What If We Actually Drew Our Christology from the Scriptures? Complementing Nicaea with Jewish Narrative, Vocabulary, and Symbols

This paper proposes a fresh approach to Orthodox Christian Christology by pairing the indispensable boundaries established by the Nicene Creed with the rich narrative and theological symbols of Israel’s Scriptures and within Second Temple Judaism. While the Nicene formulations safeguard essential truths about Christ’s full divinity and humanity, they represent only a “fence” around the core mystery of Christ’s person. By focusing on Jewish scriptural categories—Word, Wisdom, Torah, Tabernacle, Glory, and Presence—we can recapture an older, more deeply rooted understanding of Jesus that both precedes and complements Hellenistic philosophical language. This approach highlights the continuity between early Christian faith and the historical, covenantal devotion to the one God of Israel, thus offering new avenues for ecumenical and interfaith dialogue. 

Argument and Method:

1. Revisiting Christology’s Biblical Roots
   The paper argues that concepts of a “second divine power” and a pre-existent heavenly agent—frequently viewed as uniquely Christian—were already contemplated within Second Temple Jewish writings. Early Christian claims about Jesus as Messiah drew heavily from Jewish apocalyptic and scriptural traditions, including the “Son of Man” figure of Daniel 7 and the Angel of the Lord. 
2. Early Christian Midrash on Israel’s Scriptures
   The paper demonstrates how Paul and the gospel writers constructed their Christology through a midrashic reading of the Hebrew Bible. Paul, for instance, reworks the Shema to include Christ in the divine identity (1 Corinthians 8.6) and attributes to Jesus the worship and devotion reserved for God alone. Meanwhile, the gospels develop Jesus’s story through references to Daniel’s Son of Man, the Mosaic and Davidic traditions, and the “I AM” sayings of John—framing him as the embodiment of Israel’s God. 
3. Five Biblical Symbol Sets
   Central to the discussion is how Wisdom, Torah, Tabernacle, the Shekinah (indwelling Presence), and Glory (kavod) each serve as scriptural motifs for understanding Jesus. Rather than relying solely on Hellenistic categories like ousia, physis, or hypostasis, the authors of the New Testament drew on Israel’s narrative and symbolic world to explain how one God could reveal his oneness in a Messiah who both shares divine identity and participates fully in human life. 
4. Complementing, Not Replacing, Nicene Orthodoxy
   While honouring the Nicene and Chalcedonian definitions, the paper underscores that these formulations should not overshadow the robust biblical idiom that first shaped Christian faith. Instead, we can enrich Nicene theology by re-engaging its Jewish narrative base—revealing a fuller vision of Christ that has profound implications for ecumenical encounters (e.g., Oriental Orthodox traditions) and Jewish-Christian dialogue. 

Significance for Conference and Broader Theological Discourse:

• Ecumenical Bridge-Building: By returning to biblical terminology, the paper highlights potential common ground with non-Chalcedonian churches that historically emphasize different Christological vocabularies yet share the core Nicene faith. 
• Jewish-Christian Relations: Presenting Christology as an outgrowth of Jewish theological symbols clarifies longstanding misunderstandings about an alleged “Hellenistic infiltration” into Christian doctrine, paving the way for more substantive dialogue. 
• Renewed Christological Imagination: For contemporary Christians, weaving biblical language back into theological discourse revitalizes Christology, shifting it from an abstract philosophical puzzle to a covenantal, narrative-driven proclamation. 

This paper argues that Nicene Christology—vital though it is—can be reinvigorated when reunited with its biblical and Jewish foundations. Drawing on the narrative landscape of Second Temple Judaism not only enriches our grasp of Christ’s identity but also invites productive dialogue across Christian traditions and with Jewish thought. By embracing both the “fence” of Orthodox Christian definitions and the “landscape” of scriptural symbols, we discover a Christology that is at once faithful to Nicene commitments and deeply rooted in the story of Israel’s God.