Christological Implications Research Articles

The Divine Christology of ‘Remember Me’ (Luke 23:42) in Light of Lament

Luke’s crucifixion scene includes a brief and unique exchange between the crucified Jesus and an unidentified crucified individual often referred to as the ‘penitent thief’. The dialogue between the two only spans two verses (Luke 23:42-43). Among the words they exchange, interpreters sometimes neglect the thief’s request – ‘remember me’ (μνήσθητί μου) – and its Christological implications. This article explores those implications given the request’s intertextual and intratextual features as well as its reception history. Based on these features, the overarching argument is that the cry ‘remember me’ functions as a dying lament shaped by similar laments in Israel’s Scriptures. The ‘remember me’ of this ‘lamenting thief’ is a request for divine forgiveness, mercy, and vindication. Such cries are normally directed to Israel’s God alone within the cultural heritage of Second Temple Judaism. In this way, Luke not only includes Jesus within the divine identity of Israel’s God, but, in the climactic scene of his biography, he brings him into the deepest contours of that relationship, namely the cry for deliverance in the face of death and judgement.

Biblical & Christological Foundations for Voluntary Kenosis

Paul’s use of the word kenosis in Philippians 2:7 (“he emptied himself”) launched a long and winding quest to understand its meaning in biblical context, its implications for Christology, and its application for personal and public ethics. That journey has been fraught and, at times, badly sidetracked, most notably around the question of diminishment: what Christ surrendered and what we are asked to surrender. This study will briefly exegete the biblical text, then retrace some key questions and themes in kenotic theology. Ultimately, this overview will lead us to three main convictions: (1) what is “poured out” in kenosis is Christ himself, both and indivisibly as the eternal Logos and in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth; (2) kenosis is an attribute of self-giving love and cruciform surrender in both divine and human nature, not the surrender of divine attributes or diminishment of the divine nature; and (3) central and essential to kenosis is its voluntary and consensual nature as gift or self-donation, without diminishment, even when undergoing affliction—both for God-in-Christ and in those who follow his footsteps. The essay will conclude with a nuanced demonstration of voluntary consent from the works of Sergius Bulgakov and Simone Weil.

The De Auxiliis Controversy, Molinism, and Physical Premotion: The Christological Implications

The De Auxiliis Controversy, Molinism, and Physical Premotion: The Christological Implications

A Revelation of Weakness: Julian of Norwich, John Caputo, and the Event of Hospitality

ABSTRACT This study is foremost a close reading of chapter 22 of revelation nine from Julian of Norwich’s (c. 1343–1416) Revelations of Divine Love. I reflect on the implications of a section from the chapter’s introduction in which Christ asks Julian if she were satisfied (‘payde’) for the suffering he underwent for her. Upon hearing her affirmative response Christ tells her that ‘If thou art payde, I am payde.’. In my analysis, I turn to the interpretive strategies offered by the philosopher and theologian, John Caputo (b. 1940), to reflect on the theological images being presented in this chapter. Specifically, I consider the subordinate depiction of Christ in relation to Julian that this section suggests. To do this, I draw on Caputo’s notion of ‘weak theology’ combined with his idea of ‘the event’ and his ethics of ‘hospitality’ as fruitful hermeneutical strategies for thinking through the Christological implications of this chapter.

Suffering with Jesus in The Interior Castle. The Christological Implications of Suffering in the Seventh Morada

Suffering with Jesus in <i>The Interior Castle.</i> The Christological Implications of Suffering in the Seventh <i>Morada </i>

Falsely Identifying Original Sin and Pure Nature: Christological Implications

AbstractRobert Barry argues that man's condition in a state of pure nature and man's condition in the state of original sin are one and the same. This article aims to show that this thesis is false and is not the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Angelic Doctor teaches that man in pure nature would be more capable of doing the good proportionate to his nature and would be able to love God above all things with a natural love. Important here is the truth posited by many in the Thomist commentatorial tradition, namely, that on account of sin man is directly averted from his supernatural end and at least indirectly averted from his natural end. Furthermore, this thesis has undesirable consequences, albeit consequences unintended by Barry, for Christology and soteriology. We must understand what pertains to human nature as such if we are to understand the various states in which we find human nature, including in Christ. If a natural analogue to supernatural charity cannot even in principle obtain, charity will be something alien to human nature. Christ came not only to elevate us to supernatural life and divine friendship, but to heal human nature.

Use of the Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Its Implications for Christology by Roderick Elledge

Reviewed by: Use of the Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Its Implications for Christologyby Roderick Elledge Izaak Connoway Elledge, Roderick. 2017. Use of the Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Its Implications for Christology. The Library of New Testament Studies575. New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark. Hardback. ISBN 978-0567671431. Pp 182. $118.53. Elledge has reworked his Ph.D. dissertation (xii) for this volume and he "addresses an issue in Biblical texts often neglected by scholarship" (back cover). Elledge "provides a fresh perspective on the divine use of the third person" and his analysis contributes substantially "to the ongoing discussion of Jesus' divinity and self-understanding" (back cover). As a dissertation, it starts with an introduction to the study and concludes with the findings that were made. The other chapters inspect illeism in classical antiquity, the OT, ancient Near Eastern texts and the NT. [End Page 205] (1) "Introduction" (1–14). Illeism, which is a third person self-reference, seems odd today, but it pervades the Bible, which raises important questions. Why was it used? Who else used it and why? Was it common in the ancient Near East (1)? The main thesis that Elledge presents is that the use of illeism by both Jesus and Yahweh reflects divine and royal themes (2). His study is limited to direct speech (1). He follows a literary approach, focusing on the final form of the text (2). His "History of Research" (2–13) claims that no research exists on a possible link between the use of illeism by Yahweh and Jesus respectively (2). Scholarship on the meaning and significance of illeism in the Bible varies (2–5), with some regarding these references as trinitarian in nature (4). Scholarship on Jesus's illeism has revolved around the Son of Man issue (5). Elledge sets out to discuss the deity of Christ, in particular his self-understanding, divinity and preexistence (7–9). He reviews some prominent articles on illeism in the Bible (10–11) and also shows that it ought to be studied linguistically (11–14). (2) "Illeism in Classical Antiquity" (15–24). Illeism first appears in Homer's Iliad(c. 850 BCE, 16) and was popular with historians from the fifth century BCE (15). Homer's use of it is potentially early proof that illeism can have a rhetorical effect (17). Illeism was fairly common in antiquity, so questioning the significance of Jesus's use of illeism is fair (15). However, Elledge argues that its commonality does not render Jesus's use of it insignificant (21–23). (3) "Illeism in the Old Testament" (25–84). Illeism was used deferentially to emphasise a speaker's low status (25), and also when a messenger wished to distance him- or herself from a negative message (27, 28). It also occurs in oath formulas (29), when summoning someone to listen to a prophecy or pronouncement (35), and within a trial or historical setting, drawing attention away from the speaker and toward the events (43). With humans, uses other than the differential use are rare (39). Next to Jesus and Yahweh, kings use illeism the most. They use it most often in direct speech (44). They are referenced by name, name and title, title and state, royal title or sacral title (44). Illeism is used in questions, commands and requests, but mostly in statements (44). With kings, the various uses all have the same rhetorical effect (44). For David (49) and Solomon (50), it serves as dynastic affirmation. Other kings who use illeism in this way include Jehu (54), Jeroboam (55), Sennacherib (57), Artaxerxes (58), Darius (59), Ahasuerus (60) and Zedekiah (60). It is important to note who uses it, but also who does not use it. Nehemiah never uses it, neither does any of the prophets (45). [End Page 206] Some regard references with illeism as trinitarian, but it makes more sense to regard these as self-references (67). God uses illeism a total of 178 times in direct speech, including...

The Divine Christ: Paul, the Lord Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel by David B. Capes

Reviewed by: The Divine Christ: Paul, the Lord Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel by David B. Capes Joshua Coutts david b. capes, The Divine Christ: Paul, the Lord Jesus, and the Scriptures of Israel (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018). Pp. xvii + 206. Paper $24.99. David Capes considers the relation of Jesus and God in Paul's theology through the lens of God's name, and with particular attention to Paul's use of OT texts in which the name Yhwh (rendered kyrios in Greek translation) occurs. This was the subject of Capes's doctoral work, published as Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul's Christology (WUNT 2/47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) and was revisited as the topic of his 2016 Hayward Lectures at Acadia University. These lectures form the base for this volume, in which C. [End Page 331] aims to situate his earlier work in the context of more recent scholarship and advance the conversation on Pauline christology. In the first two chapters, C. orients his readers to the terminology of his subject matter, the divine name, and to the broader field of Pauline christology. He contends that kyrios ("Lord") was a widely used rendering of Yhwh among Greek-speaking Jews of the first century, and that, consequently, Paul's application of the title to Jesus is as christologically significant as it is Jewish. This constitutes a major challenge to the central thesis of Wilhelm Bousset and his followers that Paul's kyrios christology is explicable only in a pagan religious environment, removed from the constraints of monotheism. The next three chapters constitute the heart of the argument, featuring a focused study of kyrios language in the undisputed Pauline epistles. In chap. 3, C. demonstrates that Paul uses kyrios of Jesus predominantly in ethical, eschatological, or liturgical contexts. In all three, the way Jesus relates to his church is reminiscent of the relationship of Yhwh to Israel in the OT. Chapters 4 and 5 offer an analysis of the thirteen OT citations featuring the divine name, that is, "Yhwh texts." By close analysis of these citations in their context, C. demonstrates that the implied referent of kyrios is God in roughly half of the citations (chap. 4), and Jesus in the rest (chap. 5). This has significant implications for Paul's christology, which C. explores in his final chapter. In short, Paul demonstrably considered Jesus to be "constitutive of God's unique identity" (p. 151). C. explains this striking phenomenon by pointing to a number of "forces and factors," which include the Jewish category of divine agency and the expectation of the return of Yhwh; Paul's religious experience(s), which generated fresh exegesis of OT texts; and the words, deeds, and exegesis of Jesus himself, as remembered by his earliest followers. In this explanation, C. draws on the work of fellow proponents of "early high christology," including Alan Segal, Richard Bauckham, N. T. Wright, and Larry Hurtado. Those familiar with C.'s 1992 monograph will note that the current publication maintains essentially the same content and thesis, albeit reorganized and updated. For instance, his treatment of Yhwh texts no longer includes 2 Tim 2:19, likely because of its disputed authorship. Moreover, at several points C. engages with more recent scholarship (I count thirty-two bibliographic entries that postdate 1992). There is perhaps some ambiguity regarding the intended audience of the book. On the one hand, the detailed treatment of Paul's "Yhwh texts" in the context of scholarship communicates best to specialists. Yet, on the other hand, the introductory discussion of the relationship between Yhwh/kyrios and its rendering in English Bibles as Lord/Lord seems aimed at a broader audience. On the whole, C.'s engagement with scholarship is light, and his references representative rather than exhaustive. This allows him to keep the larger picture before his readers but means that the argument is unlikely to be regarded as an advance in the scholarship on Paul's christology. In sum, the book is both a re-presentation of C.'s seminal 1992 monograph and a clear introduction to a crucial aspect of Pauline christology. As N...

Use of the Third Person for Self-Reference by Jesus and Yahweh: A Study of Illeism in the Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Its Implications for Christology

Seasoned Bible readers scarcely bat an eye every time Jesus speaks of himself as the Son of Man, but newer readers may well ask why he speaks of himself in the third person so often. While this is by far the most common example of “illeism” (the use of third-person forms by a speaker or writer for self-reference) in the Gospels, one also encounters “the Son” (in context often referring to the Son of God), “(the) Christ,” “the Lord,” “the king,” and, especially in John, entire phrases such as “the One whom the Father has sent,” “He who comes down from heaven,” and “He who comes from God.” Why does Jesus talk this way from time to time? More often than not, he uses typical first-person singular forms. Or if the language is attributed to the Evangelists, why do they occasionally portray Jesus as lapsing into illeism?In this published form of his Ph.D. dissertation completed at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Roderick Elledge, now adjunct professor at Southern, investigates these rarely asked questions. Of course, there was the day when Bultmann and others thought Jesus was talking about a coming Son of Man other than himself, but few today take this approach. Noting that only Andrew Malone, in a 2009 journal article, has studied the phenomenon of illeism in the Bible (and there only in the OT) at all systematically, Elledge proceeds to walk through almost every known use of the phenomenon in the OT with characters other than God and then surveys representative uses of the speech of Yahweh speaking illeistically. He similarly dips into representative examples of the speech-pattern in numerous ancient Near Eastern sources before finally turning to the use attributed to Jesus in the Gospels.Individual characters and contexts indicate multiple purposes for illeism, including adding solemnity to oaths, creating a summons to listen, distancing an individual from his or her experiences, showing deference or humility to a superior, and helping to characterize a speaker. By far and away the most common purpose, however, appears to be to indicate a person’s royalty or divinity. With these patterns in mind from the OT and the ancient Near East, Elledge finds that the same two explanations work best with the material ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels. If Elledge’s analysis is at all accurate, then we may add Jesus’s use of illeism to a growing list of items of implicit (i.e., not necessarily titular) Christology that point to Jesus’s divinity.This is certainly a learned dissertation, given the corpora of ancient material Elledge canvasses and the breadth of secondary literature with which he interacts. One cannot fault it for too narrow a scope in what it investigates before ever turning to the NT. Where it is not exhaustive, the texts it investigates do seem representative. And this reviewer is certainly sympathetic to research that would reinforce his own research into the abundance of high Christology attributable to Jesus himself.But why did I just lapse into one sentence of illeism? I suppose to illustrate a certain kind of modesty, conventional in certain academic circles. I doubt that has anything to do with Jesus’s use. But the lapse illustrates the difficulty of analyzing this phenomenon. For someone who already has good reason to suspect Jesus had a robust divine consciousness, Elledge’s entire study seems manifestly plausible. As he has himself stressed, it is not as though illeism is widespread in any ancient corpus, as it is in some forms of modern scholarship. But a study of this kind can scarcely consider all the possible explanations of illeism, text-by-text, so one does wonder how someone less predisposed to the answers Elledge gives for the phenomenon might interpret the same texts.A few glaring mistakes such as “more broader” (p. 49) and “alter” for “altar” (p. 61) occasionally mar what is otherwise a very clear and well-written work. After all the build-up, one might have wished for a lengthier treatment of the material in the Gospels, which comprises just shy of one-fifth of the volume. But overall, this is a very creative, thought-provoking and welcome addition to the study of the Christology of Jesus.

The Use of κύριος Title and Its Christological Implications in the Letter of James

The Use of κύριος Title and Its Christological Implications in the Letter of James

Luther and the Eucharistic Controversy

AbstractLuther wrote That These Words of Christ … Still Stand Firm to teach people what they should believe about the Lord's Supper and to refute the arguments of his opponents. Luther saw the devil as responsible for the rejection of Christ's substantial presence in the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper. The disagreement concerning the eucharist rested on the opposing exegesis of key Scripture texts and had implications for Christology and the understanding of the relationship between theology, science, and human reason. Luther believed that his opponents taught a heretical position that endangered people's souls, and so their ideas could not be tolerated.

The King Arrives, but for What Purpose? The Christological Use of Zechariah 13–14 in Mark 13

ABSTRACT This analysis of Mark 13 finds the paradigm of a Christology of divine identity—specifically, a Christology that sees Jesus in the place of God in the expectations of God's coming—to be fruitful for understanding the Christological implications of several statements in Mark 13. In the case of this text, the paradigm emerges from the allusive connections between Mark 13 and Zech 13–14, one of the most extensive explications of the hope of God's coming. Although it is not the only text that influences the content of Mark 13, the Christocentric use of the Zecharian text particularly affects the shape of Christological expressions of the Markan text and other aspects of prophetic expectation linked to those expressions (such as the fate of Jerusalem and the identity of who constitutes the remnant). Given the content of the prophecy and given the presence of other allusions to Zech 9–14 in the passion narrative, it is not surprising that there are multiple connections to Zechariah here. Mark—as the storyteller—and the Markan Jesus—as the central character—find in Zechariah fitting language to express Jesus's identity as one who embodies the expectation of God's coming, bears God's presence, enacts God's expected roles, and exercises God's unique authority.

The King Arrives, but for What Purpose? The Christological Use of Zechariah 13–14 in Mark 13

ABSTRACT This analysis of Mark 13 finds the paradigm of a Christology of divine identity—specifically, a Christology that sees Jesus in the place of God in the expectations of God's coming—to be fruitful for understanding the Christological implications of several statements in Mark 13. In the case of this text, the paradigm emerges from the allusive connections between Mark 13 and Zech 13–14, one of the most extensive explications of the hope of God's coming. Although it is not the only text that influences the content of Mark 13, the Christocentric use of the Zecharian text particularly affects the shape of Christological expressions of the Markan text and other aspects of prophetic expectation linked to those expressions (such as the fate of Jerusalem and the identity of who constitutes the remnant). Given the content of the prophecy and given the presence of other allusions to Zech 9–14 in the passion narrative, it is not surprising that there are multiple connections to Zechariah here. Mark—as the storyteller—and the Markan Jesus—as the central character—find in Zechariah fitting language to express Jesus's identity as one who embodies the expectation of God's coming, bears God's presence, enacts God's expected roles, and exercises God's unique authority.

Church and Christ in the Work of Stanley Hauerwas

Stanley Hauerwas has attracted much criticism for his ecclesiocentric approach to theology. As a result of his emphasis on the faithful practice of virtues in community for salvation, he has been accused of Pelagianism. He has also been charged with showing interest in Jesus primarily as an exemplar, rather than for himself. The adequacy of Hauerwas’ ecclesiology is tested here against its implications for Christology. Hauerwas conceives of Jesus primarily as the autobasileia, and emphasises the importance of his entire life and teachings in addition to his death and resurrection. Two questions concerning Hauerwas’ Christology are explored: (1) What did Christ achieve at the cross? (2) What constitutes salvation and how is it mediated to ensuing generations? This paper examines whether the church does indeed usurp the place of Christ in salvation in Hauerwas’ thought, as suggested by Healy.

Det syriske Adams Testamente

The article presents a Danish translation of the oldest extant manuscript of the Syriac Testament of Adam. This manuscript comprises the two first sections (the Horarium and Prophecy) of the total of three sections usually described as making up this composite text. In addition to giving an introduction and translation, the article discusses key issues of the text’s language and theology and aspects of its interpretation of the Garden of Eden story, such as the nature of the forbidden fruit, the future fate of Adam and its Christological implications.

“But Do the Lord Care?”

The slain rapper Tupac Shakur contributes indispensably to two contemporary theologies centered around the crucified people, the theological aesthetics of liberation presented by Roberto Goizueta and the theology of the lynching tree articulated by James Cone. Placing the pioneering work of Goizueta and Cone in conversation with existing scholarship on the theological importance of Shakur’s music, I argue that Tupac crafts a theological aesthetics of liberation aimed at illuminating the injustice and Christological implications of the hypersegregated ghetto and the black mass prison

Die sendingimplikasies van Kolossense 1:15-20

The implications of 1 Colossians 1:15-20 concerning Christ as head of the cosmos and the church are huge. It is generally accepted that the author of this hymn used an original form of the text to generate the reworked present form. Themes such as creation, Christ as head of the church, the unity of Christ and God, reconciliation at the cross and aspects of the atonement are explained. The missiological implications are that Christ as head of the cosmos has every right on all aspects of the universe; the unity of Christ and God means that the salvation is radical and total in Him; the atonement brings total salvation from Christ who died on the cross but who was also resurrected; the Christological implications are that all powers should acknowledge that they are limited by Him who died on the cross and that the salvation entails encompassing and total welfare.

“Love Your Enemies”: The Adamic Wisdom of Q 6:27–28, 35c–d

The interpretation of Q 6:27 highlights a perennial problem in biblical scholarship. If Jesus commanded his disciples to love their enemies—and scholars are in virtually unanimous agreement that he did—how are we to understand this imperative in its original Jewish context? How are we to affirm that Jesus criticized his own tradition—which did not encourage love of enemies—without falling into anti-Jewish rhetoric? Our contemporary concern with Jesus' Jewishness should not preclude us from recognizing the possibility that Jesus criticized certain aspects of the Jewish tradition. The purpose of this essay is to isolate a distinctive element of the early Jesus tradition in its original Jewish context, identify its Christological implications, and explore how an intra-Jewish polemic was subsequently transferred onto inter-religious Jewish/Christian relations.

Love of God and Neighbour: The Communal Ethics of Langland’s Samaritan Parable

This essay argues that Langland brings together moral and allegorical readings of the Samaritan parable to show the complementarity of these interpretive traditions and, ultimately, to represent communal labour as integral to divine mercy. An examination of Middle English renderings of the Samaritan parable alongside Piers Plowman reveals that Langland participated in ongoing debates about how the parable characterized the nature and scope of charity. Rather than encourage imitation, Langland suggests that people should work with the Samaritan in diverse social roles. This collaboration has both ethical and Christological implications: because humans participate in the divine community of the Trinity, for Langland, acts of social responsibility are redemptive.

Law, Tragedy, Spirit: Hölderlin Contra Agamben

This article takes references to Friedrich Holderlin in the work of Giorgio Agamben as a basis for proposing a broader view of their philosophical relationship, particularly in respect of the themes treated by Agamben in The Time that Remains: A Commentary on the Letter to the Romans. Holderlin is a frequent but elusive and ambiguous point of reference in Agamben’s work, and the essay begins by examining Agamben’s invocation, in Homo Sacer, of Holderlin’s translation of, and commentary on, a Pindaric fragment (›Das Hochste‹) in the context of the ›inclusive exclusion‹ and the dynamics of so-called ›bare life‹. This establishes Holderlin’s suggestive place in Agamben’s account of law. In a further reference to Holderlin (this time to his commentaries on Greek tragedy), Agamben implies Holderlin’s significance for his understanding of poetry (as put forward in The End of the Poem). Furthermore, here Agamben suggests that the Holderlinian concept of caesura bears on his own thought, and thereby connects Holderlin to the terms of the political theology, derived from Paul, developed in The Time that Remains. The thrust of the essay consists in an interrogation of Agamben’s concepts of ›remnant‹ and ›divided division‹, which underlie his messianic political theology. Holderlin, it is argued, is important for the conceptual structure developed by Agamben in his reading of Paul, and also offers a decisive alternative to the assumptions of Agamben’s project. Questions of law and representation – central themes of The Time that Remains – are treated in Holderlin’s essay Uber Religion (On Religion), which also links these to the violence which Agamben says law inevitably generates. Yet, the article argues, Uber Religion suggests a clear difference from Agamben’s political theology, and so a problem for any attempt to co-opt him for the broader terms of Agamben’s philosophy. Where Holderlin develops a view of law and representation as opening to a sphere of determinate, relational existence in which law and representation are not dispensed with but rather articulate – in their fulfilment and limit – an experience of freedom in love, Agamben takes the messianic division of representation and law to signal a potential overcoming of relation (and so freedom from the sovereign ban explored in Homo Sacer). Holderlin, it is argued, is both closer to the complexity of Pauline messianic vocation in its relation to law than Agamben, and a powerful corrective to the paradoxes of Agamben’s political theology, defined by the minimal conditions of relation which it needs to admit in order to proceed beyond relation. This is discussed with reference to Agamben’s notion of vocation as a revocation or ›nullifying‹ of determinacy, and the Christological implications of Holderlin’s analysis of law and desire as it develops from the essay Urtheil und Seyn (Judgement and Being). Dieter Henrich’s analyses of Holderlin’s thought are employed here. In its final section, the essay returns to that area of Holderlin’s work mentioned by Agamben in his account of poetry – the theory of tragic drama. Antigone can at first sight be seen as exemplifying some of Agamben’s claims about the ›production‹ of bare life: the play demonstrates how what Holderlin calls the ›lawful calculus‹ of tragedy turns its heroes over to lawlessness while keeping them subject to law – placing them outside the polis but maintaining them in a coercive relation to it. At the same time, Holderlin’s conception of tragic caesura introduces the idea of a remnant to representation which brings it close to The Time that Remains.However, the Holderlinian tragic remnant is explicitly named as Spirit, in which representation is not abolished but transfigured, or brought closer to what the essay on religion termed the (spiritual) perfection of law. While Agamben seems to find in Holderlin a confirmation of that ›messianic‹ time in which law and relations are rendered inoperative and a utopian potential emerges, Holderlin’s conception of the tragic in fact proposes a reconstitution of law and relational existence under the aegis of (Pauline) love. The essay concludes that Holderlin thereby offers a powerful (and more properly tragic) alternative to Agamben’s political messianism and its disdain for determinacy.