Who Do You Say that I Am? A Christology of the New Testament beyond Divine Identity or Agency

There has been a revived interest in NT Christology in recent years, partly due to the recent contributions by Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, and James Dunn, among others. However, most discussions of NT Christology tend to force a binary choice between Jesus’ identity with Israel’s one God (e.g., Bauckham, Wright, Hays; cf. Tilling) and Jesus’ agency for that God (Dunn, Kirk; cf. Hengel; Hurtado). Based on a close reading of several key NT texts, this paper argues that NT Christology lies at the paradoxical and mysterious union of the two seemingly contradictory emphases: (a) Jesus as one with divine identity (e.g., Mark 1:2-3; John 14:9; Eph 2:14) and (b) Jesus as God’s agent (e.g., Mark 1:14-15; John 14:6; Eph 2:17). The fact that the integration of these two themes is attested across the New Testament and even within single pericopes or two neighboring passages (see, e.g., Mark 1:2-3 with vv. 14-15; John 14:6 with v. 9; and Eph 2:14 with v. 17), especially when coupled with a widespread NT use of paradox (see, e.g., Sweat, The Theological Role of Paradox; cf. Cuonzo, Paradox), does imply the intentionality of these two concepts’ combination on the part of the NT authors as well as the inherent nature of that combination in the Christological portrayal of the New Testament. Thus, a single-dimensional account of NT Christology proves to be both incomplete and insufficient. A holistic presentation of the NT view of Jesus must seriously consider its paradoxical and mysterious binding of these two seemingly conflicting emphases as well as the “tension” between those two emphases. One must readily hold this tension if one wants to be faithful to the Christological testimonies of the NT and their theological and practical implications. This paper contributes to the ongoing conversations on NT Christology by refining, nuancing, and correcting the current proposals, especially their artificial enforcement of a binary choice between divine identity and agency, and by proposing a way forward that is a more holistic to the NT’s Christological witnesses.