Blaising and Bock advanced (but did not develop) an interesting argument that weaves together Christology and Eschatology. Its standard fair to charge one’s enemies of being Nestorians (EO never tires of this canard). Usually it’s something along the lines of “Your theology separates Christ’s humanity and deity.” Blaising and Bock took it a step further: any eschatology or Christology that downplays Jesus’s Davidic Jewishness is more apt to be Nestorian (or more likely “Docetic”). They call this the “Gentilization” of Christ (298). Unfortunately, Google Books stops the page at that point so I can’t read what they said. I have an idea, though. The Alexandrian Christological argument (Apollinaris, Athanasius, Cyril, Origen) held that the Logos assumed the universal human form into union with his hypostasis. While this makes for a beautiful metaphysics, it suffers from several problems: 1) Scripture never really says this and 2) what does a universal human form even look like?
Those are the typical responses to Alexandrianism. I think Blaising and Bock are right to take it a step further: the positing of a universal human form seems to negate the specific, Davidic Jewishness of Jesus. I don’t want to say more because the free preview ends at this point.
I think Blaising and Bock are going to suggest that any muting of the Davidic element in Jesus will lead towards a Docetic theology. I think that is correct, but here is where we need to be careful. I am all for embracing the Hebraic and Davidic Jesus. That is the only way to read the OT with integrity. But I don’t want to do so in a way that ends up with the Judaizing heresy.
Addendum: This is in line with the above point but not developed by Blaising and Bock. I want to ask another question: in what way does the post-Constantian church (I am not using that term in the hippie Anabaptist sense) commit this error?