What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Dogmatics
Studies in Dogmatics: The Person of Christ
In this series rooted in the normative significance of Scripture, noted Dutch theologian G. C. Berkouwer examines great doctrines of the Reformed faith, developing and defending Reformed theology through interaction with a wide range of theologies and theologians
376 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1952
About the author
G.C. Berkouwer
35 books20 followersGerrit Cornelis Berkouwer was for years the leading theologian of the Gereformeerde Kerken in the Netherlands (GKN). He occupied the Chair in systematic theology of the Faculty of Theology, Free University (VU) in Amsterdam.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 16, 2011
This is the first volume of Berkouwer's Studies in Dogmatics I've read. I was surprised by Berkouwer's clarity and great sense of narrative. He defends a classical form of christology. There are difficult parts, especially when he is combating particular struggles within his Dutch Reformed, early half of 20th century world. But his work is very lively, with great depth. He is strong in his ability to use the authority of Scripture and the work of church in history. The biggest strength is his ability to demonstrate the tensions in any christological controversy. Easy to keep reading, however challenging the read.
October 26, 2023
The Person of Christ is typical Berkouwer. He mainly covers how the humiliation of Christ is reconciled with His Glory. Typically though, he spends far too much criticizing the arguments of the liberals rather than proclaiming what is true. He shines in his desire for orthodoxy. Showing how Reformed Christology is in line with the creeds of the early church, and even further back how Christ is the Incarnate Word and the fulfillment of the OT.
June 29, 2024
THE FOURTH VOLUME IN BERKOUWER’S 14-VOLUME “STUDIES IN DOGMATICS”
Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996) taught systematic theology at the Free University in Amsterdam. The other volumes in this series are: The Providence of God,Faith and Sanctification,Faith and Justification,General Revelation,Faith and Perseverance,Divine Election,Man: The Image of God,The Work of Christ,The Sacraments,Sin,The Return of Christ,Holy Scriptures,The Church. He also wrote books such as The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism,Modern Uncertainty and Christian Faith,Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought,A Half Century of Theology: Movements and Motives, etc.
He wrote in the Introduction of this 1952 book, “The conflict over the identity of Christ, as well as over his program on earth, assumes various forms in different ages… Now more than ever the question has become acute as to whether modern thought is compatible with the Christian faith. How will the Christian confession sound in the spiritual atmosphere of our age? Is there going to be room for it, and if so, what place will be assigned to it after the development of the science of comparative religion, after the clash over the absoluteness of Christianity, and after the rise of the phenomenology of religion?” (Pg. 14-15)
He suggests, “there is no reason to make the pronouncement of Chalcedon a final milepost in the history of the church, however gratefully we may confess its truth. For the Scriptures are richer than any pronouncement of the church, no matter how excellent it be and how faithfully it has been formulated in subjection to the Word of God. To acknowledge this fact is not to have a relativistic view of dogma but to have a right sense of proportion: the place of dogma is in the church, which in turn is subject in all its expressions to the Word of God. A church which so understands itself is in no danger of going off into false directions and neither does it exclude the possibility of genuine advances.” (Pg. 91)
He summarizes, “the objectors frequently regard the Christological exegesis of the Old Testament as an act of violence, a forced interpretation which proceeds a priori from a given view of the text and takes little or no notice of what the Old Testament itself says of intends to say. They regard the Christological interpretation as edifying but untrue. Thus arose a sharp conflict between the historico-critical exegesis and the Messianic exegesis of the Old Testament. Although the decision to be made in this conflict is ultimately a decision of faith, we must not forget that the issue has been frequently obscured by an arbitrary search for an indication of connections and parallels…. While we note that even the New Testament was considered arbitrary by critics, we may not underestimate the danger of arbitrariness lest it should in the end contribute to a devaluation of the Old Testament.” (Pg. 118-119)
He notes, “The value of the revelation which took place in the Old Covenant lay precisely in its sign-post character and called for the transition included from the beginning in God’s purposes. One cannot indicate the relationship between the Old Testament and the New by saying that the New is primary and the Old secondary; for the aim of the Old Testament revelation is directed completely to the reality of the fulfillment and found its full depth and meaning there… The significance of the Old Testament to the Christian church is to be understood precisely in the light of the HISTORICAL character of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is more than mere prediction of the ‘advent’ of Christ… the Old Testament bears the hallmarks everywhere of revelation about God in his majesty and his holiness, in his mercy and his justice.” (Pg. 135-136)
He acknowledges, “The Old Testament nowhere presents a systematic and completely transparent analysis of the figure of the Messiah, but the various characteristics of the coming Messiah appear now here, now there, now in this, now in that historical situation and context. The idea of the royal ruler is associated with the fear of God; the Messiah, who is to realize God’s coming to the world, is at the same time the Son of man in the night-vision of Daniel. The powerful Messiah, in whom God reconciles himself to the world, is simultaneously a royal scion of the house of David and the suffering servant of the Lord. Here we find, not an excerpt from the doctrine of the two natures, but the divine revelation about the Messiah who is not known until the New Testament shows him to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.” (Pg. 148-149)
He suggests, “Behind all opposition to Christ’s pre-existence lies the rejection of the historical salvation of God, the incarnation of the Word, not in a speculative or Hegelian sense but in the Scriptural sense of the words, which form the foundation of the faith of the church and of its dogma.” (Pg. 184) Later, he adds, “Every effort to disparage the humanity of Christ means a disqualification of the Scriptural picture. Scripture never permits the divine to threaten or relativize the human nature.” (Pg. 211)
He explains, “This question as to Christ’s knowledge gained relief by an utterance of Christ concerning his knowledge of the coming day of the Lord… ‘But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father’ [Mk 13:32, Mt. 24:36]. The first impression any reader would receive here is that Jesus Christ clearly puts a limit to his knowledge of the day of the Lord. It later conflicts over the meaning of this statement a certain amount of bias often began to play a role. In view of the union of the two natures people began to ask themselves how it was POSSIBLE to put a limit, this or any other, to the knowledge of Christ since he was not only true man but also true God. Did not the union imply that he shared divine omniscience and was familiar therefore---HAD to be familiar---with the hour of the day of the Lord? Along this route various attempts were made to harmonize this text with a certain interpretation of Christological dogma.” (Pg. 212)
He observes, “In the hypostatic union the chief point is not a theoretical interest in the union of a sinless divine nature with a human nature but the ACT of him who assumed the form of a servant and who did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s Equal but humbled himself to die the death of a criminal. Christ himself mentioned this ‘necessity’ [Lk 24:26]… THUS to enter into his glory was his task and not by way of avoidance of suffering. Here is the radiance of Christ’s sinlessness, of his absolute holiness, which is one with his mercy and compassion. HE could not fall, not from a lack of freedom, but precisely because of his freedom BEFORE GOD, the freedom consisting in obedience, which could therefore bring liberation and salvation to man…” (Pg. 263)
He suggests, “No, we are not called upon to try to picture the unity of ‘the divine’ and ‘the human,’ but Scripture does come to us with a picture of the ONE Christ. At no point in Scripture does his true humanity threaten or eliminate the true deity. The tensions in his sacred life are not the tensions of an abstract connection between the divine and the human, but rather those of his humiliation in the unity of the person. It was the intent of the church to say only this and it was aware, that its words, often spoken antithetically in the heat of conflict, could never replace the preaching of the entire fulness of the Scriptures. It is the Scriptures which still witness of him---more richly and profoundly than the language of the church every could. To open the eyes of man to this fact was the intent of the confessions, which meant… to maintain an open perspective toward the Word of God which speaks of him who, as the living Lord, stands in the midst of our lives with his cheering words ‘Be of good courage: I have overcome the world.’” (Pg. 300-301)
He points out, “Hence the big question in any discussion of mystery is: what is understood by it and is it possible by a reference to it to offer resistance to the reduction of faith and dogma to something irrational. In this reduction there is an appearance of Christian humility, but at bottom it is an emptying of the confession of the church. Without denying anyone the right to use the word ‘mystery’ with reference to the incomprehensibilities of life, one will have to ask whether, in using the word with reference to the Christian faith, one does not stand in continual need of checking it with the New Testament which asks of us that, in confessing mystery, we stand truly on the one foundation: the word of the cross, the mystery of God, Jesus Christ. This does not mean that the element of incomprehensibility does not play a role in the biblical message… But one may never approach or qualify the redemption of God in terms of the general concept of incomprehensibility. The incomprehensibility of God’s work is not on a level with the puzzles in which human life abounds. It is the incomprehensibility of the work of God, which was disclosed to us in his Word. Hence we may never, by means of a vague appeal to mystery, oppose the man who believes on Scriptural grounds in the plain, though incomprehensible, reality of the mystery of God.” (Pg. 331-332)
He argues, “Hence it is of great importance rightly to see the relationship between Christ’s humiliation and his glory. The Scriptures speak repeatedly of his glory… It is plain, to our mind, that anyone who still values the gospels must come to the conclusion that the incognito-theory leaves no room for these aspects of revelation, because they, after all, eliminate the absolute incognito.” (Pg. 350-351)
For anyone interested in conservative Reformed theology, this entire series will be of great interest. The diversity of the theologians and sources with whom Berkouwer interacts make this series a very stimulating reading project.
Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer (1903-1996) taught systematic theology at the Free University in Amsterdam. The other volumes in this series are: The Providence of God,Faith and Sanctification,Faith and Justification,General Revelation,Faith and Perseverance,Divine Election,Man: The Image of God,The Work of Christ,The Sacraments,Sin,The Return of Christ,Holy Scriptures,The Church. He also wrote books such as The Second Vatican Council and the New Catholicism,Modern Uncertainty and Christian Faith,Recent Developments in Roman Catholic Thought,A Half Century of Theology: Movements and Motives, etc.
He wrote in the Introduction of this 1952 book, “The conflict over the identity of Christ, as well as over his program on earth, assumes various forms in different ages… Now more than ever the question has become acute as to whether modern thought is compatible with the Christian faith. How will the Christian confession sound in the spiritual atmosphere of our age? Is there going to be room for it, and if so, what place will be assigned to it after the development of the science of comparative religion, after the clash over the absoluteness of Christianity, and after the rise of the phenomenology of religion?” (Pg. 14-15)
He suggests, “there is no reason to make the pronouncement of Chalcedon a final milepost in the history of the church, however gratefully we may confess its truth. For the Scriptures are richer than any pronouncement of the church, no matter how excellent it be and how faithfully it has been formulated in subjection to the Word of God. To acknowledge this fact is not to have a relativistic view of dogma but to have a right sense of proportion: the place of dogma is in the church, which in turn is subject in all its expressions to the Word of God. A church which so understands itself is in no danger of going off into false directions and neither does it exclude the possibility of genuine advances.” (Pg. 91)
He summarizes, “the objectors frequently regard the Christological exegesis of the Old Testament as an act of violence, a forced interpretation which proceeds a priori from a given view of the text and takes little or no notice of what the Old Testament itself says of intends to say. They regard the Christological interpretation as edifying but untrue. Thus arose a sharp conflict between the historico-critical exegesis and the Messianic exegesis of the Old Testament. Although the decision to be made in this conflict is ultimately a decision of faith, we must not forget that the issue has been frequently obscured by an arbitrary search for an indication of connections and parallels…. While we note that even the New Testament was considered arbitrary by critics, we may not underestimate the danger of arbitrariness lest it should in the end contribute to a devaluation of the Old Testament.” (Pg. 118-119)
He notes, “The value of the revelation which took place in the Old Covenant lay precisely in its sign-post character and called for the transition included from the beginning in God’s purposes. One cannot indicate the relationship between the Old Testament and the New by saying that the New is primary and the Old secondary; for the aim of the Old Testament revelation is directed completely to the reality of the fulfillment and found its full depth and meaning there… The significance of the Old Testament to the Christian church is to be understood precisely in the light of the HISTORICAL character of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is more than mere prediction of the ‘advent’ of Christ… the Old Testament bears the hallmarks everywhere of revelation about God in his majesty and his holiness, in his mercy and his justice.” (Pg. 135-136)
He acknowledges, “The Old Testament nowhere presents a systematic and completely transparent analysis of the figure of the Messiah, but the various characteristics of the coming Messiah appear now here, now there, now in this, now in that historical situation and context. The idea of the royal ruler is associated with the fear of God; the Messiah, who is to realize God’s coming to the world, is at the same time the Son of man in the night-vision of Daniel. The powerful Messiah, in whom God reconciles himself to the world, is simultaneously a royal scion of the house of David and the suffering servant of the Lord. Here we find, not an excerpt from the doctrine of the two natures, but the divine revelation about the Messiah who is not known until the New Testament shows him to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.” (Pg. 148-149)
He suggests, “Behind all opposition to Christ’s pre-existence lies the rejection of the historical salvation of God, the incarnation of the Word, not in a speculative or Hegelian sense but in the Scriptural sense of the words, which form the foundation of the faith of the church and of its dogma.” (Pg. 184) Later, he adds, “Every effort to disparage the humanity of Christ means a disqualification of the Scriptural picture. Scripture never permits the divine to threaten or relativize the human nature.” (Pg. 211)
He explains, “This question as to Christ’s knowledge gained relief by an utterance of Christ concerning his knowledge of the coming day of the Lord… ‘But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father’ [Mk 13:32, Mt. 24:36]. The first impression any reader would receive here is that Jesus Christ clearly puts a limit to his knowledge of the day of the Lord. It later conflicts over the meaning of this statement a certain amount of bias often began to play a role. In view of the union of the two natures people began to ask themselves how it was POSSIBLE to put a limit, this or any other, to the knowledge of Christ since he was not only true man but also true God. Did not the union imply that he shared divine omniscience and was familiar therefore---HAD to be familiar---with the hour of the day of the Lord? Along this route various attempts were made to harmonize this text with a certain interpretation of Christological dogma.” (Pg. 212)
He observes, “In the hypostatic union the chief point is not a theoretical interest in the union of a sinless divine nature with a human nature but the ACT of him who assumed the form of a servant and who did not cling to his prerogatives as God’s Equal but humbled himself to die the death of a criminal. Christ himself mentioned this ‘necessity’ [Lk 24:26]… THUS to enter into his glory was his task and not by way of avoidance of suffering. Here is the radiance of Christ’s sinlessness, of his absolute holiness, which is one with his mercy and compassion. HE could not fall, not from a lack of freedom, but precisely because of his freedom BEFORE GOD, the freedom consisting in obedience, which could therefore bring liberation and salvation to man…” (Pg. 263)
He suggests, “No, we are not called upon to try to picture the unity of ‘the divine’ and ‘the human,’ but Scripture does come to us with a picture of the ONE Christ. At no point in Scripture does his true humanity threaten or eliminate the true deity. The tensions in his sacred life are not the tensions of an abstract connection between the divine and the human, but rather those of his humiliation in the unity of the person. It was the intent of the church to say only this and it was aware, that its words, often spoken antithetically in the heat of conflict, could never replace the preaching of the entire fulness of the Scriptures. It is the Scriptures which still witness of him---more richly and profoundly than the language of the church every could. To open the eyes of man to this fact was the intent of the confessions, which meant… to maintain an open perspective toward the Word of God which speaks of him who, as the living Lord, stands in the midst of our lives with his cheering words ‘Be of good courage: I have overcome the world.’” (Pg. 300-301)
He points out, “Hence the big question in any discussion of mystery is: what is understood by it and is it possible by a reference to it to offer resistance to the reduction of faith and dogma to something irrational. In this reduction there is an appearance of Christian humility, but at bottom it is an emptying of the confession of the church. Without denying anyone the right to use the word ‘mystery’ with reference to the incomprehensibilities of life, one will have to ask whether, in using the word with reference to the Christian faith, one does not stand in continual need of checking it with the New Testament which asks of us that, in confessing mystery, we stand truly on the one foundation: the word of the cross, the mystery of God, Jesus Christ. This does not mean that the element of incomprehensibility does not play a role in the biblical message… But one may never approach or qualify the redemption of God in terms of the general concept of incomprehensibility. The incomprehensibility of God’s work is not on a level with the puzzles in which human life abounds. It is the incomprehensibility of the work of God, which was disclosed to us in his Word. Hence we may never, by means of a vague appeal to mystery, oppose the man who believes on Scriptural grounds in the plain, though incomprehensible, reality of the mystery of God.” (Pg. 331-332)
He argues, “Hence it is of great importance rightly to see the relationship between Christ’s humiliation and his glory. The Scriptures speak repeatedly of his glory… It is plain, to our mind, that anyone who still values the gospels must come to the conclusion that the incognito-theory leaves no room for these aspects of revelation, because they, after all, eliminate the absolute incognito.” (Pg. 350-351)
For anyone interested in conservative Reformed theology, this entire series will be of great interest. The diversity of the theologians and sources with whom Berkouwer interacts make this series a very stimulating reading project.
February 13, 2025
Was a slog but very insightful commentary as to the development of the extra-calvinisticum and the anhypostatic-enhypostatic distinction, particularly as the development of these doctrines in the 20th cent. relates to their expression during the reformation. Wish I’d read it before writing my thesis.
April 4, 2020
An excellent read and dutiful explanation on Christ’s two nature’s. Berkouwer cares for history and submitting to the biblical data.
June 8, 2017
Berkouwer offers what could be considered a fairly standard exposition of Reformed Christology. He, as one would expect, outlines the historical situation leading up to the formulation of Chalcedon; and, he treats such topics as the deity of Christ, the sinlessness of Christ, and the hypostatic union.
There are few strengths of this work. First, Berkouwer is very lucid in his exposition of the Reformed Christology. Second, he demonstrates a remarkable familiarity with both historical voices and contemporary debates (at least contemporary to him). Third, he ably navigates complex issues and brings to life the various aspects of Christology.
Since this is an intermediate as opposed to advanced work on Christology, there are some topics he merely treats superficial (e.g., the question of whether Christ's human nature was fallen). Moreover, he doesn't always tie up loose ends in his discussion, and the more devotional feel of this volume seems to be a greater strength than rigorous theological analysis. But, in the view of this reader, this is in large part due to the intermediate level of exposition which he is seeking to offer.
But, setting these criticisms aside, it must be said that this is a sure guide for those who are wishing to delve deeper into Reformed Christology than a popular exposition may offer. Further, he is a solid example of how to do theology: engaging with the voices of the past and the issues of the present by allowing the teaching of Scripture to speak to them both.
There are few strengths of this work. First, Berkouwer is very lucid in his exposition of the Reformed Christology. Second, he demonstrates a remarkable familiarity with both historical voices and contemporary debates (at least contemporary to him). Third, he ably navigates complex issues and brings to life the various aspects of Christology.
Since this is an intermediate as opposed to advanced work on Christology, there are some topics he merely treats superficial (e.g., the question of whether Christ's human nature was fallen). Moreover, he doesn't always tie up loose ends in his discussion, and the more devotional feel of this volume seems to be a greater strength than rigorous theological analysis. But, in the view of this reader, this is in large part due to the intermediate level of exposition which he is seeking to offer.
But, setting these criticisms aside, it must be said that this is a sure guide for those who are wishing to delve deeper into Reformed Christology than a popular exposition may offer. Further, he is a solid example of how to do theology: engaging with the voices of the past and the issues of the present by allowing the teaching of Scripture to speak to them both.
January 2, 2015
The first part of the book is simply a review of conciliar statements on Christology. While occasionally hinting at new developments, Berkouwer's treatment is little different from what you would find in any historical theology manual.
When he deals with specific aspects like the humanity of Christ and the sinlessness of Christ, he breaks new ground. He notes that traditions like Rome and EO who hold to a strong communicatio of the divine nature to the human really can't make sense of passages that say Jesus grew in knowledge, or hoped, or feared. Such statements would imply a "Lack" on Jesus's part, and given that the human nature is fully suffused with divinity, would be quite problematic. He doesn't fully solve all of the conundrums on Jesus's sinlessness, but he does make a neat suggestion: Jesus is fully free as he is sinless, thus Berkouwer cuts loose from all libertarian models of freedom.
It was the genius of Reformed writers not to be hampered by these questions and to focus on the 3 Offices of Christ. Only Calvin and his students could really rejoice in the statement that Jesus was truly forsaken by the Father. If you aren't being accused of Nestorianism on this point, then you simply aren't preaching the text.
Criticisms:
He points to some tensions in Chalcedon but doesn't develop the reasons behind them. I don't think all of modern liberal theology rejected Chalcedon simply because it said Jesus was God and enlightened moderns don't believe that. No doubt some did. I wonder, however, if a number of them saw that Chalcedon presupposed a single-subject Christology and later moves in conciliar Christology--say, Dyotheletism--leaned heavily towards a fully activating human nature and self-consciousness, something Cyril wouldn't have said.
With that said and assumed, Berkouwer does make the interesting suggestion (p. 69) that if you use Chalcedon as the starting point of exegesis, you really won't be able to maintain the dual-natures unity. Of course, one should maintain the values expressed by Chalcedon, but by using them as a compass. Berkouwer is right on this point.
Conclusion:
It's worth reading and it is fairly readable. He doesn't cover as much new ground as he does in his other works.
When he deals with specific aspects like the humanity of Christ and the sinlessness of Christ, he breaks new ground. He notes that traditions like Rome and EO who hold to a strong communicatio of the divine nature to the human really can't make sense of passages that say Jesus grew in knowledge, or hoped, or feared. Such statements would imply a "Lack" on Jesus's part, and given that the human nature is fully suffused with divinity, would be quite problematic. He doesn't fully solve all of the conundrums on Jesus's sinlessness, but he does make a neat suggestion: Jesus is fully free as he is sinless, thus Berkouwer cuts loose from all libertarian models of freedom.
It was the genius of Reformed writers not to be hampered by these questions and to focus on the 3 Offices of Christ. Only Calvin and his students could really rejoice in the statement that Jesus was truly forsaken by the Father. If you aren't being accused of Nestorianism on this point, then you simply aren't preaching the text.
Criticisms:
He points to some tensions in Chalcedon but doesn't develop the reasons behind them. I don't think all of modern liberal theology rejected Chalcedon simply because it said Jesus was God and enlightened moderns don't believe that. No doubt some did. I wonder, however, if a number of them saw that Chalcedon presupposed a single-subject Christology and later moves in conciliar Christology--say, Dyotheletism--leaned heavily towards a fully activating human nature and self-consciousness, something Cyril wouldn't have said.
With that said and assumed, Berkouwer does make the interesting suggestion (p. 69) that if you use Chalcedon as the starting point of exegesis, you really won't be able to maintain the dual-natures unity. Of course, one should maintain the values expressed by Chalcedon, but by using them as a compass. Berkouwer is right on this point.
Conclusion:
It's worth reading and it is fairly readable. He doesn't cover as much new ground as he does in his other works.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews