I have mentioned more than once that the emphases emerging in Coffey’s reading o f the biblical data differs at a num ber o f points from those o f “classical” theology. I have stated that he thinks o f his Spirit Christology as somehow comple m entary to the Logos Christology o f the classical traditions. In w hat remains o f this chapter, I look at Coffey’s attempts to explain the relationship between his posi tions and those o f the “classical” tradition. The reason for this is clear: it is not suf ficient to say that two things are compatible for this to be so. One m ust show how they are compatible. How, in brief, do Coffey’s interpretations o f scripture relate to the traditional ones? Let us first review some o f the principal differences seen thus far.
From the first chapter above we know that the classical theologies were built largely on the basis o f Logos Christology, while C offey’s theology attempts a Spirit Christology (though he states that this need not mean abandoning Logos Christo logy and the associated doctrine o f the Trinity). W e also know that C offey’s theo logy thinks o f the Holy Spirit’s sanctification o f the human nature o f Jesus as some how (though not chronologically) prior to the hypostatic union with the Son, a position that inverts the traditional order. From the current chapter, we know that
185, Thus m ight be answered some o f the concerns expressed by A nthony K elly in his thoughtful re view o f Deus Trinitas, where - missing these points - he politely says that C offey’s m ethodology
“ teases theologians.”
186 These points are expanded upon in Chapters Four and Five below.
Coffey continues to read the life, death and resurrection o f Jesus in the same way, placing the w ork o f the Holy Spirit somehow prior, bringing about the Sonship “in humanity” o f Jesus.
Another way o f characterising the difference between the broad lines o f Coffey’s theology and those o f the “classical” tradition is with reference to the rela tionship between what happens in Jesus and what happens in ordinary human be ings. In the “classical” approach, the case o f Jesus is conceived in a way discontinu ous with that o f ordinary human beings. The need to do this, as indicated, was linked historically with the need to assert the unicity o f Christ, against adoptionism. Accordingly, Jesus is the Son because he is the Logos incarnate, while ordinary human beings are saved by grace. W hat happens in the case o f Jesus is no guide to w hat happens with ordinary human beings, and vice versa.
C offey’s theology, in contrast, sets aside the traditional reluctance to explore the continuities, and advances the argument that ju st as ordinary human beings are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, so too is Jesus sanctified by the Holy Spirit. W hat happens in the case o f Jesus is, for Coffey, the best guide to what happens with or dinary human beings, because the case o f Jesus is paradigmatic. As a result o f what happens in Jesus, there is even a sense in which we might urge a “vice versa” : as long as it is clear that the anointing o f Jesus is prim ary, we can look at the sanctify ing work o f the Holy Spirit in ordinary human beings (grace) in order to gain some insight into the work o f the Holy Spirit in relation to the hum an nature o f Christ.
Yet another way o f characterising the difference with C offey’s theology is in relation to the notion o f the “Son.” Classical theology thinks o f the Son as the pre existent Logos, the one who assumes a hum an nature in Jesus, the principle o f unity in Christ. Classical theology has no notion o f the Son “in hum anity,” one who is progressively brought into being by the Holy Spirit through the life o f Jesus.
W hy, from the point o f view o f traditional theology, would it be difficult to accept C offey’s positions as sketched above? W e have already seen that the basic answer is the dominance in the tradition o f Logos Christology and the comparative neglect o f Spirit Christology. It is time now to look at the broad impact o f this on the history o f christological thought, time to set out Coffey’s diagnosis o f what he calls the problem o f the “wedge.”
According to Coffey, the rise of Logos Christology in its ontological interpret ation brought with it what he regards as an unscriptural division between the human and the divine natures o f Christ. No such distinction is found in the bible itself. To claim to find a distinction between the hum an and divine natures o f Christ in the bible would be anachronistically to import the thought-culture o f the Hellenistic world into the Semitic world o f the biblical authors. I have already sketched some thing o f the rise in the post-biblical period o f w hat Coffey reads as an ontological interpretation o f the New Testament Logos Christology.187 A typical fruit o f this on tological approach is manifest in the terms o f the fourth century “Arian” contro versy: either the Son is divine or the Son is a creature. When, in the fifth century, this fram ew ork is brought to christology itself, the ontological chasm dividing Cre ator from creatures is brought to bear on the heart o f the hypostatic union itself. The result o f this, for Coffey, is that the hum an nature o f Jesus lies on one side o f this chasm on the divine nature on the other. The question o f how these two natures are related, Coffey thinks, was left unanswered by the Chalcedonian framework, which insists that both natures are perfect, but also that they are unm ixed and unconfused. In its bid to ensure the unicity o f Christ, classical Logos Christology comes to rely on an opposition between these two natures. This reliance on an ontological chasm to ensure the unicity o f Christ came at the price o f relegating the effects o f the hy postatic union on the human nature o f Christ to second place. The principal func-