Adam Co is Professor of Theology at California Baptist University in Riverside, California.
Introduction
In their book, The Suffering and Victorious Christ: Toward a More Compassionate Christology, Richard Mouw and Douglas Sweeney address an issue brought before them at a conference in Tokyo Christian University. The issue is western Christianity’s tendency to portray a kind of triumphal Christology loosely described as Christus victor (the Christ of victory).[1] For it emphasizes “an unbroken Christ, a powerful, conquering Christ.”[2]
In contrast, in many non-western countries, such as those in Asia or Africa, Christology is often done through the lens of a more empathetic Christology known as Christus dolor (the Christ of sorrows). The Japanese Christian writer Shusaku Endo, author of the novel Silence, observes,
The religious mentality of the Japanese is . . . responsive to one who “suffers with us” . . . and who “allows for our weaknesses.” [The Japanese, moreover,] tend to seek in their gods and buddhas a warm-hearted mother [more than a distant,] “stern father”.[3]
For Endo, in order for the Japanese to hear the Christian message, “they must know that God is more than just a righteous heavenly Father who is angry over sin; God is also One who loves and draws near in times of need.”[4]
From the African slave experience, James Cone expressed a Christology far different than the typical western Christology. He writes:
The cross of Jesus reveals the extent of God’s involvement in the suffering of the weak. He is not merely sympathetic with the social pain of the poor but becomes totally identified with them in their agony and pain. The pain of the oppressed is God’s pain for he takes their suffering as his own, thereby freeing them from its ultimate control of their lives.[5]
Mouw and Sweeney observed that Cone’s articulation of a Christus dolor Christology has gone beyond the preferred Christology within the African American experience and actually “has now become a global [preference of a] Christ who brings God near to everyone who suffers from oppression.”[6]
With remarkable candor, Mouw and Sweeney concede that the “concerns about American Christian triumphalism are not unfounded. Theologians and other leaders in the United States had indeed called for a more masculine Jesus to bolster the nation in its time of distress before, during and after the World Wars.”[7] To be more theologically precise, they claim that western Christology (especially within the Reformed tradition of which Mouw belongs) has a “habit of moving too quickly over that empathic aspect of Christ’s suffering.”[8] For instance, in Charles Hodge’s treatment of the suffering of the Son of God, “he focuses only on the final stage of the earthly redemptive mission, emphasizing the ways in which Christ’s suffering was very much unlike our own.”[9] While John Calvin “regularly refers to the sufferings that the Savior experienced in years prior to the final days leading to the crucifixion,” his “thoughts are never far from Jesus’ triumph.”[10] In Louis Berkhof’s influential Systematic Theology, he laid out “the necessity of the Savior’s lifelong suffering.”[11] But “[n]ot one word here points to a desire in the Savior to empathize with—to act in solidarity with—the sufferings of human beings in general.”[12]
Why does the dominant form of western Christology as exemplified, for instance, in Reformed theology fail to “linger” in their Christology on Christ’s shared sufferings with humanity? Mouw and Sweeney offer this intriguing explanation:
The Reformed [theological tradition] sees as its special obligation to keep the teachings about the incarnation within definite theological bounds. Against those theologies that want to extend the incarnation temporally and spatially, the Reformed have regularly argued that the earthly incarnation came to an end with Christ’s ascension to heaven.[13]
Richard Muller explains in greater detail this way: “Reformed Christology has always insisted not only on the resurrection of Christ’s body but also on the heavenly location and finitude of Christ’s resurrected humanity. Christ now sits at the right hand of God and visibly rules the church triumphant.”[14] Thus, the strong emphasis on Christus victor found in Western Christology can be traced to the underlying concern of upholding the “majesty” of Christ in His post-resurrected state, perhaps, to a fault. [15]
Whether or not one agrees with their assessment of western Christology, Mouw and Sweeney wisely call the universal church (western and non-western alike) to a more balanced Christology which would bring together Christus victor and Christus dolor into greater unity of expression so that a more orthodox compassionate Christology might indeed be presented to a world filled with pain and suffering. Their book’s treatment of the issue at hand and their call are to be commended. There are many aspects of the book that demonstrate the balanced Christology they are advocating. However, as they themselves would readily admit, there is still room for improvement in the theological project, namely, integrating the two ways of understanding compassionate Christology.
In this essay, I propose to continue the noble project Mouw and Sweeney started by doing the following in order to strengthen their call for a balanced compassionate Christology: (1) The paper will provide a biblical motif of Christ that could help to integrate the concepts of Christus victor and Christus dolor when discussing contemporary Christology. (2) It will argue and point out that a holistic compassionate Christology is more than just seeing Jesus as either Christus victor and Christus dolor but also as Christus perfector as emphasized in the Book of Hebrews. And (3) the essay will issue its own call for a balanced and compassionate Christology along its proposed emphasis.
I. Jesus the Archēgos in Hebrews
While the contemporary debate on Christus victor (found in western Christology) and Christus dolor (found in non-western Christology) is important, it also seems rather reductionistic. For it asks us to construct a Christology based purely on one position alone. It is safe to assume that, while western and non-western theologians may have their preferred Christological emphasis, neither side would probably want to completely dispense of the other way of articulating a Christology rooted in Scripture.
But how can balance be achieved? How can the two ways of Christology be integrated? One helpful approach is to find a biblical motif of Christ that actually incorporates both Christus victor and Christus dolor. In this way, when speaking of Christ using this biblical motif, one would naturally be mindful of the presence of these two innate emphases about Christ. And any differences in theological discussions—arguing for either Christus victor or Christus dolor—would be because a theologian thinks it appropriate to emphasize one aspect of Christology in a given situation. But both emphases remain part of a similar whole and are intended to function as one.
Is there such an incorporative or integrative biblical motif? I believe there is. I propose that the archēgos motif of Christ in the epistle to the Hebrews provides us with the kind of biblical integration that Mouw and Sweeney are calling for.
The title archēgos is used of Jesus in Hebrews twice and has this range of meaning: (1) author-source-founder, (2) leader-hero-prince, and (3) pathfinder-pioneer-trailblazer.[16] The two passages where Jesus is called archēgos is first found in Hebrews 2:10 where it says, “For it was fitting for Him [God the Father], for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect [Jesus] the author [archēgos] of their salvation through sufferings.” Second, the writer to the Hebrews said this of Jesus in Hebrews 12:2: “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author [archēgos] and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
In most cases, an interpreter should choose just one definition in a given term of a Scriptural passage to work with. In this case however, the term archēgos seems to defy a simple definition. Homer Kent, Jr. helpfully described the complexity of the term this way:
To call Christ the archēgos of salvation was to employ a term which sometimes meant originator (Heb. 12:2) and sometimes leader or pioneer (Acts 5:31). At times these meanings may coalesce, and this may be the case here [in Heb. 2:10]. Christ is the one who by his death obtained our salvation, and he has also led the way as our forerunner into heaven (Hebrews 6:20).[17]
Paul Muller expands on Kent’s point by saying, “The results of semasiological and lexigraphical investigation of secular Greek indicate an extremely polyvalent spectrum of meaning for the word [archēgos].”[18] The only thing that is clear is that the word refers to “he who is first, who stands at the head of, who leads.”[19]
The interpretive history of how the term archēgos was applied to Jesus in Hebrews shows a tendency to gravitate to just one of the above definitions. Often, it tilts either toward the “leader-hero-prince” sense, or toward the “author-source-founder” nuance of the word.[20] But, as Julius Scott has argued, this has led to “too rigid a distinction” of archēgos in view of the richness of what Christ has done in salvation history.[21] Indeed, George Johnston went so far as to say that “[t]here seems to be no virtue in consistency”[22] of meaning to this term since the term is “extremely polyvalent”[23] in the New Testament mindset. So insisting, therefore, on a single consistent definition is not beneficial to a proper understanding of archēgos.
Thus, Paul Muller counsels that as an interpretive “corrective, we should pay greater attention on “the continuity of the OT and Jewish theme of Yahweh’s leading in the course of salvation history.”[24] When we do, the multi-faceted nature of the title archēgos will naturally come to the fore. We will see the term as applied to Christ in its most expansive range of meanings possible, that is, as encompassing all three definitions of archēgos. Rather humorously, Julius Scott said that Jesus the archēgos should be translated Jesus “the pioneer-founder-victor-leader-ruler-hero”[25] of the faith. Admittedly, he knows that this is too cumbersome a title. But it illustrates how we are to see the richness of this term when applied to Christ in Hebrews and, indeed, in the rest of the New Testament.
Jesus the Archēgos as Christus Victor and Christus Dolor in Hebrews
If we take seriously the polyvalent nature of archēgos as applied to Jesus in Hebrews, then a biblical integration of the theologies found in Christus victor and Christus dolor is possible. We can speak of Christ’s compassion for the world in a balanced, biblical manner without fear of tilting either too much on the Christus victor side or too excessively on the Christus dolor side. For Jesus as archēgos naturally embodies both imageries and emphases.
Regarding Christus victor, Jesus the archēgos is shown in Hebrews as the “author-source-founder” because He underwrote or secured the redemption of fallen humanity so that they might have a right standing and relationship with God, which is at the heart of His compassion for mankind. Without their fully knowing it, mankind’s greatest need is really a right relationship with God in the midst of their misery.
In Hebrews 2:9, the epistle says, “But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.” In His incarnation and atonement Christ rendered “powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” and set “free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives (Hebrews 2:14–15).” Within this understanding of archēgos, we see that Christ is indeed “author-source-founder.” He made possible what fallen humanity could not achieve on their own. He is Christus victor for us.
Regarding Christus dolor, Jesus the archēgos in Hebrews is shown as “leader-hero-prince.” For He empathizes with fallen humanity despite His high stature as the Son who is “over [God’s] house” (3:6) and is the “appointed heir over all things, through whom also [God] made the world” (1:2). His act of empathy is seen in that “since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same [human nature] (2:14). Again, Jesus allowed Himself to be “tempted in that which He has suffered” so that “He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted (2:8).” Within this description of archēgos, we see a Christ who is not an aloof “founder or source” but the kind of “leader or prince” who acts heroically for the sake of His people. Therein lies the empathy and passion on behalf of His people. He is thus Christus dolor with us.
It is evident, therefore, that from the title archēgos, the dual concepts of Christus victor and Christus dolor come together in the person and work of Christ. Archegos makes possible the point of integration that Mouw and Sweeney propose. If successful, western and non-western Christological portrayals would benefit from a balanced, compassionate Christ. In mining and expounding on Jesus as archēgos, Christian theologians will be within the control of Scripture in their emphasis between Christus victor and Christus dolor.
II. Jesus the Archēgos as Christus Perfector in Hebrews
Despite the usefulness of the archēgos metaphor in Hebrews, we have not fully exhausted its Christological benefits. One aspect worth mentioning remains that has not yet been discussed by Mouw and Sweeney. While archēgos in Hebrews can mean either (1) “author-source-founder” or (2) “leader-hero-prince”, there is a third valid definition that we must also account for in relation to His compassion toward humanity. It is Jesus the archēgos as “pathfinder-pioneer-trailblazer”.
The concept of Jesus the archēgos as “pathfinder” fits within the overall discussion of Christ in Hebrews where in 6:19–20, Jesus is described as our “forerunner [podromos]” to whom we must follow into God’s holy presence. Unlike the high priesthood of Jesus Christ, Brian Small observes that the Old Testament high priest was not a forerunner [podromos] to whom we could follow into God’s presence. Citing Fred Craddock, Small says, “No others, not even priests, followed him [that is, the Old Testament high priest] into the holy of holies; he went alone. By contrast, Christ . . . was a forerunner; that is, he prepared for others to follow.”[26] This is what makes Christ superior to the Old Testament high priests. It is this kind of high priesthood to which New Testament believers are called to follow. And it is this understanding of Christ that strengthens the case that His being called the archēgos also includes the idea that He is “pathfinder-pioneer-trailblazer.” To further reinforce the imagery of Jesus as pathfinder, Hebrews deliberately makes allusion to Israel in the exodus and makes the correlation that just as Israel had to obey their God appointed pathfinders in order to reach the Promised Land (i.e., Moses and Joshua), New Testament believers must obey God’s ultimate pathfinder in the person of Jesus the archēgos.[27]
When it comes to Jesus the archēgos as “pathfinder-pioneer-trailblazer,” N. T. Wright has a colorful description of what the word means. Wright asks us to:
Imagine an explorer cutting his way deep into the jungle. Nobody has been this way before; there are no paths, no trails, no signs that it’s possible to go this way. Yet on he goes, forging his way through impossible terrain, until he reaches the goal. Once he’s done that, others can follow.
Explorers do that sort of thing for various reasons: fame, fortune, sheer curiosity. Jesus did it out of love. [But in Jesus’ case, He did it out of compassion.] The jungle was the whole world of suffering, pain, sin and death. Nobody had ever gone through there before and come out the other side. When he did it, he opened the way into God’s new world, like our explorer coming through the jungle and out onto the sunlit uplands of the country beyond. And in leaving the jungle behind, and in doing so on behalf of all those who will follow him, he gets rid of the world of sins and pollution that otherwise clings to the fallen human race.[28]
This picture of Jesus the archēgos as “pathfinder-pioneer-trailblazer” not only gives us a graphic picture of His person but, perhaps, more importantly, it shows us His important work of compassion.
Given humanity’s helpless condition, we see here that Christ wants to transform them. He wants to mature them. He wants to perfect them in the exact manner that God the Father has perfected Him in His incarnation. Hebrews 2:10 says, that “in bringing many sons to glory,” God made Jesus “perfect” (e.g., “fitting”) to be our archēgos or “pathfinder” through the means of “sufferings” so that by the same means believers might be perfected by God through the path that Christ paved for them.
In His role as archēgos, Jesus is not just Christus victor and Christus dolor but also Christus perfector. As author or founder, Jesus the archēgos not only secures our redemption, but He leads us down the path of perfection and maturity that, comes through suffering. Thus, Christ’s compassion toward fallen humanity in Hebrews cannot be seen and discussed simply through the lens of Christus victor and Christus dolor but also through Christus perfector.
In his landmark study, Hebrews and Perfection, David Peterson posed the query in the beginning of his book: “How rigorously is the parallelism between the perfecting of Christ and the perfecting of believers pursued [in Hebrews]?”[29] His answer at the end of his study is:
The perfecting of Christ “through suffering” provides a pattern for Christian discipleship. Christians share to a certain extent in the same struggle or contest that Christ endured and, because he pioneered the way, they have the prospect of enjoying his victory if they share his faith and manifest the same sort of perseverance in the face of hostility and suffering.
The teaching about the perfecting of Christ and the perfecting of believers is clearly more central to the argument of Hebrews than many commentators have allowed it . . . It is central to his exhortation for a group of Christians in danger of growing weary and fainthearted in the journey of faith.[30]
James Thompson echoes the same sentiment, adding:
For a community that is now being put to the test, the theme of the pioneer [or pathfinder] who proceeded from suffering to glory is an encouragement to endure alienation . . . Those who face the crisis caused by suffering can change their perspective, knowing that they follow the one whose suffering ended in glory.[31]
It is then no wonder that, in Hebrews, there is a special exhortation and emphasis for believers to follow or obey Christ in the way He is leading them as archēgos. Note the importance of the believers’ responsibility to obey to Jesus in Hebrews 5:9. It says: “And having been made perfect, He [Jesus] became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation . . .” The benediction at the end of the epistle in 13:20–21 invokes the blessing of obedience to Jesus their archēgos: “Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.” It is their willingness and trust to follow Jesus the archēgos that leads them to the perfecting work that God wants to accomplish in them which is the expression of Christ’s compassion for them.
In a world of pain and suffering, the Christian gospel holds out the portrait of a Savior who will not only empathize with us and accomplish the work of reconciliation but also beckon us to follow Him in path He has trodden. This last aspect of Christ the archēgos if neglected gives an incomplete picture of Christ and leaves believers dissatisfied and disillusioned with the reality of the compassionate Savior portrayed in Scripture.
Another way of putting it is that Christ not only suffered for us (Christus victor) and suffered with us (Christus dolor) but also suffered before us (Christus perfector). He leads us to participate in the suffering He has trail-blazed for us to follow in this fallen world so that we, along with our suffering, might be “perfected.” It is as we enter into His suffering that we experience a truly more compassionate, orthodox Christology. For in the Christus perfector motif, Christ compassionately injects redemptive significance into our suffering—meaningless as suffering appears at times—by incorporating believers into His own glorious suffering, resulting in the real divine transformation of our suffering—in the present and in the eschaton.
III. A More Biblical and Compassionate Christology Based on Christ as Archēgos Motif
Rachel Denhollander was a member of the USA Women’s Gymnastics team and suffered sexual abuse at the hands of the team doctor, Larry Nassar. In 2018, she made a public statement that shocked many. In an interview with Christianity Today, she said that the church is one of the “worst places to go for help” for a victim of sexual assault because the church’s teachings can sometimes be used to “mitigate or minimize” victims’ suffering.[32] She said:
[Christians] can tend to gloss over the devastation of any kind of suffering but especially sexual assault, with Christian platitudes like God works all things together for good or God is sovereign . . . Those are very good and glorious biblical truths, but when they are misapplied in a way to dampen the horror of evil, they ultimately dampen the goodness of God.[33]
In short, she attributes “poor theology and a poor understanding of grace and repentance” as the reason why the church is one of the “worst places to go for help” for victims of sexual assault.[34]
In view of our present discussion, one cannot help but wonder if the “poor theology” Rachel Denhollander referred to might not be the result of an imbalanced Christology that Mouw and Sweeney identified: a one-sided emphasis on Christus victor or a one-sided emphasis on Christus dolor as it relates to either the victim or the perpetrator. In any case, what we know for sure is that, in order for a Christology to truly be orthodox and compassionate, Christus victor and Christus dolor must be properly integrated. Moreover, it has to be integrated with the additional theological metaphor of Christus perfector as shown in the biblical teaching of Jesus the archēgos in the epistle to the Hebrews.
At the end of the day, all three nuances of Jesus the archēgos found in Hebrews—(1) author-source-founder, (2) leader-hero-prince, and (3) pathfinder-pioneer-trailblazer—must somehow be integrated to inform a person’s understanding of Christ for it to be a truly compassionate, orthodox Christology.
In making my case above, I readily admit that the mere integration of our Christology will not automatically ensure its appropriate application. Other factors also come into play. For instance, it would still require wisdom or phronesis[35] to know which Christological motifs should be applied or emphasized in a given situation. There is, therefore, much work for theologians and pastors to do in this area. But the integrated Christology as seen in Jesus the archēgos found in Hebrews is a good place to begin the work of proper application for a truly, holistic compassionate biblical Christology.
Read more from the inaugural issue by downloading the full pdf or accessing the articles below.
[1] Richard J. Mouw and Douglas A. Sweeney, The Suffering and Victorious Christ: Toward a More Compassionate Christology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013).
[2] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 3.
[3] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 4.
[4] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 4.
[5] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 74.
[6] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 74.
[7] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 4.
[8] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 48.
[9] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 47.
[10] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 48.
[11] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 49.
[12] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 49.
[13] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 50.
[14] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 50.
[15] Mouw and Sweeney, Suffering, 50–51.
[16] Kenneth Chadwell, “Archēgos: Jesus Our Pioneer” in A Heart to Study and Teach the Law of the Lord, ed. Dale W. Manor (Henderson, Tennessee: Freed-Hardeman University, 2000), 170. Donald A. Hagner puts it slightly differently in the following: “The word archēgos has two related meanings: (1) leader, ruler, prince, and (2) originator, founder. “Pathfinder” or “trailblazer” are sometimes suggested as distilling the meaning of the word. See Hebrews: A Good News Commentary (San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers, 1983), 29.
[17] Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), 56.
[18] Paul Muller, “archēgos” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 1:163.
[19] Muller, “archēgos,” 163.
[20] Muller, “archēgos,” 163.
[21] J. Julius Scott, Jr. “Archēgos in the Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no. 1 (March 1986): 51.
[22] George Johnston, “Christ as Archēgos,” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 382.
[23] Muller, “archēgos,” 163.
[24] Muller, “archēgos,” 163.
[25] Scott, “Archēgos,” 53–54.
[26] Brian Small, The Characterization of Jesus in the Book of Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 193.
[27] See also Bryan J. Whitfield, “Pioneer and Perfecter: Joshua Traditions and the Christology of Hebrews” in A Cloud of Witnesses: The Theology of Hebrews in Its Ancient Contexts, eds. Richard Bauckham, Daniel Driver, Trevor Hart, and Nathan MacDonald (London: T & T Clark, 2008).
[28] Tom Wright, Hebrews for Everyone (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 19–20.
[29] David Peterson, Hebrews and Perfection: An Examination of the Concept of Perfection in the “Epistle to the Hebrews” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 20.
[30] Peterson, Hebrews, 187.
[31] James W. Thompson, Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker Academics, 2008), 73–74.
[32] Morgan Lee, “My Larry Nasser Testimony Went Viral. But There’s More to the Gospel Than Forgiveness,” Christianity Today, January 31, 2018, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/january-web-only/rachael-denhollander-larry-nassar-forgiveness-gospel.html.
[33] Lee, “Larry Nasser.”
[34] Lee, “Larry Nasser.”
[35] For a more detailed discussion of biblical phronesis, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005).