  

It is possible to use scriptural assertions concerning Eden and the New Jerusalem to garner bearing in the world.  As revealed scriptures they have truths to relay that are useful to our situation here.  But as we do that we must remember the cosmic disparity between our own postlapsarian situation and their situation. Postlapsarian reality is fundamentally different from these other two situations.  This leads us to Aquinas’ third type of perfection.      

  

Postlapsarian Anthro-Authenticity: The Chief Catalyst of Salvation History

The two bookends of postlapsarian reality offer two differing views on anthro-authenticity.  Eden presents the micro relationship and The New Jerusalem presents relationships in the macro.  But as Aquinas pointed out by his a third type of human perfection, the world we live in is different from these and requires a differing perfection, a perfection that has “totality neither on the part of the object served, nor on the part of the lover.”  This perfection relies completely “on the part of the lover as regards the removal of obstacles to the movement of love.”  This is “perfect striving” and it is the perfection available to humans in postlapsarian reality where we have neither perfect will, perfect desire, nor perfect knowledge.  This perfection is a transitory perfection, allowing for the goal of the New Jerusalem.  But it is described as a “perfection”, not a stopgap, technique or antidote.  This description allows for a particular and unique understanding of the postlapsarian variety of perfection.  This postlapsarian world is a fundamentally good reality, though it is corrupted and in process toward purification.  It is not fair or possible to say that something God made is in no way perfect, so whatever perfection means in this world is “authentically perfect”.  In the former treatise Paradoxes and Disorders we discuss many varieties of christian paradoxes. Here is one we can add, that there is divine and human perfection abiding in this imperfect world.  To help get a picture of how this is possible it may help to reference Paradoxes and Disorders at some length.

Being eternal, God can sees all of created reality, including the flow of time itself (meaning God sees all time at once), as one consubstantial reality, which he has a hypostatic relationship with.  This give one a transcendent picture of God, but for our purpose it allows us to use the human conception of transcendence to get an angle the deep Christian paradoxes of reality      

 

One paradox we can ponder by this picture is how perfection abides in postlapsarian reality, which has everything to do with the cosmological paradox.  

When we (pathetically) try to picture all of reality at once, we can conceive of a timeline that is the spectral paradox between Eden and The Eschaton.  We will call this the cosmological paradox.  Here we have the simplicity of humanity and the absolute complexity of humanity which form a unit through the process of reordering we are calling salvation history, the process we abide in.  The motion of this process at the extremes is the process of a communion of two persons who form the basic unit of humanity, the First Parents, splintering into multiple billions of self regarding sentient beings that must first self regard (alienation) then turn from that splintered selfishness back to a relationship of oneness.  It is a motion from dyadinal mutual appropriation, to seeming infinite self regard, to maximal mutual appropriation at every level.  

We went on in that treatise to describe the situation of postlapsarian reality as the process of resolution of the cosmological paradox itself. 

Microcosmically process is what allows for the development of personhood and therefore the development of the most complex of the three fundamental relationships we defined, love.  The splintering of humanity, both spiritually by sin and physically by childbirth, is also a splintering into sentience and self regard.  Before one can effectively self give through love one must be aware of the possibility of self, which is “love” of self, but incomplete.  Each person goes through this process of acceptance to distinction to reintegration in loving relationships.  Meanwhile, macrocosmically, God has become hidden from humanity, accessible only by faith, in order to allow for this individuation process and allows for the ultimate reintegration in true love, the highest binding relationship.  

Lastly we pointed out how the particular variety of anthro-authenticity, that is human perfection, in postlapsarian reality would allow for mistakes along the way.  Here we would add that Aquinas describes this as a “perfection”.

The whole idea of salvation history, the whole teleological thrust, is to reach a new place of love through development.  That there would be apparent “missteps” according to teleological thrust of all reality are also part of this process.  These missteps allow for the individuation necessary for true, mature and complete reintegration (self communion in The Eschaton).

The fall is most certainly a tragedy for humanity, but the result is not a God who is powerless to act.  Rather it is God who can bring goodness out of our evil situation and even our participation with evil.  This is demonstrated by the postlapsarian inversion, which is a fundamental shift in the way reality works that happened as a result of the Fall. It can be an inversion the converts a good to bad use, or it can be an inversion of necessity from a good to a new way of participating in the good. This is born out of the fact that God can bring good even from the bad that we engage in (God makes the cloths for the first parents).  We first noted this inversion in the treatise Corporeal Unitive Fulfillment in the Eschaton where we stated,

With the fall and the entrance of concupiscence there is a postlapsarian inversion.  This postlapsarian inversion is easiest seen in the nudity of Adam and Eve, proper and appropriate in Paradise, and the nudity of Noah in Gen 9 which is improper after the fall. Or the fruitful tree of Life in Genesis becoming the dead wood of the cross in the gospels.  In the case of eating and sex the postlapsarian reversal manifests as the socially applicable opposite of the purpose.  The result of the Fall is death, thus the way eating abates death is on the opposite end of the human spectrum as its unifying purpose.  It communally binds and individually sustains.  In this individual nature of sustenance gluttony is more easily manifest as it ties food to an individual and therefore it more probably becomes a self centered activity. It is only secondarily that gluttony is a problem of pleasure, and that comes in the consummation of food and its enjoyment without gratitude.  Gluttony is a far more serious spiritual danger than most are willing to admit in this day and age.

Lust is the capital sin that particularly relates to sexual activity.  Once again the problem is not pleasure in and of itself.  The pleasure of sex is a completely good thing if one expresses proper beatitude toward the appropriate partner and maintains the gratitude one owes to God for all his gifts.  The fundamental problem of lust is objectification of the other.  Sex is supposed to be one of the great unifiers as well as the multiplier human beings.  Once again there is a postlapsarian inversion, the sin manifests as opposite of the purpose.  In an objectifying relationship the procreative aspect of sexuality is ignored and instead of the unity of interpersonal being, one being treats the other as an alienated object of pleasure and/or subjugation.  Again, the result of the Fall is death, the way sex abates death is on the opposite end of the human spectrum as its unifying purpose.  It individually binds and communally sustains

 

In our fallen state we are in need of virtues which were not needed by the first parents in the Garden.  Thus we need an example of perfection in the postlapsarian world that is suited to this world.  Our best example is not Adam nor citizens of the New Jerusalem, saints as they are now.  But rather a better example would be the saints as they “perfectly struggled” toward their current state, a situation that looks like failure according to their state now.  More perfectly our best example is Jesus Christ, who is the best example of anthro-authenticity of the postlapsarian variety.  As we stated in Compounding Concupiscence and Cross-Spectral Mutual Pedagogy,

The idea that a different set of virtues develops out of the fall is packed into Saint Paul’s assertion “The law entered in so that transgression might increase but, where sin increased, grace overflowed all the more,”.  The general interpretation of this passage is that Christ’s saving grace “outmatches” sin.  Yet an alternative understanding is that the presence of sin allows for the development of new virtue in response.  Again, “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.”    

Once on can see that there is a dynamic between sin and grace where grace wins, but, like manure to a plant, sin allows development.  These virtues are not maintenance morality, the type of morality that mitigates the destruction of sin, they are a recognition that the postlapsarian inversion results in a situation where we can say, “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer."  Adam is great because he possesses original justice.  Christ is great because he is virtuous in different ways that show the justice and virtue of humanity amid the fallen world.  Thus compassion, as described in Aneusomy Syndromes and Eschatological Retention is a perfect example of a postlapsarian virtue.  Other examples would be exercise of any of the gifts of the spirit, there is no need for good council or fortitude in Eden.     

In this treatise  we are developing some views on Christology.  They are generally scripture based and particularly gospel based.  This means that they consider Jesus as he lived and moved in the situation of postlapsarian reality.  It is helpful to contrast to world of The First Parents and the world of Jesus to get the full extent of the cosmic disparity.  The Garden was lush, the work to be done tending the garden was fulfilling.  In The Garden there was no suffering, and the occupants had perfect companionship with each other and with God.  As we pointed out in the treatise Inversal Unity and The Divine Triple Descent God was the ruler of the Garden, but ruled as the servant of the First Parents.  

The situation Jesus was born into was completely the opposite.  He was born in a comparatively desolate land.  His people were under the boot of a ruthless imperial power, and among his people, his own community, the galileans, were subject to ridicule.  The world is filled with pain, suffering and death on all sides.  Jesus must find companionship and in that journey he is often misunderstood by those he considers his closest friends.  

Postlapsarian reality requires a new type of perfection.  A simple re-presentation of Adam would not be effective.  In fact Adam as he was wasn’t even effective the first time.  Once the re-ordering toward the eschaton begins, there is a decided “lack of good” AKA evil present in the world.  The navigation of this brings to the fore a need for process and development.  These two make up what Aquinas calls “the removal of obstacles to the movement of love towards God.”  He describes this as the removal of mortal sin and distraction, “whatever else may hinder one from tending wholly to God”.  The perfection is in the process of “removal”.  Hence Aquinas, with his static view of charity, can go on to say, “Charity is possible apart from this perfection, for instance in those who are beginners and in those who are proficient.”  This perfection is not static, but is a developmental process.  This is the only perfection available to us in a fallen world.  It is practiced, not reached, and it is practiced by means of postlapsarian virtues unimagined in the garden.  Fulfillment is reached in the Eschaton where one has the ability to execute this perfection flawlessly as well as the ability to perfectly cooperate with all graces gifted one by God.  Thus, again, the perfection of the Eschaton differs from the perfection of Eden, where sich gifts were not needed and such development had not been experienced.  According to our view, Jesus, by the incarnation will present perfection from this situation toward a differing perfection in the Eschaton when he comes into his Glory.  But our speculation will remain mainly within the realm of this fallen Jesus as the incarnate son of God here, “God with us”.

As we come to the end of our first section we can begin to bridge into our christological speculation.  The incarnation is the pivotal catalyst that turns the eschatological tied.  Jesus’ presence in this world shifts the tide of humanity from absolute alienation and individuation toward communion and perfect integration.  As the one who comes to heal between Eden and the Eschaton, Jesus Christ must be divine, because only God can solve the problem of the Fall.  Our concupiscence will not allow otherwise. It is our arrogance to think that we can solve the problems here on Earth (the pride of extreme secularism).  It is our arrogance to think we can spiritually sculpt a path to God or salvation on our own without God’s help (the pride of pelegism).  Because of our concupiscence and the resulting pride, God must be the arbiter of our salvation.  So Jesus Christ must be God.  This realization allows us opportunity to be devoted to God and not rely on our own strength in spirit to save us. 

 Conversely, it is not God who needs to be fixed, it is humanity, so for God to operate only as God and have no commerce with humanity does not seem suitable to the task.  The incarnation itself presents this commerce in its most intimate form.  In the incarnation the Son becomes human in every way, one like us in all things but sin.  For humanity to be reconciled a human must have a part to play and they must play it perfectly.  In the incarnation God gains perfect empathy and the perfect ability to judge us as truly participating in perfection.  In the incarnation humanity exploits an opportunity to act in perfect accord with God and find reconciliation.  Through this we find companionship with God.                         

In this section we began by generally reviewing the theological field of christology.  After a brief historical analysis we came to the conclusion that the development of many of our christological views was the result of a process of evangelization as a semitic cosmology came into use in a hellenized world.  We discussed how from this original interplay a christilization has occured, turning christology into a field of academic debate as opposed to a medium for evangelical zeal or pious approach to Jesus.  We then began laying the groundwork for a remedy to that situation by defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low.  We began this by exploring of the concept of perfection, beginning with the bookends of postlapsarian reality, the First Parents in Eden and the Citizens of the New Jerusalem.  We explored three concepts of perfection as put forth by Thomas Aquinas and realized that only one of them applied to our situation here and it was not the one available to the situation in Eden and the Eschaton.  This finally lead us to an understanding that the perfection of Jesus is a perfection suited to postlapsarian reality, not the perfection of Adam.  We discussed how the perfection of postlapsarian reality is a perfection that is practiced not reached, and involves a process of development.  We rapped this section up by reiterating the general grammar of christology, that Jesus Christ is true God and true man. 

In the next second section we will begin exploring the idea of a devotional christology by exploring the incarnation as an act of sacrifice by the Logos.  We will unpack how the Logos’ sacrifice of self allows the divine person a perfection for this postlapsarian world, and apply devotional to our own lives, developing skills for sacrificing our very selves in our most intimate parts.

In the last section we will focus on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology developed and give a brief reiteration of the practical effects of prayerful engagement with a companionship christology.                  

Devotional Christology as the Sacrifice of the Second Person of the Trinity 

In the last section we laid the groundwork for defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low.   We explored three concepts of perfection as put forth by Thomas Aquinas and realized that only one of them applied to our situation here perfect striving.  Perfect striving was not available to the situation in Eden and the Eschaton.  This lead us to an understanding that the perfection of Jesus as he walked the Earth two millennia ago is a perfection suited to postlapsarian reality. 

In this section we will begin exploring the idea of a devotional christology.  We will foster devotion by exploring the incarnation as an act of sacrifice by the Logos.  We will start with seeking to understand the nature of sacrifice in general.  Then we will proceed to speculate on how a communication system setup for humans to express to God might look if God uses it to express to humans.   We will discuss the usual understanding of the sacrifice of the incarnation as one of “confinement” in a body, and add to that an understanding “emptying”of divine favors such as omnipotence and omniscience in order to experience this postlapsarian world.  Next we will thwart monarchial heresy by applying Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the “two knowledges” of Christ.  We will unpack the Logos’ sacrifice of self in order to demonstrate perfection for this postlapsarian world, that is, learning to express love through perfect striving.  Lastly we will apply devotional christology to our own lives, developing skills for sacrificing our very selves in our most intimate parts.

In the last section we will focus on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology developed.  We will begin by recounting some common problems caused popular piety’s quasi-apollinarian christology.  This treatise will make the bold assertion, through technical definition, that though Jesus is one like us in all things but sin, “doing wrong” is not always sinful, because sin implies culpability.  Any “evil” action Jesus did without knowledge or willful participation, these being limited by  the sacrificial emptying of the incarnation, is not a sin.  We will ponder Jesus as our singular postlapsarian example of perfection, perfect striving.  This striving is the filling of the lack of goodness (evil) that allows Eden to develop towards the Eschaton.  Lastly we will give a brief reiteration of the practical effects of prayerful engagement with a companionship christology.   

The Spiritual Sacrifice of the Incarnation

We are beginning our christological refocusing with what is called “high christology” also known as incarnational christology or christology from above. Originally in the patristic times, this was the more progressive formulation, but now it is staunchly the more conservative.  As we noted, the understanding of Jesus as true God and true man is what makes Christianity unique, so it makes sense that this angle of christology is default for most Christians. There are billions of humans walking the Earth.  But it is rare that God “walks” the earth.  Again, our purpose here is not to win arguments about the nature of Jesus Christ, but to have a way to come into relationship with God.  The relationship we are seeking to foster is devotee and devoted to.  The impetus we will be employing will be a gratitude by a sense of awe and the mode we will use to evoke this awe will be sacrifice.

This mode of devotion is perhaps one of the most popular in Christianity.  This technique is what makes John 3:16 the most well known chapter and verse in the New Testament.  By it we come to a sense of gratitude for the incarnation as a means of salvation and the sacrifice that the Father and Son make on our behalf.  But I find it rare that this sacrifice is ever analyzed in terms of “theology” or the immanent trinity, only the economic trinity.  Because of this the sacrifice is almost always equated with the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.  It is almost never approached from the view of inter-trinitarian dynamics, that is, as a sacrifice that the triune God makes as it concerns the triune God.  This is probably because to get any true sense of what this could even mean is impossible, yet here we are going to try.  

We laid out the importance of sacrifice as a pan-human ritual archetype in the former treatise Sacramental Cosmology,

 

How do I show love to God?  For my fellow humans I can show love by helping them, teaching them, giving them gifts, bringing them joy.  But God does not need help, he already owns anything we could give him, we can teach him nothing and he possesses perfect joy.  How does one honor God?  

The answer is that one cannot “do” anything for God, but one can show love by taking valuable things, especially things one may be tempted to value over and above God, and releasing them from one’s ownership.  The most absolute way of doing this is by some form of destruction.  By releasing these object from our grasp it shows that we do not value anything we own more than we value God.  In its purest form as part of a system of calculated ritual, this is the way we can show love for God and God alone.

We pointed out in that paper that sacrifice is particular to postlapsarian reality.  It is a communication system between God and humanity set up to foster Aquinas’ third variety of perfection, removing obstacles to love.  We first encounter it in the Cain and Abel story, where the two are trying to come into communion with God, with poor results.  It is only in postlapsarian reality that we would need to demonstrate our rejection of concupiscence by such destruction.  We discuss a pattern of such sacrifice in the former treatise Toward Appropriate Thanatosian Piety,

There is a pattern of sacrifice in the Old Testament where the unlikely hero of a story must give up something precious to him, often because the coveted thing is causing problems. When it is returned the hero is better able to utilize or appreciate the offering, and when it is returned it is returned with more than is expected. 

     

We also note how this applies to human life and death itself regarding various heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures,

For our purposes this is most interestingly played out by means of people offering human life is such a way.  The first obvious instance of this is Isaac, yet Abraham offered Ishmael in a similar manner to Isaac to the same end.  In each case Abraham offers his children, whom he cherishes so much that he constantly doubts God’s ability to grant him more children.  When he is finally able to will the sacrifice of his son, “his only son” Isaac, he is given the son back and in time humanity is given the entire nation of Israel, a nation that is beyond number.  When Jacob sends Benjamin with his brothers to Egypt, he is certain death awaits him.  But he does return, with the lost brother Joseph and relief for Israel from famine.  When Moses’ mother sacrificed him to the waters of the Nile, she received him back to raise (Ex 2:7-9), and Israel received freedom from Pharaoh. When Hannah is finally granted her every desire, a child, she gives that child, Samuel, to the temple in order to show gratitude to God.   . . .  As for God’s response to Hannah, Israel receives its greatest Judge

And lastly to the sacrificial death of Jesus,

Contrary to the typologies, Jesus actually undergoes true human death in every way.  Jesus in his sacrificial death is both priest and victim.  He is the offering and the one who offers.  His offering of his whole being, “spotless” and perfect, is the perfect offering.  An offering of self is more precious than an offering of property, even children.  The greater the sacrifice the greater the display of fidelity from God.  With the willing sacrifice of Isaac, one receives the nation of Israel.  With the willing and actual self sacrifice of Christ, true to form, Christ gets his life back and more than expected, a glorified existence.  And since his is the perfect sacrifice God offers, through his death, even more, salvation for all humanity.  This is Christ’s gift to us, the God-man must do this because only the man can die and only God has mastery over non-being.  

The focus here is on Jesus’ self sacrifice as priest and victim, but the oft played typology for Genesis is “a father a son and a sacrifice” where the father offers the much beloved son.  

Now we can shift from the terrestrial to the eternal.  It is through this lens that we can understand the incarnation itself as a sacrifice.  But in this sacrifice it becomes immediately clear, “my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the Lord.  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”  God does not sacrifice in order to rid himself of concupiscence in accordance with Aquinas’ third variety of perfection.  In our sacrifice we give up something that actually belongs to God anyway and receive back more than we expect from God.  In God’s sacrifice he gives up what is truly his, his very self, and gets back what should have been his all along, redeemed humanity.  Generally the sacrifice from our end involved destruction or death, or at least the willingness to engage in these things.  In this case the sacrifice will first be a life, the life of Jesus initiated by his conception at the incarnation, then a death.  Jesus’ living sacrifice is the sacrifice of his human will to his divine will in the Son to the Father.  It is only after Jesus’ entire life as a sacrifice of will does the culmination of that sacrifice end in his sacrificial death.   

But this sacrifice is christological and concerns the economic trinity.  Here we are cultivating a devotional christology that originates “from above”, thus we are seeking to explore a more fundamental sacrifice.  Our concern now, as we noted, is the sacrifice of the Son and the Father for humanity as “internal” to the life of the trinity.  This is the sacrifice of the act of the incarnation and it is a matter of the immanent trinity. 

We noted in the former treatise Intuitive Ritual Investment and Conscious Ritual Investment exactly how unusually accurate it is to say “God’s ways are not our ways” especially concerning the act of the incarnation.  It is an “inversion of the postlapsarian inversion”,

The Christ myth, with the cross as the summit, is also the absolute inversion of what a heroic myth is as described by Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand Faces.  

[Here is] the nuclear unit of the monomyth.  A hero ventures from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.

In the Christ story, the Son of God incarnates from the fabulous world of eternal divine bliss into this quite mundane world filled with sinful suffering.  The forces here are not dramatic or transcendent, but petty, vulgar, and violent.  As the trajectory of the standard human life goes, Jesus does not triumph, but dies abandoned and rejected by everyone.  All of this as a historical reality summarizes God’s work toward our salvation, not our own.  In this way the Christian myth breaks the convention and works from the ultimate to the mundane and not the other way around.  The hero who traverses from the mundane to the fantastic is the disciple who follows Christ, who brings them salvation and heaven.

Humans are constantly striving to leave our realm and enter the divine realm, often in the most unhealthy ways.  See for example, the entire first part of the book of Genesis from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, to the  Tower of Babel.  But for God this situation is reversed.  Given the nature of the situation the Son left and the world entered, it is fitting to say, “God so loved the world”.  To properly inspire devotion it is fitting to dwell on the full impact of this sacrifice.  Such meditation should inspire the exact awe that will bring forth gratitude for god’s good sacrifice and lead to true devotion.   

The Nature of the Sacrifice of the Incarnation: Physiology, Epistemology and Love 

We have discussed two major metrics for christological speculative exploration in the former treatise Divine Gender Transcendence and Incarnational Divine Presence, 

There are only two real restriction in how we go about our meditation in order to make it possible as an experience of Jesus.  Hebrews and the creed remind us that Jesus is “one like us in all things but sin”.  Therefore anything we think about Jesus has to be a human condition and it can’t be sinful.  You will notice none of the previously mentioned qualities, (poverty, homelessness, legal criminality etc.), are objectively personally sinful.  If these two criteria are met then it is at least possible (probability is another matter), even within the bounds of orthodox thought, for Jesus to have been however way you may want to describe him as long as you don’t contradict scripture or tradition.  Couple that with what scripture and tradition actually does say about Jesus and you are on your way to a usable description of who Jesus is.                       

                    

So when speculating on the person, Jesus Christ, what he experienced, how he operated, etc, one must think of an experience and employ two prime questions, 1: “is this experience something that most humans have experienced throughout most of human history?” 2: “is this experience sinful?”  If the answer to question one is “yes” and the answer to question 2 is “no” then as we said, there is at least the possibility that Jesus experienced them. 

I more often us these questions as meditation to draw conclusions in speculation of a low christological (companionship) manner.  But we are now going to zero in on the famous christological hymn of Philippians chapter 2.  Here is how the opening stanza speaks of Christ,  

Who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

Rather, he emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

coming in human likeness;

and found human in appearance,

he humbled himself,

becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross

This hymn is touted by proponents of high christology for it’s implied pre-existent assumptions.  We are going to use it for this exact reason, yet we are going to zero in on the concept of emptiness and speculatively ruminate on what that emptiness could mean.  In doing that we are going to analyze the first part of our christological scricture, “one like us”.  That is, we are going to ponder our first question, “is this experience something that most humans have experienced throughout most of human history?”, as it applies to this awkward word, “emptied”.

We are considering the sacrifice of the Logos, his “giving up” for us.  Since the passage referred to his “coming in human likeness and found human appearance” we generally take this emptiness in physical terms.  Without much reflection we generally see the sacrifice of the Logos by the incarnation as a sacrifice of physical confinement.  That is, a sacrifice which takes an infinite reality, and confines it physically to a body that is small, if we want to prove our orthodox muster, we would add to that this physical confinement included physical pain and suffering, because the body feels these things.

This physical confinement is most touchingly referenced by the pious devotion to the nativity scene.  Here one can see the physical vulnerability of the incarnate Son of God, who must be cared for by his mother despite a hard situation.  But only in Luke’s gospel do we get a sense of development from that point to the point of adulthood and what that development may mean.  Both physical development and the pain that it entails in this world would have been exactly what The Son would have been subject too given the nature of his sacrifice.  So for example, acne is something that most humans experience, but it is not sinful, therefore in all probability, teenage Jesus experiences acne.  If one balks at this, as well as examples like body odor, headaches, common colds, erections etc, then one is teetering on a docetic christology, which denies Christ’s corporeal human existence.  It is not recommended that one need overly dwell on these physical aspects of any person, much less Jesus Christ.  But such acknowledgment is necessary in proportion to the presence of presupposed docetism.   

Another classic devotion to the physical confinement of Christ is the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  This devotion focuses on his compassion and mercy as well as his vulnerability, because life is sustained by a beating heart.  By the incarnation, the Logos became subject to a beating heart at the risk of death, just as any other human is.  But I would like to expand that corporeal meditation.  In the recent treatise The Three Tiered Integration of Self we utilized a meditation on the physical confinement of the Logos that revolved around the five wounds, and I have seen in my time a devotion to “The Most Powerful Hand”.   But I have, in all these one almost never seen interest or reference to the “sacred brain” of Jesus.  Even saying it seems off for some reason.  Jesus most certainly has a brain, human bodies are as functionless without them as they are without a heart.  

One reason there is little to no devotion to the Sacred Brain of Jesus may be that knowledge is less important that desire, compassion and emotion in Christianity.  It is hard for academics to bear.  But it is true, on the list of gifts of the spirit knowledge is fairly low on the totem pole.  Christianity is not a gnostic religion.  For the most part, knowledge is helpful and useful, but not necessary.  It does not rank among the cardinal virtues, it is not listed among the beatitudes, it is a gift not a fruit of the spirit, which solidifies it generative and useful, yet ancillary position.  Perhaps there is a  focus on the heart over the brain because the virtues and psychological attributes associated with the heart are more important to Christian life than those associated with the brain.    

Another more probable reason for little devotion to the Sacred Brain of Jesus is the epistemological and anthropological can of worms it opens.  In modern times when we think of Jesus’ “divine nature” or “human nature” we seem to imagine his inner life.  And this more and more means his inner thought processes.  These thought processes are seen as ethereal and “spiritual” as opposed to biological, which is obviously not divine in nature.  Meditating on the “sacred brain” may inadvertently place one in a position philosophical materialism, equating thoughts with brian, thereby spirit with brain and brain function.  When one relates love, compassion, emotion, suffering etc. to the heart, the relationship is obviously poetic in nature.  But the brain is another matter.  Over investment in such a devotion may force the hand of the magisterium on the mysterious connection between brain, thought, and spirit.  The Church wisely tends to stay away from definitive definitions of the relationship between biology and the spiritual.    

This aversion could also speak to a creeping quasi-docetism, which in turn fosters apollinarianism.  Let’s be honest, the average unreflective christology seeks Jesus’ human nature as represented by his human spirit, which in modern terms is his human psycho-cognitive life. This human nature is usually assumed to be totally subsumed by his divine nature, a psycho-cognitive (read: spiritual) reality in and of itself, because God is personal.  This is apollinarianism.  In our recent docetic tendencies, we as Catholics can at least admit that Jesus’ body was a carrier of suffering, but only in order that his passion can be an expression of sacrificial love.  The incarnation is seen as a physical confinement for a very particular reason, get across lessons for three years, then die in a very particular way, and that was the time that he felt physical pain, so the sacrifice could be “real”.  When one speaks of almost any other bio-function or relationship with Christ the reaction is generally suspicion.  Even Jesus and a stubbed toe, or Jesus and the common cold are treated as at least odd to ponder if not impossible.  

Again, the emotive attributes of the heart are obviously poetic, therefore a devotion to the Sacred Heart leads the devotee to the spiritual nature of Christ.  But if devotion to the sacred brain draws one to cognition and that an awareness that this brain functions in the same way that any other human brain functions, well, that’s a level of vulnerability that most Christians are uncomfortable with predicating of the incarnation.  It would mean admitting that Jesus was subject to hormonal influence, that Jesus felt the effect of the likes of oxytocin, testosterone, dopamine, or most interestingly glutamate, which is involved in cognitive functions such as learning and memory in the brain.  A devotion to the Sacred Brain would quelsh both docetism and apollinarianism, because of the intricate connection that modern people know exists between this organ and what we perceive of as our cognitive life and our nature as  human beings.  If Jesus’ brain utilized glutamate, it would mean that baby Jesus’ brain needed to develop, that Jesus needed to learn, form memories, seek understanding, recall and maybe forget memories.  All of these things are met with immediate suspicion. 

We forayed into this territory in the former treatise Divine Gender Transcendence and Incarnational Divine Presence,

Could Jesus have ever been ignorant of anything given he was God?  One can only speculate on such questions without really knowing, but the answer seems on the face of it to be no.  God knows everything.  On the other hand, Jesus is Human and ignorance is a universal example of the human condition.  The only thing that needs to be cleared up now is whether or not it is sinful to be ignorant of a fact.  I don’t think anyone would say that simple ignorance is sinful,  there are an infinite number of facts that any given person does not know.  I don’t know the distance between Jupiter and Mars.  I don’t know the temperature of some specific cat’s toenail.  These are not moral failings, but simply examples of my status as a finite being, the learning process is part of the human condition.  It could be argued that we see Jesus’ learning process demonstrated Mt 8:10 when he is amazed by the centurion's faith.  To be amazed, one must be suprised, and to be surprised, one must be unaware of the circumstances, then have the circumstances made known to you.         

We will reiterate here, as we did there, it is impossible to know the inner life of Jesus.  Our purpose in that treatise was to speculate on the development of the gender identity of Jesus of Nazareth.  Here our aim is to develop a devotional christology by meditation of the sacrifice of the incarnation and what we are angling toward now is a sacrifice that is not only a physical confinement, which could hardly be described as an “emptying”, but also a sacrifice of spiritual emptying.  If this concept can be fostered in a healthy way it should inspire a devotion out of gratitude for the all encompassing rigor of this sacrifice by the second person of the Trinity.

We are about to speculate on the knowledge Jesus possessed as he walked this earth, a dangerously unverifiable topic of interest.  We will assert that he lacked knowledge and needed to develop knowledge as every other human would.  We assert this because Jesus is one like us in all things but sin, every human develops knowledge, and developing knowledge is not sinful.  This belief is generally met with suspicion and is placed soundly in the low christology camp, because God knows everything and humans are limited in their knowledge.  But, we will be reflecting on this lack of knowledge from the perspective of a “pre-existent” christology, a point of view synonymous with high christology.  Again, the purpose of this treatise is to disrupt those categories by placing them under the auspices of devotional and companionship christologies.  The reason we can come to the conclusion the Jesus lacked knowledge by meditating on the pre existence of the Logos is because we are not engaging in high or low christology, but devotional christology.  Our devotion is based on John 3:16 coupled with Philippians 2:7 and is aimed at leading the participant into a deep gratitude and devotion to Christ by understanding the sacrificial nature of act of the incarnation itself. 

As we have said, the incarnation is often seen through a sacrificial lens, but that sacrifice is generally imaged as a “confinement” based on apollinarian christological assumptions.  It is rarely seen as an “emptying”.  Our speculation begins, “what if the Logos not only sacrificed his infinite space, and subjected himself to bio-vulnerability?” What if, as a sacrifice of love in order to gain true empathy, the Logos emptied himself of knowledge. “In eternity” the Logos would absolutely trust the plan of salvation history, knowing even within the span of temporal existence he would ultimately gain the knowledge needed.  But, keeping with the nature of the meta paradox (where God is eternal , yet in relationship with finite creation), even in eternity, as the Logos know all, at the same time in the experience of temporal existence, he is emptied of knowledge so as to develop appropriate to the cosmological paradox, the development of time from eden to the eschaton (salvation history).           

Again, this would be an “at the same time” situation.  One does not “leave” eternity, because eternity is static.  But by relationship with creation, the Logos can change in the flow of time, because time is flux.  The meta paradox is definitely an application of the  substantial approach to paradox as relayed in the former treatise Paradoxes and Disorders.  This is because the disparity between eternity and temporal existence is so dramatic.  Yet as we noted in that treatise, once in the flow of time the paradox of an all knowing deity who is also human (a finite ignorant creature) is better served by a process analysis.  

Our sacrifice starts in eternity, where the Logos possesses omniscience, and knows the plan of salvation history.  The incarnation is the Logos in a one hundred percent real way entering the flow of time and therefore was subject to everything that is involved in being a human being.  Yet at the same time “remaining in eternity” because eternity does not change.  When the Logos takes on human nature, is bound to it by hypostatic relationship, the Logos is in time and is living as a temporal reality.  Therefore the “person” of Jesus, which has two natures experiences all the things that a human person does, meaning ignorance and learning.  This is the “emptiness”.  Again, it is important to remember that “nature” does not necessarily mean “thinking” or “will”.  These psyco-spiritual processes are related to nature by Aristotle and Descartes, but this is by no means the only way to conceive of what divine or human nature means.  Thus it is not necessary to think that if the Logos to emptied himself of omniscience or omnipotence he somehow emptied himself of his very nature.    

For the best contemplative example of the incarnation and “emptying”, one need only go to the standard image for the incarnation, the nativity.  When one sees that baby in the manger, one cannot imagine that baby as “omniscient”.  I don’t think anyone imagines the baby Jesus as “not omniscient” either.  Generally the “Awe” one feels meditating on the nativity scene is, again, the vulnerable bio-confinement.  Rarely are cognitive christological concerns brought to bear when considering baby Jesus and his sacred brian.  The narrative most part skips to adult Jesus who is conveniently cognitively competent, such that the points to be made by the infancy narratives seem to have little comment regarding Jesus’ inner life.  

But babies do have legitimate inner lives, and I would dare say they certainly do have spiritual lives, that is if they are human; creatures made in the image and likeness of God.  That spiritual life as a relationship to God does not take place in language, which is the way we usually conceive of cognition.  Usually when people think about thinking, they think of locutions “uttered” in one’s head that make logical thoughts.  But babies do not have access to this type of cognition.  They must learn it.  So what is faith for them?  It is a learned process, mother puts baby down for three minutes, baby cries, mother comes back, baby learns someone is coming back to “set things right”.  That theme, “someone is coming back to set things right”, is universal to human religions.  One sees examples in the Messiah of Judaism and the second coming in Christianity, the 12th imam and the Mahdi of Islam, the tenth incarnation of Vishnu in hinduism, and the celestial bodhisattva Mitrea, the next buddha to come in buddhism.  If one studies general similarities found in world religions, and then overlays them on experiences of childhood one can begin to speculate on what baby spirituality must be like, and how they begin framing major religious themes such as learning trust, recognizing alienation and union, grappling with suffering, etc.  

Babies develop knowledge, including how to speak.  Some may defend the idea that Jesus was omniscient, as a human, because that omniscience is piggybacking on his divine nature.  The thought runs like this, “Jesus as a human wasn’t omniscient, but as God he was, so maybe Divine Jesus kept knowledge from human Jesus, but probably Jesus just knew . . . everything.”  At this point we have a nestorian christology that then crosses firmly into apollinarian territory.  Or in modern psychological terms, a Jesus with dissociative disorder where on personality takes over the other, Tyler Durden style, and the other fades into complete insignificance.  This view is especially resonant since we as moderns usually equate the soul or spirit, which we perceive as the psycho-cognitive dimension, with the nature or essence of a person.   

Meditation on baby Jesus’ inner psycho-spiritual life would quickly dissuade this type of thinking as well as the idea that the incarnation is simply a biological confinement.  Instead, with this type of meditation, one would tend more toward understanding the emptying as an emptying into a process of development, beginning from the standard natal starting point.  That would be reflex and intuitive cognition, influenced by sense impression that develops over a few years into rational language based cognition.  Hence the only story we have in the canonical gospels of Jesus where he is neither a baby nor an adult is the finding in the temple in Luke’s gospel, and that passage ends with the curious statement, “He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and his mother kept all these things in her heart.  And Jesus advanced [in] wisdom and age and favor before God and man.”  This passage notes the inner life of both Mary and Jesus and, much to the chagrin of the apollinarianism, notices a process of cognitive and spiritual development in Jesus, which will end in the glorification of Christ.    

We noted in the last section how we viewed the cosmological paradox by process analysis in the former treatise Paradoxes and Disorders.  By the incarnation, the Logos, who is divine perfection, enters that process of resolution between edenic perfection and eschatological perfection as the example of postlapsarian perfection, which is the perfection of striving.  If there was no striving, then the third type of perfection that aquinas mentions is missing from divine perfection.  Since this is an instrumental perfection, perhaps we can forgive God, in God’ self, for lacking it.  But would God leave us with no perfect example of perfect striving for the entire span of postlapsarian reality? It can be assumed the answer is no.  And since God presences perfection par excellence, God is the only one who can present perfect striving.  The mode by which this presentation is carried out is the incarnation.

Though the eternal Logos understands the nature and outcome of his sacrificial act and has perfect trust in the Father’s plan for salvation, the Logas as incarnate, a simultaneous and self same reality, would need to be emptied and then develop according to plan, learn facts,learn trust, learn love.  The Logos as eternal knows the outcome, seeing all time at once, the Logos simultaneously incarnate only knows according to development of time, or else he is not perfect regarding perfect striving, and we are left with no example or experience of that.  This extremely convoluted reasoning is also commented on by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa where he refers to the two knowledges of Christ,     

The Son of God assumed an entire human nature, i.e. not only a body, but also a soul, and not only a sensitive, but also a rational soul. And therefore it behooved Him to have created knowledge, for three reasons. First, on account of the soul's perfection. For the soul, considered in itself, is in potentiality to knowing intelligible things. since it is like "a tablet on which nothing is written," and yet it may be written upon through the possible intellect, whereby it may become all things, as is said De Anima iii, 18. Now what is in potentiality is imperfect unless reduced to act. But it was fitting that the Son of God should assume, not an imperfect, but a perfect human nature, since the whole human race was to be brought back to perfection by its means. Hence it behooved the soul of Christ to be perfected by a knowledge, which would be its proper perfection. And therefore it was necessary that there should be another knowledge in Christ besides the Divine knowledge, otherwise the soul of Christ would have been more imperfect than the souls of the rest of men. Secondly, because, since everything is on account of its operation, as stated De Coel. ii, 17, Christ would have had an intellective soul to no purpose if He had not understood by it; and this pertains to created knowledge. Thirdly, because some created knowledge pertains to the nature of the human soul, viz. that whereby we naturally know first principles; since we are here taking knowledge for any cognition of the human intellect.

Our assertion is the perfect divine knowledge exists in eternity, yet the “perfection process” happens temporally, and is experienced as a process by the incarnate Logos in time.  In eternity the Logos has perfect love, trust, and knowledge, yet in the process of time, the Logos as emptied divine nature undergoes a perfect process of developing love, trust, and knowledge.  It must be remembered that according to Christian ontology all of these things can be one thing by a binding relationship.  Since they are personal relationships, the “loving relationship” is the most effective binding relationship, and as we explained in the former treatise Christian Ontology the operative power of a truly loving relationship is The Holy Spirit.  Thus, by operation of the Holy Spirit, the incarnation bridges the “substantial gap” of the meta paradox.

The biggest criticism of the idea that Jesus lacked knowledge in any way is that it subjects the Son to the Father. Subjugation or monarchianism sees the Son as lesser to the Father.  But with this understanding of the two knowledges as part and parcel of the mysterious bridge between the eternal and the temporal, one can see that no such subjugation exists, except as a sacrifice of love that the Son willingly undertakes.  But that subjugation only exists in the process of time and can maintain orthodoxy when the meta paradox is acknowledged.   

We can now square our assertions with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church [471-475] teaches concerning Jesus’ human knowledge,

Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.

This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".

But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person.  "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God.”  Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.  The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.

By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

One can see the “fullness of divine knowledge as abiding with the eternal knowledge of the Logos accessible to the human nature of Christ via relationship to the incarnate nature of the Logos in perfect relationship to the eternal nature of the Logos.  According to Christian ontology, all of these things are one thing, but, in the same vague manner that the conscious subconscious in the human psyche have a relationship, certain parts possess certain awareness and knowledge.  Other parts can grow in awareness of what they know.  At a certain point systematic logical explainability becomes ludicrous.  Suffice to say that the way the Logos sacrifices knowledge upon the incarnation is described here is not at all incompatible with the catechism, depending on how carefully it is framed.

     

But, why should the Logos empty knowledge?  Wouldn’t it be better if the Logos simply came and gave us the knowledge he had?  This is the great sacrifice of the Logos, to empty himself for our sake.  The omniscient knowledge possessed by the Logos in eternity does him no harm, but knowledge does do us harm.  It must be remembered that, according to the truths of the third chapter of Genesis, it was knowledge that put humanity in the bind it is on now, postlapsarian reality.  A disordered desire for knowledge over and above God’s loving gift of life and the garden.  In our grasping in we did not get propositional knowledge of good and evil, but experiential knowledge.  This knowledge leads from evil, objective damage, to sin, evil acts coupled with knowledge and will.  When the Logos becomes incarnate he sacrifices what we might call propositional knowledge of good and evil, “not seeing equality with God something to be grasped at . . . he humbled himself”.  He does this out of and to demonstrate true love for humanity. Thomas Aquinas seems to hint at just this type of sacrifice in the Summa when he points out, “Thirdly, as to the effect of love, so that a man will surrender not only temporal but also spiritual goods and even himself, for his neighbor's sake, according to the words of the Apostle (2 Corinthians 12:15), ‘But I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls."  In this passage Aquinas is speaking again of that third type of perfection, what we are calling perfect striving.  Aquinas contrasts this to the type of love sacrificial love we usually associate with the incarnation, which is an, “ intensity of love, which is shown by the things which man despises for his neighbor's sake, through his despising not only external goods for the sake of his neighbor, but also bodily hardships and even death,”

If one references John 3:16, one is usually focusing on the sacrifice of the incarnation itself.  But the image evoked is almost certainly the latter type of sacrifice.  We have pointed out that this sacrifice involves confinement, the discomfort of poverty, and the suffering of the body and usually exclusively associated with bodily death.  But in the former passage he discusses spiritual good that are sacrificed for the sake of another out of love.  The reason Christ would need to forget his omnipotence, is because we as humans we forget.  We forget Eden, we forget God’s love for us, and we must build our love by development of knowledge, trust, and will.  

In Catholicism theologians often comment on three types of love, Eros, Philia and Agape.  In the former treatise Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships we gave a brief summary of the aspects of each.

The first of the three loves is eros or erotic love.  Erotic love is the desire that draws you to another. This type of love is desire based, emotive, and immediately self presenting.  There is no willful or cognitive cooperation necessary for erotic love, it simply abides in a person as a result of external stimulus.  The only participation necessary for an individual is to allow erotic love to abide. . . Filial love is the love of kinship or love of comrades set to a common task.  Filial love takes a little more investment than erotic love.  For example, if you have commonalities with someone, you belong to a group together or are working on a shared goal together, there exists a self evident attraction and comfort that is the beginning of filial love.  But the deeper relationship formed between to people who share filial love is to be maintained then there must be a conscious effort to maintain the relationships and cultivate shared values. Unlike Eros, which comes and goes by desire and is self presenting, philia is cognitively recognized first, then felt, then cooperated with.  If one did not know that the person standing across from them was their long lost child, or a fellow trade unionist, it is unlikely that philia would be present until that knowledge was acquired. . . agapic love is the self emptying variety of love.  Given our concupiscent dispositions, love that seeks the good of the other above the self is natural to humans as we were built by God, but the effect of original Sin does not allow for it to be immediately present in us.  Thus, agapic love takes absolute investment [of knowledge, cognition, and will] by the practitioner.  It is extremely unlikely that one would accidentally, unwittingly or spontaneously practice agapic love.      

For Jesus, a true human being, to experience these varieties of love, there must have been a great spiritual sacrifice by the Logos upon the incarnation.   If one sees that he took the “form of a slave” as that he took the form of a human in the divine human relationship, then one misunderstands the message of one who teaches us to pray “our Father”.  More likely the Logos becomes a slave to powers he masters from eternity.  Powers such as desire and knowledge.  In first century Palestine, he was subjected to them in order to subjugate them to himself according to the postlapsarian order, which as we noted in the former treatise Paradoxes and Disorders is “disorder”.  So Jesus’s soul is subject to the uncontrollable self presentation and withdrawal of eros.  Jesus, in his lack of knowledge, must build on philial kinship ties and common goals with his apostles (as is often evidenced by his repremandings).  Jesus must use the knowledge he acquired in life to make judgments to the best of his ability and exert the full force of his will to express love to people (agape).   

This spiritual subjugation is in accordance with the standard teaching concerning Jesus is that he is free from sin, but does suffer its effects of original sin, for example death, which he experiences death,  the effects of the personal sins of others, for example, possible the cruel indulgence of the executioners.  Since the biological effect of original sin is death, and Jesus did die, could the same be said of the spiritual effect, concupiscence?  

Concupiscence is not a personal sin.  It is a tendency to temptation that we all have, according to our disordered postlapsarian souls.  Since Jesus’ body was was subject to the effects of original sin, death and decrepitude, was the spiritual sacrifice of the Logos also complete in appropriation of the effects if humanities fallen nature?  Most of us assume Jesus came to exhibit divine perfection according to the first order described by Aquinas.  But if our rendition of the twofold knowledge of Christ is true, that type of love is known by the Logos in eternity.  But Jesus, incarnate in time came to show us perfect striving. Thus his perfect love as human and divine love, seems more appropriate to the second order of perfection noted by Aquinas, “Another perfection answers to an absolute totality on the part of the lover, so that the affective faculty always actually tends to God as much as it possibly can; and such perfection as this is not possible so long as we are on the way, but we shall have it in heaven.”  The curious situation of the incarnation is that Jesus is as we are to be in heaven, but he abides in postlapsarian reality. So it may be that his love is particularly unique because of these circumstances.  Because he “tends to God as much as it possibly can” but he is still limited by his spiritual sacrifice of the incarnation, which includes postlapsarian constraints of concupiscence whose effets would be vanquished in heaven.  This is the greatest of awe inspiring aspects of the spiritual sacrifice of the incarnation, because to abide in such a situation will cause a unique type of suffering.

This perfect love is what the Logos achieved by his sacrifice, as opposed to perfect “knowledge” as “facts” which the Logos has in eternity.  The experience of humanity and the gift to humanity of God’s ability to share in the love that we strive for through striving.  Thus the Catechism can say,

Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me.” He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation, "is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings" without exception.   

 

  Love is edified by knowledge, but for the love of striving to be complete, it does not require complete knowledge.  Thus the devotion to the Sacred Heart takes precedence far and above any devotion to the “sacred brain”. 

We come at last to a particularly human type a love, a love that is bound, not just by corporeal space, but by finite soul.  Jesus participates in this love by the Logos’ sacrifice in the incarnation.  His last words in the synoptic gospels show the edifying trust that must be built to the very end.  They are, quotes from 22nd and 31st Psalms, two great expression of the struggle of trusting God amidst suffering and cruelty.  Faith and hope require a lack of knowledge to be in any way admirable.  And these two are what perfect the love of striving.  

Devotion to Divine Empathy Through the Sacrifice of the Logos

At last we can come to the true payoff of much theoretical and unsubstantiatable reflection.  Why engage in these reflections?  Because they give us a deeper devotion to the incarnation of the Son of God.  This is devotion to Jesus’ sacrificial death.  That of course speaks to his physical death on the cross, but also to his sacrificial death of the Flesh as we described it in the former treatise  Toward Appropriate Thanatosian Piety.  There we attempted to explain by Pauline theology  how Christ wields Holy Death, a power under his dominion, for the benefit of our soul.

What Paul is getting at with “The Flesh” is the idea that there are parts of the spirit which are not healthy and need to die.  The body is not the problem, but that it dies and rots seems to be an indicator for the greeks that the body is somehow evil.  So Paul labels aspects of the human soul, “The Flesh” to give the greek minds an adverse reaction, and an awareness that these things need to come under the power of Holy Death, they need to dissolve into nothingness.  “The Spirit”  is the aspects of the human soul that needs to live.  The humans build sin “The Flesh” on top of “The Spirit”.  Holy Death, under the direction of Christ, destroys “The Flesh” and “The Spirit” remains.  When one is baptized into Christ’s death, one is putting oneself under the power of Christ and “his death”  meaning Holy Death, whom he controls for your benefit.  You are conformed by baptism to utilize the grace, by means of your cooperative will, to allow Christ to direct Holy Death appropriately within your very soul.

We can use this same spiritual outlook to build trust in Christ, because the Logos was willing to go through the same spiritual culling in order to minister to us where we are at, with a deeper understanding of our own situation.  The Logos was willing to let go of omniscience in order to become one with us. He was willing to divest of his one hundred percent accurate preconceived notions about us in order to grow into love with us in the same manner that we must grow in love with each other.  How willing are we to let go of our own perceived omniscience that forms our, often false, preconceived notions about each other?  How much are we willing to trust a growth of love over a (again often poor) foundation of knowledge?  We use our knowledge to bully others, make them feel inferior or exclude them.  Knowledge should be used to express love more clearly.  If it is not being used for that, it is useless.  Are we too hung up on the congnative content of Jesus’ Sacred Brain at the expense of devotion to his Sacred Heart?  What if that brain wasn’t omniscient?  Would we then find it useless?  If so we may have just learned exactly how we  have objectified that brain.  It is now no longer a functioning piece of a dynamic person, but an object of authority, which we probably used to marshall others to our own will.  Can we resist looking at equality with God as something to be grasped at?  Can we let go of knowledge that is true, but damaging to us personally as postlapsarian beings?  

One of the main devotions that allow us to come into loving relationship with Jesus is his willingness to be humbled, humiliated, for us.  The quickest example is the scourging and stripping, but again these are physical examples that can be augmented by a spiritual emptying upon the incarnation.  Could Jesus also have been humiliated by the Centurion who showed more trust that Jesus expected for a gentile?  Could Jesus have been embarrassed by the syrophonician woman, who seems to teach him a lesson about how to implement compassion.  We may not find it easy to accept that Jesus would bear such humiliation for us, that the Logos would empty himself of omniscience in order to actually experience such humiliation as part of a growth process as opposed to demonstrating such humiliation as a dramatic effect, but actually knowing these things on the sly.  How is this different than a psychological mirror of the docetic heresy, where instead of bodily concerns, Jesus has no real human inner life?  To know the breadth of his sacrifice gives of the ability truly work into a loving relationship of awe and respect for one who strives as we do.

True devotion to the incarnation does not come in wondering in the might and deed of Christ.  True devotion comes in the ability to recognize his cross and his humiliation in the very act of the incarnation.  And then, the ability to appropriate such humility to one’s self.  Without such devotion, St. Frances’ explanation of “Perfect Joy” makes no sense,

One day in winter, as Saint Francis was going with Brother Leo from Perugia to Saint Mary of the Angels, and was suffering greatly from the cold, he called to Brother Leo, who was walking on before him, and said to him: "Brother Leo, if it were to please God that the Friars Minor should give, in all lands, a great example of holiness and edification, write down, and note carefully, that this would not be perfect joy."

A little further on, Saint Francis called to him a second time: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor were to make the lame to walk, if they should make straight the crooked, chase away demons, give sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, and, what is even a far greater work, if they should raise the dead after four days, write that this would not be perfect joy."

Shortly after, he cried out again: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor knew all languages; if they were versed in all science; if they could explain all Scripture; if they had the gift of prophecy, and could reveal, not only all future things, but likewise the secrets of all consciences and all souls, write that this would not be perfect joy."

After proceeding a few steps farther, he cried out again with a loud voice: "O Brother Leo, thou little lamb of God! if the Friars Minor could speak with the tongues of angels; if they could explain the course of the stars; if they knew the virtues of all plants; if all the treasures of the earth were revealed to them; if they were acquainted with the various qualities of all birds, of all fish, of all animals, of men, of trees, of stones, of roots, and of waters - write that this would not be perfect joy."

Shortly after, he cried out again: "O Brother Leo, if the Friars Minor had the gift of preaching so as to convert all infidels to the faith of Christ, write that this would not be perfect joy."

Now when this manner of discourse had lasted for the space of two miles, Brother Leo wondered much within himself; and, questioning the saint, he said: "Father, I pray thee teach me wherein is perfect joy." Saint Francis answered: "If, when we shall arrive at Saint Mary of the Angels, all drenched with rain and trembling with cold, all covered with mud and exhausted from hunger; if, when we knock at the convent-gate, the porter should come angrily and ask us who we are; if, after we have told him, "We are two of the brethren", he should answer angrily, "What ye say is not the truth; ye are but two impostors going about to deceive the world, and take away the alms of the poor; begone I say"; if then he refuse to open to us, and leave us outside, exposed to the snow and rain, suffering from cold and hunger till nightfall - then, if we accept such injustice, such cruelty and such contempt with patience, without being ruffled and without murmuring, believing with humility and charity that the porter really knows us, and that it is God who maketh him to speak thus against us, write down, O Brother Leo, that this is perfect joy.

And if we knock again, and the porter come out in anger to drive us away with oaths and blows, as if we were vile impostors, saying, "Begone, miserable robbers! to the hospital, for here you shall neither eat nor sleep!" - and if we accept all this with patience, with joy, and with charity, O Brother Leo, write that this indeed is perfect joy.

And if, urged by cold and hunger, we knock again, calling to the porter and entreating him with many tears to open to us and give us shelter, for the love of God, and if he come out more angry than before, exclaiming, "These are but importunate rascals, I will deal with them as they deserve"; and taking a knotted stick, he seize us by the hood, throwing us on the ground, rolling us in the snow, and shall beat and wound us with the knots in the stick - if we bear all these injuries with patience and joy, thinking of the sufferings of our Blessed Lord, which we would share out of love for him, write, O Brother Leo, that here, finally, is perfect joy.

And now, brother, listen to the conclusion. Above all the graces and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit which Christ grants to his friends, is the grace of overcoming oneself, and accepting willingly, out of love for Christ, all suffering, injury, discomfort and contempt; for in all other gifts of God we cannot glory, seeing they proceed not from ourselves but from God, according to the words of the Apostle, "What hast thou that thou hast not received from God? and if thou hast received it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?" But in the cross of tribulation and affliction we may glory, because, as the Apostle says again, "I will not glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Amen."    

True devotion to the incarnation understands that Jesus is one like us in all things but sin, and being a true human who strives as a true human does is not sinful. This is the awe inspired by the incarnation. This is the Awe of the faithfulness and trust of Jesus Christ in the will of the Father, faithfulness and trust that require the spiritual sacrifice of the Logos through the incarnation. 

In the first section we laid the groundwork for defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low.   We explored the concept of perfection and realized that perfect striving is suited to our situation here.  This lead us to an understanding that the perfection of Jesus is a perfection suited to postlapsarian reality. 

In this section we began our shift away from a christological theoretic, to a christological pragmatic by exploring the idea of a devotional christology.  The correlation to this was “high christology” but in our approach the theoretic speculation serves the praxis and not the other way around.  We began with understanding the nature of sacrifice in general, and sought an understanding of how a communication system setup for human to express to God might look if God uses it to express to humans.  We also distinguished between a sacrificial death and a living sacrifice as defined in the New Testament.  Lastly we laid out how the archetypal mythic journey of “the Hero” is inverted in the incarnation and used that inversion to begin to understand the full breadth of the sacrifice of the incarnation itself.

What followed was an unpacking of the incarnation as sacrifice.  We discussed the usual understanding of that sacrifice as one of “confinement” in a body, but moved beyond that to understand that sacrifice as an “emptying”of divine favors such as omnipotence and omniscience in order to experience this postlapsarian world.  Next we sought to avoid any suspicion of monarchial heresy by applying Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the “two knowledges” of Christ.  We then placed knowledge within its proper place among the virtues, subservient to love, and  began, at last to unpack the Logos’ sacrifice of self in order to demonstrate perfection for this postlapsarian world, that is, learning to express love through perfect striving.     

Lastly we took this understanding of devotional christology and applied the devotion to our own lives.  We developed skills for sacrificing our very selves in our most intimate parts, for example our perceived knowledge, in order to come into loving relationship.

In the next section we will focus on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology developed and give a brief reiteration of the practical effects of prayerful engagement with a companionship christology.       

 

Companion Christology and the Development of Jesus Christ 

In the first section we laid the groundwork for defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low.   We explored three concepts of perfection as put forth by Thomas Aquinas and realized that only one of them applied to our situation here, perfect striving.  Perfect striving was not available to the situation in Eden and the Eschaton.  This lead us to an understanding that the perfection of Jesus is a perfection suited to postlapsarian reality. 

In the previous section began exploring the idea of a devotional christology by exploring the incarnation as an act of sacrifice by the Logos.  We unpacked how the Logos’ sacrifice of self allows the divine person a perfection for this postlapsarian world, perfect striving.  We then applied prayerful engagement with devotional christology to our own lives, developing skills for sacrificing our very selves in our most intimate parts.

In this last section we will focus on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology developed.  We began by recounting some common problems caused popular piety’s quasi-apollinarian christology.  This treatise will make the bold assertion, through technical definition, that though Jesus is one like us in all things but sin, “doing wrong” is not always sinful, because sin implies culpability.  Any “evil” action Jesus did without knowledge or willful participation, these being limited the sacrificial emptying of the incarnation, is not a sin.  We will develop a speculation concerning Jesus as our singular postlapsarian example of perfection, perfect striving.  This striving is the filling of the lack of goodness (evil) that allows Eden to develop towards the Eschaton.  Lastly we will give a brief reiteration of the practical effects of prayerful engagement with a companionship christology.

Companionship with “One Like Us in All Things But Sin”

As we speak of companionship christology, one thing to point out is how hard it is to feel companionship with Jesus when we contemplate our two questions for orthodox positions on Jesus   “is this experience something that most humans have experienced throughout most of human history?” and “is this experience sinful?”  The first question is our gateway to companionship.  But, the second question is a tough bar for most of us that in many ways undercuts the goal of a companionship christology.  What type of person can live their entire life without sin?  Anyone with slight self reflection will immediately see Jesus as, in a large way, unrelatable and even terrifying as opposed to compassionate. How can someone so perfect relate to me?  How can I relate to him?  The fact of his suffering physically for us despite his sinlessness almost makes the gap worse.  If bitterness wasn’t a sin, how could Jesus help but be bitter at being sinless but suffering the consequences of human sin, such as pain and death?  This quick meditation puts Jesus in such a position of superiority, that any sense of companionship is greatly diminished.  

Then there is the question of how Jesus even got along without appearing to be a completely odd person.  The messiah was supposed to have “no stately bearing”, but in a world entirely immersed in disorder, how can this be without a great deal of deceit, which is a sin.  It seems more like an impossible luck to have never engaged in evil doing than an ability one practices.    

Generally a low christology functions to help the practitioner to distance the gap of alienation between believer and Christ by relation of physical suffering in an anti-docetic maneuver.  It most definitely focuses on Jesus as he abided in postlapsarian reality as opposed to Jesus glorified and living in the Eschaton.  Functionally it seeks to align the practitioner with Jesus’ sense of angst regarding his impending death, as portrayed in Gethsemane.  But the whole gambit of the interior human condition, cast in turmoil due to sin, is usually not applied to Jesus, he is seen as perfectly balanced and in absolute psycho-spiritual control, again, even to the point of possessing all knowledge.  God is seen as perfect.  God is also seen as spirit.  Thus the spiritual aspect of the person, Jesus of Nazareth, is framed as perfect in exactly the same way the Logos is in eternity. But this leads to a type of “devotion” that is different than what we described in the last section.  This devotion is awe at Jesus’ spiritual superiority.  In itself, this awe is not a bad thing. Even by what we developed in the last section we can feel a sense of awe at Jesus’ spiritual superiority.  But, assumed christology coupled with popular piety often doesn’t results in awe that concerns the spiritual sacrifice of the Logos and the subsequent perfect striving of Jesus Christ. Instead the awe is one of cognitive and objective moral superiority which gives one an authority over others.  This is often taken as a guide on how to act in a superior manner towards others, or as justification for doing so.  This runs completely contrary to Christian power dynamics, which is presented in perfect clarity by the meaning and purpose of the spiritual sacrifice of the Logos.  Therefore this way of understanding the spiritual perfection of Jesus may not be most spiritually effective way to frame the perfection of Jesus of Nazareth. Instead in may be better help for the pilgrim church to remember that God presents all perfection and perfect striving is the divine perfection of Christ incarnate as he lived on this Earth in the first century.  

The holistic nature of Christology, when it is not a field of battle for theological disputatiousness, is seen in how we have already begun meditations that help with companionship christology in our discussion of devotional christology.  One striving we discussed in the previous section was striving with ignorance.  The discussion of the spiritual sacrifice of the Logos helps the devotee feel a sense of kinship and union with the Logos, because we strive together.  Our task for this part is to begin to try to square a companionship christology with the second question of our formula, the sinlessness of Jesus.  We will venture far into the territory of “offensive to pious ears”.  We will work in all honesty to keep orthodox, but these are complex and highly specialtive areas to deal with and we will be pushing the boundaries of our accepted assumptions concerning Jesus’ inner life.  As we embark on this meditation, it is important to remember the speculative nature of our topic.  It is tempting to read any such speculation and assume a posture of theological disputatiousness .  I would even call taking that posture fun, among friends.  But our task is not to proclaim bold absolutes about the inner life of a man who walked this earth to thousand years ago.  The inner life of someone else who walks the earth today is mysterious enough, how can anyone speak with certainty on such a topic?  Instead we are seeking a frame for understanding Jesus’ that fits our two question litmus, and brings us into a closer connection to Christ by deepening our relationship with him.  If our meditation works, yet we turn out to be objectively wrong, I believe Jesus will be pleased.    What friend would be angry about an honest mistake in the advancement of friendship?  Especially when it concerns such a mysterious topic. If these speculations are ineffective and wrong, then my prayer is that these ideas fade quickly into obscurity.

First we are going to return to the former treatise Relativism, Conscience, and The Magisterium, which we will rely heavily on in this section.  In that treatise we made a distinction between “evil” and “sin”.  We take pains in that treatise to show that evil is known by its consequences, whereas sin is connected to culpability.    

Sin implies culpability, which is the guilt accrued for an evil action done.  Culpability is a different thing that the evil itself.  If one takes an expansive view of “consequences”, what makes an action “evil” are the consequences.  With good reason, most Catholics immediately get antsy at any hint of moral consequentialism and ascribe to a deontological from of mortality where duty is the focus.  The good reason to get antsy at moral consequentialism is that is it is usually paired with either a hedonistic or utilitarian worldview, both of which see suffering a equivalent to evil.  This is opposed to a deontological morality where the action itself is seen as the carrier of moral weight.  For a deontological morality one follows the proclaimed law of God out of duty, not because of “consequences” (meaning suffering).  This view allows for the beautiful Catholic idea of redemptive suffering.  But we say we must take an “expansive view” of consequences. What makes an action evil in this deontological model is still the consequence of an action.  By means of the action one has broken faith and proper relationship with God. . .

Culpability for an action is different than the moral weight of the action, let’s say the “evil of it”.  If the action was evil, one accrues culpability by possession of knowledge of how evil it is and exercise of will.  The greater the knowledge and stronger the will the greater the culpability.  Again, the three categories for mortal sin, grave matter (an action with serious [expansive] consequences), full knowledge, and complete consent.  The old school deontological definition of sin is, “an offense against God” or “against God’s honor.”  One way to look at this is the gravity of the consequences coupled with the culpability accrued.  Again, an “evil” act is different than a “sinful” act.  You can accidentally do great evil, you cannot accidentally, unknowingly or unwillingly commit great sin.  In fact you cannot accidentally sin at all.  You can be forced to do great evil, but you cannot be forced to sin.  You can unknowingly do great evil, you cannot unknowingly sin.  You cannot accidentally or unknowingly offend God even though you can unknowingly do action that have negative effects on your relationship with God, for example missing mass [in that you didn’t believe it would have negative effects].  

Our alienation from Jesus sometimes comes from the distance set by his sinlessness.  That distance is greatly widened by the belief that he possessed all knowledge.  The apollinarian maneuver of allowing the greater divine knowledge of the Logos in Eternity to fill the void of Jesus’ human knowledge, effectively replacing it, has fascinating consequences for the sinlessness of Jesus.  It means that there is no possibility of Jesus doing an “evil” act, an act with negative consequences performed without culpability for that act.  Jesus could not act out of ignorance, nor could he act “by accident” according to the pious christology.  According to this narrative, every maneuver Jesus made on this earth was perfectly calculated to the best possible effect according to a mind that is in every way unrelatable to the rest of humanity.  Such a narrative forces its own set of complex sophistry concerning Jesus’ surprise at the centurion’s faith or his harsh berating of the syrophoenician woman. 

In this treatise, our complex sophistry uses a scriptural foundation.  The pre existent word, “emptied himself” of knowledge in order to exhibit perfect striving and when Jesus was surprised, Jesus was surprised. It is as simple as that.  But now we get to more controversial claims.  When Jesus curses the syrophoenician woman, brandishes a whip in the temple, impatiently berates the apostles or pays taxes to the oppressive Roman imperial power, what if he is doing evil, but not sin?  Nowhere does doctrine say Jesus never did what we are calling “evil”. 

Let’s take a look at the narrative of the syrophonician woman in order to get an angle on what this could mean.  In the former treatise Anthro-Expansivity and the Natural Next Step of The Great Commission we painted the exchange between Jesus and the syrophoenician woman as one in a series of encounters between Jesus and figures through whom he demonstrates an inclusive evangelization.  In that treatise we painted the encounter as one calculated by Jesus under the standard piety.  But for this treatise we are going to take a different approach.  As any student of scripture knows, context counts.  A story may be interpreted as a unit, as part of a larger subsection in the book, as part of the book, or even as part of the Bible as a whole.  Each way will highlight differing wisdom in the text. We are going to take Jesus’ encounter with the syrophoenician woman as part of his day.

First we may want to remember that Jesus had an interesting night, the night before.  Jesus had just found out about the death of his cousin and mentor John the Baptist.  That night he seemed to want to be alone, but needed to travel thus we have the story of the walking on the water.   It was a night of traveling, and probably sleeplessness.  When Jesus feeds the four thousand just before this, we get a sense that he hand barely eaten in two days.  When he gets to his destination in the morning, the is immediately beset by a host of people who are seeking healing.  In the middle of all of that some pharisees come and ask him what can only be described as an inane question given his personal circumstances.  We are practicing a companion christology, so it must be remembered that Jesus does have personal circumstances that we can empathize with.  

Jesus is working hard with people who are suffering in exhausting circumstances, and these pharisees want to discuss hand washing rituals.  Jesus demonstrates patience even answering these questions, but one can feel his frustration coming off the text as one reads the account.  He does not hold back in his stern judgment of in the same way he would for say, the woman caught in adultery.  In each case sin is dealt with, but the pharisees get a much harsher treatment.  This could be ascribed to Jesus’ identification with the poor against the oppressive power structure, but power is not as much of an issue here, just weird hyper focus.  After dealing soundly but shortly with the pharisees Jesus is approached by the syrophoenician woman.  If one was trying to sculpt a narrative of Jesus siding with the downtrodden, then to see him immediately turn around and cast a slur at an outsider is off putting.  After she checks him and bests him by illuminating compassion, he seems taken aback and after healing her daughter immediately sets back into his task healing the multitudes.

It is not tradition to picture Jesus crabby or cranky from being tired or “hangry”.  But this type of emotional reaction is a symptom of a biological situation and speaks to the interconnectedness of out bodies and our spirits.  They limit our will and therefore our culpability.  In some cases that can negate culpability and therefore objectively evil actions are not sinful.  In the last section we pointed out how Jesus definitely took on the bodily consequences of original sin, decay and death.  We then speculated that, perhaps he took on the spiritual consequences, concupiscence.  In the former treatise Inversal Unity and The Divine Triple Descent we discussed a way of understanding Jesus as “taking on our sin” though a eucharistic lense, remembering that the Church is the mystical body of Christ.  In our current treatise we can revisit the “taking on of sin” as taking on the consequences of sin by the Logos through the sacrifice of the incarnation.  This would be the physical and spiritual consequences.  It is not a personal sin to be tempted, and this most certainly happened to Jesus.  The picture of Jesus being tempted is often of the devil accosting him in the desert after his fast.  Generally our narrative is one of a calm and rational Jesus skillfully rebuking the devil in reasoned and emotionless back and forth.  But with a little introspective reimagination, we can apply the fact that Jesus is tired and hungry and the scene plays out with a very different emotional investment.  

Could Jesus have wrath rise up within him?  According to the gospels it did.  This is not a sin unless he willfully and knowingly cooperated with it. Of course, being hungry and tired greatly mitigates personal access to both knowledge and will.  Hunger and fatigue are just two of the many examples of how we must navigate this complex world as humans.  The sacrifice of the Logos by becoming incarnate is that he partakes in our situation.  So when we say that by the incarnation the son “takes on our sin” perhaps it doesn’t mean spots on our souls which are transferred and glued to Jesus’ soul with no real effect on him.  In that view the transference of sin (spots?) is simply so that they can be destroyed on the cross.  Perhaps Jesus’ taking on of our sin means that the Logos fully took on the consequences of our sin, body and soul, by the incarnation in perfect faith that in the resurrection all things could come to fullness.  This puts Jesus’ thirty three year sojourn in a deeply profound perspective.  It also makes Jesus much more relatable in that he can make mistakes that aren't sin and relate to us in ways that quasi-apollinarian understandings Jesus never could.

With secure knowledge of the resurrected and glorified Jesus sitting at the right hand of the father we can still feel slightly abandoned as we remain in this postlapsarian world over rought with the consequences of original sin, especially the spiritual consequences.  It is comforting to think that Jesus can remember a time he was made to feel spiritually foolish in front of a gentile centurion or morally bested by the syrophonician woman.  Any humble human most likely learned humility the hard way, not by abstraction.  It is nice to think that Jesus had to make amends with his friends after going overboard on them (“how long must I endure you!”).  He didn’t willfully act calculatuing by the knowledge of the consequences of his actions.  He just lost his pacientes and “popped off”.  He humiliated them through his impatience.  It is nice to know that Jesus could have felt that powerless remorse of knowing you hurt someone, and feeling bad, longing for reconciliation, even though you didn’t “sin”.  You didn’t mean too . . .  The two knowledges of Christ reminds us that vulnerability of the incarnation is not just  physical, it is spiritual as well. So, worse yet for Jesus, the spiritual vulnerability means that he did not immediately know how to solve the problem.  He had to navigate his friendships just like us.  This is an intercessor to have seated at the right hand of The Father, one who has truly shared in our experience.  Fatigue, ignorance, powerlessness, frustration, temptation these are not necessarily “sins”. But even when they are not they can cause a person to do a lot of damage in the world, and feel a lot of remorse about the damage done.        

Jesus Presents the Perfection of the Cosmological Paradox

But how can God cooperate with evil?  This seems theologically unsound.  The first and most important response to this is that God does not cooperate with evil because evil has no ontological status. It must be remembered that despite belief in the devil, sin and suffering, Christianity is not a dualistic religion.  There is not a good God and an evil one.  Rather, in this treatise, we are going to go with the standard augustinian trope that evil is a lack of good, manifest in the cosmological paradox, for the purpose of development toward the eschaton.  Add to that development the situation of the incarnate word of God, who comes to justify humanity and turn the tide in this process.  But this is not done in a way “foreign” to the process itself, rather as part of it, because the process itself is the plan of salvation history.  So whatever any human must go through in this process that doesn’t involve sin (evil coupled with culpability) the Son of Man must go through as well.  Development involves a lacking that “grows and fills” so to speak, hence the constant reference in Christian theology to fulfillment.  The “space” that goodness grows into, and thereby destroys, is evil.  But as creation grows, there are “labor pain”.  This is the result of the lacking of fulfillment we are calling  “evil”, which causes suffering. Again, baby Jesus would certainly have lacked cognitive as well as physical abilities typical of an adult.  We are asserting that as Jesus grew he had to fill what was lacking in his development.  

To believe in an idea such as redemptive suffering reminds one that evil is a different thing than sin.  In fact it is a standard biblical trope that God brings good from evil, even from sin.  One need only review the narrative of the enslavement of the people of Israel in Egypt, which starts with Abram selling Sari into Pharaoh's harem.  In the middle of this story Joseph proclaims to his brother, “But now do not be distressed, and do not be angry with yourselves for having sold me here. It was really for the sake of saving lives that God sent me here ahead of you.  The famine has been in the land for two years now, and for five more years cultivation will yield no harvest.  God, therefore, sent me on ahead of you to ensure for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives in an extraordinary deliverance.”  Toward the end of their deliverance God hardens the obstinate heart of Pharaoh in order to multiply his wonders.  This demonstration of God’s power to bring good from both evil and sin is constant in the Old Testament.  

The best example for Christians of God bringing good from evil is the crucifixion itself.  The physical suffering of Christ is the premier example of redemptive suffering.  In it Christ experiences the evil and sin of others as well as the consequences of evil upon his physical person, bio-suffering and death.  There is also his spiritual suffering.  His knowledge of his innocence probably intensifies his physical suffering.  But throughout this treatise we have focused on the emptying of the Logos through the sacrifice of the incarnation.  This devotion allows for redemptive suffering to apply to Christ’s learning process of how to navigate a world shot through with evil.  Even as his will is perfectly aligned with the will of the father, his knowledge needed to grow.  The spiritual suffering is frustration, humiliation, and sadness at mistakes that allow for learning.  It also redeems the anxiety any human has who is trying to do good, but the introspective awareness of their own lack of knowledge constantly reminds them of their inability to do good perfectly. This loathing of the fact the we will make mistakes even though we try our hardest is an existential conundrum that Christ could have shared in and redeemed.  As it says in Gaudium Et Spes “The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved.  Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.”  

Again, mistakes aren’t sin, but they have consequences.  Jesus grew from these painful experiences in the same way the soreness from an over ambitious walk produced growth for his physical muscles.  This leads us to one of the most deeply human things that Jesus must have had if he were one like us in all things but sin, Jesus’ human conscience and its formation.  The quasi-apollinarian christology would necessarily ignore the existence of Jesus’ conscience in general and certainly any idea that he needed to “form” it.  In the former treatise Relativism, Conscience, and The Magisterium, “In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we labeled the human conscience as basically two things, the urge to know and do good as well as the judgment concerning that knowledge and its execution.  

One’s conscience is part of one’s self, part of the psycho-spiritual makeup of the human.”  We went on to describe in agonizing detail the complexity of the Church’s teaching concerning the human conscience.  We need only point out here that a sincere conscience seeks the objective knowledge of truth.  A well formed conscience is one that has properly aligned with objective moral truth.  If you have a sincere conscience and you follow the certain dictates of your conscience, even if it is not perfectly formed, then you are guiltless, therefore sinless.  As the Catechism says, “If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.”

If the divine perfection demonstrated by the incarnation is perfection of this world, perfect striving as we named it, then what better example of how this perfection plays out then the workings of the human conscience.  It is not sinful to seek to learn, in fact, it is a necessary human virtue, a necessary human virtue Jesus would lack in a quasi-apollinarian christology.  Honestly and constantly seeking to form one’s conscience is not a sin, it is a necessary human virtue, a necessary human virtue Jesus would lack in a quasi-apollinarian christology.  Learning from one’s mistakes and therebye learning humility is not a sin, it is a necessary human virtue, a necessary human virtue Jesus would lack in a quasi-apollinarian christology.  Making one’s best judgment based on the knowledge one has, but humbly being aware that one could be wrong is not a sin, it is a necessary human virtue, a necessary human virtue Jesus would lack in a quasi-apollinarian christology.  To prayer full engage with the fact that Jesus shared this human experience sanctifies and validates the struggles we have as we go about forming and following our own consciences in as best an introspect manner as we can muster.

The spiritual sacrifice of the Logos by the incarnation gives us a brotherhood with Christ in that we are in the same existential predicament.  But there are key differences between Jesus and the rest of us that must be remembered.  In Paradoxes and Disorders we stated,

When we discussed cosmological disorder we noted how natural theology is used as an indicator of natural law to create a moral calculation based on disorder.  What we have come to understand throughout this treatise is that the objective or static view of the cosmos only works according to the meta paradox of time and eternity / God and creation.  Moral calculation using disorder assumes a mostly ordered cosmos, but with The Fall all of the cosmos was thrown into disorder, as we said a complete reordering.  The only bearings we have are the perfections of Eden, the Eschaton, and the person of Christ, who is emblematic of perfection within the disorder of salvation history.

            

A first difference to note is that Jesus perfectly navigates the effects of postlapsarian reality with regards to his use of will and the practice of love.  He was able to do this even though he may have had to develop his knowledge and maturity and even though his will was limited in all the non-sinful ways that any human’s would be. Through his life his sincerity regarding striving to do the Father's will is perfect.  He is THE example to us of anthro-authenticity through perfect striving, for example the striving to properly form one’s conscience.  As this example Jesus is different from all other examples of anthro-authenticity (the first parents of the blessed in the Eschaton) because they do not dwell in postlapsarian reality,. 

Jesus is also different in that he is the incarnate Son of God.  Whatever development he may have gone through in life, the effect of the incarnation is a full demonstration of the nature of God manifest in this creation.  The incarnation speaks as much to the eternal experience and knowledge of God as it speaks to how we relate to God.  God abstractly and experientially knows the human condition because of the sacrifice of the Logos by the incarnation.  So the companionship we seek by our meditation is a companionship with Jesus through his and our own humanity, but it is at the same time a companionship with God, who thereby has companionship with us as Emanuel.  

The Practical Effect of Companionship Christology

     

As we wrap up this last section it is important to take time to explore the practical effects of engaging in meditations of companionship christology.  Again, our purpose is not to inflame theological disputatiousness .  If a reliable source brought to our attention that we were completely wrong, no offence or remorse would be felt on our part.  The point of these exercises is better relationship with Jesus Christ.  We reframed high and low christology to devotional and companionship christology because these frameworks speak to the relationship sought by the meditation as opposed to academic or abstract musings for the sake of musings.  We spent time discussing a devotional christology based on an understanding of the great sacrifice of the Logos by the incarnation.  We then developed the spiritual aspect of that sacrifice into a companionship christology in order to relate to Jesus out of our own experience.

This meditation helps us relate to Jesus because the quasi-apollinarian christology of popular piety foments alienation between the Son of Man and the rest of humanity.  No one can fathom how to relate as a human to a human who possesses all knowledge, acts with perfect effect, who never needs to learn, or makes mistakes.  The quasi-appolinarian christology is especially appealing because we know that Jesus never sinned and it seems to bolster an epistemological assessment of The Son of Man.  But when development of the personality of Jesus in typical human ways is allowed and sin is relegated to its proper place, related to culpability not objective action, then we can relate to the Son of man in ways that can be seen as absolutely typical, “like us in all things but sin.”  We can imagine a person who does the best possible with the tools available to a human, that is a limited knowledge base that must be developed as well as  typical psychological and physical restrictions on his will.  This can actually give one strength and fortitude, knowing that life, even moral life, did not come easily for Jesus in exactly the same way that it does not come easily for us.    

A meditation on companionship christology also allows one to more easily approach their fellow human as Christ.  One thing that makes it hard to see Christ in others is that Christ is “perfect”.  But if one utilizes this treatise’s understanding of the dual knowledge of Christ and realizes that Christ could have made objective mistakes as he demonstrated perfect striving, it becomes easier to acknowledge that others may have misguided sincerity as well.  It helps us know that there is such a thing as someone who is not sinning when they are causing suffering or doing things that are objectively wrong.  When we observe someone who we perceive as “a sinner” it is easy to compartmentalize them away from the person of Christ, even if they share in his baptism with us.  Focusing on this companionship christology reminds of of the full participation in humanity of the incarnation and recalibrates us to a clearer understanding of the complexity of being a moral agent in the world we live in.  For example can forgive people that are tired, or hungry for having weakened will or lapses in knowledge. 

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, it reminds of the nature of true anthro-authenticity.  Jesus is “one like us in all things but sin”.  The difference seems so big when sin is every mistake that one makes in one’s life.  At times it seems like our entire life is simply a series of mistakes and miscalculations.  But once one religates sin to its proper place, we are reminded that our job is to seek the God who beckons us to the best of our ability.  This striving is appropriate postlapsarian anthro-authenticity and it is “perfection” for us.  We are not defined by our sin, much less our mistaken missteps and accidental offences.  There is much about humanity that is difficult and limiting but not sinful and Jesus shares all of this with us.  

A companionship christology can help calibrate one’s emotive guilt, the guilt one “feels” as opposed to the guilt one accrues by sin AKA culpability.  Often we feel guilty for things that we are not culpable for.  Properly attuned guilty feelings are a powerful ally in moral judgment.  Improperly attuned they are a tool of the demonic to torture a justified soul.  To feel guilt for accidentally running over a cat or accidentally offending someone is not necessary, it is only necessary to seek to mitigate the damage done, once one realizes it.  To know Jesus according to companionship christology can certainly help one to strive for the best resolution while sharing in the joy of justification, because Jesus presents perfect striving.  

 

In the first section we laid the groundwork for defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low and explored the concept of perfection.  This lead us to an understanding that the perfection of Jesus as he walked this Earth was perfect striving,  a perfection suited to postlapsarian reality.  In the previous section began exploring the idea of a devotional christology by exploring the incarnation as an act of sacrifice by the Logos.  We unpacked how the Logos’ sacrifice of self allows the divine person a perfection for this postlapsarian world, perfect striving.  We then applied prayerful engagement with devotional christology to our own lives, developing skills for sacrificing our very selves in our most intimate parts.

This last section focused on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology from the previous section.  We began by recounting some common problems caused popular piety’s quasi-apollinarian christology.  The “perfection” attributed to Jesus does not allow for human striving, thus it presents an unrelatable Jesus.  This treatise made the bold assertion, through technical definition, that though Jesus is one like us in all things but sin, “doing wrong” is not always sinful, because sin implies culpability.  Since in the previous section we discussed how the spiritual sacrifice of the Logos allowed for the normal development of Jesus, his knowledge and will would have been limited in all the same ways that any human would be.  This position is compatible with orthodoxy, because limitation is not sinful.  Any “evil” action Jesus did without knowledge or willful participation is not a sin.  

We asserted that the reason the incarnation puts Jesus in this predicament is because he is our singular postlapsarian example of perfection, perfect striving, as we defined it from Thomas Aquinas.  This striving is the filling of the lack of goodness (evil) that allows Eden to develop towards the eschaton, what we have called the cosmological paradox.  We gave an example of why this is so important by a brief meditation on Jesus’ conscience, what it must mean for  him to have one and why it is so important as an agent of our redemption.     

Lastly we gave a brief reiteration of the practical effects of prayerful engagement with a companionship christology.  We reminded the reader that this will mitigate the alienation caused by the quasi-apollinarian christology of popular piety.  We showed the reader how such an engagement can help them not only be more patient with the faults of their neighbors, but actually help them to more easily find Christ in their weak and flawd neighbors.  Lastly we noted how the fact that Jesus is one like us in all things but sin does make him different than us as a human.  But only in so much as he was able to demonstrate perfect striving.  That reminds us of the limited nature of sin and reiterates the fact that we, as humans, are not defined by our sin, there is much in us, even in our limitations, mistakes, and struggles, that is proper to being a human. 

Conclusion 

As I was writing this treatise a friend jestfully asked me, “What makes you in any way qualified to comment on the inner life of Jesus?”  I told him it’s nearly impossible to know with any certainty about anyone’s inner life, not to mention any historical figure, not to mention a historical figure who also uniquely prescences divinity to humanity.  Since no one can actually know much, I am as qualified as anyone else.  The joke is, much of this paper is subjective and absolutely speculative.  But the purposes are practical and I believe edifying. 

In the first section we began by generally reviewing the theological field of christology.  After a brief historical analysis we came to the conclusion that the development of many our christological views was the result of a process of evangelization as a semitic cosmology came into use in a hellenized world.  We discussed how from this original interplay a christilization has occured, turning christology into a field of academic debate as opposed to a medium for evangelical zeal or pious approach to Jesus.  We then began laying the groundwork for a remedy to that situation by defining our christological camps as companion and devotional as opposed to high and low.  We began this by exploring of the concept of perfection, beginning with the bookends of postlapsarian reality, the First Parents in Eden and the Citizens of the New Jerusalem.  We explored three concepts of perfection as put forth by Thomas Aquinas and realized that only one of them applied to our situation here and it was not the one available to the situation in Eden and the Eschaton.  This finally lead us to an understanding that the perfection of Jesus is a perfection suited to postlapsarian reality, not the perfection of Adam.  We discussed how the perfection of postlapsarian reality is a perfection that is practiced not reached, and involves a process of development.  We rapped this section up by reiterating the general grammar of christology, that Jesus Christ is true God and true man.            

In the second section we began our shift away from a christological theoretic, to a christological pragmatic by exploring the idea of a devotional christology.  The correlation to this was “high christology” but in our approach the theoretic speculation serves the praxis and not the other way around.  We began with understanding the nature of sacrifice in general, and sought an understanding of how a communication system setup for humans to express to God might look if God uses it to express to humans.  We also distinguished between a sacrificial death and a living sacrifice as defined in the New Testament.  Lastly we laid out how the archetypal mythic journey of “the Hero” is inverted in the incarnation and used that inversion to begin to understand the full breadth of the sacrifice of the incarnation itself.

What followed was an unpacking of the incarnation as sacrifice.  We discussed the usual understanding of that sacrifice as one of “confinement” in a body, but moved beyond that to understand that sacrifice as an “emptying”of divine favors such as omnipotence and omniscience in order to experience this postlapsarian world.  Next we sought to avoid any suspicion of monarchial heresy by applying Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of the “two knowledges” of Christ.  We then placed knowledge within its proper place among the virtues, subservient to love, and  began, at last to unpack the Logos’ sacrifice of self in order to demonstrate perfection for this postlapsarian world, that is, learning to express love through perfect striving.     

Lastly we took this understanding of devotional christology and applied the devotion to our own lives.  We developed skills for sacrificing our very selves in our most intimate parts, for example our perceived knowledge, in order to come into loving relationship.         

In the last section we focused on companionship christology as the full development of devotional christology formed the previous section.  We began by recounting some common problems caused popular piety’s quasi-apollinarian christology.  The “perfection” attributed to Jesus does not allow for human striving, thus it presents an unrelatable Jesus.  This treatise made the bold assertion, through technical definition, that though Jesus is one like us in all things but sin, “doing wrong” is not always sinful, because sin implies culpability.  Since in the previous section we discussed how the spiritual sacrifice of the Logos allowed for the normal development of Jesus, his knowledge and will would have been limited in all the same ways that any human would be.  This position is compatible with orthodoxy, because limitation is not sinful.  Any “evil” action Jesus did without knowledge or willful participation is not a sin.  

We asserted that the reason the incarnation puts Jesus in this predicament is because he is our singular postlapsarian example of perfection, perfect striving, as we defined it from Thomas Aquinas.  This striving is the filling of the lack of goodness (evil) that allows Eden to develop towards the Eschaton, what we have called the cosmological paradox.  We gave an example of why this is so important by a brief meditation on Jesus’ conscience, what it must mean for  him to have one and why it is so important as an agent of our redemption.     

Lastly we gave a brief reiteration of the practical effects of prayerful engagement with a companionship christology.  We reminded the reader that this will mitigate the alienation caused by the quasi-apollinarian christology of popular piety.  We showed the reader how such an engagement can help them not only be more patient with the faults of their neighbors, but actually help them to more easily find Christ in their weak and flawd neighbors.  Lastly we noted how the fact that Jesus is one like us in all things but sin does make him different than us as a human.  But only in so much as he was able to demonstrate perfect striving.  That reminds us of the limited nature of sin and reiterates the fact that we, as humans, are not defined by our sin, there is much in us, even in our limitations, mistakes, and struggles, that is proper to being a human. 

To engage in theological debate with friends can be edifying and fun.  To correct theological opinions or ideas that are damaging begs implementation of the spiritual works of mercy.  If this treatise turns out to be helpful for some in finding a better relationship with Jesus, then it has been successful, even if it is at points objectively wrong.  If it is both wrong and damaging, then this treatise has been a mistake and again the author evokes the site prayer of Smell No Small Laugh, “May any error be a sharpening stone to those wiser than I and merely a stepping stone to those on the ascending path to righteousness.  May all these arts that serve you flourish to abundant fruit even as I am forgotten and may all the missteps herein be forgotten along with me.”