Spiritual Gifts: Analyzing the Diverse gifts. (1 Corinth 12:4ff).

                                                    Analyzing the Diverse gifts. (12:4ff).

Word of wisdom (logos sophias) and word of knowledge(logos gnoseos) (1Corinth 12:8): These gifts are commonly thought to be the ability to receive a special revelation from the Holy Spirit and on that basis to speak words that give wisdom in a situation or give knowledge of a situation in the life of someone present in the congregation. The other interpretation of these gifts would see them as more “non miraculous” or” ordinary: the “word of wisdom” simply means the ability to speak with knowledge about situation. Contrary to that ,according to James G.S.S Thompsom, Word of Wisdom is a miraculous gift which function in such a way that this gift would communicate ability to receive and explain “deep things of God”(Rom: 11:33).



Some find it hard to distinguish these two gifts; Paul W Marsh postulate that word of wisdom is not easily distinguished from word of knowledge. He asserts that the later indicates an intelligent grasp of Christian principles and facts, the former expresses an understanding of their application, a spiritual insight into the principles. However, both the interpretations have a weakness. In case of the first interpretation, it can be similar to prophecy while the later interpretation also has it Achilles heels as the entire gifts mentioned by Paul are all miraculous gift. Another weakness in the later interpretation is that it means that only some people have the gift to understand Christian principle and facts as not everyone are endow with these gifts. Another alternative is that these two gifts might be related to teaching as in every other list the gift of teaching is mentioned, but it is lacking here –unless wisdom and knowledge refer to teaching.



Working of Miracles ( 1 Cor.12:10,28-29). “Miracles” is the rendering of “dynamies” (power). In Acts “dynameis” refers to the casting out of evil spirits and the healing of bodily ailments (8:6-7, 13; 19:11-12). This may explain “working of powers,” but this is not synonymous with “gifts of healing.” Probably the former was much more spectacular than the latter, and may have signified raising the dead (Acts 9:36-42;20 :9-12). Paul himself exercised this gifts of working of powers, and it was for him proof of his apostleship (2 cor.12:12) and authenticated both the good news he preached and his right to proclaim it (Rom 15:18-21). According to Paul Enn a distinction should be made between Miracles and the gift of miracles. although the gifts of the miracles- the ability of an individual to perform miraculous acts ceased with the apostolic age, that is not to say miracles cannot and do not occur today. God may directly answer the prayer of a believer and perform a miracle in his life. However, Wayne Grudem profusely argue against such view, according to him what Paul is speaking about in 1 cor. 13:10 is the total and final abolition of these gifts that it to be brought about by the divine initiative at the return of Christ. Until the time of the return of Christ these gifts will at least to some extent remain available for use, and the Holy Spirit will continue to distribute these gifts to people.



Gifts of Healing (1 Cor 12:9, 28, 30). As already suggested, gifts of healing resembled “working of miracles” (powers).witness the ministry of our Lord (Matt. 4:23-24), of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1), and of the seventy (Luke 10:8-9). Gifts of healing were also prominent in the church after Pentecost (Acts 15: 1-16; cf. also James: 14-1). “Gifts” (plural) indicates the great variety of both the sicknesses healed and the means used in the healings. The person who exercised the gift and the patient who was healed had one essential in common-faith in God. The writings of the church fathers show that “gifts of healing” were exercised in the church centuries after the apostolic period. Today there are recognized branches of the church which believe that there are beginning to reappear. However, according to Charles Webb Carter, these gifts of healing may involve much more than direct divine intervention, important as that is. that there are Christian men and women whose natural aptitude better qualify them for specific branches of medical science and service than their fellow is evident .Christian doctors, nurses, counselors, and psychiatrists exercise their gifts by “ the one Spirit” who endows ministers to preach or teachers to teach.



Gift of Prophecy. The hardest gifts to define are probably prophecy and tongues. Some thinks of 1 Corinthian 14:24-25, where the words of prophecy reveal the secrets of the heart and cause the visitor to acknowledge God’s presence. Or in 1 Corinthians 14:3 prophecy results in edification, encouragement and consolation. But this verse hardly helps us define the gift of prophecy, for all gifts rightly used would edify, encourage and console. Such results are not the exclusive province of prophecy. According to Hans Conzelmann, gift of prophecy does not disclose the future, but what is hidden within a man (Human) (1 cor. 14.2). However according to Charles webb carter, it is related to preaching, he quoted Peter, Paul, Luther, Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Moody, and Graham as a few examples of those who are endowed with this gift. Contrary to all these views Craig Blomberg argued that, in the New Testament, Agabus exemplifies a prophet who can predict the future (Acts 11;27-30;21:10-11;cf. John as a seer in Rev 1;1-4). Other individuals called prophets include Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1). Quoting Joel’s prediction that prophecy will characterize “ the last days”, the entire New Testament Age , God will bestow this gift on many of his people irrespective of gender, age, or social class ( Acts 2:17-21;for additional examples, see Acts 19:6-21:9). Holding a very similar view, Thomas R .Schreiner stated that Prophecy is better defined as communicating revelations from God in a spontaneous utterance. He argued that the close relationship between prophecy and revelation is cemented in Corinthians 14:29-33. Paul mandates how the gifts should be exercised in these verses. I Corinthians 14:30 is especially instructive since it describes prophecy in terms of a revelation granted suddenly to one who is sitting down: “But if revelation is given to one sitting, the first one should be silent” The notion that prophecy involves spontaneous revelations is also confirmed, for the revelation comes to a person while he or she is sitting in the assembly. Paul W Marsh however believe that both preaching and foretelling can be included here though he did not give primacy to foretelling, at the same time did not exempt it.



Discernment of the spirits (diakriseis pneumaton 1 Cor 12:10) fits nicely after discussion of prophecy, and it immediately follows prophecy in the list in 1 Cor 12:10. We have seen that prophecies were judged and evaluated (1 Cor 14; 1 Thess 5: 19-22). Those who had the gift of distinguishing spirits were able to discern whether the prophecies and interpreted tongues were truly from God. Such a gift was practical for the community indeed, since many false prophets threatened the young churches. William Barclay wrote, “In a society where the atmosphere was tense and where all kinds of manifestations were normal, it was necessary to distinguish between what was real and what was merely hysterical, between what came from God and what came from the devil”.



Gift of Tongues: Not used in English before 1897, the technical term glossolalia derives from glosais lalein, a Greek phrase used in the NT meaning literally “to speak in (or “with” or “by”) tongues. Both Luke and Paul regarded glossolalia as charismatic praise in language unknown to the speaker. Schreiner believe that there is no compelling evidence that Acts 1 and 1 Corinthians refer to two different gifts of tongue , as in 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 Paul agrees that tongues speaking is no longer a mystery if an interpreter can translate what is being said. The nature of these gifts is explained in 1 cor.14 which is as follows:

(a) The tongue in which the person spoke was unintelligible and therefore unedifying to the Christian assembly (v 2-4).

(b) The tongue (Glossa) was not a foreign language (vv.10-12).

(c) The tongue speaker addressed himself to God to whom he probably offered prayer and praise (vv 14-17);

(d) The tongue edified the speaker (vv 4)

(e) The tongue speaker loss control of the intellectual faculties (vv 14-15).



Gift of interpretation of Tongues: Gift of interpretation of tongues (1Cor. 12:10, 30) was a necessary corollary as to speaking in tongues, as was “discerning of spirits” to the Prophet’s speaking by revelation. The tongue speaker might also exercise the gift of interpretation (1 Cor. 14:13), but usually others exercised it (vs. 26-28; 12:10). This gift is crucial as in the absence of it; simply babbling in the church doesn’t make any sense to anybody. If outsiders come to the assembly and hear only tongues they would naturally identify the church one more form of a Hellenistic cult involving mantic prophecy; they would say, “you are raving (mainesthe).” But if they hear prophecy, they would be moved to say, “God is among you” (14:25). The plural kinds points to considerable variation within this experience. while some speakers could also interpret (14:, 5,13)



The Gift of “Faith” (1Cor 12:9). Not saving faith in general, which is the common endowment of all Christians, but wonder-working faith? In 1 Cor 13:2 Paul speaks of faith that moves mountains, and thus the gift of faith likely relates to a faith that believes that God can do the extraordinary. This can be confirmed by James 5:15, where the prayer of faith may be the conviction that God will heal the sick. It is also believe that the Spirit’s gift of faith could effect might things (Matt. 17:19f), and keep believers steadfast in persecution. In View of 13:2, the gift of faith presumably involves a distinctive ability to trust God to work in unusual ways or in particularly difficult situations.



Evaluation: All the gifts mentioned in chapter 12 are most probably supernatural, Paul was comparing them with there pagan past spiritual experience. Though with certainty one cannot say the actual functions of Word of wisdom and word of knowledge, contrary to Paul W. Marsh’s proposal, it cannot be the ability to understand principle and application, as the gifts are not given to everybody, otherwise in such case only some gifted people will have the ability while the rest without the gift will be rendered useless. Working of miracles and healing are most probably supernatural endowment as the apostles had performed many miracles ranging from raising the dead, healing; etc.Gift of prophecy is most probably a divine revelation, as Paul instructed the Corinthians to take turn in the church. Prophecy is not primarily confined to preaching. One can also see from 1 Thess 5: 20-21 and 1 John 4:1 which speaks profusely of the need for assessment. Criteria for evaluating purported prophecies would have included seeing if prediction came true (Deut 18:21-22) and presumably, testing the content of forth telling against already accepted (i.e scriptural) revelation. Whether or not a message edified the church was doubtless equally crucial. All believers must “test the spirits”, each church’s leadership must ultimately render a verdict on the legitimacy of any alleged prophecy. However, those revelations may not have a permanent significance and that may be the reason why so few prophecies are mentioned in the New Testament.

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to clearly explain all the gifts in detail as Paul did not explain all the functions and the nature of the gift. , one can say with certainty that they are a supernatural endowment, for instance as the description of faith in the 13 chapter, it is mountain moving faith. Then, in chap.14:2 Paul said that one who speaks in tongue speaks to God. He utters mystery with his Spirit. Then Paul mentioned the necessity to interpret so that it can edify the church. Thus, we can see that Paul is not merely referring to languages and their interpretations. But supernatural gifts. So all the gifts mentioned in chapter 12:4-10 refers to supernatural or miraculous.

Bibliography


Barclay, William .The Letters to the Corinthians. Edenburgh:The Saint Andrew
Press, 1954.
Blomberg, Craig L. “Gift of the Holy Spirit” in Baker Theological Dictionary of the
Bible, edited by Walter A.Elwell .Grand Rapids: Baker Books House
Company, 1996

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Bangalore: Theological
Publication in India, 2007.

Commentary on the whole Bible by Matthew Henry. Edited by Rev. Leslie .Michigan,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961

Conzelmann, Hans. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. New

York: Harper & Row, publisher, 1968.

Carter, Charles Webb. The Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit: A Wesleyan
Perspective .Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1974.

Connor, Jerome Murphy o. “1 Corinthians” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary.
Edited by Raymond E Brown et al .Bangalore: Theological Publications in India,
2007.
Davis, James A. “1-2 Corinthians” in Baker Commentary on the Bible.Edited by
Walter A. Elwell .GrandRapids, Michigan: BakerBooks, 1989.

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1989.

Fee Gordon D. “ The First Epistle to the Corinthian” in The New International
Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Ned B. StoneHouse etal
GrandRapids,Michigan:William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company,1987.

Grosheide, F.W. Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians .London: Marshall,
Morgan & Scott, Ltd, 1953.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.
Secunderabad: OM Books, 1964.

Johnson, Luke Timothy .the Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation .Bangalore: Theological
Publications in India, 2009.

Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament .Illinois:
Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Lambrecht, Jan “1 Corinthians “in The International Bible Commentary. Edited by
William R. Farmer et all .Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1998.

Lea, Thomas D. The New Testament: its Background And Message .Nashville, Tennessee:
Broadman &Holman Publishers, 1996.

Lenski, R.C.H, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians
Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing Hous,1937.

Mare, W.Harold “1 Corinthians” in The Expositors Bible Commentary.vol 10. Edited by
Walter C Kaiser.Jr et al (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1976.

Marsh, Paul w. “1 Corinthians “in New International Bible Commentary.Edited by
F.F Bruce. Grand Rapid, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979.

Marsh, Paul W. “1 Corinthian” in The New Layman’s Bible Commentary. Edited by
G.C.D.Howley et al .Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapid, Michigan:
William B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975.

Schnelle, Udo. Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology.Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2003.

Splitter, R.P “Glossolalia” in The New International Dictionary of Pentecostal.
and Charistmatic Movements, edited by Stanley M.Burgess and Edward
M.Van Der Maas.Grand Rapid, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Paul: Apostle of God’s Glory: A Pauline Theology.
Secunderabad: OM Books, 2001.

Thomson,J.G.S.S. and W.A.Elwell ” Spiritual gifts” in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology , edited by Walter A.Elwell .Grand Rapid, Michigan: Baker Book
House Company, 1984.

Thompson, James G.S.S “Spiritual gifts” in Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology,
Edited by Everett F. Harrison & et al Grand Rapids, Michigan: Hendrickson
Plublishers, 1960.

Turner, Max .The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts Then and Now .Great Britian:
Paternoster press, 1996.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol111: The Epistles of
Paul .Grand Rapid, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1946.

Vine, W.E Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol-III .London:
Pickering & Inglis Ltd, 1940.

Spiritual Gifts: Theological Principles

Introduction: Spiritual gifts are the gifts of God enabling the Christian to perform his or her (sometimes specialized) service. Not every spiritual gift affected the moral life of the one who exercised it, but its purpose was always the edification of believers. The exercise of a spiritual gift implied service in the church. This practical approach is never lost sight of in the New Testament, these spiritual gifts often being divided into miraculous and non-miraculous.

 There are several words in the New Testament used for spiritual gifts. “Dorea”and “Domata” are also used but are rare (Acts 11:17; Eph.4:8). Pnuematikas and charismata are frequently found, with charismata being the most common. The term charisma (spiritual gift) except for 1 peter 4:10, is used only by Paul. Charisma signifies redemption or salvation as the gift of God’s grace (Rom: 1; 6:23) and a gift enabling the Christian to perform his service in the church (1 Cor 7:7), as well as defining a special gift enabling a Christian to perform a particular ministry in the church (e.g., 12:28-31) . It seems likely therefore that even though at points the two words are nearly interchangeable ( as 12:31a and 14:1 would imply), the emphasis in each case reflects the root word (pnuema, Spirit; charis, grace). When the emphasis is on the gift, he speaks of charismata; when the emphasis is on the Spirit, he speaks of pnuematika.

Issues of the Spiritual Gifts.

The chapter (1 Corinth 12:1) begins with the word “peri de” (“now concerning”) and “brothers” and: sisters”. It shows that Paul does not want the Corinthians to remain uninformed concerning spiritual gifts (v1) the grammatical construction reminds the gentile Christians of their pagan practices: the present context suggests that enthusiastic, ecstatic rites and cultic meetings are referred to. At one stage, ecstasy had authenticated the pagan Corinthians’ worship of idols. (v2) apogomenoi (led astray) has the sense of leading away by force (Matt. 26: 57; 27:2, 31.)The agent is not specified, the suggestion is that of the domination of the power of evil. For Lenski the introductory phrase “peri” indicate that Paul is answering inquiries which had been addressed to him in the letter which the Corinthian has sent to him. In peri ton pneumatikon the genitive may be singular in 14:37, and denote persons, or neuter, like the accusative plural in 14:1, and denote gifts, the translation can be either “ concerning persons with spiritual gifts, “ or “ concerning spiritual gifts”. The latter is the NRSV rendition, then, reading through the chapter, one can see that, in the Corinthians’ use of their gift of speech, the attitude of elitism, rivalry, and individualism are painfully present .Paul discerned an egocentric competitiveness that was detrimental to church unity. Then, in 14:1-2 Paul criticisms of tongues indicates that Corinthians attached undue importance to this gift. The mysterious babble of unintelligible sounds was seen as the clearest sign of possession by the Spirit and so offered enhanced social prestige. And in consonant with the view of the ancient world, they considered such ecstatic babbling to be the highest manifestation of the spirit. The form of prophesy called mantic was particularly favored, it was thought to result from direct inspiration, a virtual possession of the psyche by the divine Spirit, leading to enthusiasmos, rapt in ecstasy, the prophetess or prophet cried out in unintelligible speech, such form of ecstasy was highly esteemed in the Hellenistic world.



The Corinthians ranked the gifts, declaring that the sign of a truly spiritual person (pneumatikos) was the manifestation of tongues (14:22). Then, he warns them first that not all “spiritual powers” are necessarily good. When they had been pagans, they also had been caught up in rapture (agomai), but had only resulted in their alienation (apogomai; 12:2). Paul tried to make them understand that the work of God’s Holy Spirit is to bring a Human being into relationship with the Lord, enabling him or her to say, “ Jesus is Lord:” (12:3). Apart from endangering the church unity, misused of the gifts also caused disorder in the church. Almost the whole 14 chapter is devoted on tongues as Paul tried to explain and lay down the principles and proper usage of this gift.



Theological Principle of the Gifts:

(1.) Edification: Gifts are for the common up building of the Church (v.7b) .These gifts were not given for the advantage of those who had them, but for the benefit of the church. Whatever gifts God confers on any man, he confers them that he may do well with them. They are a trust out into his hands. They are not given for show, but for service. By using the words diakoniai (serving) and energemata (workings), Paul indicates that such gifts were useful in serving the Christian community (vv. 5,6). The word “diakonia” does not exclusively denote the work of the church officers; it may denote every service to the good of the church. It is for the total good or profit (sympheron) of the Church.



(2) Unity in Diversity: Paul uses the image of the human body and its many members, probably borrowed from popular stoicism, to stress that diversity is necessary. Even the less presentable parts have an indispensable role. Such concept was also very much popular with the Romans, when the plebeians (the lower class in earlier Rome) had proposed revolt, the aristocrat Menius Agrippa convinced them that although they were less noticeable members (like the stomach), they were necessary; the upper and lower classes had different roles but equal importance. For Stoic, the universe was like the body, and God’s logo, or reason, was the mind or head that directed it. This figure is also used in the elsewhere (6:15; 10:17; 11:29) . For a body is not constituted of a single part, but for many. Thus the diversity among the parts of body is no cause for concern about membership or status in the body. In fact, “God has arranged the parts in the body “with though for the proper place and role but one body “(v.20). More over the unity of the body is not superficial but integral to its existence.

(3) Authentic gift: No person by the Spirit can curse Jesus; and positively, only by the Spirit can a person openly testify that Jesus is Lord (1Cor.12 v.3). The term Kyrio (Lord) is used by the LXX to translate Jehovah in the OT (cf. Matt 16:16; John 4:2, 3, 15). In this context Paul recognizes the deity of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit in the use of the Phrases “Jesus is Lord” and “Spirit of God”. Anathema (translated “be cursed”) was, strictly speaking, something that was devoted to God and that could be thought of as given over to him with a view to its destruction. So, it could be thought as being “accursed” (cf. Josh 6:17, 18) the meaning is consistently used in the NT. It is equivalent to the Hebrew Word “ Harem”, the expression would most likely come from a Jew . Basic criterion for distinguishing Spirit-gifted people from imposters is whether they confess Jesus as Lord (vv.1-3) . Instruction on the usage of tongue is given in the fourteen chapter, Paul contends that every true prophet and spiritual person will recognize that what he has written is a command of the lord; and the person who does not recognize that is not to be recognized in the community (14:37-38)




(4).Superior Gift: Some believe that there are significant and insignificant gifts. However, many commentaries disagree with such interpretation. The list that follows is intended to be neither exhaustive nor hierarchical, but typical of the gifts that had been experienced at one time or another by Christians in Corinth. Out of the different gifts, much discussion is given on Tongues; however this does not necessary mean that it is superior over the other gifts. From 14:1-33 we discern that the gift of tongues, perhaps because it was most visible because it was the chief source of strife. Paul critiques the situation in certain ways. One needs to interpret the tongues, and consequently an additional gift of interpretation is required (14:13). Compared to tongues, there are more excellent gifts, e.g. Prophecy that builds up the church (14: 5). Most radically Paul urges seeking after love (agape), which is more important than any charism (13:1-13), whether speaking angelic tongues or prophecy, or miracles. However, Paul should not be misconstrued, he is not calling the Corinthian to abandon the gifts and pursue only love. But stress the futility of the gifts in the absence of love. The gift may be differentiated, but not on the basis of supposition about the degree of inspiration. Rather, those who are given ability (via God’s appointment) to serve and edify the body (3:15-15).



5. Origin of the gifts: The key stress in vv.4-11 lies in the existence of a great diversity of gifts that has the same origin. Strong emphasis is given on “the Spirit “and often repeated in these verses. In the threefold almost perfectly symmetrical composition of vv. 4-6 the variety of gifts, service and activities and their common “ trinitarian “ origin in the same spirit , the same lord and the same God are affirmed . Of God it is said by way of climax that God activates all activities in all Christians (v.6).



6. Divine Selectivity: Paul stresses the divine selectivity. He is saying that not all believers function in each of the way listed. God selects individuals and gives them their specific gifts (v.28) One may seek and pray for certain gifts (12:31a; 14:1, 12) but God makes no guarantees that he will give any one particular gift as requested.



7. Order and Decency: Paul demands responsibility and maturity and thought (14:20) from the Corinthians. The prophets should control their utterance (14:32), speech (tongues) should be orderly and in turn (14:26-31), everything should be done with an eye for edification (14:26) but also “decently and in order”(14:40).



8. Supremacy of Love (13:1-13): it is hardly correct to refer to this chapter as a digression, providing as it does that cardinal Christian quality without which all the charismata are worthless. It is the essential link between the principle expounded in chapter 12 and the practice explained in chapter 14. the absence of love can be compensated by no other quality however spectacular, be it spiritual gifts or religious zeal (1-3) none can compensate for a lack of love (agape), the word “agape” found in LXX, Philo and other Greek literature, but thus far attested only once unambiguously in pagan Greek. In classical Greek its verbal and adjectival forms are used of contentment or affection, but to the exclusion of all sense of sexual passion. Taken up and invested in NT Greek with a new meaning and spiritual fervor it gained an exclusively Christian connotation. Paul stressed that the practice of love produced a lasting result.

Contemplation on Ecclesial Praxis of Holiness

Few years after the atomic bomb devastated the city of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japanese Theologian, Kazoh Kitamori published his work “Theology of the pain of God.” He interprets the core of the gospel as the pain of God. Coming along the similar vein, Jurgenn Motlmann wrote, “The history of the divine pathos is embedded in this history of men [sic]” (The crucified God). Prior to them, it was Abraham Heschel who first described the prophet’s proclamation as “pathetic theology”. At first such theological advance was vehemently condemned, and was stigmatized as sacrilege or deviation from orthodoxy, as it appears to be in animosity with the traditional doctrine of impassible. Conversely, today as we look at the situation of the world around us, we see continuum exploitation, corruption, bigotry, moral degradation, economic systematic chaos, eco-crisis, gender bias, etc. Even as we gaze within the parameters of the Christendom, there are gigantic paradoxes of holiness rather than the practice of holiness, so in such bleak and poignant milieu, Christian should be made aware that the Creator did suffer. Note, the usage of term “suffer” or pathos of God should not baffle our mind as my usage here is an anthromorphic lingo rather than ontological or literal sense. Divine pathos cannot be compared with human pathos. My rendition is merely to delineate the notion that God is not an apathetic being. But, compassionate and caring Father. Here, the point of my argument is that the divine pathos is the repercussion of human failure to walk in Holiness. As we continue to reflect, let us approach the subject matter from the different stratas or facets of Holiness,



Eternal Transcendental Facet: In Isa 6:3, the seraphim cried “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts” God characteristic is vividly portrayed here. Not just one but emphatically thrice, the thrice repeated holy, a Hebrew idiom for the superlative, conveys the Israelites understanding of Yahweh as the most holy God. Some also postulates that it is more than attribute; but the very essence of Yahweh. The primordial deity “Yahweh” in the antique world revealed himself from the realm of the eternal to the realm of time. However, apart from theophanic revelation, due to the depravity of the first Adam, Yahweh stands aloof from humanity. At the burning bush He commands Moses to remove his sandals, as the place is a holy ground (Ex 3: 5). The people at Sinai were forbidden to touch the mountain. Holy of the Holies cannot be entered by the worshippers. Apostle Paul wrote that the fallen humanity fall short of his glory. In the ancient world, the Decalogue and the laws were given to obey, but outward action cannot infuse intrinsic Holiness. By the term “intrinsic Holiness”, I mean to say God standard of Holiness is not naive outward act but an absolute holiness, Jesus once condemned the heart full of lust. The Pharisee obeyed the law and they were zealous for it, yet Jesus called them white washed tomb full of bones as their inward motive was not right



Historical Immanental Facet: The Transcendental eternal deity became the immanent God, as the cosmic logos incarnated in the person of Jesus. Here, I am not drawing a line of demarcation between Jesulogy and Christology. The Cosmic Christ or logos alone without the works of the historical Jesus does not make any sense in the history of redemption. So extricating Christ from Jesus or Jesus from Christ is hollow approach. The word became flesh. With the incarnation of Christ the holy has become immanent and touchable. Christ became the progenitor of the new humanity. The true reflection of the original Human: an archetype “Adi Purusha”. In Christ we see the eternal transcendental God merging with humanity. Thus the immanent infuses the transcendental facet to the fallen humanity. There might be paucity in the word “infuse” however my usage here implies regeneration. Which also has a wider aspect; it is total transformation of the cosmo-theandric. As expounded by Paulose Mar Gregarous in the concept of Theosis,“ Theosis is not theoria, the vision of God, but the infinite and the continuous transfiguration of all creation, in proportion to the capacity of each being, into the God-bearing image of Glory.” Thus Transcendental God descending to humanity is not merely a Christian myth or idealism, but, historical phenomena where the immanence of God inaugurates a new creation in Christ. It is the Holy Descent. The Cross tells two stories, it the portrayal of the ultimate love (agape) and excruciating pain (pathos) of God.



Imperative Facet: After reflecting the two facets of holiness in the abovementioned paragraphs, at this juncture, it is pivotal to note that the former two facets are both indicative. First we see God’s attribute or essence in the first facet, then God’s act to humanity. These facets are indicative and foundational to the imperative.i.e. explicating the human actions called for in response. The attribute of God and His act to Humanity in the incarnation model (indicative) should not be merely embraced as a dogma, or a creed to recite or confess, rather the Christendom- the people of God are called out to reflect this divine attribute. Jesus audaciously said, “Be Holy as your Father in Heaven is Holy” (divine imperative). The indicative involves the affirmation of what the Holy God has done in inaugurating the new epoch of humanity. The veil that was torn at the time of the crucifixion depicts the bridging of the chasm between the Holy God and the fallen humanity. Christ salvific act infuse intrinsic holiness to the progeny of the first Adam. Thus, in Christ the offspring of the first Adam became the sons and daughters of Yahweh the Holy God. The imperative is both vertical and horizontal aspects of Holiness. Thus can be said, it is also a perpendicular facet as it is a command to reflect the vertical Yahweh’s Holiness horizontally towards the fellow being.



Concluding Reflection on Ecclesial praxis As a church, how often do we linger around the indicative without complying with the imperative? Quite often our keygma accentuate both indicative and imperative aspects, but the praxis is often bereft from our life. Jesus demands that there should not be discontinuity of the indicative, this is not say that same act is repeated again and again by the same agent, as in the immanental aspect , no on the other hand the continuity of the indicative can be seen when the imperative is put into praxis by the ecclesia in their demonstration of holiness. Secondly, before we conclude, why do churches often fail to comply with the imperative regardless of their cognizance of the inevitability? Prerequisite to our attempt to walk in holiness, it is important to remember, as mentioned earlier, Christ salvific act infuse intrinsic holiness, and such experience is made possible only with the anubhava of the resurrected Christ, and that through the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In the first facet, we see Yahweh, then in the second facet Jesus Christ and in the third facet Holy Spirit. Thus here we see the involvement of the third person of the triune God which can never be exempted in the divine strategy as the three Godheads are always inextricably intertwine. The church without the Spirit will never achieve anything but rather digress to stagnation and dryness. In Bonhoeffer’s Christ formation: Christ has to from in us, likewise as Christ form in us, and then only a person can become holy. On the contrary, without such theosis experience , all our effort to walk in holiness will only be an extrinsic attempt of holiness, technically speaking which is not holiness at all but an outward attempt without the cross. Therefore as we conclude, as a called out people of God, surrounded by many cloud of witnesses, let the reminiscent of the divine pathos on the cross induce us to comply with the divine imperative as we reflect the Holiness of Yahweh in our life. Then people will recognize the church as truly unique from the rest of the world where darkness permeate.

The Uniqueness of Christ in Religious Pluralistic India.

Introduction: The uniqueness of Jesus has been a hot topic of debate among the theologians till date. The issue of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is fundamental element of Christian belief, according to Ronald Rash and according to Bishop Newbigin; this issue is “the life and death question for the missionary”. Here, we will begin with the fundamental concept drawn from the Bible, and then proceed to the diverse concepts developed in multi-religious context.

Evangelical concept

There are two major unique aspects of Old Testament revelation combined in the uniqueness of Christ: the redemption through Israel and the uniqueness of Yahweh. Both lie at the core of biblical concept of mission. The New Testament exhibit Jesus the new Israel as the fulfillment of what was prognosticated in the Old Testament. The birth of Jesus is portrayed by bible as the right time or the fullness of time (Gal: 4:4).

1. Redemption through Israel: The Bible Portrays God’s redemptive answer to human predicaments (Gen 1-11) through the call of Abraham and the creation of Israel as God’s people. Through God’s covenant with Abraham, the blessing of God to all nations is also included (Gen 12:3).The Bible is clear that God’s action in and through Israel was unique. This does not mean that God was in no way involved in the histories of other nations. On the contrary, Israel boldly claimed that Yahweh was sovereign over all nations (Amos 9:7; Deut. 2:20-23; Exod.9:13-16; Isa.10:-19; Jer 27: -7; Isa. 44:28-4:13). It does mean that only in Israel did God work within the terms of covenant redemption, initiated and sustained by his grace (Amos 3:2;Deut .4:32-34;Ps.147:19f.; Isa. 43:8-13;Exod.19:f-6;20:26;Num.23:9;Deut. 7:6). Israel only existed because of God’s desire to redeem people from every nation. While God has every nation in view of his redemptive purpose, in no other nation did he act as he did in Israel, for the sake of the nations. Such phenomenon what Israel experienced of God’s revelation and redemption is not found in any other nations. It is worth noting that God did not choose all nations in the beginning but has a chosen nation-Israel for His redemptive purpose.
Then, the New Testament vividly portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s redemption highlighted in the Old Testament. Jesus is presented as the messiah –Christ. Jesus was Israel. That he is represented and personified Israel. The Messiah-Christ was the fulfillment of all that for which Israel had been placed in the world-God’s revelation and his work of Human redemption. Thus, Jesus shares in the uniqueness of Israel; in fact, He was the point and end of it. The paradox is that precisely through the narrowing down of God’s redemptive work to the unique particularity of the single man, Jesus, God opened the way to the universalizing of his redemptive grace to all nations, which was his purpose from the beginning. Paul ‘ mission theology to the gentile is the synthesis of the Old Testament “ mystery” of Israel existence for the nations and the significance of the gospel of Jesus’ messiahship (Gal. 3:14,26-29; Eph. 2:11-13; 3:4-60. The fulfillment of Israel’s historical particularity in Jesus was at the same time the fulfillment of Israel’s eschatological universality. In this way the uniqueness is inseparable from the mission of God’s people.
2. Unique God: The Old Testament claim that Yahweh alone is truly and uniquely God (Deut. 4:32-40). This monotheistic thrust was not simply the singularity of deity, but rather sought to define God in terms of the nature, character, and actions of Yahweh (Isa. 4012-31; 43:10-12; 4:f’ 22-24). Yahweh is unique in character, and deity. The Old Testament Portrays that Yahweh would bring about redemption and judgment. And many of this text is ascribed to Jesus ( Isa. 3f:4ff; Matt.11:4-6; Ezek. 34; John 10:11’ 14; Matt. 22:41-46;Mal.2:1;4:f; Matt. 11:14) The implication was that, in the person of Jesus, Yahweh had indeed come, as the birth title “ Emmanuel” also signified to inaugurate the new age of his salvation and reign. Among different gods of the ancient time, Yahweh is unique and demanded worship from his chosen people. Thus, Jesus identified himself as the visible manifestation of the unique God-Yahweh.

The World Evangelical Fellowship Manila Declaration
To discuss this issue, Eighty-five evangelical theologians from 28 countries met in Manila, Philippines on June 1992. It was joint consultation sponsored by Asia Theological Association and the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Fellowship. Twenty Papers was presented on the Theme “the unique Christ in our Pluralistic World”. The uniqueness of Jesus with the following themes was affirmed in this meeting.
• The Unique Christ in our Pluralist of Religions.
• The Unique Christ as the Hope and Judge of the World.
• The Unique Christ in the Challenge of Modernity
• The Unique Christ and Political Ideologies
• The Unique Christ in the church Diversity and Unity
• The Unique Christ for peace and justice
Ecumenical, Roman Catholic and others
The question of Christ’s uniqueness in our pluralistic world, especially his universal Lordship, authority and supremacy has of late assumed prominence in missiological and theological debates. These debates are pointers to the fact that there has been a significant and dangerous shift away from the teaching of the New Testament and the apostles on the subject of the uniqueness of Christ. Leslie New begin in his new book, the gospel in a pluralist Society (1989), has clearly defined this shift and its effect on biblical and orthodox Christianity. Modern secularism, pluralism, humanisn, scientism and relativism have been responsible for this significant shift. Western Theology is often labeled as Exclusivist approach, due to the nature of ascribing other religion as pagan and condemning them as damned, as in the word of Bishop Cyprian of carthage, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (outside the church there is no salvation). As Hendricks Kraemer stated, missionary‘s sole aim is –to persuade the non Christian-world to surrender to Christ as the sole Lord of Life. Such view is considered as hostile and arrogant. Here, we will take a glimpse of how the uniqueness of Christ is approach in a multi-religious context like India.

Uniqueness in Christological Relativity: The approach of John Hick allows Christian to continue to adhere Christ as their unique savior without having to insist that he is necessarily unique and normative for others. Christ is unique for Christian not for others. This approach is based on his argument for universal salvation. Hindu are devoted to Krishna, Muslim call God Allah, and Christians find God in Christ. All worship the same God by different names. Hick argues that Christians do not have to believe that Jesus was God or second person of the Trinity in order to accept his teaching about the love of God. When Buddhists can accept and live by Gautama’s teachings and Muslim by the prophet Muhammad teachings, without believing that any of these great teachers was God incarnate. Hick attacks the traditional understanding of the doctrine of incarnation, saying that incarnation should be taken myth logically and metaphorically rather than literally. Holding a similar view Knitter admits that, “Jesus is unique, but with a uniqueness defined by its ability to relate to-that is, to include and be included by-other unique religious figures. He sees Jesus “not as exclusive or even normative, but Theo centric, as a revelation and salvation” New Trend in Pluralistic thinking leads to relativist position where every view has to be taken seriously.

Uniqueness in Christological Anonymity. According to Karl Rahner , The anonymous Christians are a Christian unawares. The difference between such a one and the explicit Christian is partly one of the subjective awareness (absent in the one, present the other) of “being a Christian”. “Anonymous Christianity” means that salvation in Jesus Christ is available to human persons, in whatever historical situation they find themselves, inasmuch as in a hidden way they open themselves to God’s self communication which culminates in the Christ-event. It further means that that mystery of salvation reaches out to them, not by a mere invisible action of the risen Lord but, in a mysterious manner, through the go-between action of the religious tradition to which they belong. There is an anonymous, or implicit, Christianity, then, and there is an explicit Christianity. Both are “Christian” despite the breath of the gap that keeps them apart. Anonymous Christianity, Rahner explains, is lived by the members of other religious traditions in the sincere practice of their own traditions. Christian salvation reaches out to them, anonymously, through these traditions. This affirmation is based on the social character of a person’s religious life, inseparable from the religious tradition and community in which it is lived.

Uniqueness in Christic or Cosmic Christology: Though it is difficult to locate the birth of twentieth century cosmic Christologies, it is easy to see that the background of the 1960’s was conducive to such a birth, particularly the Third Assembly of the World Council churches at New Delhi, 1961. Joseph sitter (Professor of theology at the University of Chicago) has used the phrase “cosmic Christ” in his address to the assembly “called to unity” and so is generally considered the originator of the idea. Taking Col. 1:1-20 as his basis where the word “ all “ is repeated at least six times. Sitter concludes that God’s redemption is not smaller than the repeated “all”, it is “cosmic in scope”. Today, many debates have been conducted as the theological validity of restricting the revealed messiah only to the person of Jesus of Nazareth needs a relevant clarification, “Is Only Jesus the Christ?” This idea has characterized liberal and especially Roman Catholic though ever since and is embodied in the documents of the vaitcans.II T.he mystery of Christ was present and active before it became incarnate in Jesus. The uniqueness is attributed to Christ or to the Christic mystery, but not to Jesus. According to S.J Samartha some Christology that claims God has been revealed to save humanity only in Jesus Christ and that to, once and for all in the first century, contradict a theology which affirms that God is the creator, sustainer and Redeemer of all humanity and that God’s love and justice embrace all people at all time? V Chakkarai observes that, “to believe that God is best defined by Christ is not to believe that God is confined to Christ.”

Unknown Christ in Hinduism:Pannikar Wrote: “There is a living presence of Christ in Hinduism”. He also wrote: “Christ does not belong to Christianity, he only belongs to God. It is Christianity and Hinduism as well that belong to Christ, though in two different levels.” Thus, for Pannikkar the mystery of Jesus Christ is present in a hidden way, perceptible to Christian faith alone, in the religious traditions and in Hinduism alone. . Pannikar posit that Hindu concept of Isvara can be equated with Christ. Christ the “only mediator” is present and active in all authentic religions, “whatever the forms or name”.Christians give the name “Christ “to this “ever-transcending but equally ever-humanly immanent” of the mediator; other religions may rightly give other names.

Christ-Center Koinonia: For MM.Thomas , he envisages a three levels of koinonia in Christ : first, the koinonia of the Eucharistic community of the church, itself a unity of diverse peoples acknowledging the person of Jesus as the Messiah; Second , a larger koinonia of dialogue among people of different faiths inwardly renewed by their acknowledgment of the ultimacy of the pattern of suffering servant hood as exemplified by the crucified Jesus; third , a still larger koinonia of those involved in the power-political struggle for new societies and a world community based on secular or religious anthropologies informed by the agape of the cross. . Christ is impacting all these levels. It is also known as Christ Center Syncretism. For MM.Thomas, the New Testament hymns of creation in John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrew 1, and in the creeds where “all things” are seen as having been crated through Christ and by Him, and as subsisting in him and oriented towards him. Such a universal presence of Christ also posits the possibility and the reality of people being saved “ not by relating only to that historical life, death and resurrection in which the pattern was made plain, once for all, but by relating also to the pattern wherever it emerges” in the tissue of historical existence-not merely religious existence, but just human existence, religious or secular, and not only n contemporary history, but in whole history of humanity.

Uniqueness in New creation: According to P.Chenchechiah, Beyond the teaching and life of Christ is the fact of Christ, which is of universal significance because it prophecies and realizes a new creative order. Herein lies the gospel of Christianity, its uniqueness. In a man, as in Jesus, a new creative factor has entered creation. Man has been the centre and the creator of a new order by virtue of the new life which is his. So also Christ is the creator of the kingdom of God which is the new world of the children of God. Jesus is unique not merely because He descends from heaven and stands aloof from man and history, stretching his helping hands across a yawning gulf, but because he issues forth from the heart of man, revealing himself as the inner impulse, the motive of new creative life..

Uniqueness in Fulfillment, For Swami Abhisiktananda The Vedas and Upanishad find their completion-their sensus plenior- in Christ, who is really “ the end of the Vedanta, since He is the beginning and the end, the lord of everything….Hindus have nothing to lose of their own spiritual riches in recognizing Christ as the real and definitive purusha. Jn Farquhar coming along the similar vein, published “The Crown of Hinduism” asserting Christ as the end of Vedas.

Uniqueness as contextual: This approach asserts that one cannot deny the affirmation of the uniqueness that is very clear in the New Testament. But these affirmations are to be interpreted in their context. Early Christians were faced with the emperor-cult of Romans and the various mystery cults against whom they affirmed the uniqueness of Christ. Some feel that the affirmation has now needed to be rethought. Paul F kniiter strongly argue that the absolute and exclusive quality of New Testament Christology tells us more about the social situation of the early church than about the ontological nature of Jesus. He called the doctrinal language as “survival language”, basically to strengthen the minority Christian community from persecution. S.J Samartha wrote, “If Jesus Christ is God’s gift to the whole world it would be a serious mistake to insist that the gift should be received, unwrapped and appreciated only in one particular way.” He also argues the impossibility of the Graeco-Roman-Western particularity setting up itself as the norm and obliterating all other particularities. He believe that an insight in the revelation of God through Jesus Christ for all people in ways as yet unknown in the history of the church should be brought out.

Uniqueness as “The Spirit in Christ”: According to Mazoomdar, Jesus Christ is unique, first because he completes all other partial and local incarnations and makes for a truly spiritual and universal incarnation of the Spirit, and provides an everlasting model of the divine order of humanity. According to Mazoomdar, “Jesus Christ was in spirit” in Socrates, Abraham and “all the great and good “ever reverenced in humanity’; he is “the type of humanity”, the divine Man. Secondly, “Christ is unique because he perfectly embodies the true and universal relation between God and man.Mazoomdar affirms that “Christ has not only risen but returned as he promised” in the Holy Spirit. And therefore the Brahmo Samaj declares the dispensation of the Spirit making possible an unceasing “succession of divine humanity”.

 Conclusion:
Due to diverse context and cultures in India, the uniqueness of Christ is developed in many ways. The Ecumenical, Roman Catholic and the Evangelical have their own perception, and sometimes it is categorized as Exclusivism, Inclusivism and Pluralism. Whatever our perception may be, Christian is called to hold on to faith and be faithful till the end. Before we conclude, let us do an appraisal and critique of what have been discussed earlier.
It looks as though the new pluralistic approach to religion has tended to remove the secure and solid ground of our faith. Recognition of historical consciousness of religious beliefs, however, can easily lead us to relativity, where every point is to be accepted and in which non one is allowed to make absolute judgments on the other. As Langdon Gilkey phrases it, “ecumenical tolerance represents an impressive moral and religious gain, a step toward love and understanding. But it has its own deep risks, and one of them is the specter of relativity, this loss of any place to stand, the elimination of the very heart of the religious as ultimate concern.
The heart of cosmic Christology, the separation of the person of Jesus from the principle or idea of Christ goes against the grain of Chalcedonian Christological formula. The rejection of tradition (which happily has the support of the Bible) by cosmic Christologists is no surprise, since, starting from existential situation they can hardly give place for church history in their thinking. Whatever be the history of the Chalcedonian session, the non-speculative preciseness of its Christological definition (two natures in one person, without confusion, without change, without division and without separation) can only be attributed to the providential ruling and wisdom of God who rules and overrules in the affairs of men. In attempting to define the idea of Christ in total separation from the human nature of Jesus, cosmic Christology is a radical Christology. WEF Manila Declaration states, “We affirm that the universal message of Christ is essentially dependent on the historical Jesus Christ who, in his particularity, is the very act of God and that therefore it is not appropriate to refer to the Christ principle in other religions, or to cosmic Christ, or to the hidden Christ, or to the unnamed Christ except in connection with and in dependence on Jesus of Nazareth.
The danger of universalism is that it reduces all our understanding of special revelation to the providence of God in general revelation. Such position undercuts all claims to the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ and the Cross.
However, there is no firm biblical evidence that God has closed the door completely for those who do not have an opportunity to encounter Christ in their lifetime.
The limitation in the fulfillment theory is that  its attempt to connect Christianity as the fulfillment of Hinduism in some way is doubtful. The hindu might ask, “ is there Moksha in Christianity” that is, does Christianity provide deliverance from the bondage to Karma Samsara ( the cycle of births and rebirths) into a state of union of the atman and the Brahman? The obvious answer is “No”.
As it was discussed in the beginning of this paper. God Yahweh chose Israel nation as His chosen people and through this nation came Jesus whom through God’s plan of redemption is revealed. And as revealed in the New Testament, Jesus is the “one mediator” between God and Humanity (1 Tim2:5). There is “no other name” by which persons can be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus is the “ only begotten Son of God” (Jn 1:14).No one comes to the Father except through him (Jn 14:6).Just as all died in one man, Adam, so all will be brought to life in one man, Christ (1 cor. 15:21-22) What took place in him was “once and for all” (epaphax)(Heb.9:12).He is the final prophet, providing the normative, final word for all who preceded or may follow. The Bible is clear about this and Christians are commission to spread the good news to the entire world.
Unless Christ is proclaimed as the unique Lord and Savior of the World attested by the Scriptures and the apostles, our offer of salvation, peace and justice to the world is meaningless and empty. Similarly, unless Christ’s Lordship, authority and supremacy are of universal value as affirmed by Scripture and the apostles, then our involvement with ethical issues to the world lacks any credibility and legitimacy. Christ cannot offer to the world his salvation, peace and justice if he himself does not have any universal value and import. In Paul’s words, it involves a mystery that, “for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be known…..according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus. In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence” (Eph 3:9b-12 NIV). If Paul and early church could say that in the midst of their culture and religious diversity, we can feel confident in doing as well. “Jesus Christ is Lord.” In the midst of many cultures and peoples of many faiths, let’s learn to be bold evangelists: faith particularist , culturally pluralist, and ecclesiologicallly inclusvist.



Bibliography
Amaladoss, Michael S.J “Is Christ the Unique Savior? A Clarification of the question” in What does
Jesus Christ? The Meaningfulness of Jesus Christ amid Religious Pluralism in India .Edited by
Errol D’Lima,SJ & Max Gonsalves,SFX .Bangalore:Dharmaram Publications,2004.
Byod, Robin .An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology .Delhi, ISPCK, 1969.
Biblical Theology in Asian, Edited by Ken Gnannakan .Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1995.
Corrie J. “Kingdom of God” in Dictionary of Mission Theology: Evangelical Foundation. Edited by
John Corrie & et al .England: Inter-varsity Press, 2007.
Chenchiah, P.” Wherein Lies the Uniqueness of Christ? An Indian Christian View” in Readings
Indian Christian Theology.Edited by R.S Sugirtharajah and Cecil Hargreaves .Delhi: ISPCK,
1993.
Costa, Gavin D’ .Theology and Religious Pluralism .Oxford, U k: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Engen, Charles Van “ The Uniqueness of Christ in Mission Theology” in Christianity and the
Religions: A Biblical Theology of World Religions, edited by Edward Rommoen and Harold
Netland .Pasedena,California: William Carey Library,1995.
Gnanakan, Ken. The Pluralistic Predicament: Theological Issues Series No.1 .Bangalore: Theological
Book Trust, 1992.
Gnanakan, Ken. Salvation: Some Asian Perspective .Bangalore: Asian Theological Association, 1992.
Henry, Sarojin. The Encounter of Faith and Science in Inter-Religious Dialogue .Delhi: ISPCK, 2005.
Jacques Dupuis,S.J , Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism .Gujarat: Gujarat Sahitya
Prakash, 2001.
Knitter, Paul F. No Other Names? London: SCM Press Ltd, 1985.
Raju, T.Swami .Christian Responses to Plurality of Religion .Bangalore: BTESSC/SATHRI, 2006.
Thomas, MM Risking Christ for Christ‘s Sake .Geneva: Wcc Publication, 1987.
Thomas, MM. The Acknowledged Christ of the Indian Renaissance .Madras: The C.L.S, 1970.
Turaki ,Yusuf “ The Unique Christ for Peace and Justice” in The Unique Christ in our Pluralist
WorldEdited by Bruce J.Nicholls .GrandRapids, Michigan, 1994.
.The Unique Christ in our Pluralist World, edited by Bruce J.Nicholls .Grand
Rapids,Michigan:Baker Book House,1994.
Samartha . S.J One Christ-Many Religions .Bangalore: South Asia Theological Research Institute,
1991
Singh, Narendra. A Christian Theology of Religions: Recovering Dialectical Method
Bangalore:SAIACS Press,2005.
Sumithra, Sunand “Conversion: to Cosmic Christ?” in Doing Theology in context, edited by Sunand
Sumithra .Bangalore: Theological Book Trust, 1992.
Wainwright, Goeffrey. “Uniqueness of Christ” in Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Edited
by Nicholas Lossky & et al .Geneva: WCC Publication, 2002.
Wright, Christopher J.H. “Uniqueness of Jesus” in Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Edited
by A. Scott Moreau & et al .Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bakers Books, 2000.

Imago Dei: Created in the Image of God

The biblical discussion turns on the Hebrew words “selem” and “demut”, and the New Testament Greek terms “eikon” and “homoiosis.” The earliest significant commentary on the concept of the imago dei was done by Irenaeus (ca.140-202). Based on what is now considered a doubtful exegesis of Gen 1:26, Irenaeus posited a twofold character to the imago dei based on the distinction between the words image (tslem) and likeness (Demuth). Image was thought to represent the basic form of human, while likeness was taken to mean the material content of righteousness, which was lost or atleast interrupted in its development by the fall. Most scholars today view the two phrases as a construct of Hebrew parallelism, pointing to the single endowment that constitutes the uniqueness of humanity created by God.
Reformation Theologian’s view: Luther attacks Augustine’s view that the image consist of memory, understanding and will. In this case Satan could be said to exhibit the image of God. Luther understood the image as essentially man’s response to God by loving and glorifying Him while Calvin claimed man could be like or resemble God only in the area of spiritual and rational attributes. Reformed theologians subscribed to the position that image were knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.
Double aspect of the Image: Emil Brunner saw a double aspect of the image, the formal phase which is unchangeable and cannot be affected by sin, and the material image which was lost through the fall.
Barthian View: Karl Barth stressed the “I –Thou” or “face –to-face” relation, and originally denied God had created man in His own image but later changed his position.
Androgyne: Some modern scholars posit that the original Adam prior to the creation of Eve stands as the first human being bearing the image of God for masculine and feminine individuals. The Androgyne Myth also revealed an original state of humanity in which male and female is single entity. However one should note that such concept stems from Gnosticism. Therefore it might not refer to biological distinction of sexes. Pheme Perkins opines that many Jewish interpretations of Gen 1; 26-27 thought of Adam as originally created “male/female.” This androgynous Adam possessed the image of God as a “garment of light.” After the fall, humans were divided into male and female, had become mortal and the garment of light was replaced by the “garment of skin.”
Christological and eschatological: The new theology supports an “Christological” or “eschatological” interpretation of the divine image in humankind. As New Testament concepts of New Adam – Christ bears the imago dei. But there is also need for caution over the new theology since it often incorporates an evasive turn into its Christological appeal. It diverts attention from the question of humanity’s primal origin. The attempt to delineate the archetype “Adam” is shifted to the New Adam.
Medieval Jewish view: Medieval Jewish Theologians generally followed Philo’s view, replacing logos with Plotinus’ Intellect (nous) or Aristotle’s Active Intellect. Man’s superiority over lower creation resided in his rational soul or intellect. Maimonides subscribed to this interpretation of the biblical terms, and it became standard for Jewish exegesis and philosophy.
Modern Liberal view: 20th Liberal Theologians enamored with the Wellhausen approach to the religion of Israel, the saw the entire concept of the image of God as probably dependent on Babylonian mythology. However, such hypothesis may not be viable as such theologians disagreed with the literal interpretation of Genesis creation account, and at the same time mythologizing with cognate story found in the Babylonian epic led us to question “why the bible need mythology of ancient religion for interpretation?”
Corporeal or Physical: Some have considered the image of God to be an aspect of our physical or bodily makeup. Such view still persists today. However, The image does not refer to bodily form since God is spirit (Jn 4:24) but a spiritual, natural, and moral likeness. In his spiritual likeness , man has regenerated being may have fellowship God (Eph. 2:1,); in his natural likeness, man has intellect, emotion and will to know and commune with God; in his moral likeness, man may know and obey the precepts of God.

Apart from what has been highlighted in the foregoing paragraph, another important views are “ Trichotomy” and “Dichotomy”. Trichotomy asserts human as a constituent of Spirit, soul and Body (Heb 4:12) while “Dichotomy” asserts human as a composite of Soul and Body. However, in this paper thesis will be built upon the latter, and the paucity of the former will also be elicited. Starting out with the former, it is pivotal to note that the supporting reference from Heb 4:12 does not establish soul and spirit as different entities, but different function of psychic life of humankind, as is evident from the parallel phrase “ the joints and marrow” in relation to the body. At the same time it is important to remind oneself that human is a psychosomatic being, the soul is not separate from the body. If it is so the body cannot sustain without the life-force (soul).
Evangelical expositors of the biblical revelation find the created image of God to exist formally in human personality (moral responsibility and intelligence) and materially in his knowledge of God and of his will for humanity. ,

it is widely accepted as Natural Likeness/ Human Moral/Conscience/Intelligent/Sovereignty:-
• Man was created a personal being, and was by this personality distinguished from the brute. By personality we mean the twofold power to know self as related to the world and to God, and to determine self in view of moral ends. By virtue of this personality, man could at his creation choose which of the objects of his knowledge-self, the world, or God-should be norm and centre of his development.
• Man is an intelligent being, and was created to know God, enjoy and glorify God as such; hence his moral state must have been perfect.
• Human ability to discern evil and feel guilt for it comes through the conscience. Human conscience may judge, not only oneself but also one’s family, church, and society. More specifically it refers to a capacity for second-level awareness of right and wrong, an ability to judge conduct by moral standard. And to sense one’s obligation to follow just values personally and socially.
• To sum up, humans morally are agents capable of distinguishing God’s normative counsel from the deceptive counsels of evil beings and from the ambiguous results of descriptive surveys of human conduct. This moral likeness, lost by the fall, is restored by grace ( Eph. 4:23; Col 3:10; Rom 8:29, 2nd Corinth 3:18; Ps 17:1 R.V)
• J.G. Bennett asserts that the meaning of the words, “Let us create man in our own image” is to be found in the Act whereby God bestows upon man a particle of His creative power.”

The Pre-Eminence of God’s Revelation in Christ (Heb 1:2a-4)

( v.2a)But in these Last days he has spoken to us by a son: The primitive Christians and Jewish had divided times into two ages-the present age and the age to come (last days). And between these two ages, they call the transitional period or part of the last days as “the Day of the Lord”. In the prophetic book the day of the lord is characterized as a time of hope and restoration where Yahweh would triumph over the enemy. So for the Jewish readers, when they read this verse, they can understand that the writer is telling that God’ salvation has now come through His Son.

The word “son” here identified Jesus as a Messiah. as we can see in the Old Testament.
1. In Ps 2:7 it says, “You are my son; today I have begotten you”.
a. This psalm depicts the enthronement of the Messiah (the
Lord's Anointed)
b. In which Yahweh calls the Messiah "My Son"
c. The "begetting” also has a reference to the resurrection of Jesus
- Acts 13:33; Rom 1:3-4
2. Again in 2Sam 7:14 we see God says, “ I will be a father to him , and he will be a son to me “
a. The passage in 2 Samuel had immediate application to Solomon, David's
Son
b. But as the Messiah who would receive the throne of David
Was also descended from David...
1) So the ultimate application would be to the Messiah
2) I.e., Jesus, the "son of David" - Matt 1:1; Mk 10:47; Jn 7:42

So the Old Testament Prophecy is finally fulfilled in Christ. The savior – the messiah has finally come. Unlike the Human Prophets God is now revealing Himself through His Son. Jesus is God’s Ultimate Revelation.

Heirs of all things: First we see that Jesus is mentioned as an heir of all things. A direct citation from Ps 2:8. However, Jesus is not merely a fulfillment but a better fulfillment. In the Old Testament concept, in ps 2:8, the king is promised to be heirs of all nations However, in the New Testament concept it is not only nation but all things. As we can see in Mat 28:18 where Jesus said, “All authority in Heaven and on Earth is given to me.” (cf 1 Peter 3:22)

Whom he also created the worlds: Then the writer continued “Whom he also created the worlds” Here Jesus is identified with a divine wisdom, as in Jewish wisdom literature, in the apocrypha, divine wisdom is describe as an agent of creation, revelation and reconciliation . (wis 7:21-27; 9:2)

Reflection of God’s Glory. Then the writer says, “He is the reflection of God’s glory”. The Greek word “ Apaugasma” is employed here , meaning “ emitting light”. In Johannine Gospel ( jn 1:14) we see that the logos is the glory of the Father. Some times in the Old Testament this glory is also associated with the tabernacles and the temple. At Mount Sinai, the glory of God appears to Moses. So the glory means God presence or God manifestation. As we say “Immanuel “God with us”.

However one should note that the son is not merely a reflection of God’s Glory, the writer also says, Jesus is also the exact imprint of God’s very being
The Greek word “Character” is used here. Meaning stamp or image which the NRSV rendered it as “the exact imprint.”Thus Jesus is the very essence of God. As we know Jesus said that I and the father are one (Jn 10:30)

Sustainer of all things. Then the writer continued, He sustains all things by his powerful words. How many of you have ever wondered why the stars are not falling? What makes the Earth revolve around the Sun? What makes the sun set and rise?
There is famous saying of Rene Descartes one of the renowned French philosophers, “I think therefore I am”. But I think as a Christian we ought to be saying, “I think therefore Christ is” rather than saying, I think therefore I am. Because, without Jesus everything will cease to exist. For He is the one who sustains everything.

Then the writer continued, “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high”. Here Jesus is identified as the Royal priest of the Old Testament; however not in the order of Aaron as Jesus comes from tribe of Judah not a Levi.
In Ps 110: 4 God says, you are priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” Thus Jesus himself became a better fulfillment of Old Testament Royal Priest. As He himself became the element of sacrifice, He is also identified as a salvific figure and inaugurator of a better covenant (Heb 8-10) The Blood of bull and goats cannot washed away our sins but only with the blood of Jesus.
Then in verse 4 we see His Superiority over heavenly being (v4): We understand that Prophets are human being while Angels are heavenly being. Both are God’s messenger. The writer here mentioned that Jesus is much superior to angels. That is because of his name. When we look into the immediate context in
Verse 5, it says,” For to which of the angels did God ever say “you are my Son; today I have begotten you”? As we have seen earlier the son identified Him as the messiah.
In Phil 2:9, Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name.
Thus from these points we can see that Jesus stands very unique, far more superior to anything else. Supreme Revelation among Revelations.

Excavating Psalm 2: With special reference to its Eschatological Messianic Aspect

This canticle comes under the genre of royal psalm particularly of coronation. It used different formats and devices such as chiasmus and parallelism. Before we try attempting to elicit the theological implication, let us first try to do verbatim explanation of the verses, especially of the key lexis. The first strophe in the canticle opens with a question, “Why do the nation rage and the people imagine a vain thing? “ (V 1) Now as vividly portrayed, the speakers contemplated over why “nations” (goyim, a word usually bearing a hostile connotation) it can be people of different nationalities, their deeds and action as depict by the author shows a great hatred towards Yahweh and His anointed-most probably the king of Israel. The verb “ragash” designates any noisy or riotous assembly that seethes in its antagonism. . “They plot in vain”, the word “rig” means “emptiness” or “futility” .Particularly in v2, the psalmist used the expression “kings of the earth” which is quite problematic to unravel. Scholars are of eclectic views; it is widely believe that it may be in conjunction with the text from 2nd Sam. 8 or 10. Further in verse 2, the word “anointed” is used. The English word from where “messiah” is derived ( GK christos) But numbers of scholars support the idea that it primarily refers to the earthly king of that particular epoch. Which is quite true but the eschatological aspects pointing to the future messiah cannot be neglected which makes the psalm prophetic and relevant to the New Testament.

The second strophes (VV.4-6) opens up in contrast to the tumultuous scene of the first strophe, here the transcendent peace that reigns inn the throne room of God is vividly portrayed. The anthropomorphism “laugh” exhibits the derisions of Yahweh against the nation rages. In v5, the repercussion of the nation’s conspiracy against Yahweh is depicted: the divine indignation is mentioned which is further synthesized in the following verse 6 with more explicit manner. The emphatic “I” is set into bolder relief by the adversative conjunction, Waw adversative. The statement is really an ellipsis. Its introductory thought is unexpressed. This would have been something like: you may rebel and make plans to overthrow my anointed one; but all I have say is.” In fact, all He does say is surprisingly simple: God has ordained His earthly king in Zion, His holy hill. The meaning of “nasakh” as “appoint “or “induct” is supported by the cognate Assyrian word “nasaku”. God’s ordained kings are His vice gerent. His kings serve as a territorial manifestation of Yahweh’s sovereignty. God always vindicate His anointed.
The third strophe opens up with a new scene (.VV-7-9). Having dealt with the divine installation of the king at Jerusalem, the poet shifted his theme on the “divine decree” (most probably the legitimating by prophets and priests of the so called “royal modus operandi” which is well known from the Egyptian royal rituals, c.f. 2nd kings 11:12) which he puts into the mouth of the kings and on which the latter’s reign is based. Yahweh has promised him divine son ship and the privileges of a son of God. The idea of the divine son ship points to the deification of the king in consequence of which king was regarded as having been begotten by the deity. It is understandable that the OT rejected the idea of physical divine son ship of the king as incompatible with the spiritual notion of God. In fact the psalmist too excludes the idea of the physical divine son ship “ you are my son “, though he leaves untouched the formula “ i have begotten you “ which originated in that foreign world of ideas. He transforms the alien idea into the idea of adoption, that is to say, into the declaration of the son ship of the king that took place on the day of the enthronement. By that act special importance is attributed not to the person of the king of such but to his office as king. The OT kingship thereby becomes a function and the instrument of the will of the divine Ruler.

The begotten doesn’t necessary implies ontologically or physically begotten but an adoption. It is a reminiscent of the Davidic covenant (2 Sam. 7:14, ps 89:26). The Davidic covenant was eternal, but all covenants were renewed from time to time, when new descendants of the Davidic dynasty ascended to the throne. Thus the divine words “you are my son” shows a renewal of relationship between God and David’s house in the person of the newly crowned king. “Today” shows that the words were announced on the coronation day, the day on which the divine decree became effective. The emphasis on today also occurs in other types of the covenant renewal ceremony; see Deut 26:17 and 30:19.
The poetry in verse 9 presents this regal authority in a dramatic manner: an “iron rod” is something intrinsically strong, just as a potter’s vessel is constitutionally fragile. This stark contrast between the power of the Davidic king and the feebleness of the earthly monarchs rested not in the human strength of the Hebrew king, but in the strength of Yahweh, the one who proclaim these words.
The Fourth strophe (VV 10-12) opens up with the warning. Here the writer reverts to its starting point by addressing the rulers of the earth; exhorting and warning them. The earthly kings and rulers , who at the opening of the psalm were acting impetuously and haughtily ( 2:1-3), are now reproved and told to think very carefully (v 10) of the implication of the coronation which has just transpired. They are counseled to serve the lord; the Hebrew word “serve” has political overtones and entails that the foreign nations should submit as vassals to Israel’s God.
“Kiss the son” the expression is quite problematic to construed, scholars are divided, some translation reads, “kiss the feet”, (but the actual word is Aramaic “bar” usually translated as “ son “ ) however kissing was a sign of homage and submission (c.f 1st Sam. 10:1; 1 Kgs 19:18). Failure to submit to God through his king would result in disaster, for God’s hasty wrath would culminate in their destruction.
Now we will try to unravel the eschatological aspect of this canticle. When we juxtapose this psalm with the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3: 21-22) in the New Testament, the coalescing of these two scriptures divulge its theological implication. The expression “anointed “found in psalm 2: 2 is a reminiscent of the Holy Spirit descending (katabainon) upon Jesus, as He was anointed with power ( Acts 10:38). Philologically we can observe the relation between the Hebrew “messia” and Greek “christos” as both of these terms etymologically stems from the root word meaning “to rub “ thus the interpretation of the second verse ( ps 2) is not confined to the earthly king of that particular period but it also refers to the messiah in the New Testament.
The second expression we need to focus is “you are my son “(v7), it is true that this expression can be interpreted in the light of the Davidic covenant. But its relation with the future messiah is that “Jesus is also the son of David”. Secondly the expression is also found in Jesus’ Baptism (Luke 3:21-22).but note that Jesus is the unique son. The Greek word “ monogenes” ( see Jn 3:16) often translated as “ begotten” actually means “ unique”. Greek “mono” means “one “while “genes” comes from “ genos” which means “kind” so it means “ one of a kind”. That shows that Jesus is the unique son- the messiah (unique from the rest of the Davidic son).
The third expression in verse 9 “iron rod” also shows us its relation with the New Testament Messiah. In Revelation 2: 27, Jesus says, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my father.”
Lastly but no the least, the expression “kiss the son “shows submission to Jesus as He is the only savior (Acts 4:12). So in the life and ministry of Jesus we can the see the eschatological fulfillment of what was prognosticated in this psalm. Further the historical and the eschatological aspect shows us that the word of God is not confined to one particular time period but it transcends all time barrier from past, present to future. It is poignant that many people have this notion that the word of God is no longer relevant in our life. But let us remember, the bible is not a history book but our daily bread.
.