[[MID-TERM]]
Christology
February 26, 1991 (Continued)
III. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.
The
title of this section of the course is somewhat misleading. It is not quite clear, however, what
vocabulary would be more suitable for a title.
We will first discuss the historical Jesus, then the Crucifixion and
then the Resurrection.
What
follows immediately is a brief discussion of the development of research on the
historical Jesus in the nineteenth century.
This will set the stage for what will follow.
Divisions
In The Church And Christology
It
is important to note, first of all, that the divisions of the Church of which
we are most likely to think (East and West and the Reformation) were not over
Christological questions. We can
certainly point to some differences in Christology between one side or the
other of these divisions, but immediate causes of those breaks were for other
theological and non-theological reasons.
The ages of the debates on theological questions were earlier (in the
fourth and fifth centuries). Even after
the Reformation there is not an enormous difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant
approaches to the person of Christ.
Significant changes here begin to develop in the late eighteenth and
nineteenth century, and at least at that stage there was more of a division
within Protestantism (rather than a division along Roman Catholic/Protestant
lines). A few of the major figures
should be mentioned here (later Roman Catholic theologians will pick up
interest in their work and will in many ways continue with earlier Protestant
work).
Hermann
Samuel Reimarus
The
first figure to mention is Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768). Reimarus was a professor of Near Eastern
Studies at Hamburg. He was a Rationalist
religious philosopher (i.e., a non-Christian German Deist) in a time and at a
place in which that was frowned upon.
Reimarus was very much influenced by British rationalist thought. Reimarus wrote a long defense of rationalist
religion entitled The Apology which was first published in 1972,
but in the years 1774 to 1778 fragments of Reimarus' work were published
anonymously. These have today been
re-printed by Fortress Press under the title Fragments. Some of these fragments relate to
Christianity and this is the material that is important to our survey (because
it will influence subsequent discussions).
Christianity
As A Fraud
Reimarus
wished to expose Christianity as a fraud.
The basic point he argued with that regard was what he viewed as a very
sharp distinction between Jesus' public life on the one hand and the preaching
of the early Church about Jesus on the other.
He did not use the vocabulary "Jesus of history/Christ of
faith" but in substance, that is what is involved in his argument. Reimarus' conception was that Jesus was a
failed political leader. Reimarus
described Jesus as a messianic claimant who saw himself as the royal son of
David who would throw off Roman rule and lead to the restoration of the Kingdom
of Israel. From this perspective,
Reimarus explained why Jesus was called "Son of God;" he noted that
"Son of God" was not a title connoting divinity but was rather a
royal title (with the implication of earthly kingship). According to Reimarus, Jesus gathered
followers, came close to success at various times, but eventually met with
opposition and was put to death.
Reimarus claims that Jesus' last words "My God, My God, why hast
thou forsaken me"
are an admission of failure.
Reimarus'
Use Of The Gospel Of Matthew
The
reference point for Reimarus was chiefly the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as the
fulfillment of Israel's hopes. Matthew
also speaks of the relationship of Jesus to the law. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus says: "I
have not come to abolish [the law and prophets] but to fulfill them." We see that in Matthew, Jesus restricts his
own mission to Israel. That is what
Reimarus calls the purpose or the aim of Jesus.
[This
phrase (the aim of Jesus) is deliberately used by Ben Meyer in 1979 in
his book entitled The Aims of Jesus. Meyer picks up on Reimarus' theme. Although Meyer is actually quite critical of
Reimarus' presentation of the issue, he recognizes it as a legitimate and
appropriate question to be raised and pursued.]
A
Different Notion Of Messiah
According
to Reimarus, Jesus' pursuit of his mission understood in this sense, lasts up
until the crucifixion. After Jesus' death,
the disciples who had been with Jesus (and had more or less shared his views)
came to the conclusion that it would be well to have recourse to a different
notion of Messiah. The disciples then
turned to the idea that the Messiah would come twice--once in lowliness and
once in power and glory. The events of
Jesus' life fit very well with the first half of that pattern and the second
coming in glory still lay ahead (which meant of course, that no-one could prove
that it is not going to happen).
And
so, Reimarus argues, that there have been two groups of messianic notions
available. One of these was a political
notion of Messiah as Son of David. The
second of these was an apocalyptic notion of the Messiah as the Son of Man. Whereas Jesus had been associated with the
political notion, the disciples were at first associated with the political
notion and then switched over to the apocalyptic notion.
The
Theft
Reimarus
claimed that in order to carry out this apocalyptic presentation, the disciples
stole Jesus' body, waited fifty days, and then began to preach what eventually
developed into the early Christian message (i.e., of Christs' public life,
death and resurrection). Gradually this
led to the idea that Jesus' death was salvific.
As a kind of final stage, the Gospels were then written to offer a
reinterpretation of Jesus' life (the word reinterpretation is used here not in
the sense of simply looking things over and coming to some deeper insights, but
rather in the sense of deliberate falsification of what had happened).
The
Re-writing Of History
The
key point for Reimarus is that when the Gospels engage in this re-writing of
history, they are not fully successful on the first try. If they had been fully successful, then it
would have been impossible to uncover the deception later. Reimarus' point is that we can see in the
Gospels, especially in the first of the Gospels (which was understood to be Matthew
by him and others at the time), things that really should not be there from a
Christian perspective. Reimarus claimed
that these things were simply not suppressed completely. Examples of such passages are as follows:
"I have not come to abolish [the law and prophets] but to fulfill them,"
and "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Finally, and perhaps more significantly, with
regard to this lack of suppression, is the story in Matthew about the
allegation that the disciples had stole the body and the effort to refute that
story on Matthew's part. That story
reads as follows:
"Next
day, that is, after the day of preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees
gathered before Pilate and said, 'Sir, we remember how that imposter said,
while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Therefore order the sepulchre to be made
secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away, and tell
the people, 'He has risen from the dead,'
and the last fraud will be worse than the first.' Pilate said to them, 'You have a guard of
soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.'
So they went and made the sepulchre secure by sealing the stone and
setting a guard."
And then, after
the story of visit of the Marys to the tomb, the angel, the empty tomb and the
appearance of Jesus we read:
". . .some of the guard went into the city and
told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders
and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers and said, 'Tell people,
'His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.' And if this comes to the governor's ears, we
will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.'
So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has
been spread among the Jews to this day."
Reimarus argues
that what is here being refuted by Matthew is in fact the truth of the
matter. He claimed that the later Gospel
writers were wise enough to simply allow it to fade from memory, but Matthew,
in arguing against it, unintentionally allows the reality to appear.
Reimarus'
Publisher
When
fragments of Reimarus' writings were published in the 1770s Gotthold Ephraim
Lessing, (the
publisher) distanced himself from them.
Lessing claimed that he had come across Reimarus' writings in a library
and did not know who wrote them. Lessing
also claimed to believe that Christians should refute these writings as quickly
as possible, but he said that he did not know how they could be refuted. By publishing Reimarus' writings, Lessing
brought the matter out for public discussion in a way that did not expose
anyone in particular to criticism or political difficulties (Reimarus' identity
as the author was not known until 1814).
Reimarus
As Non-Christian Missionary
What
Reimarus attempted to do was to act as a kind of missionary from the
perspective of his own (non-Christian) religious views. Most of the society in which he lived was
Christian, and as a critic of Christianity, Reimarus wished to expose its
errors. He did this as one step toward
promoting a more philosophical approach toward religion. Reimarus was an expert in what we call
Semitics, and this is why matters such as the distinction of the two notions of
Messiah were material with which he could work. As far as his own religious views, he was not
at all saying that one of these notions (of Messiah) was correct and the other
false (he believed them both to be false).
He believed that one of these notions has been more pernicious than the
other (it has lasted longer), but he did not at all suggest that Christians
should abandon the apocalyptic notion of Messiah and go back to the political
one. Reimarus' idea was that Messianic
themes in general are not desirable and that one should replace them with a general
human orientation toward God. Reimarus'
view steps back from historical particularity and tries to present a notion of
religion that would be available to all human beings.
The
difficulty with Reimarus' type of argument is that it is presented in such a
way that it is almost irrefutable--at least if you take it on its own terms
(because the texts are always read contrary to the intentions of the
authors). Reimarus thought that those
who stole Jesus' body suppressed the evidence and then wrote most of the
historical material that we have about the subject. Strict proof is certainly not an argument
that most people have found convincing.
Reimarus said that the most that we could expect to find is fragmentary
evidence because that is all that would have survived.
An
Argument Against Reimarus
The
chief argument that is ultimately raised against Reimarus' theory of deception
is that the subsequent behavior of Jesus' followers does not fit with fraud at
the beginning of their work. They
remained faithful to their preaching, even in circumstances where it was no
longer to their personal advantage to do so (e.g., many died as martyrs).
Reimarus'
position as such, has not commended itself to later scholars (it is obvious
that it does not commend itself to Christians).
His position did prove to be an important factor in stimulating research
on Jesus. To some extent this occurred
immediately, but also to an even greater extent in retrospect people looked
back on Reimarus' work and thought that it had been a springboard for even
greater developments.
Rosemary
Reuther And A Reimarusian Idea
A
second problem with Reimarus (in addition to attributing Biblical deception to
the disciples) is the problem of attributing political/nationalistic ideas to
Jesus. On this point we can note one
contemporary author, Rosemary Reuther, who seems to do the same
thing. Reuther also has a certain
background in Jewish literature of the time.
She tends to think of one univocal notion of Messiah as a Jewish
political leader. She does not attribute
that to Jesus, but she argues that Jesus does not fulfill Messianic hopes
because he did not fit the picture of what the Messiah was supposed to be. Reuther's position is not the same as
Reimarus' is, but it has in common the same orientation toward a political
understanding of the Messianic title. In
Reuther's thought, however, this is played out differently after the death of
Jesus. Reuther's longest and most
thorough work on this subject is an unpublished manuscript which of course
impedes discussion of her thought directly. In this manuscript, Reuther holds that
attribution of the Messianic title to Jesus is inappropriate and has resulted
in a great deal of harm (particularly persecution of the Jews) during the
history of the Church. Reuther is
mentioned here in order to demonstrate that there is some contemporary
literature which operates with material that was of interest to Reimarus (i.e.,
a belief at the time of Jesus that the Messiah was to be a national political
leader).
Theology
After Reimarus
In
the years after Reimarus (i.e., roughly the first third of the nineteenth
century), there was a great deal of writing about the life of Jesus. Individually, these biographies about Jesus
are not very significant, but they fall into two categories. The first are the traditional lives of Jesus
and the second are the rationalist lives of Jesus.
The
Traditional Lives Of Jesus
The
first, the traditional lives of Jesus, are a kind of spiritual
reading. These draw together material
from all the Gospels into one unified presentation of Jesus' life. The tendency in most of these is that in
places where they do not know anything about Jesus, they fill in what they can
about general knowledge (e.g., we can come up with some sort of ideas about the
daily life of first century Palestine carpenters).
The
Rationalist Lives Of Jesus
The
second category, is formed by rationalist lives of Jesus, which are
efforts to explain away whatever is considered supernatural or mysterious in
Jesus' life (e.g., miracle stories).
Examples of the rationalist school are found in our own country in the
person of Thomas Jefferson who put together a short life of Jesus
(clipping out the parts that did not meet the rationalist criterion). The rationalists put basically put together a
presentation of teaching linked together by few events of a non-controversial
nature. A story such as the feeding of
the five thousand would be either not included or explained as a misperception
or something that could be explained by natural causes. Most of these works were not significant in
themselves, but they form the background of the writings of David Friedrich
Strauss (1808-1874).
David
Friedrich Strauss
Strauss
must be mentioned here in more detail.
Strauss was influenced a great deal by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
(1770-1831). Strauss had a very unsuccessful life in many
ways (he wanted to become a professor of theology).
In
1835, Strauss published, in two volumes, A Life of Jesus Critically Examined. This work was very thorough in its
examination of the different stories of the Gospels. Like a good Hegelian should, Strauss adopted
a three-fold approach in this work.
First, he summarized the traditionalist view of the particular matter at
hand, then he summarized the rationalist position. In each case, these summaries were accompanied
by a certain criticism. Strauss is
comparatively mild in his criticism of the traditionalist views, but very sharp
in his critique of rationalism. Finally,
Strauss presented his own so called mythical interpretation, which
argues that the Gospels are to be understood as the presentation of early
Christian ideas in narrative form and as applied to Jesus.
The
following is one example of Strauss' mythical interpretation. In the account of Jesus' baptism in the
Gospel of Matthew (the chief reference point for Strauss) we read:
"Then
Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, 'I
need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?' But Jesus answered him, 'Let it be so now;
for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.' Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, he went up
immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice
from heaven, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"
Strauss' procedure
is to lay out the scene. Strauss does
this not only with reference to Matthew, but also with reference other parallel
texts--to the extent that they can be found in the other Synoptics or
John. By laying out the parallel texts,
Strauss is able to say that the efforts of the traditional interpretation to
blend all of these into one account are not successful. In this particular passage we find that
different people hear the voice, the voice does not say precisely the same
thing in each case and so on. It can be
argued that the effort to combine them into a harmonized version fails. The rationalist interpretation of this has no
problem with the story of the baptism as such, but it is bothered by the voice
from heaven and the dove. The difficult
rationalist explanation for the voice is that there was a thunderstorm and that
on impact it psychologically affected different people in different ways who
took this to be some sort of omen.
Strauss says that this rationalist interpretation is nonsense and has no
basis at all in the text. Instead,
Strauss is able to show that the material that the voice from heaven uses is
taken from the Old Testament, and that it reflects a presentation of Jesus as
God's Son--specifically in circumstances that might suggest subordination to
John. According to this view, the story
is a way of expressing early Christian ideas.
The ideas are not original to early Christians, but are basically Old
Testament Messianic ideas that are here conveyed in appropriate narrative,
almost poetic form, by reference to the figure of Jesus. This is not terribly far from the position
that contemporary exegetes take with regard to this position at the present
time. The great strength of Strauss'
work was his attention to detail.
Christology
March 12, 1991
Development
Of Critical Interest In the Historical Jesus
During
this class we will take a brief look at the development of critical interest in
the historical Jesus in the 18th and 19th century. We will examine some of the major
figures. Our purpose here is not to
discuss the individuals as such, but rather to indicate the development of a
certain movement with a view toward looking at the contemporary state of the
question in this issue.
David
Friedrick Strauss
During
the last class we mentioned David Friedrick Strauss (1808-1874)
and his publication in 1835 of A Life of Jesus Critically Examined. We spoke of Strauss' position that the
Gospels were to be understood as myth which provide a way of re-interpreting a
non-messianic life. This understanding
of myth is a way of presenting Jesus as a vehicle for presenting the early
Christian ideas.
Strauss
Vs. Reimarus
Strauss
was one who later drew attention to the importance of Hermann Samuel
Reimarus (1694-1768).
Strauss was responsible for the general
recognition that Reimarus was at the root of this overall movement. None-the-less, Strauss did not hold the same
position as Reimarus on many important issues.
Strauss did not accept the position that the Resurrection material, or
other developments in the Gospel tradition, are the result of deceit. Instead, Strauss takes the position that it
was the following of a legend. Once a
figure begins to attract followers, a few stories get going and it does not
take too long before the process feeds on itself. The response that is often given to Reimarus
is that the deliberate falsification of material does not fit into the way of
conduct of Jesus followers--this type of objection does not apply to
Strauss. This is an objection that
Strauss himself shares against Reimarus' interpretation. None-the-less, Strauss claims that the
Gospels are not reliable historically, except for a few very basic pieces of
biographical information about Jesus (and these are not of great interest to
Strauss).
Strauss:
A Left-Wing Hegelian
Strauss
is influenced by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831),
but he also has a particular interpretation of his own. Strauss is classified by historians of
philosophy as a left-wing Hegelian (of which others such as Karl Marx
are more famous). Strauss fits to the
left, to use a political term, of Hegel's philosophical position. Strauss himself was not particularly active
in politics.
Myth
Cannot Be Embodied In One Individual
Strauss
holds that myth (in this case the Christological idea) cannot be embodied in
one individual (i.e., the messianic idea, the idea of a redeemer, the idea of
unity between God and the human race cannot be embodied in one individual). The ideas involved here are enormous--an
individual is no more than one human figure on the stage of history, and so
while it is possible in a literary work, like the Gospels, to use one figure as
an example of the idea (i.e., to present the messianic ideas with reference to
Jesus), in historical fact it is not possible for one individual to represent
all of this. So in a literal sense,
Jesus is not the Christ, but from Strauss' perspective no single individual
could be the Christ anyway. The only way
that the religious Christological idea can in fact be worked out in history is
through the human race as a whole--not through any single individual.
The
Unity Between God And The Human Race
The
chief idea for Strauss is the unity between God and the human race. This unity is too rich, almost too infinite,
to be tied to one particular figure (i.e., Jesus). Strauss' theory is a way of dealing with the
problem of universality on the one hand and particularity on the other. Strauss finds that true universality cannot
be found in the particular circumstances of an individual's life. Hegel on the other hand did not quite say
that--Hegel talked about the expression of the infinite that is somewhat tied
to particular concrete themes. On this
point Strauss goes beyond Hegel, but he does draw on certain ideas of
Hegel. Strauss says that the inability
to find universality in the life of Jesus is not a defective on Jesus' part--it
is simply the nature of being a single human individual that he could not do
more than that.
[Example: Each American somehow embodies certain
aspects of being a twentieth century American.
This may stand out in a particular way to an outsider (if an American
lands in Belgrade at this moment, people will know that he is not one of them,
but they will also realize that he is not from Ancient Italy). While an American's nationality may be
obvious in a foreign country, it would at the same time be foolish to think
that he or she (or any one of us) completely embodies the idea of being a
twentieth century American. Embodying
such a universal idea is not something that one individual can completely
express.]
The
Collective Vs. The Individual
Strauss
claims that the religious and philosophical of what the human race should be,
what the human race is in principle and what the human race should in fact
become (through its working out in history), can only be done by the collective
and not by any individual creature.
Strauss says that this is true simply because anything else would reduce
the idea to the level that the individual could express.
Abandoning
A Basic Christian Tenet
Strauss'
position is quite foreign to the Christian tying of universal significance to
Jesus. In that sense, Strauss' theory is
a very sharp abandonment of one of the basic tenets of Christianity. By the end of his life, Strauss is aware of
that, but it is not clear that he had such an awareness of that in 1835. Strauss had thought he could eventually
re-express what had been expressed in Biblical and traditional theological terminology
into a philosophical system which would incorporate into itself theological
ideas. Strauss' idea was that theology
could be a useful pedagogical expression which would then be put into a more
purified, generalized philosophical form.
Allow me to point out a couple sentences from Strauss' writing that
indicate what he is getting at here.
Strauss writes, in the concluding section of the life of Jesus, (where
he begins to give a little summary of his general ideas), "Humanity is the
unification of the two natures of the Incarnate God." Humanity here does not refer to Christ, but
to the human race in general. The human
race is the unification of the two natures of the Incarnate God.
Anthropology
Replacing Christology
We
have here a kind of Anthropology replacing Christology at that stage. Once we take this position, we do not have
much theological interest in the historical Jesus (a point that becomes
basically irrelevant). To the question,
"why did all this get written down with reference to Jesus?" is
answered "because it happened."
Strauss'
last work, entitled The Old Faith and the New was published in
1872. In this work, Strauss asks himself
the question, "are we still Christians?" and his answer is
"no." The title of this work
literally means the old faith and the new faith.
Strauss'
Impact
Strauss'
effect on theology was enormous. Most
religious people (including most theologians) were horrified with his work. One example of the impact of Strauss is seen
in the writing of Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) who (more than a half a century
later) wrote his history of nineteenth century research on the historical
Jesus, and Strauss is a major figure in the work. In the modern printing of Schweitzer's work,
the editors list at the back anti-Strauss literature. There are three or four pages of things
ranging from articles, pamphlets to extended full-length monographs on the subject.
The
Chief Problem With Strauss' Position
The
chief problem with Strauss' position is the failure to recognize the
significance of the historical Jesus.
This is a separation of the Christological idea from Jesus and a failure
to recognize that it is the material from Jesus' life which provides the
standard for picking up on some themes that were available at the time.
Friedrich
Schleiermacher
At
this point let us examine briefly another major Protestant theologian from the
nineteenth century, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Schleiermacher, like Hegel, was a professor
at Berlin. Strauss was also at Berlin at
that time, but was not especially interested in what Schleiermacher was
doing.
Religious
Experience
The
great them of Schleiermacher's theology is the importance of starting with
religious experience. Schleiermacher
says that this is the experience of being completely dependent on someone (or
something?). Schleiermacher identifies
this someone as God and says that it is God upon whom we are dependent. This is true not only within our lives, but even
for our existence as such. This is
Schleiermacher's understanding of religion in general. He says that Christianity has certain
distinctive characteristics in that everything is related to Christ. He notes that in Christianity, Christ is the
source of the believers consciousness of being redeemed.
In
its own way, Schleiermacher's method is a very philosophical approach to
theology. Schleiermacher was very well
organized and very systematic in the sense of structure in his thought. He was very thorough and wrote very
clearly. Schleiermacher had considerable
impact within Protestant theology. Many
contemporary theologians who emphasize religious experience are at least
remotely influenced by Schleiermacher's reference point.
Our
point in discussing Schleiermacher here is simply to note that any theology
which is strongly influenced by Schleiermacher (n.b., his wrote his chief works
between 1800 and 1830) are not terribly long before Strauss' work.
Anyone
influenced by Schleiermacher is not going to start out by saying what happened
eighteen hundred years ago. Rather,
those influenced by Schleiermacher, will say in a more introspective fashion
(but with a good bit of philosophical sophistication) what is the source of my
religious consciousness. We can put this
in a way that is more faithful to Schleiermacher's perspective by saying what
is the source of our Christian religious consciousness. We find in Schleiermacher's approach a bit of
an ecclesial dimension--not simply a focus on the individual. The starting point is not what Jesus did
then, but what Christ does today. When
we start off this way, it is not that we do not care about what Strauss says
about the historical Jesus, but on the other hand it does not bother us
immediately--we have something else to which to turn. (An analogy of this is the idea that some
Catholics do not pay much attention to what the Scriptures say because they
always have the pope--there is something else to which to go). For Schleiermacher this something else is
religious experience.
Schleiermacher
And The Question Of The Historical Jesus
Schleiermacher
himself, generally did not pursue the question of the historical Jesus--he was
not an exegete. His class notes
regarding the life of Jesus were not published during his lifetime. Years later, in the wake of Strauss' book, it
was decided to publish Schleiermacher's life of Jesus. Schleiermacher's life of Jesus uses as its
chief historical source the Gospel of John.
This is completely apart from what a critical historical exegete would
lean upon in pursuing the matter of the historical Jesus (even at the time that
Schleiermacher's book was finally published).
This
is one line of thought to remember--that there was within Protestant theology
(and here specifically in German Reformed Protestant theology) an approach
which focused so much on the present [frame of mind] that historical questions
(even Biblical historical questions) were not in the forefront of
consideration.
Liberal
Protestantism
There
is also another system of thought, classically known as Liberal
Protestantism, which develops more strongly in the last half of the
nineteenth century. Liberal
Protestantism somewhat supplants Schleiermacher (and although he does not fit
the complete definition, he is sometimes called a Liberal Protestant). Liberal Protestantism takes a different, and
something of an anti-Strauss, focus on these questions. [It can be noted that in all of these
instances, it is possible to think of twentieth century parallels in both Protestant
and Catholic thought.]
A
Focus On Ethics
Liberal
Protestantism is focused on ethics (and this is the point where
Schleiermacher does not fit). Liberal
Protestantism is very opposed to the historical developments of the early
centuries of Christology. It is rather
suspicious of the Pauline and Johannine writings because in those writings the
starting point is not the same as [in the Synoptics]. A Liberal Protestant is quite convinced that
the Jesus of the Synoptics is quite different than the Jesus of Paul and John,
and is the way that Jesus really was.
The goal of the Liberal Protestant is to get back to the historical
Jesus, and to see the historical Jesus as allied against the dogmatic picture
of Christ. Following are a couple of
examples of theologians who hold this general system of thought (but this will
not be done in chronological order).
Albrecht
Ritschl
The
first figure is Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889). Ritschl is the best known classical Liberal
Protestant theologian (as distinguished from exegetes). Ritschl's chief work is entitled The
Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation and was published in
three volumes. In this work there is a
certain focus on the doctrine of grace (a theological anthropology). This work, first of all, insists on the
connection of redemption with the person of Jesus. "Person" here is not meant in the
same sense as in the early councils, but is rather linked to the historical
Jesus. According to Ritschl, Jesus
preaching of the Kingdom of God and the founding of the Kingdom of God is
important. Also important are the moral
imperatives which flow from that. We can
see how there is a good deal of the Synoptic thought and material incorporated
into Ritschl's conception of the Kingdom.
According to Ritschl, the Kingdom of God is understood as an ethical
reality in the hearts of the believers and not as an eschatological reality. Accordingly, although the Kingdom is among us
here already, it is hidden. Christian
life, then, is to be lived in following the teaching and example of Jesus. This is by no means an absolute exhaustive
presentation of Ritschl's thought, but they are the basic thrusts of his ideas.
Adolf
von Harnack
The
second figure is Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930). Harnack may have seen himself as
omnicompetent (in the late eighteenth century it was not unusual in both Roman
Catholic and Protestant theological circles to find people who were remarkably
versatile in various fields). In 1889
[and or through 1900] Harnack delivered lectures on the essence of Christianity. These were a combination of all sorts of
different things, but the focal point immediately is the turn of the century
(there is a tendency, particularly in German scholarship to look at the
essence of whatever is at hand).
Harnack lectured at the University of Berlin on the essence of Christianity.
Harnack'
book from this period is entitled The Essence of Christianity (but is
also known by the English title What is Christianity?). There is something about the original title
that conveys something of what Harnack is about (i.e., strip away the non
essentials that had developed for nineteen-hundred years and what is left is
the substance of what there is).
Harnack's
point here is that there are three basic principles to Jesus' teaching. These three points are: (1) the Kingdom of
God (with the understanding that this is an ethical, interior thing), (2) the
Fatherhood of God and the infinite value of the human soul (we can see a
certain individualism here), and (3) the ethical principle of better justice or
greater justice and the command of love.
We have here intensified ethical principles that stand in comparison
with the Old Testament. Harnack says
that this is what Jesus' preaching was about and what comes later is a
falsification of Jesus' message. With
this falsification we have a movement toward Christological and Trinitarian
doctrine for its own sake. We mentioned
Harnack as an example of this earlier in the semester (i.e., someone who
believes that the history of Christology in the early centuries was one of a
false Hellenization of the Gospel whereby the true in which the true picture of
Jesus was lost).
Doctrinal
Preoccupations Taking Place Of Ethical Teaching
This
leads Harnack to say in one very famous passage, "Not the Son, but only
the Father belongs in the Gospel as Jesus preached it" (in this sense we
might say [with tongue in cheek] that "Jesus was a Unitarian"). Jesus preached God as Father with
corresponding ethical principles.
Harnack says that what has happened history of the Church is that the
Son has come into the picture, and has to a certain extent, supplanted or
pushed aside what Jesus was about. In
this sense, doctrinal preoccupations have taken the place of ethical
preaching. Harnack makes some
qualifications to this when he says, "Jesus was the personal realization
and power of the Gospel and is still found to be such." Here Jesus is seen as a religious or
inspirational reference point, but not on the same level as the Father. In this sense, Jesus is not to be brushed
aside completely as an incidental.
Harnack's
position above is an example of the general position of the Liberal Protestant
Christology. Harnack's work is the most
widely read manifestation of such a Christology. The key points are the rejection of classical
Christology and the understanding of Jesus as the preacher of an ethical
message. It can be noted in passing that
there was great optimism with Harnack and others that the problems raised by
Strauss were overcome with this new perspective on Christology. Harnack had no doubt that we could get back
historically to Jesus (and he believed that he had).
Harnack
had to deal with the pieces in the Gospels that do not fit into his perspective
on Jesus. Harnack's position was that
the eschatological (or apocalyptic) material in the Gospels is simply a residue
of cultural influences at the time of Jesus.
He would say that the eschatological material was not just present in
the Evangelists but was also present in the mind of Jesus as well. Harnack said that the eschatological material
was not what was distinctive about Jesus and was not what was religiously
important.
Exegetical
Studies Of The Nineteenth Century
At
this point we need to back-track just a bit.
We need to look at some of the exegetical studies upon which Harnack's
(as well as others) picture of Jesus is based.
The important exegetical work develops over the course of the nineteenth
century. This development occurs first
with the recognition that the Synoptic Gospels are the sources on which we rely
for our picture of Jesus (more so than on the Gospel of John). Then with a very thorough effort, Biblical
scholars attempted to figure out which of the Gospels was the oldest and
therefore the most historically reliable (although the answers to these two
questions do not necessarily go hand in hand, but that was Harnack's
understanding). What happened initially
was that the exegetes recognized (actually even by the time of Strauss) that
the Gospel of John does not provide that much historical information. There was then a very intense debate about
the Synoptic material. This debate led
to the general conclusion of the two-source theory (which is still commonly
held at the present time). According to
the two-source theory, Mark is the oldest of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke drew
on Mark and also a common source which is called "Q". The presumption here is that if we take the
Gospel of Mark and "Q", then we will find the historical Jesus.
Heinrick
Holtzman
Let
us take a look at on particular exegete by the name of Heinrick Holtzman. In 1863 he wrote a book entitled The
Synoptic Gospels, Their Origin and Their Historical Character (from the
title we can see the type of question with which he is concerned). Holtzman argued that if we take the Gospel of
Mark and put the "Q" material in the sequence in which it is found in
the Gospel of Luke, we can combine them to get a reconstruction of Jesus'
public life. Holtzman give a very
elaborate reconstruction according to this idea. Holtzman divides Jesus' public life into
basically two stages, each with several sub-divisions. The first major stage is a period of
successful work in Galilee (successful in the sense of presenting his message
and winning adherents). Then there is a
transition which is marked by Peter's confession at Caesarea Philipi. After Peter's confession there is a second
stage which is marked by a gradual loss of followers, the journey to Jerusalem
and then death. At the present time we
might say that these stages represent a very good description of Mark's Gospel,
but Holtzman saw it not simply as a description of Mark's Gospel, but as a
description of what actually happened.
It is possible, then, to speak of some sort of Galilean crisis or a
turning point, then the recognition of Jesus as Messiah and less success in the
period that follows after that.
The
advantage to this type of historical presentation from the perspective of these
theologians is that it makes possible the presentation of the figure of Jesus
in an appealing religious fashion. It
makes it possible to almost interpret some of the events psychologically by
putting them in a particular context motivating one event as following out of
the background of the event that is described prior to it, and so on. According to this type of presentation, the
material is present there for the writing of something of a biography of
Jesus. We are limited, obviously, to his
public life--there is not too much we can do about that. It is the view of these theologians that we
seem to be in the position of giving a chronological account of what went on
through Jesus' life in a way that makes it plausible to the reader.
A
Rejection Of Holtzman Et Al
At
the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century the approach
of Holtzman (and others of like mind), which was pursued in many works, was
rejected. This rejection came as the
result of a series of studies. There is
mark end of this movement in which the various and particular elements are
criticized.
Johannes
Weiss
The
first to criticize the movement just discussed was done by exegete Johannes
Weiss (1863-1914) in a work entitled Jesus' Preaching of the Kingdom of
God (1892). Jesus' preaching of the
Kingdom of God was a central topic for Liberal Protestant theologians. Weiss' work was short (only 67 pages). Weiss has basically one point to make (and
Galvin believes that he makes his point effectively but with some
exaggeration). Weiss states that Jesus'
preaching of the Kingdom is eschatological.
He states that the ethical interpretation of the Kingdom is a false
picture. Weiss believes that this
ethical interpretation is a modernization of Jesus teaching. The contrast between Harnack and Weiss is
enormous. Just ten years later Harnack
said that the eschatological element is quite incidental (in the sense that
Jesus was born in a particular time and place).
Weiss said, however, that eschatology is the core of what Jesus was
about. Weiss' point may have been made
with some exaggeration, but the point called a Biblical picture of Jesus into
question. Weiss' picture of Jesus is
also not favorable to the traditional perception either because this kind of
eschatological interpretation is very readily formed in the idea that Jesus was
wrong because the apocalyptic end of the world did not come about as foreseen.
Martin
Kahler
A
second book, coming at from a quite different angle, is a work by Martin
Kahler entitled The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historical
Biblical Christ. Kahler was not an
exegete, but rather he was a systematic theologian of a more traditional
Lutheran bent. He had no use
what-so-ever for the work that had been done on the historical Jesus. Kahler's position was not that the search for
the historical Jesus had not been done correctly up to that point, but rather
he believed that it was the wrong thing to do from the start. He believed that the search for the
historical Jesus was a dead end and was deficient for two reasons. These two reasons are first, (1) that the
historical sources are inadequate (the Gospels were not written to give this
type of information and they do not give very much in that regard--the material
is not there) and second, that the only thing the search for Jesus can reach is
the way in which Jesus is like us. On
the second point, Kahler says that such a search does not give us what we
really need religiously (i.e., an indication of how Jesus differs from
us). Kahler says that the search for the
historical Jesus does not every reach supra-historical savior (i.e., the savior
who is above history). He would say that
it is not that the historical techniques are misapplied, but rather that they
do not prove suitable for getting at that type of question.
Much
of what Kahler says by way of criticism recurs later in criticisms even in more
moderate [???] the historical Jesus.
Kahler was afraid that through the use and reliance in historical
efforts of this sort, that Christian faith would be made dependent on
historical scholarship (i.e., the Christian cannot believe anything until
Professor Harnack completes his investigations). The problem with this is that faith must
provide certainty and surety (recall that Kahler comes from the Lutheran
tradition of Sola Fidei). Kahler
warns against a faith that would be supplanted by historical scholarship. Kahler says that such a faith could never
involve real commitment. Kahler says
that the real Christ is the Christ who is preached. We need to think here of the New Testament
examples of the preaching of Paul and the preaching John (the Kerygmatic
picture of Christ). This is the
reference point for Kahler (both the Biblical and subsequent preaching about
Christ).
Kahler
then presents his criticism of the idea of Jesus as ethical teacher. In the following citation Kahler writes about
Jesus' disciples. Kahler writes:
"They
did not go forth into the world to make Jesus the head of a school by
propagating his teaching, but rather to witness to his person and his
imperishable significance for everyone."
In this passage
Kahler is saying that it is the person of Christ and not the content of the
preaching of the Kingdom that is in the forefront. So for Kahler, the search for the historical
Jesus is impossible (given the sources), and it is not the object of genuine
faith.
Issues
Of An Era
It
is important to note that this is the kind of issue that epitomizes a number of
different problems and questions from that whole era. Kahler insisted that the actual historical
Jesus did not win genuine faith even on the part of his disciples. And if Jesus could not win it from his
disciples, what chance does the portrait of Jesus (i.e,. the portrait of the
historical Jesus) have to do it? [In
fact, our real concern should be the message of the Risen Jesus!]
Willhelm
Wrede
The
third figure for our discussion here is Willhelm Wrede. Wrede wrote a book entitled The Messianic
Secrets in the Gospels (1901). This
book had a special focus on the Gospel of Mark.
The Messianic Secret involved the idea that Jesus was somehow the hidden
Messiah during his life (see earlier class notes). Wrede's conclusion is that this is a way of
presenting the non-Messianic life as if it had really been Messianic. Wrede would say that this was the Evangelists
way of trying to account for the fact that no-one recognized Jesus as the
Messiah in spite of all the wonderful things that he did.
The
important thing from our perspective is not Wrede's interpretation of the
Messianic Secret in its details, but rather it is the recognition that these
ideas are what we today would call "redaction." In other words, the Messianic Secret is
Mark's invention, and it is not simply a straightforward presentation of
history. This leads very quickly to the
recognition that the sequence in which events are narrated in the Gospels comes
from the Evangelist and reflects the Evangelist's theological views (we should be careful not to absolutize this
statement).
Wrede's
Conclusion
Wrede
drew the conclusion, very explicitly, that we are not in a position to write a
biography of Jesus. Wrede says that the
Evangelist does not provide a narrative which follows along according to the
real circumstances of the events of Jesus' life. He argues that the procedures used in the
Liberal "lives of Jesus" are therefore false.
Christology
March 14, 1991
Interrupting
The Liberal Search (Continued)
Albert
Schweitzer
The
fourth work in this study is of a different nature (see previous class notes
for the first three works discussed). Albert
Schweitzer published a history of this research which is known in the
U.S.A. by the English title The Quest of the Historical Jesus
(this is the common term for referring to the whole field of research in this
regard). The original title of this book
was From Reimarus to Wrede.
Shortly after writing this work, Schweitzer drifted away from theological
prominence, but eventually became well known as a missionary to Africa.
The
Quest of the Historical Jesus is a book about historical studies
(history of theology). It is not
directly researched upon Jesus himself--there are some introductory and
concluding remarks to that effect, but basically Schweitzer went through the
material, presented it in expository form and then offered critiques. Schweitzer placed certain emphasis on some
figures rather than others (e.g., Reimarus and Strauss both figured
prominently).
Schweitzer's
Conclusions
Schweitzer's
conclusions in this book are important.
He judged specifically with regard to the Liberal Protestant works. His judgement was that the objectives behind
historical investigations of the life of Jesus were theological in purpose and
not purely of historical interest. The
specific theological purpose of Schweitzer's work was "to find the Jesus
of history as an ally in the struggle for freedom from the Christ of
dogma." Schweitzer had a rather high opinion of the
intellectual integrity of those who pursued historical investigations into the
life of Jesus, but he thought that such scholars were none-the-less excessively
influenced by their own theological views.
Because of this, Schweitzer believed that the picture of Jesus which
resulted from the investigations of these scholars was a modern image (this
with reference to the Liberal portrayal of Jesus as an ethical teacher).
Schweitzer's
Intentions
For
the sake of classifying Schweitzer properly, it is important to keep in mind
his own theological perspective. We can
imagine fairly easily the type of descriptions of the period that could be made
by some prominent contemporary theologians.
Such theologians would probably say the same thing--that the role of the
Jesus of history is that of ally in the struggle for freedom from the Christ of
dogma. We can imagine that Cardinal
Ratzinger would clearly criticize such an evaluation (and he does speak from
time to time on this type of topic).
Schweitzer, on the other hand, does not mean to criticize the motives of
such proponents--he thinks the struggle for freedom from the Christ of dogma is
perfectly appropriate. In principle,
Schweitzer has nothing against seeking an ally in such a struggle.
Schweitzer's
Dispute With Liberal Protestantism
Schweitzer's
problem with the Liberal theologians' quest for the historical Jesus is not in
what they try to reject, but it is rather with the contemporary picture that
they paint in light of their historical investigation. We know that both the Liberal theologians and
Schweitzer reject the dogmatic picture of Christ, and both hold that the Jesus
of history is quite different from the dogmatic picture of Christ. But the Liberal theologians portray Jesus as
ethical teacher and model (they saw Jesus as an ally in the sense that they saw
him as a kind of first century forerunner of nineteenth century Biblical
theology). This is the sense which
Schweitzer disputes.
Jesus
As An Apocalyptic Preacher
In
his dispute with the Liberal theologians, it was Schweitzer's judgement that
the real Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. Schweitzer believed that Jesus expected the
end to come within his own lifetime or at least very soon thereafter. He saw Jesus as someone who was quite
mistaken in his views and whose ethical teachings, though inspirational, were
intended as an ethical teaching for the short time that remained before the end
(and not for the long haul). Because of
this concept, Schweitzer was faced with a theological problem. He saw the opposition between the Jesus of
history and the Christ of faith, but in his historical judgment, the Jesus of
history is no more acceptable than the Christ of faith. Schweitzer shared the theological views of
Liberal Protestantism, but he simply argued that Jesus did not share those
views. In effect, according to
Schweitzer, both the traditional picture of Christ and the Biblical portrayal
of Jesus the teacher are wrong.
Was
this sense of Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher a new idea? It is new in one sense and not new in
another. Let us first examine the sense
in which this is not new. If we start
with a traditional doctrinal picture of Christ and then write a "life of
Jesus" on that basis (i.e., in a devotional sense), there would certainly
be apocalyptic elements in Jesus' preaching.
This sort of thing can be found at the end of the Gospels. We cannot say that such a traditional
doctrinal picture of Christ would present Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher
(i.e., that is not the category that is all-embracing for the whole thing), but
in a traditional portrayal of Jesus, this would be one part of the greater
picture. To that extent this idea is not
completely new. On the other hand, it is
a dimension that a figure such as Harnack (who wrote just a few years before
Schweitzer published his work), brushed aside.
Harnack would have acknowledged the presence of apocalyptical themes in
the Gospels (but he would have claimed that Jesus thought that way because
everyone did during that time).
Schweitzer, in contrast, held that these apocalyptic themes should not
be so easily dismissed, and in fact it was precisely this notion of apocalyptic
preacher (with imminent expectation) that is what captures what Jesus was all
about. Schweitzer's thought in this
regard is rather new. We may find some
forerunners of this in apocalyptic sects (e.g., in the middle ages there were
some groups that placed great emphasis on apocalypticism), but it is not the
overall picture that has been accomplished.
Schweitzer's
Agreement With Weiss And Wrede
We
can recall that one of the elements in the criticisms of Weiss and Wrede [are
that they say that the] apocalyptic element had been [neglected] in favor [a
dogmatic picture] and that the apocalyptic literature should be restored to its
proper place--Schweitzer is in agreement with that judgement. The only thing is, having said that, it
raises a further question: what do you do with an apocalyptic preacher in
1906? Schweitzer's answer is
nothing. So there is a consistency with
the fact that given a certain passage of time, he chooses to engage in a
certain type of humanitarian activity which has a general religious impetus
behind it, but which is not the pursuit of Christian theology in the normal
sense of that word.
Jesus
Brought Forth From The Shrouds Of The Centuries
Toward
the end of his book, Schweitzer says that the figure (or character) of Jesus,
is being brought forth out of the shrouds of the centuries (like Lazarus coming
forth from the tomb). Schweitzer says
that Jesus seems to be available to us at the present time, but keeps walking
back to his own time. This is the sense
in which there is not a sense of futility in the quest for the historical Jesus
(i.e., in the sense that nothing is reached).
But on the other hand, there is a futility in the sense that we do not
get that for which we are looking and we do not get what can be used
theologically. That is Schweitzer's
position.
Parallels
With Catholic Modernism
There
are certain parallels with Schweitzer' theology in some of the Catholic
Modernist work at the turn of the century.
Alfred Loisy (1857-1949), for example, also saw Jesus as the
apocalyptic preacher. Loisy was not
quite as radical as Schweitzer, or others in drawing certain conclusions, but
he did see Jesus to be the apocalyptic preacher who was mistaken in his views. In the anti-modernist literature and official
texts from the first decade of the century, this is one of the themes that is
prominent in criticism. Such criticisms
were directed against Loisy, not Schweitzer, but the thrust of the criticisms
would also have a bearing on Schweitzer's thought.
Schillebeeckx's
Eschatological Prophet Vs. Apocalyptic Preacher
There
is one final parenthetical comment (which jumps ahead by three quarters of a
century, but is appropriate to mention here) with regard to Schweitzer. Later in the course we will discuss, in
greater detail, the contemporary theology of Dominican theologian Edward
Schillebeeckx. Schillebeeckx makes a
great deal about the identification of Jesus as the eschatological prophet. It is important to mention this at this point
in order to draw attention to a misunderstanding that is sometimes present
among critics of Schillebeeckx.
Sometimes (particularly on the part of those who lack direct familiarity
with the development of Schillebeeckx's thought), critics focus only on the
terminology used by Schillebeeckx. There
is a tendency to say that eschatological and apocalyptic mean the same
thing. Some would say that
"eschatological" is a more fashionable way of saying "apocalyptic." Likewise, some have misunderstood
Schillebeeckx's use of the word "prophet." Critics say that a preacher is a bit of a
prophet and so the apocalyptic preacher of Schweitzer is roughly the same thing
as the eschatological prophet of Schillebeeckx.
Some defenders of Schillebeeckx' theology also misunderstand his use of
the term "eschatological prophet" (and in turn, they defend the
misunderstanding). Such defenders wish
to revive modernism, which they believe should have never been suppressed. Critics of Schillebeeckx (who also
misunderstand the term "eschatological prophet"), believe that he
simply attempted to perpetuate an old heresy.
Misunderstanding
Schillebeeckx
The
problem for both defenders and critics of Schillebeeckx on this question is
that this is not what Schillebeeckx means.
When Schweitzer speaks of Jesus as apocalyptic preacher he means that
Jesus preached an apocalyptic message (a message of imminent expectation of the
end of the world). When Schillebeeckx
speaks of Jesus as the eschatological prophet, the definite article is the tip
off. Schillebeeckx means that Jesus is the
final decisive prophet. This is not a
reference to the content of his message, but to the definitive status of
Jesus. This is quite different than the
meaning of apocalyptic preacher in the sense that Schweitzer uses the term.
What
does Schillebeeckx mean by eschatological prophet? In Deuteronomy, chapter eighteen, verses
fifteen through twenty, we find the conclusion of a speech by Moses to Israel. Exegetes today believe that this is a later
speech that was placed in Moses' mouth for these purposes, but Moses at this
stage is looking ahead to the future and says that eventually God will raise up
for Israel a prophet like himself (and God will put his words in this prophet's
mouth, and Israel is to listen to this prophet and so on). The prophetic figure about which Moses speaks
is not just a prophet of the sort that was quite common in Israel, or
even like that of Isaiah or Jeremiah.
The prophet about which Moses speaks is rather the prophet who
like Moses knows God face to face and speaks for God in a distinctive way. There are Biblical scholars who maintain that
in later centuries, including the period in which Jesus lived, this expectation
of a prophet like Moses was quite strong (at least in certain segments of
Judaism). In other words, the text from
Deuteronomy was one about which people thought and to which people were alerted
in later periods. The extent to which
that expectation of this final decisive prophet like Moses was alive [during
Jesus' time] is a matter of some dispute.
Schillebeeckx was of the opinion that it was quite widespread in Jesus'
time. The idea that this prophet speaks
somewhat about the future is not ruled out completely (after all Jesus does
speak about the future), but he is not the eschatological prophet for that
reason. Jesus is the eschatological
prophet as the one who brings God's last word.
This is a sense that is quite foreign to Schweitzer for whom Jesus is
one of many apocalyptic preachers (all of whom were mistaken).
Reaction
Against Liberal Protestantism After The First World War
Initially
nothing happened on the basis of the four works mentioned above (it takes a
long time for people to evaluate different theological approaches). However, there is a tremendous historical
impact after the First World War which brings about the change in the context
[of the theological climate] (at least within European theology). Prior to that time, one of the strong
motivating forces behind Liberal Theology in general (and its Christological
portrayals in particular) was to find a way of being a Christian in a certain
harmony with one culture (i.e., in the case of Liberal Theology, nineteenth
century culture). Different Christian viewpoints
have taken different stances on this question--in some cases there has been a
flight from culture and in other cases there has been an effort to become
incarnate and concrete in a particular culture.
Liberal Protestantism was anxious to do that (i.e., inculturation) in
nineteenth century European society.
That society, to a large extent, collapsed in 1914. After 1914, the notion of an harmonious
relationship to a cultural setting which was then falling apart was not a
strong force. Instead, quite
understandably, in the aftermath of the First World War, there was a great
interest in looking for a critic of modern culture and for accenting those
themes in Christianity (and specifically here in Christology).
Karl
Barth
One
of the initial works published on this subject after the First World War was
one by Swiss-Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968). In 1919 and 1922 Barth published meditative
commentaries on Paul's Epistle to the Romans. This work is often referred to as the
starting point of twentieth century Protestant theology. Barth's Romans marked a sharp break
with typical nineteenth century works.
A
brief biographical sketch of Barth: As
noted above, Barth was Swiss. His father
was a professor of New Testament in Switzerland. Karl Barth studied at various universities,
including Berlin where Harnack taught.
Basically, Barth studied under theologians who were Liberal Protestants. He was inclined himself, in his early years,
toward the Liberal Protestant views. As
a preacher, Barth also had a great interest in social questions. Barth came gradually to the conclusion that
Liberal theology was not useful for preaching.
He also had criticism of the response of various Liberal Theologians to
the First World War (n.b., Barth was a citizen of Switzerland, a neutral
country).
A
Repudiation Of Liberal Protestantism
One
of the first major disputed events of the First World War was the German
invasion of Belgium (in violation of Belgium's neutrality). In principle, the invasion of Belgium was of
obvious concern to the Swiss. Barth
decided that there was a link between the nationalism of some of the Liberal
Theologians and their theological positions (as well as other issues). Barth's commentary on Romans is a repudiation
of Liberal Protestantism. He wrote later
(looking back on this repudiation) that he saw himself more or less confronted
with the choice of either re-thinking and rather radically revising
Protestantism, or becoming a Roman Catholic (but that Liberal Protestantism was
not an option). Barth eventually came to
the conclusion that Liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholicism had a great
deal in common and that both should be repudiated [See further comment on this
later in the notes for this day].
What
did Barth do theologically? We notice
the first thing that happened--he did not write a commentary on the Gospel of
Mark. There was a movement to the
classical Reformation reference point--Paul, and specifically in Romans. His commentary on Romans is not the kind of
technical exegetical work which might be published in an exegetical series, but
is rather a reflective, verse by verse, observing of the texts (somewhat in the
spirit of the Patristic or Medieval reflections on a Biblical book). He was of the opinion that critical Biblical
scholarship in the century before him had been sterile, and that the time had
come to make a break with that and go back to a kind of commentary which
grapples with the theological intention of the author. His critics thought that this was very
unscientific.
Christianity
Must Be Thoroughly Eschatological
Barth
went to Romans and accented the themes of contrasts (i.e., the contrasts
between Church and world and between religion and society). With these contrasts came a new comparison
with, for example, Schweitzer. Barth
offers a new evaluation of eschatology.
Barth took the position that Christianity must be thoroughly
eschatological and that if it fails to be such, it fails to be Christian. Here, Barth quotes with approval Soren
Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Kierkegaard
makes references to the infinite qualitative difference between God and the
World. Barth had a sense of the otherness
of God. The idea that Christians are not
and should not be at home in the world permeates Barth's work. Barth's idea here is accompanied by a rather
negative assessment of the state of the world.
We
can raise the question here, what does this do to a theology of the
Incarnation? Barth does not deny the
Incarnation, but it is not in the foreground.
Barth says, for example, that the new world of the Holy Spirit touches
the old world like a tangent touches a circle
(i.e., without touching it). There was
the great fear that the gift of the Spirit, the presence of grace, will be
contaminated by mixture with the world. And
so the tendency, at least at this stage, is to keep the two sharply
distinct.
Focus
On The Risen Christ
What
does all of this have to do with Christology?
It means for one thing that the focus is on the Risen Christ, not the
historical Jesus. We noted earlier that
common to both the typical Liberal Protestant views (e.g., Schweitzer's thought
on the historical Jesus) was a repudiation of the dogmatic picture of
Christ. Barth did not share this
repudiation. This can be seen in
particular with regard to the Biblical roots of that picture are concerned
(i.e., the Pauline picture). When Barth
spoke of this subject in his later works he was also favorable to the content
of the teaching of the early Councils (although not is an ecclesiological
sense).
A
De-emphasis On The Historical Jesus
In
Barth's theology, the dogmatic picture of Christ, or the Kerygmatic
proclamation of Christ, came into the foreground, and the historical Jesus
receded and was not of great religious interest. Below are two passages from Barth's writings
that are relevant to this point.
In
our first reference relevant to this point Barth writes:
"This
is the significance of Jesus, the installation of the Son of Man as Son of
God."
Just a word of
warning: Son of Man and Son of God are not used in the Biblical senses of those
terms--Son of Man is roughly equivalent "historical Jesus." The significant theme is exaltation in the
Resurrection. Barth goes on:
"What
he is apart from this is as important and as unimportant as everything
temporal, material human can be."
This means that
apart from this he is just another ordinary Jew. Then Barth quotes Paul (Galvin believes that
Barth misunderstands what Paul means here).
The passage quoted reads:
"Even
if we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him that way no
longer."
Barth takes that
to me that we no longer know the historical Jesus, but rather the historical
Christ. Barth continues more
explicitly. He writes:
"Because
he was, he is, but because he is, what he was lies behind him."
Barth meant that
we would not have an exalted Christ if we did not have an historical
Jesus. According to such a view, the
historical Jesus is not dispensable, but what we deal with now is not Jesus as
he existed before his death and Resurrection, but rather as the exalted
Lord. Barth would say that there is no
particular reason for us to go back to an earlier stage.
God
Given Faith Vs. Critical Scholarship
The
second reference relevant to the point made above is from a slightly later
work. Barth became a spokesman, the
central figure, of a new theological movement which sprang up loosely around
his work in the 1920s. Aldoph von
Harnack stepped forward as the representative of Liberal Theology (which
recognized that it was under attack).
One effect of this was a published set of letters exchanged between
Barth and Harnack (each obviously defending his own theological position). Harnack accused Barth of neglecting critical
scholarship. Barth replied that the
source of our knowledge of the person of Christ (at the center of the Gospel),
lies in God given faith, not in other words, in critical study of the
texts. This leads to the following
comment (keep in mind Paul's reference to the impossibility of laying any
foundation other than the foundation which God has made in Christ Jesus):
"Critical
historical study signifies the deserved and necessary end of those basis of knowledge
which are not basis at all since they are not made by God himself. Whoever does not know that we know Christ no
longer according to the flesh, can learn it from critical Biblical
scholarship."
Barth takes the
position that what has happened in the history of this research is that a false
part has been exposed. This false
part is an effort to get behind a confirmation of the Risen Christ by
attempting to use the Scriptures for purposes contrary to their intent (i.e., a
part of trying to base faith on something other than God's word). Barth maintained that this effort to get
behind faith in Christ through historical knowledge about Jesus, had gradually been
exposed as unappealing. And so, quite
contrary to the intentions of those who engaged in it, all the research in
Jesus has served some useful purpose at least because it shows that this
particular false part simply cannot be pursued (and so a temptation has
been eliminated).
False
Common Ground Between Liberal Protestantism & Catholicism
It
is wise to backtrack to a comment made in passing above concerning Barth's
judgement that, contrary to appearances, Liberal Protestantism and Roman
Catholicism share false common ground.
The paragraph immediately above demonstrates part of what he means. Both look for a basis of faith, but Barth
says that true faith does not look for that type of base. Although Roman Catholicism and Liberal
Protestantism do not look in the same place for this basis of faith (Liberal
Protestantism looks for it through this type of historical study, while Roman
Catholicism looks for it in philosophical reflections), but in both cases there
is an effort to support faith. Barth took
the position that if we ever had something with that much support it would not
be faith when we were done. Part of what
is at issue here is the concept of what faith is.
[Galvin
maintains that Barth's Christological option for the Christ of faith is rooted
in Barth's root error of envisioning sharp opposition between the Christ of
faith and the Jesus of history. Galvin
says that this division may not be as sharp in Barth as some others, but that
his brushing aside of historical questioning is dubious.]
Rudolph
Bultmann
The
second figure to mention in this period (i.e., post World War One through
1950s) is Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1976). Bultmann was attracted initially to Barth's
criticism of Liberal Protestantism, but then went off in a different
theological direction. It became clear,
fairly early on, that while they both questioned Liberal Protestantism, they
did not have the same things in mind with their questioning. Bultmann can serve as a point of comparison
with Barth because Bultmann did write on the historical Jesus.
Bultmann's
Book Entitled Jesus
In
1926 Bultmann (who by that time was a prominent exegetical figure) wrote a
small book entitled Jesus. The positions that Bultmann took in this book
are influential, at least as a reference point.
Bultmann did not intend to write a life of Jesus--he said that we cannot
write a biography when sources do not permit such a writing (we can hear an
echo here of Martin Kahler's criticism--as we also could with Barth). Bultmann says, "I am of the opinion that
we can know practically nothing of the life and personality of Jesus." This is an overstatement, but it is a
reference point that leads to Bultmann's conviction that it is impossible to
write a biography about Jesus (in fact we could not go through the whole of
Jesus' life and sketch things out in chronological order). By the term "personality" Bultmann
means the psychological pattern in Jesus (i.e., how he felt when he did such
and such). Bultmann says that we can get
an accurate account of Jesus' preaching, and this is highly significant because
preaching is the substance of Jesus' public life. According to Bultmann, Jesus was the bearer
of the Word. According to Galvin, the
important thing here is the Word and not the one who presents it.
Christology
March 19, 1991
Rudolph
Bultmann (Continued)
It
was noted in the previous class that, though he held that we cannot write a
biography of Jesus, Bultmann did none-the-less write a small book entitled Jesus
in 1926. This book concentrated
particularly on Jesus as the bearer of the Word. This book offers an account of Jesus'
message--which has both eschatological dimension and an ethical dimension. Bultmann presented a Jesus who preached about
God as one who is near, who offers forgiveness and whose Kingdom is to come in
the near future. [As Bultmann portrays
it] this creates a situation of decision in which the hearer of Jesus' message
is confronted with God's Word and call upon to respond in repentance and faith.
What
About Jesus?
This
brings us to the question, "What about Jesus?" This is emphasized somewhat more in this
discussion that in that way that Bultmann does in his book because here we are
approaching the question in the context of a Christology course. On this point, there are really two lines of
thought suggested by Bultmann. These two
lines of thought do not go in the same direction.
What
If The Reader Doubts Jesus' Existence?
One
line of thought is that Jesus is simply the bearer of the Word. The important thing here is the message and
not the messenger. An extreme example of
this is in an observation that Bultmann makes early in his work. He says that if a reader doubts Jesus'
existence, that it is still quite appropriate to continue reading the
book. This logic states that the message
is still important, no matter who preaches it.
This line of thought points in the direction of a gap, between Jesus on
the one hand, and the message of the Kingdom on the other. It should be noted here that it is Bultmann's
position that there are no good reasons for doubting that Jesus existed
(Bultmann is not in agreement with that position). It is significant that Bultmann recommends
continuing with the book even without a belief that Jesus existed.
Implicit
Christology
The
second line of thought is one which observes that Jesus saw himself as a sign
of the Kingdom's presence. Here,
Bultmann speaks in a few places (this pertains not only to his thoughts on
Jesus, but also to some of his later work) of an implicit Christology. This is a Christology that is not expressed
in direct statements (e.g., "I am the Messiah") but rather one that
is implied in Jesus' deeds, and especially in his words. Bultmann is inclined to classify the use of
titles as secondary (i.e., developments in the New Testament Church), but he
recognizes that this question of the use of titles is not the primary issue
(i.e., primary in a qualitative sense).
Bultmann
is not criticizing here the titles attributed to Jesus by early councils, but
rather the titles that are attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. An example of this would be use of the word
"Messiah." One of the much
discussed passages in the Synoptic Gospels is the passage in Mark, chapter
eight, verse twenty-nine, which reads, "Peter answered him, 'You are
the Christ.'" In this case, we have an illustration of an
explicit Christological affirmation about Jesus. In this verse Jesus is not making a statement
about himself, but rather someone says it directly to him in response to his
prodding.
Implicit
Verses Explicit Christology
The
characteristic of the explicit Christology is the use of one or more titles of
Lordship (with Christological attributions).
Bultmann is of the opinion that almost all of New Testament explicit
Christology is from later developments (i.e., after Jesus' lifetime and read
back into it). Bultmann held that
explicit Christology is not the chief Christological question, but rather that
it is [on the level of] implicit Christology.
Implicit Christology is not reflected directly by the use of a title,
but is implied by other things that Jesus does and says. An example of this (that comes into the
foreground with other authors) is that of the way that in the Sermon on the
Mount there are a series of passages in which Jesus quotes from the Law and
then gives an intensified presentation of that on the basis of his own
authority. In this way of thinking, Jesus is not using a
title (i.e., he did not stand up and say "I am the Son of God"),
and he did not ask the disciples, or anyone else, to state who he was. In this situation Jesus conducted himself in
a way which presupposed a certain standing with reference to the Law. This is one instance of an implicit
Christology (in the sense that through doing and saying this, Jesus claimed a
certain personal status). Bultmann, and
others who followed him, would say that the chief Christological question is
here (i.e., is there an implicit Christology in what Jesus says and does).
Divergent
Lines Of Thought Within Bultmann's Theology
It
is on this issue that Bultmann himself has rather divergent lines of thought. On the one hand, Bultmann affirms an implicit
Christology, but on the other hand he also treats Jesus as the messenger who,
in principle, is not decisive for the content of the message. Within Bultmann, on this issue, there are
seeds divergent development which in fact are pursued by later authors.
Competing
Tendencies
The
points made above pertain to the basic thoughts represented in Bultmann's book Jesus. In these points there is some information
about Jesus, but then there is a competing tendency. This competing tendency says that Jesus was
just the bearer of the message with the tendency to say that implicit
Christology shines through. With
implicit Christology, the issue is not primarily the questions of its truth
here; the issue is a certain self-understanding on Jesus' part. The question of whether it is true or not is
a separate issue and it is a question of faith and not a question of
history. Bultmann himself, to a certain
extent, would have acknowledged it as true.
Jesus'
Public Life And His Death
Bultmann
then raises the question of the Crucifixion.
He says that there is a gap between Jesus' public life and his
death. This gap lies on two levels--the
level of the public life of Jesus and the level of the personal thoughts or
orientation of Jesus.
The
first level is that of the public life of Jesus. Jesus preached a religious message. He was executed as a political criminal
(i.e., as a political threat against the Romans). For Bultmann, this means that Jesus was
executed as the result of a misperception of what he was about. There are some very questionable
presuppositions in this (i.e., whether the religious and the political can be
pulled apart to that extent). In terms
of Bultmann's approach to the question, he would say that, if we are going to
ask the religious question, "Is there meaning in the crucifixion?"
(or whether there is meaning of the preaching of the Cross as salvific) then we
will not get anywhere by looking into the background. The reason for this is because the link
between what Jesus said, and what happened to him, comes about only by virtue
of this misunderstanding. This is one
side of the picture (i.e., the more public side of the picture).
How
Did Jesus Personally Face Death?
There
is also a second, more individual (or perhaps more personal side) of the
picture. Bultmann holds, that because of
limitations in our sources, that we do not know how Jesus personally faced
death. We know that he was arrested and
that he was crucified, but Bultmann holds that in the subjective sense, our
sources do not give us access to Jesus' own thoughts and orientation in the
face of death.
The
Focal Point Of Christian Faith
We can take this one step further and ask, "What
is the focal point of Christian faith?"
Bultmann's instincts in answering this question is always towards the
Crucifixion (i.e., toward the word of the Cross). Bultmann's judgement is that, in its own
distinct way, faith and theology should focus on the Crucifixion. This means, to a great extent for Bultmann,
that the public life of Jesus can be left out of consideration. We need to emphasize that Bultmann does not
doubt that we can get some information about Jesus (this is not the problem),
but the problem for Bultmann is that what we know is not judged to be
theologically significant. There is a
slightly later formulation of Bultmann in which he says, "We need to know
the fact of Jesus' existence, but not the how and the what of Jesus'
existence." In other words, we do not need to know the
details of Jesus' existence. This is
easier said than it is done, and it seems that Bultmann was not completely
consistent with this principle. The thrust
of his thought is to say that Christian theology is in interpreting the
Crucifixion and the way to do this is not to look at what brought Jesus to the
Cross (i.e., his preaching, etc.).
Bultmann would say that it is important for us to look at how the Cross
was preached.
The
Last Stage Within Our Historical Survey
This
brings us to the last stage of this compressed history. The last stage (which we are about to begin
reviewing) took place between the early 1950s and continues to the
present. This is a period of renewed
interest in the historical Jesus (still a characteristic of contemporary
theology). We need to emphasize also
that what has been sketched thus far is more typical to Protestant than to Roman
Catholic theology.
The
Roman Catholic Input
[If
we read reputable Catholic Christological works from the 1940s etc., we do not
find the question of a search for the historical Jesus under debate. Until a later period, the tendency was to
equate the portrayal in the Gospels with the events of Jesus life. The event that most agree impacted to change
this was the publication of Pius XII's Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu
in 1943. But this does not mean that the
day after the Encyclical was published that Roman Catholic Biblical scholarship
was suddenly plunged into discussion of these questions--it took a generation
before those things began to make an impact (an impact that was rather
gradual).]
Earnst
Kasemann
The
first figure to mention in this period is Earnst Kasemann. Kasemann was a student of Bultmann. He is best known for his work on Paul and is
the author of a major commentary on Romans (he also wrote significant books on
the Fourth Gospel).
A
Revival Of Historical Questions
In
1953 Kasemann delivered a lecture at a gathering of former students of Bultmann
in which Kasemann took the position that research on historical Jesus should be
revived. Kasemann was at pains to say
that he was not going back to the nineteenth century biographies. Kasemann makes a great deal about the
passages mentioned above (i.e., about the antithesis of the Sermon on the
Mount). He argued that material like
that is important Christologically. It
is important to note Kasemann's collected of essays published under the title Essays
On New Testament Themes. The first lecture contained in this work is
one entitled "The Problem of the Historical Jesus."
Kasemann
has two basic points--the first of which is the historical side of the
question and the second of which is the theological side of the question.
The
Historical Side Of The Question
Let
us first examine the historical side of the question. Those who engage in this research typically
insist that they are not attempting to write a biography of Jesus (i.e., in the
nineteenth century sense of the word).
They do, however, try to give a valid historical picture of Jesus. They insist that our sources are sufficient
to enable us to get this valid picture.
They do not claim that their picture can be complete or exhaustive, but
they do think that it is concrete enough to be contributing something. Such scholars are typically would also claim
that we can be more certain of the general picture (e.g., of Jesus' preaching)
than we can be about interpretation of individual passages. There is a certain fuzziness in the details
that we must acknowledge, none-the-less the broader picture, at least, can be
reached.
The
Idea Of Dissimilarity
On
this score we need to note one principle that is often invoked. This principle, developed by Kasemann, is the
idea of dissimilarity. This
principle states that if we have material that, on the one hand, cannot be
traced to Judaism, and on the other hand, cannot be traced to the early church,
then by process of elimination we can trace that material back to Jesus. This is not the only criterion--it contains
within itself an inherent problem because it only allows [us to see] what
distinguishes Jesus [from either one or the other]. [???].
Kasemann acknowledges this problem, but says that none-the-less that
this is a starting point and it is especially important to know what
distinguishes Jesus from everyone else.
Judaism
And The Early Church
Here
Kasemann has a principle which says that for us to know what Jesus did, we must
distinguish between that which is from Judaism and that which is from the early
Church. According to this principle, we
approach the Scriptures with the antecedent probability that we will find in
Jesus some material that overlaps with Judaism and some material that overlaps
with the early church (Jesus is not going to be all by himself without any kind
of links). We may find some things that
are unique to Jesus--that is not shared one or the other ways. Kasemann's point is that his principle, his
criterion of dissimilarity, by itself, will only let us back to that
distinctive material. This does not
allow us to rule out everything else, but it allows us to get a picture of just
a segment of Jesus' activity. But then
Kasemann continues by saying that, after all, that is the most important
thing. We may call this approach a
"Solus Christus" approach (i.e., that which is important is that
which is utterly unique to him).
The
Antithesis Of The Sermon On The Mount
An
example that Kasemann uses with regard to this idea of dissimilarity is the
antithesis of the Sermon on the Mount.
For Kasemann, such a thing is not a Jewish possibility because it is a
claim to surpass Moses (i.e., it breaks the context of the Old Testament). At the same time, it is not the way that
early Christians spoke about Jesus either--it is not the explicit
Christological claim characteristic of the early church.
The
Theological Side Of The Question
There
is also a theological side of the question (in addition to the historical
question just discussed above). The
kerygmatic theology (which we can find represented in different ways by Karl
Barth and Rudolph Bultmann) had feared that research on Jesus was an effort to
replace faith with historical knowledge.
The New Quest typically argues that historical research into the
historical Jesus is a requirement of faith.
This is not meant in the sense that each individual believer must become
a critical exegete, but rather that as far as the church as a whole is
concerned (as far as theology as a whole is concerned) this type of theological
investigation is necessary.
On
this score, it is important to mention two points. The first point is accented very strongly in
the early years of the Quest. It is
asking what continuity exists between Jesus and the preaching of the
church. Is the kerygma's appeal to Jesus
justified? The people who raise this
question think that it is justified, and they say that historically, this is
something that must be subjected to examination.
Gerhard
Ebeling
Below
are two statements with regard to this point.
The first statement is taken from the writing of Protestant theologian Gerhard
Ebeling. Ebeling writes:
"If
it were to be shown that Christology had no basis in the historical Jesus, but
was rather a misinterpretation of Jesus, then Christology would be mute."
This is putting it
negatively. If we could show, for
example, historically that Jesus was a revolutionary who was not able to muster
enough military power, or if we could show that the acts of Jesus life simply
do not bear the interpretation that Christians give them, Ebeling's point is
that the Christian faith simply could not persist in the face of that
position. Ebeling thinks that this is
quite contrary to fact--he does not think at all that historical investigation
reveals such an anti-Christological portrayal of Jesus. Ebeling simply makes the point here that
Christian theology cannot abstract from that question but must subject itself
to that type of historical scrutiny.
Nicholas
Lash
The
second statement to note here uses a thrust similar to that of Ebeling. The statement below is taken from Roman
Catholic theologian, Nicholas Lash.
Lash writes:
"If
I were to become convinced that Jesus did not exist, but that the story told in
the New Testament of his life, teaching and death, is a fictional construction
ungrounded in the facts, or that it was a radical misinterpretation of his
character, history and significance, then I should cease to be a
Christian."
Lash does not say
that this is the way that things are--he is saying that the question of the
correspondence in a certain sense (with a Christian interpretation of Jesus and
the events of his life) must be explored theologically, and that the Christian
interpretation could not stand if it flew in the face of what was known about
Jesus.
It
is important to note that neither Ebeling or Lash says that the Christian
interpretation is the only possible way to interpret this material. They do not say that this is the type of
thing they have on the surface for anyone to see, but they do say that the data
must at least bear such an interpretation.
They would say that Christology, among other things, has the
responsibility of scrutinizing the history of Jesus to see what are the
foundational situations.
Christology
March 21, 1991
The
Theological Side Of The Question (Continued)
[The recorder
failed to record the first ten minutes]
[At
the conclusion of the last class we were discussing the theological side of the
new Quest for the historical Jesus (this theological side is in addition to the
historical side, also discussed during the last class).
The
important issue here is that today we must attempt to understand the meaning of
the New Testament Christological affirmations about Jesus. For example, when we read that the early
church said that Jesus was the Messiah, we need to know what they meant by the
word Messiah. The early church
undoubtedly had a different understanding of the word Messiah than Isaiah the
prophet had of the same word. While the
New Testament church came out of a Jewish experience, what was it about Jesus
that made the New Testament church call him Messiah? Why did they attribute this title to Jesus and
not to another messiah-like figure? How
did Jesus portray himself? And how did
he do this in such a way as to make others realize that he was the
Messiah? It seems that this must depend
on what Jesus did, otherwise there does not seem to be much sense to this
Christological affirmation. We must
study the content of Christological affirmations in order to understand them.]
A Brief
Summary And Different Theological Positions
Where
does this lead us? The Quest in various
ways has been pursued by different authors (including now a number of Roman
Catholic authors). This is a line of
research that was at one time chiefly Protestant and is no longer typically
Protestant but is also characteristic of Roman Catholic authors as well. At this point it is important to give a brief
summary of some relevant information about Jesus and then to classify a couple
of different theological positions with this regard.
First,
just a very brief summary: Historically
it is possible to determine with great certitude the central content of Jesus'
public life. This is emphasized as
central content (on the other hand it is impossible to know what Jesus did on a
particular day, etc.). The basic content
of his message (certain salient points) and the basic pattern of his activity
(his public activity) can be determined.
We know that Jesus addressed Israel as a whole and he preached and
exemplified in his conduct the coming of God's Kingdom.
Productive
Tensions Within Jesus' Message
At
this point, we must mention two productive tensions within Jesus' message (and
tension here does not mean contradiction).
The first tension is of a temporal dimension. The Kingdom is expected to come in the future
(perhaps in the near future) and yet at the same time the Kingdom is already
breaking into the present through Jesus' activity among his hearers. The second tension is the presence of both
eschatological and ethical elements of Jesus' preaching. This is the case because the preaching of the
Kingdom includes a summons to repent.
This summons often comes with a certain urgency. This urgency comes out of a recognition that
time is short, therefore the little bit of time that remains is to be
seized. The urgency may be an almost
necessary element to certain types of eschatological preaching and perhaps the
question of chronological accuracy may not be the correct question to raise with
regard to that.
Jesus Did Not Make Himself The
Focus Of His Own Teaching
One
specific element should be noted here because of the Christological focus that
would not be emphasized in other contexts.
The point is that Jesus did not make himself the focus of his own
teaching (i.e., the explicit content of his own teaching). The best way to illustrate this point (in
broad terms) is to say that the content of Jesus' teaching is the Kingdom of
God, it is not the Kingdom of God and himself.
Jesus did not speak of the Kingdom of God on some days and
autobiographically on other days. If we
want to get the picture of Jesus' teaching, the Synoptic Gospel's presentation
always concerns the Kingdom. In view of
that picture, it is not appropriate then to add in Johannine material. This is the first observation--if we just
stopped at this point, the obvious question are "Why does the Church talk
about Jesus, why have a Christology at all and why not simply keep the simple
message of the Kingdom?"
The Message Of the Kingdom: The
Burden Of The Message
The
burden of Jesus' message is the message about the Kingdom. This is illustrated through parables and
through various deeds. We do not find in
the Gospels a Jesus who stands in the synagogue to give a whole speech about
himself directly (rather his message concerns God's Kingdom). The important issue here is that the coming
of the Kingdom and the message about the coming of the Kingdom are inseparably
tied to the person of Jesus. This does
not mean that Jesus is the content of the message, yet Jesus is more than just
the messenger of the Kingdom. We find
that the Kingdom and Jesus are inseparably linked together. An example of this is Jesus' conviction that
the Kingdom arrives in his presence and conduct. Jesus speaks on behalf of God (in a kind of
absolute way) with the conviction that he is God's definitive representative
who is not to be surpassed by anyone else in the future. Jesus sees himself as a prophetic figure who
is not able to be surpassed by another prophet.
In a sense, we could say that Jesus sees himself as God's final word in
the prophetic tradition (but actually as the culmination of the prophetic
tradition). This means that Jesus'
preaching of the Kingdom has Christological presuppositions and Christological
implications. This also means that the
truth of Jesus' message is inseparably linked to Jesus' personal fate.
Two
Observations
There
are two observations concerning the point above. The first point two-fold; in presenting this
position concerning Jesus' self assessment, first it is said that it is not
something that the Church first thought and then read back into the situation,
and secondly, the question of whether Jesus was right or wrong about this self
assessment is another question (obviously Christian believe Jesus was right
about it)--the point here is that of the indication that this was the way in
which Jesus thought about himself. To
reduce Jesus to less than this is at least a departure from his own
self-perception. The second observation
is an example and a comment. In the Last
Supper scenes in the Synoptics, Jesus says to his disciples, "'Truly, I
say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day
when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.'" This is used as an illustration. If the Kingdom of God is to come (as far as
Jesus was concerned), then it is self-evident that he will be a part of
it. It is utterly inconceivable to think
that the Kingdom is going to count without Jesus. This is not something external to it, because
the notion of having the Kingdom without Jesus just does not make sense. This is not the same thing as having a
Promised Land without Moses, because the intrinsic connection between Jesus and
the Kingdom is greater than the connection between Moses and the Promised
Land. Again, this is simply on the level
of Jesus' self-understanding. It is what
is understood by the idea of an implicit Christology. This is what is at the root of all explicit
Christological formulations--the link between Jesus' person and his message. This is a bit of a jumping off point for any
type of Christological argumentation.
Not An
Explicit Word, But Actually Doing Something
We
may occasionally find people who are not familiar with Biblical Criticism. The spontaneous tendency among some people is
to think that Jesus said "I am the Messiah" or "I am the Son of
God" (people usually do not expect Jesus to recite the Nicene Creed but it
would seem that they want something close to that!). It is quite understandable that this would
spontaneously come to a person's mind, but the really important thing in fact
is not the explicit affirmation but the self assessment as reflected in
preaching and conduct about something else.
The following is a practical, contemporary (but weak) analogy of
this: How do we judge whether or not
George Bush considers himself the President of the United States? We do not do this by considering whether or
not he gets up in the morning and proclaims "I am the President" (we
do not look for this type of an explicit statement--in fact we would rarely
find him make such a statement).
Instead, we would ask, "Does George Bush conduct himself as
President?" There may be over a
hundred deluded people in the United States who think that they are the
president but we know that there is something wrong with such people
(presidential things do not happen with them!).
The test is not the explicit word but the actual doing of
something. [A better analogy may be to
look to someone like Martin Luther King, Jr. in which case there is not an
elected office but public acclamation of his leadership. The use of the presidential example is used
because of the juxtaposition of one who simply claims to be something and one
who is indeed the real thing.] We can
apply this analogy to Jesus when we look back to see how he saw himself and not
primarily by what titles he used to describe himself.
Where Does All Of This Leave Us?
Where
does all of this leave us with regard to the different positions that are taken
from the contemporary spectrum? The
following comments do not add to what has been said before but simply serve to
systematize the subject in order to make another point. Below we will distinguish three basic
positions.
Strauss'
Position
The
first position, that of David Friedrick Strauss, is a very extreme
position not commonly held. Strauss held
that the historical Jesus lacks theological significance.
Bultmann,
Ogden And Tracy
The
second position, that of Rudolph Bultmann, is somewhat more
widespread. Bultmann held the position
that the relevant historical concern about Jesus is limited basically to the
fact of his existence (this is not quite as extreme as the position of Strauss
but certainly moves in that direction).
The best example of this is Bultmann, but here we can point to two other
theologians: Shubert Ogden and David Tracy.
Ogden
Shubert
Ogden
is an American Methodist theologian. Ogden distinguishes between what he calls the
empirical-historical Jesus and the existential-historical Jesus. What he means by the empirical-historical
Jesus is what most people would call the "Jesus of history." What he means by the existential-historical
Jesus is Jesus as known by the earliest apostolic witnesses (i.e., the
kerygmatic presentation of Jesus, with very strong accent on the word
"earliest"--even Paul would not be considered early enough here
because there is no reference to Jesus' life).
Ogden says that the reference point for Christological assertions should
be the existential-historical Jesus. The
reference point here is the earliest apostolic witness and not in trying to
find a basis in Jesus' self understanding.
This is a contemporary example of the option for the kerygma. Ogden is skeptical as to how much we can get
back to Jesus himself. Ogden says, for
example, that contemporary Christology usually asks about the being of Jesus in
himself as distinct about the meaning of Jesus for us. Ogden says that it is about the later that
should be asked.
Tracy
A
second example and very similar to Ogden is that of contemporary American
Catholic theologian David Tracy.
Tracy says, with regard to Christology, that the primary content
criterion should be the Jesus of the original apostolic witness. This seems to be equivalent of what Ogden
says, but with a slightly different vocabulary--with Tracy we find the same
focus on the Jesus kerygma and the same focus on the very earliest apostolic
witness.
A Third Position
The
third position (after Strauss and Bultmann) is one that is broader and that is
held by most contemporary authors. This
position attributes greater theological significance to Jesus, and to our
knowledge of Jesus, than that of the authors just mentioned above. Karl Rahner reflects on this subject
in his Foundations of Christian Faith. What are the reasons for differences in the
points mentioned above? One (which has
already been mentioned in earlier classes) is the divergences among authors in
their theology of faith--particularly in their understanding of the
relationship of Christian faith to history.
People who accent very strongly the notion of faith as risk tend to
glory in the lack of historical information about these things. The second Christological factor is seen in
those who profess the divinity of Christ and seek a greater historical basis
than those who are content with a weaker, lower Christology (e.g., if we
present a Christology in which Jesus is simply thought of as a teacher, then we
do not need much more than a little bit about the Kingdom of God, but if we are
presenting a higher Christology, then most theologians would hold that we must
be able to say something about the way Jesus thought about himself).
Divergence
Among Contemporary Theologians
At
this point it is important to note one divergence among contemporary
theologians on this subject--and this will point the way to the subsequent
sections of the course. Most
contemporary mainstream authors in Christology (Kasper, Kung, Pannenburg, and
many of Karl Rahner's writings) who are concerned with foundational
Christological questions, typically say that there are two poles of reference
to the development of a Christological argument. One pole is Jesus' public life and the other
pole is the Resurrection (we find these points most clearly in the writings of
Pannenburg). These Christological arguments
are accompanied in many cases with the very explicit insistence that reference
to the public life is necessary but not sufficient (we see this very clearly in
the writings of Kasper). There is a
sense here that we need to make reference to the Resurrection as well. The point is that if we do not do that, then
our Christology will not reach the level it ought to reach and will
disintegrate into a simple theology of Jesus (rather than a Christology). This is the most typical form of
Christological argumentation.
The Public
Life And The Resurrection
There
are, however, a few authors who maintain that reference to the public life of
Jesus is sufficient. Such authors would
say that the Resurrection is to be classified as a confession of faith rather
than something that we can establish historically as a foundation (theologians
with this perspective are Ebeling, Pesch, and some of Rahner). The difference here is not a question of affirming
the Resurrection (not all of these authors affirm the Resurrection) rather it
is a question of where the Resurrection fits in Christological argumentation,
and behind that, the question of how much we can know about the Resurrection
historically. There is also the further
question of what are the implications of our knowledge of the public life of
Jesus. This is something we must keep in
mind later in our study as we discuss the Resurrection.
One Final
Observation
Before
we finish this section of the course, there is one final observation. When many of the authors, who have just been
discussed above (in this last section--Kasper, Kung, Pannenburg), refer to the
public life of Jesus, they do not include the Crucifixion within that reference
point. Sometimes these theologians tend
to see the Crucifixion as an obstacle to faith.
The second group (Ebeling, Pesch, etc.) is more inclined to include the
Crucifixion, not as an obstacle of faith but as an extremely important
revelatory event.
Christology
March 26, 1991
The
Crucifixion
In
today's class we will begin our discussion of the Crucifixion. This is a comparatively brief section of the
course. The reason for this is in part
because we have looked at certain elements of this interpretation earlier in
the course. It is important to look at
two issues here with regard to the Crucifixion.
The first area, the question of Jesus' approach to death, will be
covered fairly briefly (mostly because it is covered well in the readings
assigned for this part of the course).
The second area, the question of the New Testament interpretation of the
Crucifixion, will also be covered briefly.
Jesus'
Approach To Death
Our
first point of discussion today, concerns Jesus' approach to death: The following will be an outline of major
issues which is intended to accent certain important points. First of all, the traditional position on
this subject (i.e., what has been largely taken for granted from the Gospels
for most of the history of Christianity--it is not clear that this is true of
the very earliest of Christians, but it is true for most of the time until
fairly recently). The Gospels seem to
provide us with very direct information about Jesus' approach to death. They show him foreseeing his own death,
speaking about it (at least in private circles with his disciples) and they
also show him attributing to his death salvific value.
Biblical
Treatment Of Jesus' Approach To Death
The
following are a few passages which indicate the themes just mentioned
above. They are the chief reference
points but they are not the only reference points (there are some parallel
texts to the ones mentioned below but they are not cited). The following examples are mostly from the
Gospel of Mark. There are three major
predictions of the Passion and Resurrection.
These are found in Mark, chapter eight, verse thirty-one, chapter nine,
verse thirty-one and chapter ten, verses thirty-three to thirty-four.
The
first of these passages is set just after Peter's confession of Jesus as the
Messiah--so it is strategically located at a central part of the Gospel (at
this point we will look at the relevant parts of the text without going into
the questions of the reactions of the disciples, etc.). In MK 8:31 we read:
"And
he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed,
and after three days rise again."
This is a
prediction of both the Passion and the Resurrection. It does not specifically mention the
Crucifixion (i.e., it does not go into the question of the form of death).
In
MK 9:31 we read:
".
. . for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, 'The Son of man will
be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is
killed, after three days he will rise.'"
Once again in this
passage we see a prediction of the Passion and Resurrection. The reference to the Passion is no specific
about the type of death he will face--his is simply handed over to men (and
there is no reference to elders, scribes, etc.).
In
MK 10:33-34 we read:
".
. . he began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, 'Behold, we are
going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man will be delivered to the chief
priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to
the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and spit upon him and scourge him, and
kill him; and after three days he will rise.'"
This passage is
the most specific of the three just cited above. It is much more detailed about the
circumstances of the Passion. It does
not use the word "crucify" but it does talk about being put to death
by the gentiles so there is a possible allusion to such a death.
In
the three predictions of the Passion cited above, nothing is said about the
salvific significance of Jesus' death (unless a person finds a suggestion of
that in the mention of the Resurrection).
At least there is no specific suggestion of salvific significance in the
death.
Biblical
Suggestion Of The Salvific Significance Of The Death
In
a later passage in Mark's Gospel, chapter ten, verse forty-five, there is a
passage which refers to Jesus' approach to death as salvific. In MK 10:45 we read:
"For
the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as
a ransom for many."
In this passage we
do not have details about the death and there is no reference to the
Resurrection, but we do have the identification of Jesus' death as Ransom for
others.
The
Death And The Resurrection
In
addition to the passages cited above (which are some of the major passages with
reference to the Passion, Death and Resurrection) we must also examine John,
chapter 10, verses seventeen and eighteen.
This is from the Good Shepherd material.
In JN 10:17-18 we read:
"For
this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it
again. No one takes it from me, but I
lay it down of my own accord. I have
power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have
received from my Father."
Once again, we see
a reference ahead to the death on Jesus' part (and here without using the word
Resurrection as such--the reference to taking up life again is later attributed
to the Resurrection).
Can
These Texts Be Traced Back To Jesus?
With
regard to the Scripture passage cited above, the question that is raised from a
critical perspective is whether or not these texts can actually be traced back
to the life of Jesus or were they texts composed by the early Church. This question is raised with regard to all of
this material, but it is particularly strong with regard to the more detailed
predictions of the Passion. This has
raised questions about the reliability of the traditional understanding of
Jesus as anticipating his death, (i.e., forecasting it at least to his
disciples) and interpreting it as salvific.
The
Position Of Rudolph Bultmann
The
opposite position than the traditional interpretation is that of Rudolph
Bultmann. Bultmann's position is
that we do not know how Jesus approached death because the nature of the
material we have does not permit us to draw historical conclusion. He would say that the material that we have
was too influenced by the theology of the early Church.
Heinz
Shurmann
Jesus'
Awareness Of Impending Danger
The
discussion of this issue among contemporary theologians typically takes the
position that is neither that of the traditional interpretation, nor that of
Bultmann. The exegete who has devoted
most attention to this issue is a German Roman Catholic exegete by the name of Heinz
Shurmann. Shurmann argues that Jesus
must have recognized from the beginning that what he was doing was dangerous
and involved the risk of provoking opposition and even death at the hands of
his enemies (e.g., we can look to the fate of John the Baptist--the preaching
of John was not the same as Jesus but the fate of John is sufficient to
indicate that anyone who was presenting a major public message in Israel at
that time risked incurring the wrath of any one of several authorities). Shurmann argues that as opposition mounted
during the course of Jesus' public life, he must of been aware of the
increasing danger and that at the end the outcome would have been clear (by
"the end" Shurmann means during the last couple of days).
Increasing
Clarity
It
should be noted that Shurmann does not argue that Jesus knew long in advance
precisely, who and at what time, but rather he argues that anyone in Jesus'
position would have seen things developing and coming to a head at that
point--with gradual increasing clarity concerning when it would happen. Shurmann refers here in particular to Mark,
chapter fourteen, verse twenty-five, a passage from the Last Supper material
(that has parallels in the other Gospels).
In MK 14:25 we read:
"'Truly, I say to you, I shall not
drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the
kingdom of God.'"
This passage is a
prediction of death in the very near future and it is a sort of vow on Jesus'
part that he will not drink again from the cup in any time that remains. At the same time this passage is an
indication of Jesus' confidence that the Kingdom of God will come and that he
will participate in it (in a previous class we talked about this passage from
the perspective of the link between the Kingdom and Jesus himself). Shurmann's position on this passage is rather
widely accepted by other authors writings in this area (not always with regard
to the interpretation of each passage, but as far as the overall picture is
concerned--e.g., Kasper's and Schillebeeckx's treatments of this issue).
Free
Acceptance Of Death On Jesus' Part
This
interpretation on Shurmann's part, at least to the extent that we have pursued
it up to this point, would justify saying that Jesus remained faithful to his
mission (i.e., his preaching of the Kingdom), even when fidelity to this
mission was to cost him his life. Jesus'
death, then, is linked to continuation in the presentation of his message and
it is a personal acceptance of the consequences of his own message and his
actions. This is the basic reference
point for speaking of a free acceptance of death on Jesus' part (this is not a
seeking out of death--and certainly not an effort to provoke opposition, but fidelity
to his mission, even in the face of increasing opposition and in spite of the
danger).
Karl
Rahner: The Mission Of Jesus As Imposed By God
We
find a brief reflection of this in a summary passage of Karl Rahner's Foundation
of Christian Faith where he says of Jesus:
"He
faced his death resolutely and accepted it at least as the inevitable
consequence of fidelity to his mission and as imposed on him by God."
When Rahner speaks
of this mission being "imposed by God" he means it in the sense that
it is imposed on him by God in-as-much as it is the consequence of fidelity to
his mission, but not as something quite separate from that fidelity.
Jesus
Is Faithful To What He Is Called To Do
Above,
we have looked briefly at Jesus' personal approach to death. It can be noted that the importance of that
theme is accented fairly strongly in the writings of some contemporary
theologians (e.g., Kasper, Schillebeeckx and Rahner). The point is that if we do not have some type
of personal acceptance on Jesus' part, then it is widely agreed (Bultmann would
take exception to this point) that it ultimately would not be possible to talk
about this death as having significance (i.e., if it were something to which Jesus
was simply inertly and passively subjected).
The position that is taken here is that Jesus is faithful to what he
finds himself called to do, in spite of all obstacles--even in the situation
where it becomes clear that he will be put to death as a result of that (i.e.,
he does not sneak back to Galilee or decide to give up his activities).
The
Theological Interpretation Of The Crucifixion
The
second point for discussion today concerns the theological interpretation
of the Crucifixion. The discussion below
follows the general presentation of Edward Schillebeeckx on this matter. Here we will sketch three major lines of
interpretation that are reflected in the New Testament (Schillebeeckx did not
uncover these lines of though himself, but rather relied on the work of various
exegetes). These lines of interpretation
will not be presented below in chronological order--the suggestion will rather
be that different groups of Christians pursued each of the three (but not
necessarily exclusively).
Jesus
As The Prophet-Martyr
The
first idea is that of Jesus as the Prophet-Martyr. The Old Testament background to this is the
idea that prophets are frequently rejected, suffer as a result of their
prophetic activity and sometimes meet a violent end. The point initially here is that the claim to
be prophet cannot be tested by asking if the prophet is accepted--a genuine
prophet is quite often not accepted.
This means (if we transfer this to Jesus) that the Crucifixion does not
undercut Jesus' prophetic status.
Scriptural
Background
Following
are a couple of examples of the concept of a prophet-martyr: First, the best example in the Old Testament
is Jeremiah and the various sufferings that he underwent. A number of New Testament examples are found
in Acts of the Apostles, Luke and Mark.
In Acts, chapter seven, verses fifty-one to fifty-two we find the end of
a speech of Stephen which reads:
"You
stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the
Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do
you. Which of the prophets did not your
fathers persecute? And they killed those
who announced before-hand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now
betrayed and murdered."
This speech led in
a very short period of time to Stephen's own martyrdom. But the point that is important here for our
discussion is that on one hand there is an assertion that the history of
prophecy has been a history of persecution of the prophets. In this text from Acts, the prophets are seen
as those who have predicted the coming of the Messiah and so is it not
surprising that the righteous one (Jesus) has also been put to death in
perpetuation of the same line of thought.
This is a Christian interpretation of Jesus' death (whether Stephen
actually made the speech or not).
The
Death Of Prophets?
Was
there a distinction between the suffering and the execution of prophets (i.e.,
what about prophets who were persecuted but vindicated in the end)? It seems that most of the prophets were not
executed (like Jesus was) but there are examples in the Scriptures where the
tradition of executing prophets is magnified.
The following are examples (from LK 13:33-34 and MK 12:1-12) that
reflect such a form: The first example
is taken from Luke, chapter thirteen, verses thirty-three to thirty-four. It reads:
"'Nevertheless
I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following; for it cannot be
that a prophet should perish away in Jerusalem.' O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets
and stoning those who are sent to you!
How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers
here brood under her wings, and you would not!"
This passage
suggests that a prophet cannot die outside of Jerusalem, but the fact is that
many prophets died outside of Jerusalem.
The saying that it is Jerusalem which kills the prophets presented in
this passage is more easily adaptable to the death of Jesus. Again, the principle is the same in this
case--the idea of persecution (and in this case the death of the prophets) and
the placing of what is going to happen to Jesus within that line of thought. One last passage of this sort is found in Mark,
chapter twelve, verses one through twelve.
This is the parable of the vineyard.
It reads:
"And
he began to speak to them in parables.
'A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a pit for
the wine press, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into
another country. When the time came, he
sent a servant to the tenants, to get from them some of the fruit of the
vineyard. And they took him and beat
him, and sent him away empty-handed.
Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head,
and treated him shamefully. And he sent
another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some
they killed. He had still one other, a
beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my
son.' But those tenants said to one
another, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be
ours.' And they took him and killed him,
and cast him out of the vineyard. What
will the owner of the vineyard do? He
will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. Have you not read this scripture: 'The very
stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was
the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.'? And they tried to arrest him, but feared the
multitude, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them; so
they left him and went away."
This is a parable
with a Christological point. The point
is that Jesus is the final figure sent who is put to death, just as at least
some of his predecessors (the servants=the prophets) have been put to death.
Jesus
As The Righteous Sufferer
The
second line of thought (under the theological interpretation of the
Crucifixion) is Jesus as the righteous sufferer. This is somewhat similar in thrust to the
first line of interpretation (Jesus as prophet-martyr), but the background is
different. The theme here is not Jesus
as a prophet, but rather Jesus as the one who is righteous, who is persecuted
in spite of this righteousness and perhaps even because of his righteousness.
Old
Testament Background
The
Old Testament background for this is not primarily in the prophetic literature,
but rather in the Psalms and in the Wisdom literature. Psalm 22, in particular, should be mentioned
here. The chief example from the Wisdom literature
is from the Book of Wisdom, chapter two, verses twelve to twenty, and chapter
five, verses one to twenty-three. Below
we will note just a couple of excerpts from these references.
The
Book of Wisdom reveals suffering at the hands of disgraceful people but
eventual vindication of the just one. In
WS 2:12-14 the wicked are conspiring.
These verses read:
"Let
us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against
our doings, reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with
violations of our training. He professes
to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us."
We find in these
verses a rejection of the just one, precisely because of justice. This notion ends in verse twenty which reads:
"Let
us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words God will
take care of him."
In chapter five,
verses one to twenty-three there is then a vindication of the just one. We read in verse fifteen:
"But
the just live forever, and in the Lord is their recompense, and the thought of
them is with the Most High."
We find in these
passages from Wisdom the theme of suffering at the hands of the wicked, but
eventual vindication from God. This is
reflected in chapter five, verses three to five which reads:
"They
shall say among themselves, rueful and groaning through anguish of spirit:
'This is he whom once we held as a laughingstock and as a type for mockery,
fools that we were! His life we
accounted madness, and his death dishonored.
See how he is accounted among the sons of God: how his lot is with the
saints!'"
This saying is
applied to Jesus, particularly in the Passion narratives where the Psalms
(which reflect this material) are frequently cited. In Luke, chapter twenty three, verse
forty-seven, the Crucifixion scene ends with the declaration that "Surely
this was an innocent man" In effect, this Lukan passage expresses the
idea that Jesus was the righteous sufferer.
This
second line of thought (Jesus as the Righteous Sufferer) is not the same as the
first (Jesus as the Prophet-Martyr) but yet the two are quite easily compatible
with each other.
Jesus'
Death As Redemptive Or Atoning
The
third line of thought (under the theological interpretation of the Crucifixion)
is one which sees Jesus' death as Redemptive or Atoning. In this sense, the sufferings of the Jesus
are seen as leading to the justification of others.
Old
Testament Background
The
Old Testament background for this thought is in the Book of Isaiah, the fourth
Servant Song (found in Isaiah, chapter fifty-three, especially verses four to
five, and verses eleven to twelve). The
significant verses are as follows:
"Surely
he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted. But he
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him
was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed." Further on, the passage continues: "He shall see the fruit of the
travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one,
my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their
iniquities. Therefore I will divide him
a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because
he poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet
he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
In this passage
the sufferings of the servant are seen as leading to the justification of
others (and this is later applied to Jesus).
New
Testament Background
In
various New Testament texts this type of material is applied to Jesus. One of these texts, Mark ten, verse
forty-five has been noted above (in MK 10:45 Jesus' death is seen as a Ransom). The Last Supper accounts speak of Jesus dying
for many or for you (addressed to the disciples). There are various other places in the New
Testament, especially in the Pauline corpus where salvific value is attributed
to Jesus death. One example of this (a
passage that we discussed in a different context earlier) is in First
Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verse three, which reads:
"For
I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."
Another example of
this is in Romans, chapter three, verses twenty-four and twenty-five, where
Paul says:
"They
are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by
faith. This was to show God's
righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former
sins."
The important
points in this Romans passage are the references to redemption and expiation.
Schillebeeckx
And These Three Lines Of Interpretation
The
sense of Jesus' death as Redemptive or Atoning is a third line of
interpretation under the theological interpretation of the Crucifixion (in
addition to the sense of Jesus as the Righteous Sufferer and Jesus as the
Prophet-Martyr). Schillebeeckx finds all
three of these lines of interpretation present in the New Testament, even from
the very early period. One of
Schillebeeckx' purposes in listing the three different types is to make the
point that the third type (the Redemptive, Atonement type) is not the only
Biblical material on this subject. It is
this third type that has been particularly influential historically in the
development of the theory of satisfaction and other interpretation of the
atonement character of Jesus' death.
General
Comments
The
following are general comments on the three theological interpretations of the
Crucifixion (as discussed above). The
first point is that the tree types are not mutually exclusive. It does not follow automatically that
everyone who affirms one will affirm the others, but there is not reason why
one could not do this--we are not forced to choose among them.
Some
Differences
Secondly,
however, there is a difference, at least in some respects, between the first
two types and the third. The first two
types (the death of the prophet-martyr and the death of the righteous sufferer)
may simply say that Jesus is salvific in spite of his death. They may simply say that Jesus' death does
not undercut his status as prophet or his status as righteous. The third type is explicit in saying that
Jesus is salvific because of his death--that his death as such is
salvific. In pointing to this
distinction we must be careful not to overstate the case. It is possible for the first type in
particular to suggest salvific value of the death. Similarly, the third type (that says that
Jesus' death is salvific) is not necessarily saying that only his death is
salvific--it is not limiting salvific value to his death (but still there is
that distinction).
A
Plan Of God
It
is possible in any of the three types to speak of God's plan, but there are
some places (particularly in Luke) were there are references that suggest a
plan of God (i.e., "Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer
these things and enter into his glory?"). This is a "must" of God's plan, but
this does not suggest that the reason for the death is atoning. Sometimes this is simply an appeal, in more
general terms, to saying that the death was foreseen and was what God had in
mind (without always giving a reason why God had it in mind). On the other hand, we could combine the theme
of the divine plan with the third type and say that (like Anselm) this was
God's plan because only in this way could salvation come about--nothing else
would have accomplished it. This is
pressing the argument beyond the initial stages, but there is no reason why we
should not do it.
[In
response to a question from the class:
There is a difficulty that is always present before the fact and
that is always urged when we get to the question, "Can we trace these
ideas back to Jesus?" or "Are they ideas from the early
church?" It is not difficult to
promote the idea that Jesus saw himself as a prophetic figure, and that as such
he knew what happened to the prophets and so on. It does, however, become difficult
(especially with regard to the public stages of Jesus' preaching) to say that
Jesus was thinking all along that salvation would be achieved only if he was
put to death, and yet does not let his audience know this information (even to
the point of giving a contrary impression that the Kingdom of God was at hand
then and not at some later time). And so
there is a certain tension as far as the before the fact part is
concerned.]
A
Further Question
We
have just noted above the differences and the similarities to the three
theological interpretations of the Crucifixion.
The question then is "Can these lines of though, which are clearly
present in the early church be retraced to Jesus, at least toward the end of
his life or is it impossible for us to do that?" In answer to this question, there is no
consensus. In a sense, we could say that
there are three questions here because we could raise the question with regard
to each of the three lines of interpretation.
Schillebeeckx does not rule out tracing some material back to Jesus, but
he takes the position that basically Jesus left his death for others to
interpret. He would say that Jesus'
death is a kind of prophetic sign (in the sense that Jesus somehow integrated
it into his understanding of his mission), but that the working out of the
interpretation is for his followers to do later (as they in fact did).
The
Position Of Rudolph Pesch
Another
author who is mentioned in the readings assigned for this section of the
course, is Rudolph Pesch. Pesch
takes the position that each of the three types can be traced back to Jesus in
the period shortly before his Crucifixion.
Pesch does not hold that Jesus though in such terms from the beginning
of his public life, but rather that when confronted with the approach of death
there is evidence that he wrestled with its approach and thought of it in these
terms. Much of the argument on this point
would depend on the interpretation of the Last Supper material and the degree
of historical information that is found in the words spoken by Jesus during
that event. As we get closer to the end
of Jesus' lifetime we can find more concrete chronological interpretations of
certain events.
A
Test Of Validity
There
is one further theological observation on the point discussed above. The test of whether interpretations of the
Crucifixion are valid is whether they correspond to the way that Jesus lived
and died. The test is not whether Jesus used
them himself. This point is not made in
order to rule out the possibility that Jesus used them himself, but simply to
say that that is not the test of their validity. For example, for Jesus' death to be the death
of the prophet-martyr, Jesus had to have been a prophet who was put to death in
fidelity to what he was doing (whether he thought or spoke of himself
specifically as the prophet-martyr is not the issue). This means that theologically the question of
how Jesus approached death is a more important issue than the question of where
and when different interpretations of his death arose.
How
Does Jesus' Death Fit Into This Issue?
There
is one last overall theological point, with regard to contemporary theologians,
to make about all of this. This point is
not directly related to the material discussed above, but is simply used as a
springboard. On this point it is
important to recall the material from previous classes regarding the different
types of theological argumentation that are commonly used in references to
Jesus' public life, his resurrection and so on.
The question is, "How does Jesus' death fit into this
issue?" There are two different
types of opposing argumentation in answer to this question.
Crucifixion
Calls Into Question Validity Of Jesus' Claims
The
most common argument in answer to this question is that which is expressed by
Pannenburg, Kasper and various others.
This position states that Jesus' execution called into question the
validity of his preaching and his personal claims. Although Kasper adopts this argument, it is
most clearly expressed by Pannenburg.
The argument notes that Jesus' public life raised certain claims (even
some very specific claims such as the ability to speak on behalf of God). Pannenburg says that these claims were not
resolved during Jesus' public life. He
would say that there is enough evidence to make these claims somewhat plausible,
to make them it worth investigating further, but the indication that God is
really behind Jesus' claims is not yet there.
The Crucifixion, then functions as an indication that the claims are not
valid (of course it would prove to be the case that the Crucifixion is not the
last word--all of these authors then appeal to the Resurrection). The Crucifixion in itself, understood here as
a negative element, produces a state of affair that must be overcome by the Resurrection
and the revelation of the Resurrection.
Let
us take this one step further by way of illustration (although the authors
themselves do not use this illustration).
The Gospels give an account of Jesus' disciples fleeing at the time of
his arrest (Peter denies him and so on).
The logic of this position is that, theologically, the disciples were
drawing the correct conclusions at that time--it does not say that in personal
terms their actions were a particularly appropriate type of action. The idea that is reflected in Luke's gospel
when they say to the stranger, "We had hoped that he was the one to
redeem Israel"
is an accurate depiction, not only of the way the disciples in fact thought
about Jesus' death, but also of the way that they should have thought about it
at that point.
This
first line of thought (i.e., Pannenburg, Kasper, and others) tends to accent
the Resurrection very strongly. They
would hold that the Resurrection reignited an adherence to Jesus with which the
Crucifixion had done away.
Jesus'
Death Did Not Undercut His Claims
The
second line of thought, which is the less common, and is reflected in at least
some of the writings of Rudolph Pesch, appeals to the various interpretations
of the Crucifixion that we have noted (especially the tradition of the
martyrdom of prophets and the suffering of the righteous). This position argues that even Jesus death
did not undercut his claims. This
position would say that Jesus death did not undercut his claims objectively and
did not have to undercut them in the eyes of his disciples. According to this position, the Crucifixion
is not seen as a negative thing, and as a result, there is no need for the
Resurrection to function as a completely new beginning. If Jesus' Crucifixion did not need to
undercut whatever incipient faith may have been present, then [the Resurrection
is not given the same importance for providing reason] for the later faith of
the disciples after Jesus' death. This
does not dispense with the importance of the Resurrection, but the Resurrection
in this second line of thought is no longer understood as the great reversal of
the justified theological despair present as a result of the Crucifixion.
These
comments are made here for two reasons.
One reason is to illustrate different patterns with reference to the
Crucifixion among contemporary authors, but the second is also to suggest that
some of the variations that we will see in future classes with regard to the
interpretation of the Resurrection are closely related to difference in
interpretation of the Crucifixion in the first place (the two go hand-in-hand).
Galvin's
Observation On This Point
According
to Galvin, there is just one observation here theologically on these lines of
argumentation. It seems difficult to
interpret the Crucifixion in such thoroughly negative terms and then at the
same time to say that Jesus' public life is salvific. The problem with doing this is simply that it
is Jesus' public life that took him to the Cross. The point here is that of the consistency of
evaluating the value of Jesus' public life (as Christians tend to do) and yet
portraying the Crucifixion in such starkly negative vocabulary. In each of the above discussed arguments (and
in a very explicit way for Pannenburg), after presenting their Christological
argumentation in the first place (with great emphasis on the Resurrection
material) they then say that in retrospect this sheds new light on the
Crucifixion and shows that the Crucifixion has salvific meaning which would not
otherwise be detectible. Pannenburg says
explicitly that we can understand the Resurrection without reference to the
Crucifixion, however we cannot understand the Crucifixion properly without
reference to the Resurrection.
Christology
March 28, 1991
The
Resurrection
We
are beginning our discussion of the Resurrection. This treatment of the Resurrection will
involve a comparatively lengthy segment of the course. One reason for this is that this portion of
the course will be used as a vehicle for illustrating a couple of specific
theological conceptions of Christology.
These conceptions are not limited to the Resurrection material, but they
include it. In principle, these
conceptions could be illustrated with reference to earlier parts of the course
as well. The problem with doing this
with reference to those earlier parts of the course is that it would have
simply been too early (now we can draw on material that we have discussed in
other contexts). We will begin this
discussion with some preliminary points and then we will start with an
examination of the New Testament material.
Distinctive
Feature Of Theological Discussions
The
preliminary remarks fall into a couple of different categories. First we should note the distinctive
feature of theological discussions of the Resurrection (in comparison to other
Christological issues). Statements about
Jesus' public life and his death may very well have important theological
implications, but there are quite a few statements about Jesus' public life and
about his death that are not tied essentially to Christian faith. The easiest examples of this are the basic
assertion that Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom of God on one hand, and
on the other hand, the assertion that Jesus was crucified. Both of these are important reference points
for developing a Christology, but at least in principle, saying that does not
commit one to a Christology (one can be a perfectly good non-Christian and say
that Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom, and one can be a perfectly good
non-Christian and say that Jesus was crucified).
A
Different Category
The
Resurrection does not fall into the same type of category as do the public life
and the Crucifixion. It is at least
extremely unlikely that we would find a non-Christian prepared to say that
Jesus rose from the dead (there are one or two exceptions to this, but in those
instances the understanding of the Resurrection is often reduced to a kind of
resuscitation in which case it would not have the same type of theological
implications that Christians would give to it).
The point here is that it is possible to recognize that Jesus died,
without accepting Christian understandings of the significance of that. It is one thing to say that Jesus died and it
is another thing to say that Jesus died for our sins or that he died for
us. This is not the case with regard to
the Resurrection. The interpretation of
the Resurrection and references to the fact of the Resurrection are so closely
tied together that a neutral historical description does not seem
possible. We will come back to this
point in different ways.
What
Is Meant By The Word "Resurrection?"
Secondly, but very closely
tied to the first point, there is an initial question about what is meant by
the word "resurrection." What
does it mean to say that someone is risen?
Joined to this question is that of what is the relationship between
death and resurrection? At this point we
are simply raising this issue--we will see with regard to a number of
contemporary theologians that their conceptions of Resurrection vary quite
widely. When we say, "Jesus was
crucified," everyone knows, at least in principle, what we mean by that;
when we say, "Jesus is Risen," people think different things. What some authors (and Bultmann serves as the
best example of this) mean when they say, "Jesus is Risen," is
roughly equal to what most people mean when they say that "Jesus is not
risen." While there are great
complexities with regard to these authors, we must not question the sincerity
of their convictions on these matters.
The
point here is that a verbal agreement in confession of Resurrection might not
cover very much ground as far as the content is concerned. There is one Biblical passage, that is not
very widely discussed, that does illustrate at least this point. At the end of Mark's narrative of the
Transfiguration there is a passing comment that is curious. Jesus commands those who have witnessed the
Transfiguration, "to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of
man should have risen from the dead."
And then Mark adds a further comment which reads: "So they kept
the matter to themselves, questioning what the rising from the dead meant." This is the point that is important here--modern
theologians do a great deal of questioning of what "rising from the
dead" meant.
No
Stories Of The Resurrection
There
is one last element which needs to be discussed with regards to this
point. It is very important, in
reflecting on the Resurrection, to distinguish carefully between the
Resurrection itself and other realities, which are connected to, but not
identical, with it. What is meant by
this statement? A comparison with the
Crucifixion will illustrate this point better than anything else. We speak of Passion narratives (or more
specifically, Crucifixion narratives) and we speak often of the Resurrection
narratives in the New Testament. The
Gospel's Crucifixion narratives are contain just what one would expect--stories
of Jesus' Crucifixion and death. The
Gospel Resurrection narratives are not stories of his Resurrection--they are
stories of the discovery of the empty tomb and stories of the appearances of
the Risen Lord to various people.
Usually
the Resurrection narratives take the one specific form another (empty tomb or
appearances accounts), yet sometimes they are a combination of the two (i.e.,
coming together in one scene). In no
case do the Gospels give a direct narrative of the Resurrection itself--this is
an importance difference compared to the Crucifixion narratives. It has been suggested that the reason for
this difference lies in the nature of the Resurrection itself (i.e., it is not
just an unfortunate gap in the Gospel record).
The point here is to note that very often when people talk about the
Resurrection, they do not distinguish as carefully as would be appropriate
between the Resurrection on the one hand and the revelation of the Resurrection
on the other hand. The empty tomb
stories and the appearance stories should be put in the category of revelation
of the Resurrection, rather than in the category of the Resurrection
itself.
A
Dangerous Simplification
If
we find an exegete or a theologian who doubts the historical character of the
empty tomb stories, then we have one who doubts the historical character of the
empty tomb stories--no more and no less--we do not automatically have one who
denies the Resurrection. Very often, in
popular discussion of this material, that type of simplification does take
place.
Notes
On The Material Discussed Above
The
preliminary remarks above suggest, on the whole, that there are both Biblical
and systematic dimensions to this issue and that they are intertwined. As a practical matter, for our first section
of this discussion on the Resurrection, we will focus on the Biblical
material. After that, we will move on to
some systematic questions. It is
important remember that issues of just what the Resurrection is must be kept in
mind with regard to the Biblical material.
New
Testament Material On The Resurrection
In
a very broad sense, the whole of the New Testament bears witness to the
Church's faith in the Resurrection (this is a general sense--if there had not
been faith in the Resurrection, there would be no New Testament at all). Not only passages which explicitly discuss
the Resurrection have a bearing on this subject.
Two
Types Of Resurrection Materials
Within
the more specific material on the Resurrection, there are two basic types (with
a small amount of overlap between the two).
The first type is found toward the end of each of the four
Gospels. These are narratives of the
discovery of the empty tomb and appearances of the Risen Christ. Here we find narrative forms in which these
individual stories are told at greater or lesser length (according to the
Gospel). The second type (and
this is not meant in a chronological sense) are very brief confessions of
faith, hymns and acclamations which profess and proclaim the Resurrection (but
not in narrative form). These are just
brief formulas. In these instances, in
particular, the vocabulary can vary considerably (e.g., in some of these
formulas we get a sense of exaltation rather than resurrection). In all of these cases the tendency is to use
a verbal form rather than a noun form (i.e., there is usually not a reference
to the Resurrection of Christ, but rather that Christ is Risen or Christ
has been exalted). These are the two
distinct types of references to the Resurrection.
Occasionally
there is a bit of overlapping between the two types discussed above. One example of this (which we will again
discuss below) is found in Luke's Gospel, chapter twenty-four, verses
thirty-three and thirty-four. In this
passage we find the reaction of the disciples who had met with the Risen Lord
on the Road to Emmaus. They had, by this
point, recognized who Jesus was and returned to Jerusalem. The passage reads:
"And
they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven
gathered together and those who were with them, who said 'The Lord has risen
indeed, and has appeared to Simon!'"
The overall story
in this passage is the example of a narrative of a Resurrection appearance (in
fact, one of the more detailed narratives), but verse thirty-four contains a
brief formulation confessing the Resurrection ("The Lord has risen
indeed!"). This is one of the
few cases where the two types come together.
A
Careful Review Of The New Testament Material
At
this point it is wise to look specifically at the New Testament texts regarding
the Resurrection. Many of the questions
that will surface are not apparent unless the texts have been carefully
reviewed.
The
Resurrection Account In The Gospel Of Mark
The
following survey begins with a discussion of the relevant Markan texts. It is important here to first note an
exegetical, text-critical comment. There
are disputes about where Mark's Gospel originally ended. The position that is largely maintained on
this point today is that the original ending of the Gospel was in chapter
sixteen, verse eight, and that verses nine through twenty (the so-called longer
ending) were a later addition. It is
believed that this was done by a different author who was familiar with the
other Gospels and brought some of that material into the Gospel of Mark. For our purposes, we will take the position
that verse eight is the ending of the Gospel (however we cannot be absolutely
certain about this).
The
Three Women
At
the end of chapter fifteen, verse forty, we are told that three women, Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome had
observed the Crucifixion from a distance. These women had not been mentioned earlier in
the Passion narrative. There follows in
verses forty-two to forty-seven an account of Jesus' burial by Joseph of
Arimathea. In verse forty-seven, two of
the women, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses watched where Jesus was
buried. This is important for setting
the stage for what follows.
The
Empty Tomb
In
chapter sixteen it is noted that nothing happens on the sabbath, but the day
after the sabbath, the three women buy spices to anoint the body. The following passage describes the womens'
finding of the empty tomb:
"Very
early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had
risen. And they were saying to one
another, 'Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?' And looking up, they saw that the stone was
rolled back--it was very large. And
entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a
white robe; and they were amazed. And he
said to them, 'Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was
crucified. He has risen, he is not here;
see the place where they laid him. But
go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there
you will see him, as he told you.' And
they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come
upon them; and they said nothing to any one for they were afraid."
The following are
observations with regard to this passage.
First, there is a certain awkwardness in linking the various stories
that come together at the end of the Gospel.
An example of this is found in the repetition of the names of the women
in the first verse of chapter sixteen (compare with the last verse of chapter
fifteen). This repetition is done in a fashion that we
may not recognize when we review the Resurrection theme alone. This leads some to suggest that the burial
story and the tomb story were not together (we find examples of this in the Old
Testament where passages from two different traditions are brought together
with a certain awkwardness).
A
Hasty Burial?
It
is important to note that, although there is a certain time factor because of
the sabbath, the burial story does not suggest a hasty burial (see chapter
fifteen, verse forty-six.). At the beginning of chapter sixteen, the
women go to the tomb with the intention of anointing the body--this presupposes
that the appropriate anointing had not yet taken place. Some historical questions arise because of
the placement of this event. These
questions are: "Was it practical to do the anointing that long after the
death?" and "Why was it not done when he was buried?" Another question that arise at this point is,
"What are we to make of this careful preparation to anoint the body, and
then, only on the way to the tomb did the women remember that there was a large
stone?" The burial story does not
say that there was an appropriate anointing, but it also gives the impression
that the appropriate, dignified form of burial took place (the whole joining of
these two suggestions is difficult). The
point of this summary is to note that are difficulties if the story is read as
an historical description.
A
Comparison With Acts
[At
this point it is significant to note a passage in the Acts of the Apostles,
chapter thirteen, verse twenty-nine.
This passage is from a speech of Paul recounting material about the
Passion. Paul says:
"And
when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from
the tree, and laid him in a tomb."
This passage gives
the impression that Jesus' enemies (those responsible for his death) disposed
of the body. This is not the impression
that is created in any of the four Gospels.
In the Gospels, Jesus receives a dignified burial in a single
grave. There is a certain tension
between the Gospels and this reference in Acts.]
The
Problem Of The Stone
In
the Markan account, when the women arrive at the tomb the stone is already
rolled back. The women go into the tomb
and what attracts their attention is the young man. This young man (an angel), proclaims the
Resurrection to them and very specifically the Resurrection of the one who was
Crucified. The young man, then directs the
attention of the women to what we refer to as the emptiness of the tomb (i.e.,
the body of Jesus was not present).
There is a certain emphasis in the young man's proclamation ("He
has risen, he is not here"). It is important to draw attention to this
because, in the structure of this story, it is not said that the women notice
the empty tomb and therefore come to faith.
The Resurrection is rather presented as a heavenly message, and joined
with the proclamation of the Resurrection, is a look at the place of
burial. The women are then given a
message to take to the disciples and Peter (notice the special reference to
Peter which seems superfluous here). The
message is that Jesus goes before them to Galilee and that there they will see
him as he told them. This seems to
presuppose that the disciples are still in the vicinity of Jerusalem (the women
are to deliver the message to them quickly).
The allusion here is to Mark's Passion narrative, chapter fourteen,
verse twenty-eight, where Jesus says, "But after I am raised up, I will
go before you to Galilee." The angel simply reminds the women of Jesus'
words.
An
Odd Conclusion
We
then find an odd conclusion to this scene which can be called a reversal of the
Messianic Secret. The women do not
report the message because they are afraid (although this could have been a
kind of reverential awe). Because of
this, there are two questions which the Gospel does not resolve. These are: "How did this story make its
way into the Gospel if the women said nothing to anyone?" and secondly,
"Where does the Easter faith of the Church come from if this story was not
retold?" One answer to this problem
is to say that they did not say anything right away, but did say something at a
later time (but the text does not develop in that direction).
Significance
Of The Women?
There
is a significance that it is the women who go to the tomb--the disciples are
not there. There is, at least by
implication, the question, "Why were the disciples not there?" (and
this applies to both the burial and to the tomb a couple of days later). In Mark's account of the death of John the
Baptist in chapter six, we find a gruesome story of the beheading of the
Baptist. The whole scene ends with the
passage:
"When
his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body, and laid it in a tomb."
The disciples of
John paid their last respects--they did the most that could be done under the
circumstances. Ten chapters later,
Jesus' disciples know what is going on, but they are off someplace and it is
others (the three women and those involved in the burial) who go to Pilate and
take the various other steps at that stage.
So we see that in Mark's portrayal of Jesus' disciples, there are
certain positive as well as negative features.
Did
Mark Provide Appearance Stories?
Mark
also does not provide appearance stories (in the shorter ending). The reason for this may be that one of the
reasons for adding to the Gospel the longer conclusion was the possible
judgement some years that a Gospel really should not end without an appearance
story.
The
Resurrection Account In The Gospel Of Matthew
The
basic outline of the Gospel of Matthew is similar to the Gospel of Mark. Provided that Matthew drew on the Markan
texts, this is understandable. Matthew
notes the presence of many women looking on from a distance after Jesus'
death. Matthew mentions three of these
women by name--Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the
mother of the sons of Zebedee.
The
Burial Of Jesus
In
Matthew's account there is again an account of a burial of Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea rolled a large stone
across the tomb and departed. Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary stayed there facing the tomb. The text does not say that the two Marys were
otherwise involved in the burial, but they were close enough to be there--the
implication is that they remained sitting there in an attitude of
mourning. Matthew then inserts another
story of a Roman guard being placed at the tomb at the behest of the chief
priests and the Pharisees. These figures go to Pilate, they tell him
that Jesus has predicted Resurrection after three days and they tell him that
they fear fraud. Pilate gives them a
guard and they go to the tomb, fix a seal to the stone and set the guard. This was done in the most solemn Roman manner
imaginable.
The
Visit Of The Mary's, The Angel And The Appearance Of Jesus
In
Matthew, chapter twenty-eight, we find the Resurrection material. On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary came to see the tomb--notice the difference here from
Mark--there is no longer any motivation of anointing. The two Marys simply have the intention of
going to see the tomb (we will come back to the possible reasons for
this). In Matthew's account there is a
"great earthquake" (this also differs from Mark). In Matthew's account things happen while the
women are at the tomb. Matthew, chapter twenty-eight, verses one to two read as
follows:
"Now
after the sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene
and the other Mary went to see the sepulchre.
And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord
descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone, and sat upon it."
Once again, the
time sequence in Matthew is different than in Mark. The angel also is not in the tomb, but is
seated on the stone outside the tomb.
This is a very impressive heavenly messenger. About this messenger, Matthew, chapter
twenty-eight, verse three reads:
"He
appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow."
Matthew's angel is
presented in the same vein as the young man to which Mark refers, but there is
an accent on the heavenly aspects of the Matthew's angel. We read that the guards were shaken with fear
of the angel and became like dead men. Then the angel speaks to the women and tells
them what has happened and what they are to do.
Matthew, chapter twenty-eight, verses five to seven reads:
"'Do
not be afraid; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here; for he has risen, as he said.
Come see the place where he lay. Then go
quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen form the dead, and behold, he
is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. Lo, I have told you.'"
The message of the
angel in Matthew is very similar to the message of the young man in Mark. The only difference that is noteworthy is
that Peter is no longer singled-out as a special recipient of the message. [The reference to going to Galilee is also an
allusion back to this Gospel's Passion narrative in which Jesus says to his
disciples, "After I am raised up, I will go back before you to Galilee."] In response to the angel's message the women
go away quickly, "with fear and great joy." So we see that the reaction of the women is
mixed. They proceeded to announce the
news to Jesus' disciples. Unlike the reaction of the women in Mark's
Gospel, in Matthew's Gospel they proceed on their way to carry out the command
that they have received. However, before
the women get very far, Jesus meets them and they approach him and worship him. Jesus then gives an order to the women. We read in Matthew, chapter twenty-eight,
verse ten:
"'Do
not be afraid; go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will
see me.'"
In this passage,
Jesus more-or-less repeats the words of the angel (we will come back to
possible explanations for this).
The
Guards
At
this point Matthew returns to the theme of the guards. Even though the guards had fallen like dead
men, they knew what had happened, and they report to the chief priests who
bribed them to change the story about what they had seen (it is unusual that
they would report to the chief priests because they are Roman guards). On the topic of the guards and their changed
story, Matthew comments:
"So
they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been
spread among the Jews to this day."
We will come back
to this part of the story below.
The
Appearance On The Mountain In Galilee
After
this account of the reaction of the guards, Matthew presents another appearance
story (he has already told of one brief appearance account to the women). Matthew concludes his Gospel in chapter
twenty-eight, verses sixteen to twenty, with a dramatic appearance to the
disciples on a mountain in Galilee (they have received and obeyed his command
to go to Galilee). This passage reads as
follows:
"Now
the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had
directed them. And when they saw him
they worshiped him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth
has been given to me. Go therefore and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.'"
If
we compare Matthew's treatment of the Resurrection accounts with that of Mark,
we can see parallels, modifications and other things where there is no parallel
(e.g., the story of the guards, the appearance of Jesus at or near the tomb and
the final appearance in Galilee).
Matthew's
Apologetic Interests
The
following are comments on significant aspects of Matthew's version of the
Resurrection accounts. Matthew seems to
be motivated by a number of different factors.
One of these factors is a kind of apologetic interest. Throughout the Matthew's treatment of the
Resurrection, there is a very strong concern for this apologetic element. There is no question that Matthew was
bothered by the story that the body had been stolen (he is at pains to
discredit such a story). It must be
remembered that the overall context of Matthew's Gospel is one of tension
between the Jews and the Christians. A
number of details in Matthew's account seem linked to his effort to refute the
accusation (of the stolen body). The
most obvious example here is the story of the Roman guard and the charge of
bribery, but there are two other elements which differ from Mark that also have
a relationship to this apologetic concern.
The
Motivation Behind The Women's Visit To The Tomb
The
first difference from Mark is the motivation behind the women's visit to
the grave. They did not go to anoint the
body--they went to see the tomb (presumably to mourn). One possible reason for this change is that
it may have struck Matthew that Mark's story did not sound very plausible (they
knew the huge stone was in front of the tomb--how and why would they plan to
get in?). It also seems to be possible
that Matthew did not want a story in which supporters of Jesus plan to enter
the tomb and do something with the body.
This would be too open to alterations (some might say that they did not
simply go to anoint the body--they went to take it away). In light of this, it seems that Matthew did
not want a story in which there could be a motivation of that sort present.
The
Women As Witnesses Of The Stone Being Rolled Back
The
second difference from Mark is that the women in Matthew's story witness
the stone being rolled back and the arrival of the heavenly messenger. The implication here is that everything that
happened was seen (although they did not see the Resurrection itself). This is not like the women in Mark who were
left in the position of saying, "we do not know how the stone was rolled
back." Perhaps linked to this
second point is the fact that even the heavenly messenger in Matthew does not
go into the tomb (they just look in).
The
Joining Of The Appearance And Tomb Traditions
Another
type of issue in Matthew is the joining of the appearance tradition to the tomb
tradition. The focus here is not the
fact that there is an appearance narrative (the appearance in Galilee), but rather the fact that Jesus
himself actually appears at or near the tomb (in spite of the fact that Jesus
does not have very much to say--what he says has already been said by the
angel). The story of Jesus' appearance
at the tomb is a rather undeveloped one--it is very brief (just chapter
twenty-eight, verses nine and ten). The most
likely understanding of this passage is that it is a somewhat later development
in which the appearance material on one hand, and the tomb material on the
other hand begin to merge.
The
Focus On Galilee In Mark And Matthew
Before
we go on to our treatment of the Gospel of Luke, there is just one last
point. We can note that in both Matthew
and Mark the focus is on Galilee (although obviously the tomb events occurred
near Jerusalem). Both Mark and Matthew
point to Galilee as the place of the future.
Matthew shows the fulfillment of this command with the triumphal, final
appearance on the mountain in Galilee.
The
Resurrection Account In The Gospel Of Luke
The
Resurrection material in the Gospel of Luke (and also the Gospel of John) is
more extensive than that found in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. In Luke, at the end of the Crucifixion story,
there is a reference to the women who had followed Jesus from Galilee (along
with all of his acquaintances). These
women stood at a distance and followed what was going on (at this point Luke
did not give names).
The
Women And The Burial Story
Luke
then relates the burial story (the substance of which is similar to what we
have seen in Mark and Matthew), but there is an unusual twist to his
description at the end of the story. In
chapter twenty-three, verses fifty-five and fifty six read:
"The
women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and saw the tomb, and how
his body was laid; then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. [Then] on the sabbath they rested according
to the commandment."
Here the women
observed that there was something deficient about the burial. They start out to conduct the anointing right
away, but because they are faithful to the law, they interrupt preparations
when they do not have enough time to conduct it. Luke, in other words, retains from Mark the
motivation of going to the tomb to anoint the body, but he has paved the way
for understanding why this has been deferred (because they ran out of time).
The
Visit To The Grave
There
then follows the account of the visit to the grave. Luke, chapter twenty-four, verses one to
eight reads:
"But
on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the
spices which they had prepared. And they
found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not
find the body. While they were perplexed
about this, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel; and as they were
frightened and bowed their faces to the ground, the men said to them, 'Why do
you seek the living among the dead?
Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of
man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and on
the third day rise.' And they remembered his words."
In this account
there is nothing previously said to the women worrying about how the stone
would be rolled back once they arrived at the tomb (this tells us that Luke is
closer to Mark than Matthew on this account).
Not only did they not find the body of Jesus, but they also did not find
a young man on the right as in Mark's account.
The effect of this is that the women do see the emptiness of the tomb
and they see that on their own. The
reaction to the empty tomb is puzzlement.
The content of the message of the two men is similar, but not the same
as, what the messengers say in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. There is a reference to Galilee, but the
reference has to do with a place that Jesus previously spoke to the disciples
(the message does not say that the disciples should go to Galilee). One of the reasons for this is simply that in
Luke's passion narrative Jesus did not tell them to go to Galilee. The other reason for this is that the
appearances in Luke will not take place in Galilee anyway, so if the messenger
sent them there it would undercut the rest of the Gospel. This is an example of the complexity of some
of this material--we cannot take the messages from one Gospel and put them in
another Gospel (at least in general) without ceasing to make sense (in these
instances we could do it with Mark and Matthew, but not from them into Luke).
The
Women Do Not See The Risen Christ
It
is noteworthy that in Luke the women do not see the Risen Christ, but we find
that they do carry the message to the disciples. In chapter twenty-four, verses nine to eleven
we read:
"And
returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the
rest. Now it was Mary Magdalene and
Johanna and Mary the mother of James and the other women with them who told
this to the apostles; but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did
not believe them."
At this point the
women are identified. The last verse
just cited (verse eleven) tells of the reaction of the apostles (they did not
believe). We see that the story has been
conveyed and has brought about faith on the part of the women, but not on the
part of the apostles (the larger group--the circle of followers).
The
Petrine Verse
Verse
twelve (of chapter twenty-four) is not included in many versions (including the
Revised Standard Version). This verse is
somewhat uncertain on a textual basis.
It reads:
"But
Peter rose and ran to the tomb; stooping and looking in, he saw the linen
cloths by themselves; and he went home wondering at what had happened."
If we keep verse
twelve for our purposes at the moment we note that Peter does not receive the
heavenly message (he does not see the two angelic figures), nor does he respond
with faith (he is just left to wonder).
Comparison
With Mark And Matthew
Luke,
like Mark and Matthew, presents a story of women at the tomb. He gives an account of a heavenly message
(with variation). In Luke, we do not
find an appearance of Christ at the tomb.
In general, there is a tendency in Luke to minimize the significance of
finding the tomb empty (i.e., a great deal of significance is not connected to
it). The empty tomb leads to puzzlement
and wonderment about what it could mean, but it does not lead, by itself, to
the conclusion that Jesus is Risen.
Only
Seeing The Risen Christ Will Overcome Uncertainty
There
is one further example of this. In the
next section of chapter twenty-four we find the story of the appearance of
Jesus to two disciples on the Road to Emmaus.
Toward the middle of the story, when they are explaining the events of
the last couple of days to the unknown stranger, they say the following:
"'Some
women of our company amazed us. They
were at the tomb early in the morning and did not find his body; and they came
back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was
alive. Some of those who were with us
went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not
see.'"
Just prior to this
passage, these same disciples had said to the stranger, "'We had hoped
that he was the one to redeem Israel'." The thrust of the whole thing is that only
seeing the Risen Christ will overcome this state of uncertainty or
unbelief. It must be said that this
seems to be the thrust of Luke in this passage (this comment is not directed
toward other Scriptural authors).
Christology
April 2, 1991
Luke
And The Empty Tomb
Today
we will discuss Luke's version of the empty-tomb story and then we will review
Luke's account of the appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.
The
Emmaus Story
The
Emmaus story does not have parallels in the other Gospels. If fact, in general, as we look at the
Resurrection material closely, we notice that while the empty tomb stories are
parallel (with variation from one account to another), the appearance stories
are not parallel. They do not appear to
have a common ancestry.
The
Emmaus story is found in Luke's Gospel, chapter twenty-four, verses thirteen to
thirty-five. It reads as follows:
"(13) That very day two of them were going
into a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, (14) and talking
with each other about all these things that had happened. (15) While they were talking and discussing
together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. (16) But their eyes were kept from
recognizing him. (17) And he said to
them, 'What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you
walk?' And they stood still, looking
sad. (18) Then one of them, named
Cleopas, answered him, 'Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know
the things that have happened there in these days?' (19) And he said to them, 'What things?' And they said to him, 'Concerning Jesus of
Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the
people, (20) and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be
condemned to death, and crucified him.
(21) But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the
third day since this happened. (22)
Moreover, some women of our company amazed us.
They were at the tomb early in the morning (23) and did not find his
body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who
said that he was alive. (24) Some of
those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had
said; but him they did not see.' (25)
And he said to them, 'O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the
prophets have spoken? (26) Was it not
necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his
glory?' (27) And beginning with Moses
and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things
concerning himself.
(28) So they drew near to the village to which they
were going. He appeared to be going
further, (29) but they constrained him, saying, 'Stay with us, for it is toward
evening and the day is now far spent.'
So he went in to stay with them.
(30) When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and
broke it, and gave it to them. (31) And
their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their
sight. (32) They said to each other,
'Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he
opened to us the scriptures?' (33) And
they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven
gathered together and those who were with them.
(34) who said, 'The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to
Simon!' (35) Then they told what had
happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the
bread."
Comments
On The Emmaus Passage
The
following are a few comments on the text cited above. First of all, we note the location--it is on
the road to a village about seven miles from Jerusalem (so this is part of the
Jerusalem appearances). This corresponds
to the rest of Luke's presentation, as well as to the words of the angel at the
tomb. Here we find a theme of initial
non-recognition of the Risen Lord, followed by a later recognition (see verse
sixteen). There is no reason given for
their non-recognition, but they do not do this until Jesus reveals himself at
the end of the story (see verse thirty-one).
The
Theme Of Non-Recognition
Up
to this point we have not been given too many accounts of the appearances, but
the theme of non-recognition is not as strong in Matthew and Mark as it is in
this account of Luke. Non-recognition is
not a theme in Matthew in the story of the woman at the tomb (when they see him
they recognize him). The final appearance
story in Matthew (that takes place in Galilee) does note that "some doubted,"
but this is not the same as non-recognition.
Seeing
The Risen Lord As A Condition For Faith
In
verse twenty-one of the Emmaus account the find that the reference to the
disciples hope or faith in Jesus is said in the past tense. The disciples have heard the story of the
women's visit to the tomb and of their having seen angels (they have heard
indirectly from the women the message of the angel). Although others have gone to the tomb they
did not see the Risen Lord (see verse twenty-four). The implication here is
that the seeing of the Risen Lord would be sufficient to bring about faith (and
here it must be emphasized that this is the perspective within this story of
Luke's gospel).
Jesus
Interprets Scripture And The Breaking Of Bread
Jesus
then begins to teach them how to interpret the Scriptures (i.e., the Old
Testament) in a Christological manner.
The important part of this interpretation is the teaching that the
Messiah must suffer and so enter his glory.
After
urging Jesus to stay with them the disciples recognize him in the breaking of
the bread. This account may have
Eucharistic connotations. Jesus then
disappears. In spite of the late hour
the disciples decide to return to Jerusalem.
The
Two Disciples Go Back To Jerusalem/The Importance Of Simon
At
this point we come to verse thirty-four (an important verse). The disciples came back from Emmaus and find
the disciples and those who are with them.
The group assembled in Jerusalem tell them that the Lord is truly been
raised and has appeared to Simon. Only
after this do the disciples coming back from Emmaus have the opportunity to
tell their story. This places faith in
the Risen Lord ahead of the report of the events on the Road to Emmaus. This suggests that the basis for the core
group's faith in the Risen Lord is the appearance to Simon. This implies that the faith of the eleven and
those with them is present before that group hears what has happened on the
Road to Emmaus. The important point here
is that Luke (throughout his Gospel and in Acts) places enormous emphasis on
the role of the twelve apostles. In
chapter twenty-four, up to verse twenty-four we have seen various possible
motives for coming to faith (i.e., the visit to the tomb, the message of the
angels, Peter's visit to the tomb and now this series of events on the way to
Emmaus). In each case there is nothing
said about the eleven having come to faith in that way--in fact in some cases
it is explicitly denied. Here, however,
this group professes the Church's faith that the Lord is truly risen. The suggestion is that what is at the root of
the faith of the Church as a whole is this distinctive appearance to Simon
about which we have heard nothing up to this point. It should be emphasized that all of this is
being said from the perspective of Luke's Gospel.
The
Significance Of Simon
The
implication here is that the Church's faith is based on the appearance to Simon
(an event which Luke does not describe).
Peter is a constant in the Resurrection stories, but on the other hand,
nowhere in the New Testament is the story of the appearance to Peter
given. This may be because although Luke
had some appearance stories available, he had not about an appearance to Peter.
The
Appearance In Jerusalem
In
verses thirty-six to forty-nine we find the account of the appearance of Jesus
to all of the disciples in Jerusalem.
Once again in this passage we find the theme of non-recognition (which
seems strange after the confession in verse thirty-four). It is only gradually that they come to
recognize who he is--he shows them his hands and his feet and finally he takes
and eats a piece of fish. Jesus then
interprets the Old Testament Christologically and opens their mind to
understand the Scriptures. Jesus then
gives a mission command--he tells them to preach repentance and to tell the
news of the Messiah to all nations (with Jerusalem as the center). Before they do this they are to wait in
Jerusalem for the coming of the Spirit.
Luke then concludes with a brief Ascension story (notice in this case
that the Ascension takes place in Jerusalem).
The
Gospel Of John (The Fourth Gospel)
At
this point we will begin our discussion of the Fourth Gospel. John's Gospel is somewhat complex here
because it is generally agreed that John gives us not one, but two Resurrection
narratives (we find these in chapters twenty and twenty-one). It is widely held among modern exegetes that
a later redactor revised John's Gospel and added a few things to it (however
this theory is disputed). Chapter
twenty-one is almost universally ascribed to a later redactor. One of the reasons for this that the Gospel
concludes rather clearly at the end of chapter twenty and then continues in
chapter twenty-one. Chapter twenty has
both an empty-tomb story and appearance material. Chapter twenty-one has just appearance
materials (there could not very well be another empty-tomb story).
The
Burial Materials
Before
we discuss the empty-tomb and appearance materials, we must examine the burial
material in chapter nineteen. The burial
material in John is somewhat more elaborate than what is found in the
Synoptics. We find that Nicodemus is
involved in the burial (in verse thirty-nine we read that he came bring a
mixture of myrrh and aloes weighing about one-hundred pounds). According to verse forty, the body of Jesus
was bound in a linen cloth and buried according to Jewish customs. We should note here that in the Gospels of
both Mark and Luke the subsequent visit of the women to the tomb is
precipitated by the desire of the women to anoint Jesus' body (Matthew does not
say this). Not only does John not give
the need of an anointing as the reason for the visit of Mary Magdalene to the
tomb (this has already been done).
The
Empty-Tomb Story
The
empty-tomb story in John partially parallels that of the Synoptics, but has
been greatly expanded. On the first day
of the week one woman, Mary Magdalene, comes to the tomb while it is still
dark. It does not say at this point why
Mary Magdalene went to the tomb, but the implication at this point is that she
goes to the tomb to mourn. Mary
Magdalene finds that the stone at the entrance to the tomb has been moved. Therefore, according to verse two, she runs
to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. She says to them, that they have taken
the Lord from the tomb and that "we do not know where they have put
him." At this point we must note
the presumption that body has been moved (by the plural "they") and
secondly we must not that Mary uses the term "we"--she was alone and
had been alone up to that point. There
is then a race of the two disciples (Peter and the other disciple) to the
grave. The other disciple arrives first,
looks into the tomb and sees the burial cloths but does not go in. Peter then is the first to enter and he sees
the burial cloths. Then at this point,
the other disciple enters the tomb, sees the cloths and believes. Up to this point we see that each of the
mentioned figures has a certain priority over the other. Peter is named first, he is the disciple who
gets to the tomb first and he is the first to enter the tomb. It is the other disciple of whom it is said
first that he believed.
An
Unexpected Statement
Verse
nine, a very unusual verse, is then introduced.
This verse would make perfectly good sense elsewhere. It reads: "For as yet they did not
know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead" The statement in this verse is unexpected
just after one of the disciples comes to faith.
The disciples then go home.
John,
chapter twenty, verses two through ten, is a passage that we really do not have
a parallel to in the Synoptics. The
closest bit of text from the Synoptics that parallels John is found in Luke,
chapter twenty-four, verse twenty-four where it reads: "'Some of those
who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but
him they did not see.'" We do not have any narrative of that here.
Mary
Magdalene At The Tomb
In
verse eleven, however, we come back to material that does parallel the
Synoptics--again, always with the understanding that there is just one woman
instead of a small group. Mary stayed
outside of the tomb weeping. Here, if we
skip verses two through ten and simply read verse one followed immediately by
verse eleven, we can find a very smooth retelling of the story (the only
problem is the repetition of Mary's name which is not needed if the two
passages are brought together). Such a
construction would read as follows:
"Now
on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it
was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.
[continued by] But Mary stood weeping
outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb. . ."
This is what we
expect to find when reading of this event.
Chapter
twenty, verses eleven through eighteen read:
"(11)
But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look
into the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb; (12) and she
saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the
head and one at the feet. (13) They said
to her, 'Woman why are you weeping?' She
said to them, 'Because they have taken away my Lord and I do not know where
they have laid him.' (14) Saying this,
she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was
Jesus. (15) Jesus said to her, 'Woman,
why are you weeping? Whom do you
seek?' Supposing him to be the gardener,
she said to him, 'Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have
laid him, and I will take him away.'
(16) Jesus said to her, 'Mary.'
she turned and said to him in Hebrew, 'Rab-boni!' (which means
Teacher). (17) Jesus said to her, 'Do
not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren
and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and you Father, to my God and your
God.' (18) Mary Magdalene went and said
to the disciples, 'I have seen the Lord'; and she told them that he had said
these things to her."
[Verse eighteen is
another example of a compressed affirmation of the Resurrection.] If examine the Mary Magdalene part of the
passage just cited above we can note parallels with the other Gospels (the
message of the two angels as is the case in Luke, the message itself is not the
same as elsewhere--nothing is said about Galilee, in this case the message is
brought to the disciples in accordance with the command and the substance of
the message comes from Jesus himself and not from angels--which is in
accordance with other parts of John's Gospel in which Jesus does a lot for
himself).
Important
Points For Discussion
There
are a number of things to note here. Why
is there an insertion of the story of the two disciples on the way to the tomb
(why is the story so long and why is it pushed in the way that it is {it could
have occurred after Mary Magdalene had completed her visit]}). The answer to this seems to be that John's
Gospel gives more importance than Luke to the seeing of the empty-tomb or at
least in seeing the folded burial cloths (the way in which the cloths are
folded seem to indicate that the body was not moved to another location--it is
not a case of theft). Joined to this is
the desire to have Peter and the other disciple enter the tomb ahead of Mary
and to predicate faith first of the other disciple. At the same time, Mary Magdalene is here as
the first to see the Risen Lord (this was not the case in Luke's account). We have here a certain tension with three
people involved in prominent positions [jostling for priority?].
Appearance
To The Disciples/Conferral Of The Holy Spirit
We
then come to verse nineteen, which is an appearance to the assembled disciples
on the first day of the week. Although
they have the doors locked, Jesus appears and shows them his hands and his
side. There is a certain comparison
between this and the appearance that is recorded near the end of Luke's Gospel
(although they are not strictly parallel, they are similar). Jesus gives them his peace and also his
mission command ("As the Father has sent me so I send you") he
breaths on them and gives them the Holy Spirit and the commission to forgive
and retain sins. It should be noted here
that the conferral of the Holy Spirit in this Gospel takes place on Easter
Sunday--there is no question here of waiting for a certain period of time.
Doubting
Thomas
Verses
twenty-four to twenty-nine, now tell us that Thomas had not been present--there
had been no indication of that up to this point. Thomas doubts and says that he will not
believe the message, "We have seen the Lord." It should be noted that this is now becoming
the standard formula for those proclaiming the Resurrection--this simply puts
in the plural what Mary Magdalene had said.
Thomas insists on seeing the marks of the nails and putting his hands in
the side of the Risen Christ--in other words, he wishes to establish in a
physical way the identity of the Crucified in the Risen One. Eight days later the scene is repeated--Jesus
comes in spite of locked doors and he invites Thomas to touch his hand and his
side and urges him to believe. It is not
said that Thomas actually does the touching--it seems that the invitation to
touch was sufficient. Thomas responds
with a profession of faith in very exalted terms ("My Lord and My God"). Jesus says with a certain tone of criticism,
"You come to believe because you have seen me, blessed are those who
have not seen me and still believe."
This statement looks ahead beyond Thomas to the readers of the
Gospel--the time for seeing has passed.
Thomas, by way of exception, has been allowed to see him, but that is
not going to be the case in the future.
This scene seems to represent [???] the concluding scene of the Gospel
which then has a literary conclusion in chapter twenty, verses thirty and
thirty-one. This accents the importance
of this culminating scene with Thomas because it leads to the profession of
faith with which the Gospel ends. The
likelihood here is that the story of the second appearance with Thomas present
has been added modeled on the first accenting the importance of believing even
on the part of those who do not see.
While the first, similar appearance story accents the gift of the Holy
Spirit and the commissioning. Once
again, we see that individual appearances stories are used to make specific
theological points--points that are important to the individual
evangelist. Once again there is no
strict parallel to that but Thomas is not accented in the Synoptic appearance
accounts.
John,
Chapter Twenty, And Similarities Within Luke
In
chapter twenty of the Gospel of John there are certain similarities with the
Gospel of Luke--particularly with regard to the location in Jerusalem and a
certain emphasis on the group of disciples there and joint appearance to those
disciples. Peter has been emphasized
along with the other disciples in the empty-tomb story but he is not emphasized
in the appearance material (he is considered to be present, of course, but he
is not singled out by himself).
The
Last Chapter Of John's Gospel
This
brings our discussion to chapter twenty-one.
This chapter of John's Gospel is generally considered to have come from
a different author and here we are back to the theme of appearances in Galilee
(back in the sense that Mark has pointed us that way and Matthew has shown some
development). If we are going to combine
the two, as John's Gospel does, it would seem that we must put the appearances
in Jerusalem first because we cannot have them running back and forth (at least
the ones who go to Galilee).
Jesus'
Appearance By The Sea Of Tiberias
In
chapter twenty-one we see that "Jesus reveals himself again to the
disciples by the Sea of Tiberias." It can be noted that as we get into the story
that this story requires a location at a lake in Galilee. The reason for this is because the theme of
fishing is quite prominent in the chapter.
The story presupposes that the disciples have gone back to their fishing
and that they did not begin any missionary activity--they received the mission
command but they had not acted on it. If
we take this story by itself, the appearance is presented as if it were the
first. However, it is said in verse
fourteen that was this third time Jesus revealed himself to his disciples (the
first, without Thomas, the second, with Thomas and the third is at this point). Verse fourteen appears to be something of an
afterthought. Having told the story it
would appear to have been a free-floating story. The question that must be considered is, how
does this relate to what has come before?
The
Disciples Go Fishing
In
the story itself we see that Jesus is standing on the shore. After Peter has said that he is going fishing
the others go with him and the fish all night without catching anything. There is a rather similar story in chapter
five of the Gospel of Luke (but there it is not presented as a Resurrection
story--rather it is presented as the vocation of Peter). At dawn Jesus is on the shore but the
disciples do not recognize him (here we are back to the theme of non-recognition). A non-recognition is perfectly plausible the
first time that Jesus appears, but at this point it would seem to be unlikely
(the third time around). Jesus says to
them "Children, have you any fish?." They answer that they have not caught
anything. Jesus tells them to cast the
net again and it is filled completely. At this point, the disciple whom Jesus loved
identifies Jesus. He is the first to
recognize Jesus at this point and he tells Peter "It is the Lord." When Peter hears this he jumps into the lake
and swims ashore. The others follow in
the boat dragging the net with the fish.
When the disciples climb out of the boat they find a charcoal fire (this
is the same word that is used in the retelling of the story of Peter's denial
in the Passion narrative) on which they find fish and bread. Jesus tells them to bring some of their
fish. Peter then goes over and drags the
net to the shore (there are a hundred and fifty-three fish in the net). In spite of the fact that the net is filled
with these fish, the net does not break when Peter drags it--there is universal
agreement that this non-breakage is ecclesialogically significant (as a symbol
of the unbroken unity of the Church with which Peter is also identified). Jesus invites the disciples to eat and then
they recognize him. Jesus then
distributes the bread and the fish. [At
this point (verse fourteen), the seemingly out of place note is made about the
third appearance.]
Peter
And The Threefold Question Of Jesus
Then
another conversation begins--Jesus asks Peter three times "Do you love
me?" Peter responds each time
that he does love him, after which in each instance Jesus then gives the
commission, "Feed my sheep." Then there is a prophecy, and interpretation
of said prophecy, of Peter's death. Finally, at the end of verse nineteen, there
is again a command to discipleship ("Follow me.").
Peter
And The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved
Peter
then turns around and sees the other disciple (the one whom Jesus loved)
following and he seems to be disturbed by this.
In response to this, Peter asks Jesus, "Lord, what about this
man?" In response to this, Jesus says "Follow
me." Then, in verse
twenty-three, there is a further explanation that Jesus' words here are not
equivalent to saying that this other disciple will not die (as had been
rumored), but rather it simply means that it is none of Peter's business what
Jesus wants.
Concluding
Remarks About Chapter Twenty-One
Verses
twenty-four and twenty-five conclude chapter twenty-one. These verses are clearly a paraphrase of the
final two verses of chapter twenty (they present basically the same points).
What
we have in chapter twenty-one is another appearance with an additional
discussion between Jesus and the disciples.
This is a passage of ecclesialogical significance. Once again, we find the theme of
non-recognition, followed by recognition.
And once again, various prominent positions are distributed between
Peter and the other disciples.
Concluding
Questions About The Gospel Of John
Where
does this leave us overall with regard to the Gospel material? We find very significant differences in the
appearance stories. There are
differences in location, differences in what is said and differences in
theological themes. It is very difficult
to get a single, consistent picture. If
we broaden our scope to a consideration of the appearance materials of all the
Gospels, so that the story conveyed in chapter twenty-one of John's Gospel is
not the third appearance but rather the sixth or seventh, then the matter of
non-recognition becomes quite a problem.
In principle there is another problem with this in that if we asked what
we would expect the Risen Lord to look like, we would probably expect some sort
of transformation. It is not unlikely
that recognition would be difficult. On
the other hand, we would not expect the Risen Christ to be mistaken for a
gardener or for someone who just happens to be walking out from Jerusalem. We find an odd combination of rather everyday
qualities in some scenes and yet a figure who appears suddenly behind closed
doors in other scenes. The
non-recognition seems to be present in both of these types of appearances.
All
Of The Gospels Considered
In
the empty-tomb stories there is greater similarity between the different
Gospels, but there are still some significant differences (i.e., in the
identity of the women, purpose of their visit to the tomb, in the number of
angels and in the events at the tomb).
All of the stories make perfectly good sense as the expressions of the
theological concerns of the various authors, but to combine them into a single
historical account runs into quite a few difficulties.
Historical
Questions
What
then can be said about the historical question--what happened during this
period? First, it is necessary in each
case, to distinguish between the fact of an empty tomb and the fact of
appearances on the one hand, and stories about the discoveries of the
empty-tomb and stories about appearances on the other hand. Let us examine this first with regard to the
tomb and then with regard to the appearances.
The assertion that the tomb was empty is one thing while the assertion
that the story of the visit to the tomb is historically accurate is something
else. Similarly, the assertion that the
Risen Christ appeared to people is one thing while the more detailed narrative
of the appearances is also something else.
This is simply a general initial observation.
The
Historical Character Of The Empty-Tomb Accounts
What
are the arguments with regard to the historical character of the empty
tomb? The following are some of the
arguments on both sides of this question.
The
first argument is in favor of the historical character of the material. There is a possible connection with the
Passion narrative (which points in favor of historicity because of the
antiquity of the Passion narrative). At
an early date this material was linked to the Passion narrative. This does not guarantee that the material is
historical, but we can say that it is not something that was added at a very
late stage. Secondly, the stories are
relatively consistent on some major points.
On this note we can recall the fact that it was women who were the first
to go to the tomb. It is often argued
that, because the women are recorded as the first to go to the tomb, this
points in favor of historicity. The
argument is that if the story had been fabricated (at that time), then the
story would more likely have included men instead of women. We can also note the presence of the story in
John as well as the Synoptics. Finally
there is a consideration of a more general nature--the opponents of
Christianity seem not to have denied that the tomb was empty. The opponents seem rather to provide
non-Christian explanations such as theft of the body, but the presumption, even
from that explanation, is that the tomb was empty.
The
following are arguments against the historical character of the empty-tomb
stories. First, there are the variations
between the various accounts (i.e., motivation, the number of heavenly
messengers, the different messages that are received, etc). Secondly, there is an uncertainty of the
burial traditions. The stories about the
visit to the empty-tomb presuppose two things--one is that Jesus had been
buried in a single grave and secondly that the women know what grave it
is. (Not all exegetes accept the
historicity of these two points. One
reason for this is based on what we find in Acts of the Apostles, chapter
thirteen, verse twenty-nine (mentioned in the last class). The second argument is based on a somewhat
more general question of whether the Roman authorities would have given over the
body of a condemned criminal (this by itself may not be conclusive, but it is
important to consider). The final
argument against the historical character of the empty-tomb stories, is given
from the perspective of some exegetes who argue that the focus of the
empty-tomb stories is not precisely on the emptiness of the grave, but rather
on the proclamation of the Resurrection (which is usually done by the heavenly
messengers). This does at least raise a
question because most authors, who would defend the historical character of
this account, in principle cannot defend the historical character of the
angelic messengers. The problem is that
if we leave out the angels what we have left does not make a story--we could make
another story such as the women simply going to the tomb and finding it empty,
but that is not the way in which the Gospels present the story (they accent the
message that is received there). The
only instance in which there is no message received is in the story of Peter
and the other disciple (but not in so far as the women are concerned).
Although
no lengthy discussion will be given here, it is important to note that in the
appearance accounts the variations are even greater than those found in the
empty-tomb accounts.
A
Shift Away From The Gospels And Toward Pauline Literature
All
of this has led to a situation in which the historical questions concerning the
origin of faith in the Resurrection, have turned somewhat away from the Gospel
material toward the discussion of Pauline material. In particular we are concerned here with what
is found in First Corinthians, chapter fifteen.
This is fairly widespread--even among authors who reach different
conclusions [???] this material.
Before
we come to First Corinthians itself, it is important to discuss a number of
points about this type of material in the writings of Paul. A good bit of the traditional material in
Paul has to do with the Resurrection, but the vocabulary in Paul varies. Sometimes Paul's references are to Jesus
being raised (see for example 1 Corinthians 15). Sometimes the vocabulary is one of exaltation
(see for example Philippians 2). It
seems likely that both types of language are equally old. At an early stage these terms are roughly
synonymous (i.e., they are different ways of pointing to the same
realities). There is a slight difference
with regard to perspective between these two types that should be noted. The Resurrection vocabulary tends to look
back. When specified further, it is
Resurrection from the dead. Exaltation
language tends to look forward--exalted to the right hand of God. This is not an opposition between these two
types, but rather just a slight difference in accent. It appears, however, that Resurrection
language then became the more common and that as a kind of final step, the two
have been combined as distinct stages (e.g., in Luke we find that the
exaltation/ascension is placed forty days after the Resurrection). Earlier vocabulary spoke of the Resurrection
and exaltation as a single event which can be described in either way.
Christology
April 4, 1991
The
Resurrection (Continued)
Differences
In Gospel And Pauline Resurrection Materials
Before
beginning our discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (from the writings of St.
Paul), we must note one of the differences between the references to the
Resurrection in the Pauline material and the references to the Resurrection in
the Gospel narratives. The difference is
that the Gospel narratives are stories about events at the time of the
empty-tomb and appearances. The Gospels
are not directly narratives of the Resurrection itself (the closest that we
come to such a narrative in the Gospels is in Matthew--where we do not find a
narrative of the Resurrection itself, but we are presented with an account of
the stone being rolled back. The implication in the Matthean account is
that something significant is happening but we do not see it). When we get to the materials in the Epistles
we find brief formulations. These brief
formulations do refer, in some cases, directly to the Resurrection or invocation
of Christ. The materials in the Epistles
are not descriptive narratives, but they more directly address the Resurrection
itself. By way of contrast, the
following is a passage from the apocryphal Gospel of Peter:
"But
the scribes and pharisees and elders being assembled together and hearing that
all the people were murmuring and beating their breasts and saying, 'If at his
death these exceeding great signs have come to past, behold how righteous he
was. We were afraid and came to Pilate
entreating him and saying, give us soldiers that we may watch his sepulcher for
three days, lest his disciples come and steal him away and people suppose that
he is risen from the dead and do us harm.
And Pilate gave them Petronius the centurion and soldiers to watch the
sepulcher. And with them they came
elders and scribes to the sepulcher, and all who were there, together with the
centurion and the soldiers rolled a great stone and laid it against the
entrance to the sepulcher and put on it seven seals, pitched a tent and kept
watch. Early in the morning, when the
sabbath dawned, a crowd came from Jerusalem and the county round about to see
the sepulcher that had been sealed. Now
in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers two-by-two with
every watch were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven and they
saw the heavens open, and two men come down from there in great brightness and
draw near to the sepulcher. The stone,
which had been laid against the entrance to the sepulcher, started of itself to
roll and gave weigh to the sigh. The
sepulcher was opened and both of the young men went in. When now those soldiers saw this, they
awakened the centurion and the elders, for they were also there to assist with
the watch. While they were relating what
they had seen, they saw three men come out of the sepulcher, two of them
sustaining the other, a cross following them.
The heads of the two reached to heaven, for that of the one who was led
by their hand surpassed the heavens.
Then they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, 'Have you preached to
those that sleep?' And from the cross
was heard the answer, 'Yes.'"
This passage
accents some very significant points. We
can see how it fleshes out materials from the Gospels (i.e., in this account
the centurion is given a name). Some of
the major theological points, such as the link between the Resurrection and the
Crucifixion, are expressed very clearly in this apocryphal literature. In this specific passage, we find that the
cross seems to have also been in the tomb along with the buried Jesus--this is
an illustration of a more direct effort to link the Resurrection and the Crucifixion. We do not find this type of material in the
Gospels in this format.
1
Corinthians 15:3-8
The
one passage that has attracted the most attention and which has been the major
text for contemporary discussion about the Resurrection is 1 Corinthians
15:3-8. The passage reads:
"(3)
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, (4) that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, (5) and
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
(6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time,
most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. (7) Then he appeared to James, then to all
the apostles. (8) Last of all, as to one
untimely born, he appeared also to me."
The
Age Of The Material
The
following are a few basic comments with regard to this text (we will see when
we come to individual modern exegetes and theologians, that there are some
variations in interpretation). First of
all, there is the issue of the age of the material. In verse one of chapter fifteen Paul says,
"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached." Then in verse three he says, "I
delivered to you. . .what I also received." In other words, what follows is presented as
something that Paul was not composing at that time, but rather is a text that
Paul had used in his preaching in Corinth.
It can also be noted that it must be even older than that because Paul
himself received it (presumably near the time of his conversion). The pre-Pauline origin of this passage is
also confirmed by the nature of verses thee through five, which is a very
compressed formula. The fact that some
of the vocabulary is not typical of Paul also points to an earlier origin of
the text (here we can specifically note the reference to "the twelve"
found in verse five--this is the only place where Paul uses this designation
for the close group of Jesus' followers).
The dating obviously cannot be certain, but the formula probably goes
back to the late thirties (of the first century). First Corinthians is generally dated in the
mid-fifties, but the substance of the formula noted above probably goes back
fifteen to twenty years prior to that.
Where Paul received this material is not certain (he does not say). The most likely possibilities about the place
of origin are that it came from Damascus, Antioch or Jerusalem. It is also not clear what the original
language of the formula was (it could have been Greek or Aramaic). So we have here a very old formula which is
much older than the more detailed information that we find in the Gospels. This is an initial reason for concentration
on this material on the part of contemporary authors.
The
Structure Of The Passage
The
second consideration is that of the structure of the passage. The central part of the passage is very
carefully structured with a fourfold "that" (see verses three
through five). [Then Paul adds various
comments and remarks of his own.]
Death
For Our Sins According To The Scriptures
The
first part is "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the
scriptures" (see verse three).
Notice here that the name used is "Christ." This is not simply a statement of Jesus'
death, but also and interpretation in various ways. It is the death of the Messiah (Christ here
has become almost a proper name) and secondly it is the death of all of our
sins (i.e., the interpretation of its salvific significance). The note that this is "according to
the scriptures" presents us with an initial problem with regard to the
interpretation (in the following comments we will not attempt to resolve this
problem). The question is whether "for
our sins" and "in accordance with the scriptures" are
two interpretations of Christ's death or one.
If this is taken as one unit (i.e., "Christ died for our sins in
accordance with the scriptures"), then the most logical reference to
this is found in the Servant Song in Isaiah. It is also possible to take this passage as
two lines of interpretation--the first, "death for our sins"
with the background of Isaiah, and the second, with a different type of appeal
to the Old Testament along the lines of the "Righteous Sufferer"
(i.e., the idea that this is part of God's plan--the Divine "must" in
the Messiah's suffering). How this
particular phrase is to be understood will be left here as a question.
He
Was Buried
The
second part of the passage is "that he was buried" (see verse
four). This passage is very brief (and
even briefer in Greek), but is none-the-less sectioned by itself. Paul does not have (here or elsewhere) a
story of the discovery of the empty-tomb (i.e., Paul says nothing about a visit
to the tomb or the finding of an empty-tomb).
It may be that the juxtaposition of this second element with the third
(i.e., "that he was raised") may suggest something about the
empty-tomb, however this is not articulated directly in Paul's texts. Why is he fact that he was buried
mentioned? [We must remember that one of
the virtues of these formulas is their brevity--why is it that the burial,
which is not typically mentioned in short formulas, gets mentioned here?] One possible answer to this is that it is
intended to highlight the reality of Christ's death. It may be taken as evidence of the reality of
Christ's death. The only thing that
urges caution on this issue is that it does not seem at all to question the reality
of his death in the first place. A
further possible answer is simply that the burial of Christ does attract some
theological interest elsewhere in the New Testament. Examples of this are Romans 6:3-4
and Colossians 2:12--both
of these passages show a linking of a theology of baptism to the burial of
Christ. These passages may reflect a
very early, rudimentary stage in theological interest, not only in Christ's
death, but also in his burial.
Raised
On Third Day According To The Scriptures
The
third part of the passage is "that he was raised on the third day in
accordance with the scriptures" (see verse four). We notice and immediate parallel between this
third part of the formula and the first.
The reference here is to the Resurrection itself--not to the finding of
the empty tomb or to appearances. The
formula is presented in the passive voice (i.e., "was raised")
which implies Divine agency. Although
this is the more common way of speaking of the Resurrection in the New
Testament, it is not the only way. At
this point we are faced with the same questions that we saw with regard to the
first part of the formula. Are "on
the third day" and "in accordance with the scriptures"
two separate elements or do they go together?
It is generally agreed in each case that they refer to the Resurrection
and not to the finding of the empty-tomb on the third day. This is not a reference to the first of the
appearances, but rather is a reference to the Resurrection. It is not clear, with regard to this
material, that the empty-tomb was an issue.
There is a strong possibility that "on the third day"
is not chronologically safe. While the finding of the empty-tomb seems
dated with reference to what went before it, this formula may not be a date
(even though that is what it appears to be).
A first indication of this is the location--this is not a narrative in
which one anticipates that various details will be provided. Paul's formulas here do not provide details
and in fact are extremely compressed.
Much of the other information in these formulas are theological
statements (and "on the third day" is paralleled with "for
our sins"--it may well be that it is an interpretation of the
significance of the Resurrection, just as "for our sins" is an
interpretation of the significance of the Crucifixion). We must flesh out further this third part of
the formula.
Old
Testament Background
There
are two Old Testament passages which might serve as a background to this
third part of the formula. These
passages may at least serve as a more general indication of possible use of
this type of language. The first Old
Testament passage is from Psalm Sixteen, verse ten, which reads:
"You
will not abandon my soul to the nether world, nor will you suffer your faithful
one to undergo corruption."
Although not
specifically cited in this Psalm, there was a sense that corruption of the body
sets in on the third day. Because of
this, there is the suggestion in Paul that the Resurrection would take place
before this would happen. There are two
New Testament texts to which this Psalm is referred in connection with the
Resurrection (they are Acts 2:25 and Acts 13:35). These New Testament references do not
establish that Psalm sixteen is linked to 1 Corinthians 15--it simply
establishes that at some period of the New Testament times, Christians did cite
Psalm sixteen in connection to the Resurrection. It appears, however, that this is a later
post-Pauline development.
The
second Old Testament passage which we need to cite here is from Hosea, chapter
six, verses one and two which read:
"In
their affliction, they shall look for me:
'Come, let us return to the Lord, for it is he who has rent, but he will
heal us; he has struck us, but he will bind our wounds. He will revive us after two days; on the
third day he will raise us up, to live in his presence.'"
This is the most
explicit Old Testament reference to the third day as a the time of
delivery. The difficulty with this Hosea
passage is that it is never cited in the New Testament. This does not prove that it could not be in
the background here, but it is interesting that the a passage which lends
tremendous support to such a notion is not cited.
Inter-Testamental
Literature With Regard To "The Third Day"
There
is a certain body of inter-testamental literature which suggests that the third
day is seen as the time of a decisive, or significant, Divine intervention on
behalf of Israel. It has been argued
that this is the real issue in the reference to the "third day"
in First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verse four. The Resurrection on the third day is a way of
saying that it occurred, but not literally at the last possible moment (e.g.,
in English we say something has happened at the "eleventh hour"--it
is not meant literally as if it happened after 11:00 P.M.). This reference to the third day would mean
then that it occurred at the last possible moment that God acted on behalf of
the Crucified one. Mention was made of
the inter-testamental character of this because we can read that when things
seem very bleak God acts on behalf of Israel, on behalf of the just one who is
persecuted, etc..
When
verse four mentions that this occurred "in accordance with the
scriptures" it may be a reference to texts of the sort just mentioned
in the last paragraph (i.e., God acting in bleak situations). It may also be a more general reflection on
the idea of fulfillment of the Scriptures to Christ's death and Resurrection.
Appearance
Listings In A Particular Order
The
fourth part of the passage reads:
"(5)
And that he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve. (6) Then he appeared to more than five
hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have
fallen asleep. (7) Then he appeared to
James, then to all the apostles. (8)
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."
This is a listing
in a particular order. There is a
certain deliberate emphasis on the temporal at this stage, ending with
the appearance to Paul himself. It is
the only instance in the New Testament where someone who claims to have seen
the Risen Christ is also the author of the text in which this is stated.
Significance
Of This Listing
There
is a certain parallelism, it seems, between the reference to the appearance to
Cephas and then to the twelve on the one hand, and to James and all of the
apostles on the other. There is a
certain overlapping in this because some of the twelve would also be apostles
(e.g., Peter), but there seems to be a deliberate listing of Peter first. This listing of Peter first calls to mind
places in the Gospel tradition of the Resurrection in which Peter is accented
in various ways. Secondly, it should be
remembered that there is something distinctive about the first appearance (we
will come back to the historical questions on this point). Presumably, those who received the later
appearances are aware of the appearance to Peter--this means that they are no
longer in the same situation that Peter is in.
Almost all of these references are to people who hold a prominent
position in the church (Peter, the twelve, James, the apostles and Paul
himself). There does seem to be some
sort of link between their position in the Church and their presence in this formula.
The
Word "Appeared" (Ophthe)
The
essential word in this formula is the one that is translated into appeared. This word is exactly the same each time it is
used and it is repeated several times.
The Greek equivalent to this word is ophthe (a form of the word
"to see"). The Greek word can
be translated "was seen by" or "appeared to." The word "to see" is not at all
unusual in the Scriptures--it is used in both the Old Testament and the New
Testament, but this particular grammatical form (used by Paul in this case) is
unusual. Some exegetes consider it a
technical term as it is used here. When
Paul speaks elsewhere about his own experience he does not use this term (e.g.,
Galatians chapter one where he speaks rather of "revelation"). Paul uses the terminology appeared in
First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, precisely because he has received this
terminology with regard to other people and he [appropriately] wishes to place
himself in the same category.
Christian
Knowledge Of The Resurrection
Some
argue that when Paul states "that he was buried, that he was raised on
the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to
Cephas, then to the twelve."
he gives the reason for Christian knowledge for the Resurrection (similar to
what we find at the end of Luke's Gospel where it reads, "The Lord has
risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!"). Those who argue in this way are sometimes
also inclined to see the burial as confirmation of death. Those who argue this point tend to also hold
that a similar structure is present on this point about the appearances and the
Resurrection (though these two issues do not necessarily go hand-in-hand). The point here is that "appearance"
is the main basis for faith according to some (it can be added that there is no
reference to the empty-tomb as a basis for faith). Paul uses this material in the context of
arguments concerning the Resurrection (i.e., Christ's Resurrection and our hope
for resurrection). Some interpreters
have said that this is mentioned here as the foundation for faith (just as the
appearance of Christ is so linked to Paul's own conversion).
Ophthe
And The Theopanies
There
is also another issue that we must discuss with regard to this passage. This consideration goes back to the
particular form of the word ophthe.
This term is used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old
Testament) as the standard expression for theophanies. When God appears to Abraham and Moses this is
the specific word that is used (i.e., a common word for "seeing" is
not simply used, but this specific form). This word is used consistently with regard to
theophanies. This suggests that its use
in First Corinthians may already have the implication "appeared from
heaven" (so that there is a theme of revelation).
Ophthe
And The New Testament
When
we turn to the New Testament (which was written in Greek), this particular form
(i.e., the word ophthe) occurs seventeen times. In each case where this word occurs it
suggests some sort of appearance from heaven.
The word is never used in the sense of saying "Peter was seen by
Jesus," but rather it is always used in this revelation context. When this word is used, it is not always the
Risen Christ who appears--it is also used in the Transfiguration story when
Moses and Elijah appear and in the Book of Revelation when referring to the
great sign that appeared in the heavens.
According to many exegetes, the word ophthe is revelation
terminology. Some conclude from that
that it does not tell us very much about the matter of revelation (i.e., about
the way in which the revelation took place).
If we think back to the references in the Old Testament (God appeared to
Moses) we must ask, "what does this mean?" It is certainly a situation where we cannot
press visual imagery in a very literal sense.
The possibilities of using the word in a more literal sense are greater
in First Corinthians because we have the Risen Christ (i.e., Christ is
something that can literally be seen--God cannot be seen in the same
sense). However, some exegetes argue
that the visual imagery used in First Corinthians is a way of expressing the
theme of revelation--not a way of describing what the form of the revelation
is.
Various
Schools Of Though With Regard To The Word Ophthe
The
question that is posed with regard to the use of the word ophthe is,
"what does it tell us about the nature of the events?" In answer to this question, there are two
schools of thought. One school answers
that while it does not describe the appearances, it says enough to indicate
that there is a visual dimension to it.
The other school answers that this is misleading, because just as we
would ask the question "what does it mean to say that God appeared to
Abraham," and would not understand that in a direct literal sense, so too
would this sense be applied to Paul's use of the word ophthe (and this
without denying the significance of the nature of the revelation).
Ecclesiological
Significance?
Those
who accent Paul's use of the word ophthe as a revelation formula are
also usually inclined to accent the distinctive position of the witnesses and
to say that this part of the formula has great ecclesiological
significance. In this sense it becomes
almost a kind of "mission formula" because these are the
authoritative witnesses in the Church.
It could be said that the ecclesiological standing of these people
derives precisely from this encounter with the Risen Christ (which the text
always presents as being at Christ's initiative). In this sense, we can view this as a sort of
Christological commissioning of these figures.
In fact, the exegetes who move somewhat away from the visual element are
more inclined to stress the ecclesiological element. This is partly because they need to refer to
it in order to answer the question, "why is this part of the formula in
the first place?". Those who stress
the visual element can emphasize both, but since they are already accenting the
visual dimension, they do not find it as necessary to point to another
dimension.
Paul's
Listing Of Appearances Compared To The Gospels
We
must also note that the listing of appearances in First Corinthians does not
correspond (at least not completely) to what we find in the Gospels. We find that Paul makes no references to Mary
Magdalene and the women at the tomb. In
the Gospels there is no reference about an appearance to James, and there is
nothing in the Gospels that can lead us to distinguish between the appearances
to the twelve and the appearances to all the apostles. We do find references in the Gospels to
appearances to Peter.
Contemporary
Theologians And The Resurrection
At
this point, we will begin our discussion of the interpretation of the
Resurrection according to various major contemporary theologians.
Rudolph
Bultmann
We
begin this discussion with the thought of Rudolph Bultmann because his comments
on the subject is often referred to by other authors (not that his position is
widely accepted--in fact many refer to his writings in order to refute them).
Bultmann's
position is that faith in the Resurrection is the same as faith in the saving
efficacy of the Cross (faith in the Cross as the Cross of Christ). There is a close link here between the
Crucifixion and the Resurrection. What does
it mean to have faith in the saving efficacy of the Cross? For Bultmann, it means let oneself to be
crucified with Christ and to take up one's cross each day and follow him. It is not appropriate, then, to conduct
historical investigations aimed at establishing the Resurrection as an
objectified, separate event (for Bultmann, this is a mythological conception of
it). The historical question, according
to Bultmann, is not of interest to Christian faith (although it may of interest
to an historian). The question of the
Resurrection for Bultmann, is a question of the significance of the Crucifixion
as messianic death. This suggests that
the key event, as far as the Resurrection is concerned, is the faith of the disciples,
their belief in the Crucified and their proclamation of that belief. Bultmann acknowledges that sometimes even in
the New Testament there is a bit of an effort to prove the Resurrection (e.g.,
in First Corinthians, chapter fifteen), but in spite of this, he thinks that it
is not an appropriate procedure.
Christology
April 9, 1991
Willi
Marxen
The
second author that we will discuss is Willi Marxen, a major figure in
the more recent discussion of the Resurrection.
Marxen is a German-Lutheran Biblical scholar and professor of the New
Testament. In the late 1960's Marxen's
writings on the Resurrection became the focal point of intense discussion (Marxen
faced what might be called a heresy trial within the German-Lutheran
Church). The two major writings of
Marxen on this subject are in an essay entitled "The Resurrection of Jesus
as a Historical and Theological Problem,"
and in a book entitled The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The substance of what Marxen has to say on
this subject is the same in both of these works (the essay is a more technical
treatment of the subject, but the book elaborates in more detail).
A
Comparison With Bultmann
Marxen
is best understood in comparison with Bultmann.
In many respects he is Bultmanian in his theological convictions. He has basically the same understanding of
faith, the same inclination to see faith as a risk unsupported by historical
material and the same interest in demythologizing the content of the New
Testament. But Marxen differs from
Bultmann on one major point--the key reference point for Marxen for the whole
of Christianity is the figure of Jesus.
He is critical of any theological position which might undercut the
significance of Jesus (i.e., anything which might replace the historical
Jesus). Marxen criticizes those who
would say that the most important thing about Christianity is what happens after
Jesus' death (he would claim that those who hold such a position undercut the
significance of the historical Jesus in favor of the Resurrection).
Marxen
And Bultmann On The Resurrection
Marxen
agrees with Bultmann when he states "Christian faith. . .is not interested
in the historical question"
(i.e., in this case about what precisely what happens after Jesus' death). He would say that we can discuss this
question as an historian, but in the long run, our position as believers should
not be affected by such a question.
Marxen does disagree with Bultmann's assertion that "faith in the
resurrection is nothing other than faith in the cross as the salvation
event." This statement of Bultmann links the
Resurrection and the Crucifixion very closely--and this is a position that
Marxen does not accept. Instead, Marxen
says that "the question of the resurrection of Jesus is not that of an
event which occurred after Good Friday, but that of the earthly Jesus." It is that last part of this statement that
reveals Marxen's difference with Bultmann.
Both Marxen and Bultmann agree that faith in the Resurrection is in need
of non-mythological expression (i.e., some form of re-expression in
contemporary form) and they agree that they could only talk about the
Resurrection [in conjunction with something else]. Both would say that if we consider only the
Resurrection itself (in a separate form) then this is a sure sign of a
mythological conception.
A
Difference With Bultmann
The
question that arises with this is how are links established between the
Resurrection and something else? Marxen
and Bultmann differ in the way that they answer this question. As stated above, Bultmann says that the
Resurrection and the Crucifixion are linked in the sense that "faith in
the resurrection is nothing other than faith in the cross as the salvation
event." According to Bultmann,
faith in the Resurrection is not a belief that such-and-such occurred a few
days after Jesus' death, or the belief that the tomb was empty or that Peter
and the others literally saw someone.
Bultmann instead says that faith in the Resurrection is recognition in
the cross as salvific--and this in turn means a lived bearing of one's own
cross (i.e., a lived way of the cross in one's personal life).
Marxen's
Focus On The Public Life
Marxen
says to question the Resurrection is not the question of what happens after
Good Friday, but rather the question of the "Earthly Jesus." Marxen is still looking back--he is still
looking for something to which to link the Resurrection, but he chooses Jesus'
public life in a way that Bultmann does not choose the public life. Marxen is interested in the historical Jesus
in the sense of the life of Jesus, with a kind of religious interest that
Bultmann does not have. It is not so
much the person of Jesus that concerns Marxen, but the message of Jesus. Where Bultmann more inclined to speak of the
message of the cross (i.e., we proclaim Christ crucified), Marxen is more
inclined to speak of Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of God.
Gospels
As Expressions Of The Church's Faith
What
does Marxen say more concretely? First
of all, he goes through the Resurrection Narratives in the Gospels in some
detail. He argues that these materials
are expressions of the Church's faith, not reliable records of its origins [It
is important to note here that at an earlier stage of his career, Marxen was
first known in exegetical circles as one of the pioneers of redaction
criticism--specifically through his studies of the Gospel of Mark. Marxen's interest has been directed, almost
from the start of his career toward the theologies of the Synoptic evangelists
in a manner that Bultmann never was].
Marxen's material does not help us very much with the historical
question, but it is very useful in shedding light on the theological
meanings.
First
Corinthians As A Historical Reference Point
The
most historical reference point according to Marxen is the material in First
Corinthians, chapter fifteen (and this is a point that Marxen shares with other
scholars). Marxen's position is that
even the formulations of First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, are completely
permeated by theological interpretation.
Marxen argues that it is not possible for us to get behind the claims of
the witnesses to reach a detailed description of events.
Jesus'
Cause Goes On
He
speaks then of the foundational experiences on the part of Peter. This, particularly on the part of Peter,
enabled the Church to proclaim that Jesus lives. On this point it is important to note a very
characteristic phrase of Marxen that "Jesus' cause goes on despite his
death" (i.e., 'die Sache Jesu'--'Jesus' thing goes on'). Marxen says that this is what Jesus is all
about--his preaching, his message and his life seem to come to an end with the
Crucifixion (indeed, this was the goal of his enemies). However, reawakened by these experiences
after Jesus' death, his disciples perpetuated the cause and continued it
despite Jesus' death. Of the three formulations,
"Jesus is Risen," "Jesus Lives" and "Jesus cause goes
on," Marxen uses the second and third with considerable regularity, but it
is important to recognize that what he means by Jesus' living is that
his cause goes on (i.e., it is not that Jesus' cause goes on because Jesus is
Risen, but rather the Resurrection is his cause going on). We might say that Marxen has a rather
impersonal understanding of Jesus' Resurrection. According to Marxen, Jesus cause goes on
because the disciples have chosen to pursue it, but the fact that they have
chosen to do it is the result of [grace].
There is an objective sense in which the cause goes on, but that the
person of Jesus in the individual sense goes on does not seem to be Marxen's
understanding (although this needs to be qualified slightly because there are
some authors [Piet Schoonenburg in particular] who interpret Marxen
differently).
Disciples
Recourse To Contemporary Notions/Mythology
Marxen
would say that the in first step after Jesus' death there is definitely a
certain period of time (at least a brief period of time), then there are the
experiences (particularly on the part of Peter--who is accented in the
Gospels), then the disciples continue Jesus' cause. In continuing Jesus' cause, the disciples
have recourse to contemporary notions of the Resurrection as a vehicle of
expression for their faith. The needed
some form of expression, for themselves, but particularly in order to
preach. At this point it is important to
recall the basic Bultmanian distinctions between the faith that one lives and
the way in which that is expressed--one of the basic in demythologization is to
find a non-mythological form of expression.
Marxen's position is that in the world of the first century, and in
particular Jewish conviction at that time, Resurrection language was readily
available as a vehicle of expression which was perfectly suitable in the first
century world. This Resurrection
language was mythological, but there was nothing wrong with using mythological
as long as that was the climate of the time.
Given that choice, the language leads to the belief that the grave was
empty. This makes possible the
development of stories about the finding of the empty tomb and the
appearances. Marxen says that these then
are products of Christian faith in its first century expression not literal
descriptions of events that lie behind the faith. Resurrection terminology, according to Marxen
on this account, is not intrinsic to Christian faith. He would say that such language is in need of
being demythologized in the modern world and that more suitable expressions are
possible at the present time.
Obstacles
To Authentic Faith
Both
Bultmann and Marxen attempt to remove what they see as obstacles in
Christianity. They hold that there are
mythological elements, not intrinsic to Christianity (but which have
accompanied it for a long time), which present an obstacle to authentic
Christian faith. [Of course it is
important here to know what they mean by the word "faith"]. Existentialist anthropology advocates the
preservation of what one's conscience in deplorable situations. This is a position which very strongly
accents the individual and at the same time is rather convinced of the [the
lack of] ability of most people to influence change in a situation. In this more interior, almost private,
dimension one can at least live authentically no matter what the circumstances
are. The other notion that is involved
is this notion of faith as commitment.
Bultmann and Marxen are critical of what they see as faith as believing
certain objective things that do not make a good person either. This is one of the great concerns in treating
the Resurrection, but also in the sense of treating the Crucifixion and
Death. The content of faith for Bultmann
and Marxen is to live authentically before God.
A standard objection to this type of theology is that they will tell you
to live authentically, but they will not tell you how to live authentically
(because it is so intensely personal).
Both Bultmann and Marxen hold non-political understandings of what Christian
faith is (although Bultmann did oppose Nazi laws against Jewish people because
he said such laws were contrary to Christian values).
Various
Perspectives/Contemporary Responses
Marxen
thinks that, in principle, Christian faith must be expressed in a variety of
ways. He would note that individual
Christians throughout history did not necessarily have the full range of
possibilities available to them. There
is no single way which is perfect in all respects. From his point of view, the first century
Christians, even prior to writing, developed references to the
Resurrection. Marxen does not hold that
the first disciples "used" the Resurrection story to convince people
of their way (i.e., "Let's try this one!"). Marxen holds that in a rather spontaneous
manner the disciples drew on what was available to them in their culture (a
culture with a very strong apocalyptic dimension). Marxen would say that the disciples used the
Resurrection idea from the perspective of an anthropology which saw soul and
body as intimately linked (and which therefore was inclined to speak of
Resurrection). Marxen's position is that
those who came in a later period (in a different culture) may be in a position
to distinguish the reality for this expression which the early disciples could
not do. Marxen holds that the modern
Christian must make these distinctions.
A
Final Note On Marxen
There
are critiques of a number of Marxen's positions. Briefly, there are questions with regard to
Marxen's concept of faith and questions of his understanding of the
relationship between Christianity and theological anthropology. Marxen' critics also point to a historical
problem and the fact that he leaves the decisive event of Peter's experience
quite undetermined.
Wolfhart
Pannenberg
This
brings us to Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg. Pannenberg opposed a great deal of the
thought of Bultmann and Marxen.
Pannenberg's treatment of the Resurrection is in the context of his
overall theological program (which is not exegetical but rather a theological
approach). The starting point of
Pannenberg is a conviction about the history of Christianity in the modern
world. Pannenberg takes the position
that since the time of the Enlightenment the chief theological question is
whether Christian faith is true (i.e., it is no longer taken for granted that
it is true). What has been debated is
the question of whether Christian faith is true faith or is it a superstition.
A
Critique Of Contemporary Theologians
Pannenberg's
position is that contemporary theologians (such as Barth, Bultmann and Marxen)
who refuse to question or investigate the basis of faith, are missing the point
of the modern problems and are in fact getting un-Christian in their
approach. He would hold that such is not
their intention (i.e., getting un-Christian), but by moving Christian faith
into irrational areas, they in effect are encouraging people not to take Christianity
seriously.
Investigating
The Truth Of The Christian Faith?
The
questions that then arise are, "how is the truth of Christian faith to be
investigated and how is it to be supported?" Pannenberg holds that in principle there are
two broad possibilities in answering these questions. One possibility is to look for an authority
who would vouch for the authenticity (i.e., the truthfulness) of the Christian
message. The other possibility is to
look at the content of the Christian message.
The
Authority Question/The Bible, The Church, God
Pannenberg
acknowledges that there are a number of possible ways (which do not necessarily
compete with one another) to address the authority question. He notes that we can appeal to the authority
of the Bible, the authority of the church or to the authority of God
(especially to the Holy Spirit).
With
regard to the Bible, Pannenberg says that it is comparatively easy to establish
that for which the Bible vouches. The
problem, he says, is that in the modern world the authority of the Bible is
itself disputed. To say, for example,
that Paul attests to the Resurrection does not mean much to people who do not
accept what is written.
In
comparison to this problem with the Bible, the same thing is true with regards
to the church. It would be comparatively
easy to establish what the church teaches (i.e., creeds, etc.), but there are
people who do not accept the authority of the church.
As
far as God is concerned the situation is a bit different. The problem here is that everyone [making
faith assertions] claims to have Divine inspiration. It is difficult to establish that there is in
fact Divine content to what is being proposed.
Pannenberg's
conclusion is that appeal to authority is not sufficient. Such an appeal may have been sufficient in
historical situations in which various authorities were publicly recognized,
but such is not sufficient in the modern situation.
Revelation
Is Something Public
What
happens? Pannenberg insists that
revelation is something public. He holds
that revelation takes place in history (in the sense of public history). The task of Christian preaching, then, is to
articulate the meaning of what happened in the past for the present. Preaching should uncover a meaning that is
there, not create meaning and impose it.
In principle, at least, the historical reference point is accessible to
public scrutiny.
A
Link Between Jesus' Person And His Message
What
happens as far as Jesus is concerned?
[First, we should preface this question with an acknowledgement that
Pannenberg is very interested in a longer scope of history--going back into the
Old Testament material. It is his
overall theological conviction that God is revealed over the course of the Old
Testament and is culminated in Christ (in a sense, revelation comes to an end
with Jesus)]. Jesus' public life calls
people into the Kingdom of God [which appeared along with Jesus]. There is a link between Jesus' person and his
message. That constitutes a claim on
Jesus' part to speak and act on behalf of God (this is a personal claim). This is a claim to be God's decisive
revelation. This claim, by its very
nature, requires Divine [vindication], otherwise it is just a claim and no
more. In fact, Jesus point ahead for such
eschatological indication when the "Son of Man comes on the clouds of
heaven" or the day when the Kingdom is fully present. Up to this point it was only a claim--to
investigate the claim we must look at what happened in the appropriate
historical context. We are seeking to
understand not only the Christological dimension of it, but also overall
theological content of Jesus' message.
Confirming
Jesus' Claims
When
Jesus was put to death this seemed to put an end to his claim, and the end of
any reasonable expectation that the claim was valid. Pannenberg's favorite New Testament
theologian was Luke. The perspective of
the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, who had hoped that Jesus was the
Messiah, represents Pannenberg's understanding here. When we read that "earlier it was
hoped" we see that there had been some trust but not certitude. On the road to Emmaus, this hope had now
become a thing of the past because the Crucifixion had undercut it. If however, God raises Jesus from the dead,
then a new situation comes about--because the Resurrection would confirm Jesus'
claims. The only way that Jesus' claims
could be confirmed was through Divine action (and there is a big "if"
when discussing whether God has raised Jesus from the dead). [It is quite clear at this point that
Resurrection in Marxen's or Bultmann's sense would not agree with Pannenberg on
this question.]
Revelation
As History
At
this point it important to the "if" noted above (i.e., if God raised
Jesus from the dead). One of
Pannenberg's basic concerns is to express revelation as history. Pannenberg defends the notion that history is
the primary location of revelation. He
would hold that the Word is secondary to history (i.e., secondary to the events
themselves). Below are two examples (one
from the New Testament and one from the Old Testament) of this thesis (these
are not Pannenberg's examples, but they serve the purpose of illustrating the
point): As far as the New Testament is
concerned, it seems that the revelation must occur in the events of Jesus'
life, death and Resurrection, not in early Christian preaching on the life,
death and Resurrection. The early
Christian preaching was important, but only in the sense that it explained what
happened. In principle we can look
through the preaching to the event and decipher what makes sense and what does
not make sense. As far as the Old Testament
is concerned, it seems best to look at the example of the Exodus. The revelatory event is the liberation from
Egypt, not the writing of the liberation from Egypt. This does not mean that we discard the
Pentateuch, but (according to Pannenberg's thought) it does mean that for the
revelation the focal point is the historical event in its context (which the
later written text illuminates but does not create).
Placing
Things Within The Right Context
What
bearing does all of this have with what has been discussed above with regards
to Pannenberg's thought? The problem is
that we must always place things in the right context. If we do not see the events in the
appropriate context then we cannot understand the meaning. The problem here, with trying to make a
statement about history as a whole (with reference to God) is that the world
has not yet come to an end. How can we
make anything but a very provisional statement when events still remain to unfold? The Christological example of this seen in
the case of someone making or attempted to make a definitive statement at the
time of the Crucifixion--only to find out two days later that it was not the
end of the story. And so the problem is
that in order to have the right context we need the perspective afforded by the
end of the world.
Resurrection
As Privileged Vantage Point
In
conclusion here there is one additional comment with regards to the big
"if" (i.e., "if God has raised Jesus from the dead"). If this is true, then we have in Jesus a
foretaste of the end. And so if Jesus
has been raised, the Resurrection gives us that privileged vantage point
anticipating the end of the world and shedding Divine light on Jesus' public
life.
Christology
April 11, 1991
Pannenberg
(Continued)
In
the previous class we discussed the basic outlines of Pannenberg's
argument. This discussion brought us to
the point that the Resurrection had a pivotal position in his Christological
argumentation and indeed with respect to his overall argument with regard to
revelation.
Divine
Legitimation/Eschatology
Pannenberg
asserts that if the Resurrection can be established historically, then that
provides both the necessary Divine legitimation of Jesus and his mission and
the desired vantage point which enables one to see things from the perspective
of the end of the world. On this point,
Pannenberg notes that the New Testament authors relate the Resurrection in
varying ways to both of those elements (in personal confirmation of Jesus and
the anticipation of the general resurrection at the end). Pannenberg does not argue on the basis of an
appeal to the authority of the New Testament authors, but he is saying that in
this instance, they are pointing appropriately to rather straightforward
implications of the Resurrection seen in the appropriate context. The presumption here of course is that the
Resurrection has occurred.
A
Presumption That The Resurrection Has Occurred
What
does Pannenberg say about the presumption that the Resurrection has
occurred? He does not think that we can
get useful details (i.e., historical information) from the Gospels. He holds that the Gospels are a material of a
later sort. He will appeal to the Gospel
texts themselves for indications of what the Resurrection means [in a
theological sense?].
Pannenberg's
Reference Point
Panneberg's
reference point is First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verses three to
eight. This passage reads:
"For
I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that
he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he
appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of
whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the
apostles. Last of all, as to one
untimely born, he appeared also to me."
He draws attention
to the antiquity of this formulation and the fact that it includes the
testimony of an eyewitness (i.e., Paul).
Chiefly on this basis, Pannenberg considers the appearance tradition to
be historically reliable. Although
influenced by Ulrich Wilckens,
Pannenberg also develops his own arguments about the reliability of the
appearance tradition
(however a more complete articulation of this theme can be found in Wilcken's
writing). This is the first point--a
major point in Panneberg's argumentation (i.e., the reliability of the
appearance tradition).
The Empty-Tomb
Argument
The
second part of the argument, which is less significant to Pannenberg, but which
is present in his work, is the argument that the emptiness of Jesus' tomb is
also historically demonstrable.
Pannenberg holds this view because he believes that otherwise the
opponents of Christianity would have referred to the presence of the body in
the tomb in order to oppose the Christian preaching. All that he says on this point is that the
tomb was empty--how the tomb became empty is another question. Pannenberg does not think that the disciples
stole the body, but he does not claim that by itself the empty-tomb would
accomplish much. This is one of the
reasons that Pannenberg places more emphasis on the appearance tradition.
Some Questions
[The
issue that Pannenberg needs to address more squarely with regards to the two
points above is that of whether these things were a misperception on the part
of the disciples. In other words, could
these things be explained through some type of psychological factor--not
deliberate self-deception or some sort of wishful thinking on the part of the
disciples. On this point, Pannenberg
points to the fact that their hopes and expectations had been abandoned--and
that this is not, in his judgement, something that they were expecting or
something that they were likely to talk themselves into. Let us back up here for a moment--it is
rather standard in these discussion, not to consider Jesus' predictions of
Passion and Resurrection to be historically reliable. Pannenberg does not take the position that,
well, Jesus had told them several times about what would happen and it finally
happened. If they had expected it in
that manner then the question of a psychological deception would be a more
urgent question to address. But the
language here, which he and others refer to, is one that accents the initiative
of the Risen Christ in this (i.e., he showed himself).]
Are Recorded
Events Historical?
In
references to appearances and to an empty-tomb, Pannenberg does not argue that
the detailed stories of the appearances in the Gospels are historical, nor does
he argue that the story of the visit to the tomb is historical. In the cases of the appearances, it is rather
clear that the stories are not that historically reliable. In the cases of the empty-tomb, he would be
more inclined to accept the possibility of historical accuracy (as far as the
details are concerned).
A Historical
Explanation
Pannenberg
then says that we need historically an explanation of the fact that these
things are the case--particularly with regard to the appearances. If we put together the fact that Jesus was
crucified on the one hand and that shortly thereafter he was seen alive by
various people, the only possible historical explanation is that in the mean
time he had been raised from the dead (we will come back to the use of the word
"raised" here). Pannenberg
says that this is the only way to make sense of the events. We do not have direct historical access to
what occurred between the time that Jesus died on the cross and was seen alive
later. But because of the knowledge of
what was before and what is after, the only plausible thing to say is the
Resurrection has occurred in between.
Apocalyptic
Notions/Hope For The Future
To
express what has happened to Jesus, his followers used Resurrection
language. In using this language the
disciples borrowed from apocalyptic conceptions of a general resurrection of
the dead at the end of time, but they modified these conceptions very
considerably by saying that in this one instance resurrection is not deferred
until the end of the world, but has rather occurred already. This, in a sense, is part of Pannenberg's
overall argument. We can note that what
he sees as the general context is hope for the future--a hope that does not
include the idea of one individual being raised. Therefore, Pannenberg suggests that in order
for the disciples to modify the received conception to that extent, there must
have been a very strong impulse for them to do so. This is what he finds particularly in the
appearances (references to the empty-tomb function more as a confirmation of
that). This apocalyptic hope in
Pannenberg's judgement, is not a thing of the past. The details and specifics of it are a thing
of the past, but he argues that there is a general anthropological hope for
survival beyond death (i.e., a hope for continued or renewed existence beyond
death).
A Contrast
Between Pannenberg And Marxen
A
contrast between Pannenberg and Marxen may be helpful for explaining this
point. One of Marxen's reasons for
reservations about Resurrection language is that he thinks it is a relic of the
past--now that we have gone through demythologization, many people are not
apocalyptic. Pannenberg would counter
that Marxen looks too much at the surface of apocalypticism and that there is a
deeper, more general anthropological hope for survival that is the reference
point of this aspect of the Christian preaching. What does this mean with regard to the
language of Resurrection (i.e., saying that Jesus is Risen)? Pannenberg grants that there is a certain
metaphorical character attached to "rising from sleep," but he
insists, unlike Marxen, that this language cannot be replaced by other language
of a different kind. It could be
replaced by word like "exalted" (this is another way of saying the
same thing), but we cannot replace it with more general formulations about
"Jesus' cause coming on" or that "he still comes today" or
something of that sort. [Pannenberg
believes that we can say the same thing with different words--when talking
about the Resurrection, he believes that Marxen says something different]. Pannenberg's position is that only this
language, or this language field, is suitable to the matter at hand. He does not give us a complete description of
Jesus' Risen body, but that lies in the nature of the case--there are limits to
what we can say about matters of this sort.
Pannenberg believes that Resurrection language includes the idea of
personal continued (though transformed) existence on the part of Jesus--it
includes (in this instance at least), the emptiness of the tomb. In Pannenberg's judgement, Marxen's position
(and the same can be said of Bultmann) does not do this, but rather uses
language (if they use this language at all) as a vehicle for saying something
else (where it becomes a rather unsuitable way of saying something that could
be put in better terms). Pannenberg
holds that the Christian proclamation is justified historically--even this
reference to the Resurrection. The
Christological argumentation of Pannenberg is then complete. The Resurrection provides anticipation of the
end of the world and also provides confirmation of Jesus' public life. What is at issue here is not only the
conception of the Resurrection but an entire theological program.
The Search For Historical Data
At
this point it is important to draw attention to one other element. It is quite clear that Pannenberg is looking
for much more historical data than Bultmann or Marxen. One reason for this is that Pannenberg thinks
that faith is not credible without such historical data. Conversely, Bultmann and Marxen both think
that faith is better off without historical data. In both cases it would be a mistake to
conclude either that something happened or that something did not happen just
because that is the [???] to which faith appeals. We can see the differences in the
understanding of Revelation and understanding of [???]. Pannenberg does not say that we recognize
that Jesus is Risen because we have faith; he is saying that because we
recognize that Jesus has Risen we are justified in having faith (and ought to
have faith). Pannenberg defends himself
against the charge that this whole conception makes faith a product of historical
reasoning rather than Divine gift. He
would say that faith is more than taking note that something has
happened--faith is a commitment to the trust of living of one's life in a
particular manner (and it is quite possible for someone to recognize the
historical argumentation and yet still wish to have nothing to do with
Christianity). In principle, Pannenberg
argues that the historical information is accessible to an open-minded inquirer
(but not without considerable effort--effort with regard to the specifics and
also effort with regard to the overall context).
Notions Of
An Expected General Resurrection
Pannenberg
takes the position that there is a widespread expectation of a general
resurrection at the end of the world, but not an expectation of a resurrection
while the history of the world is in progress.
Pannenberg believes that we can substantiate the fact of this
expectation by making references to apocalyptic movements and secondly by the
fact of Christian discussion of the resurrection in the New Testament (not
precisely the Resurrection of Jesus) draw a very close link between Jesus'
Resurrection and their own hopes for resurrection. Pannenberg's position then (keeping in mind
that these people were not expecting an individual resurrection), is that
belief in the Resurrection of Jesus is tenable.
Something made these people, who had been in utter despair after the
crucifixion, change their perception.
A
person who accepts Pannenberg's basic argument (with regard to the
Resurrection) to this point, is a person who believes in, or holds to, God's
existence (Pannenberg holds a conception of God with a very strong
future-orientation). A professor of
history who entertains such question, and is not hostile to the general notions
present here, will not necessarily accept Pannenberg's argumentation, but he
may.
Bodily
Resurrection?
How
important for Pannenberg is it that the body be involved in the
Resurrection? It is very important for
Pannenberg that Jesus be personally involved in the Resurrection (it is not
thus, because--as separate from his person).
It is very important for Pannenberg, that there be something public and
almost tangible about not the Resurrection itself, but its immediate
consequences--otherwise we do not have the desired public character to
Revelation. Pannenberg would be quite
suspicious of a dichotomy between body and soul which would say that this is
purely a matter of the soul. So these
things [just cited] would point in favor of the involvement of Jesus'
body. It is not likely that Pannenberg
would say that we can deduce the emptiness of the tomb from the affirmation
that Jesus is Risen. Pannenberg does not
appeal to concrete conclusions. He does
not argue the emptiness of the tomb as a deduction of the Resurrection. He argues for the emptiness of the tomb for
the reasons that were mentioned above.
Searching For
Meaning In History
The
search for meaning in history has to take one of two possible forms. One way is to focus on the individual (and
probably on the interiority of the individual--making sense out of dimensions
of one's life). This first way is more
in line with the ideas of Bultmann and Marxen and it is a position that
Pannenberg rejects. He rejects this
because the individual is intertwined with public history (and as such cannot
get out of it completely). The second
way, supported by Pannenberg, is based more on theological grounds and states
that Christians understand God as creator (or what Pannenberg often calls
"the all-determining reality").
This second way holds that God is either in some sense the Lord of
history or God is not Divine. The public
history cannot be exempted from that scale.
And so if we cannot pursue the avenue of escape into the interiority of
the individual, the only thing that we can do is to recognize that the final
meaning of history will only become established and edited at the end. So we cannot avoid the reference here to an
end, and we cannot avoid recognition that only from that perspective can
anything make sense. Anything that takes
place in the meantime is by definition provisional and subject to falsification
and alteration on the basis of what might happen [to it]. However, if we have an event that anticipates
an end, then that provisional character is altered.
Roman
Catholic Theology
We
now turn to a sketch of three Roman Catholic authors. Before we review these authors, let us
examine the background of the discussion in Roman Catholic circles. The theological textbooks of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century did not give a great deal of attention
to the Resurrection. The Resurrection
was treated at length in fundamental theology and apologetic argumentation, but
when it came to dogmatic theology the Resurrection was treated very
briefly. An example of this is a work by
Ludwig Ott entitled Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. This book is five-hundred and forty-four
pages long but only devotes three and one-half pages to the Resurrection and
Ascension (taken together). The
interesting thing about the treatment of these matters in this work is not that
it is so brief, but that it is "matter of fact" about its brevity
(i.e., "what needs to be said about this subject can be said very
simply"). Since that time, this
situation has changed considerably (and this for various reasons). One reason for the change goes back to the
1920s and 1930s with the impact of the Biblical and Liturgical movement in
Roman Catholic theological circles (the Resurrection gets much attention in the
Bible and there is a strong emphasis on the Paschal mystery in the liturgical
movement). In the 1950s and 1960s Roman
Catholic systematic theologians sought to increase treatment and enhance the
position of the Resurrection in dogmatic theology. This increased attention to the Resurrection
continues to be the case at the present time.
Two Issues
With Regard To Roman Catholic Developments
There
are two issues to keep in mind here.
First, whenever theologians turn their attention to anything, more than
they had in the past, they discover new problems. In this case, what started out as a unified
movement to give more attention to the Resurrection then fragmented to a
certain extent. This occurred because
different people have different ideas about what is important about the
Resurrection. And so we have diverse
theological positions among Roman Catholics on the nature of the Resurrection,
on the salvific significance of the Resurrection and on the way that the
Resurrection has been revealed.
Christology
April 16, 1991
Karl
Rahner's Theology Of The Resurrection
At
this point we turn to Karl Rahner's theology of the Resurrection. Rahner addresses this question in a number of
different places. It is not possible to
point to one particular essay for a summary of all that Rahner has to say on
the subject of the Resurrection. Probably the closest thing to a summary of
Rahner's theology of the Resurrection is in his essay on the subject in Sacramentum
Mundi 5.
A
Starting Point Of Theological Anthropology
Rahner's
perspective on the Resurrection of Jesus is not developed primarily from an
exegetical perspective. He does talk
about the Biblical texts, but that is not his chief reference point. Instead, Rahner's starting point is his
theological anthropology--particularly his understanding of human freedom and
death. In order to avoid a possible
misinterpretation to begin with, it is important to note that Rahner was not
someone who never heard about the Resurrection and who reached his conclusions
based on a reflection of human freedom.
To the contrary, it is rather that as a Christian, Rahner had believed
in, and spoke about, the Resurrection over a long period of time. Because of this reflection, he was then able
to reflect on what the Resurrection means and does not mean--both with regards
to the Resurrection of Jesus and with regard to our own more general hope for
resurrection ourselves. It is in this
way that Rahner was able to make a reflection on freedom and a theology of
death and which led, as far as he was concerned, to a greater illumination of
the idea of Resurrection.
Rahner's
Theology Of Freedom
First,
very briefly, with regard to his theology of freedom, it can be said that
Rahner distinguishes between various possible understandings of freedom (each
of which may have a place--but one of which is more important to him than
others). One level of understanding
freedom can be seen as a choice between objects--the choice of one thing rather
than another. This can be a decision to
"do this" rather than to "do that" (or even the decision to
do something rather than nothing at all).
A second level of understanding freedom is to see it as an ability to
make something of oneself. This is the
ability of self-disposal. In more
explicitly religious terms, this is personal self-disposal before God (e.g.,
the way in which one chooses will determine that person's eternity). From this second perspective (i.e.,
self-disposal before God), Rahner argues that freedom of its very nature seeks
permanence. Constant change (back and
forth) that results from indecision would be a sign that freedom has not yet
really been engaged. And so, from this
point of view, Rahner argues that human freedom, of its very nature, has some
sort of temporal limitation in its exercise (this is a period in which it is
exercised with permanent implications).
This means that the exercise of human freedom culminates with death.
Rahner's
Theology Of Death
This
brings us to Rahner's theology of death (this is a subject about which Rahner
has written extensively, but here we will only briefly overview it). A basic element of his theology, important to
what we are discussing here, is that death involves both passive and active
dimensions. The passive dimension is
what meets the eye most readily. It is
the endured end of one's life imposed on us, perhaps abruptly, from without (or
perhaps due to forces within ourselves--but it is not something that is
completely under our control). Deat is
not under our control at all as far as the fact that we are going to die is
concerned--and in the long run the circumstances are also not under our
control. This is the more passive side
of death--death is something that we endure.
The more active side of Death, however, is that it is the completion of
one's personal history of freedom. The
passive and active may coincide with time, but they may not be [in our mind]
simultaneous.
Freedom
And Its Final State In Death
In
any case, Rahner argues that human death is not extinction (and this of course
is a standard Roman Catholic position).
Rahner says that the freedom with which we have exercised over the
course of our lifetime reaches its final state in death. There is a certain permanence in the exercise
of freedom in death. How this occurs in
detail (i.e., how we can describe the situation of an individual who has died)
goes beyond our ability to envision.
What we anticipate here is a stage which preserves all the constitutive
dimensions of human existence.
Therefore, it is really we who continue through death, but which on the
other hand must be understood between two extremes--it is not a continuation of
existence in its current form (i.e., life goes on as it was before death or it
is resuscitated). On the other hand, it
is not a new mode of existence completely unrelated to what has preceded it
(i.e., it is a new mode of existence in some fashion, but it is not something
completely new and unrelated). One brief
formulation of Rahner on this point is as follows:
"Death
itself is not the nullifying end of history, but the event in which history
[elevates itself,] by God's own act, into the infinite freedom of God."
All of this, so
far, is said in general with regard to human existence (as a general aspect of
theological anthropology and eschatology).
We can note that the formulations here have thus far avoided the word
"resurrection." At this point
we are leaving open the question of whether this eternalized act of freedom is
the result of (to put it in simple terms) a good life or a bad life. That issue is still open. It is the permanence of the way in which one
exercises one's freedom under God's grace, but there is no is guarantee in
individual cases that freedom has been exercised properly.
Freedom,
Death And The Unique Character Of Jesus
When
we come to the figure of Jesus then we have two things--we have the basic
characteristics of these anthropological principles applied to a particular
case and we also have unique elements because of the uniqueness of Jesus. Here, of course, the permanent state is to be
described completely and in positive terms.
Jesus' death is the culmination of his exercise of freedom, his
Resurrection, the personal permanence of his life. This leads Rahner to insist on a couple of
points. First of all, he insists that
the Resurrection is not an extrinsically imposed sign of Divine approval (what
he objects to in this formulation is the notion that it would be extrinsically
imposed by God--which would break the dimension of continuity between Jesus'
life, death and Resurrection). Instead,
the Resurrection is the perfecting end of Jesus' specific life and death. On this point Rahner writes:
"The
resurrection of Christ is not another event after his suffering
and after his death, but (despite the temporal extension, which is an inner
aspect of even the most unified and indivisible deed of a spatio--temporal
human being) the appearance of what took place in Christ's death: the
performed and endured handing over of the entire reality of the one
corporal man to the mystery of the mercifully loving God through Christ's
collected freedom, which disposes over his entire life and his entire
existence."
Rahner's statement
that "the resurrection of Christ is not another event after his suffering
and after his death" is an example of the articulation of the unity of
death and resurrection in his conception.
What follows after the colon in the above cited passage is a brief
summary of what Rahner means by "the appearance of what took place in
Christ's death." The statement
"the performed and endured handing over" is phrased to suggest both
the active and passive dimension of the death (i.e., death as self gift, or
something that one does, and death as something that is inflicted on one). It should be noted here that the Biblical
passage which Rahner uses rather frequently to articulate this (although not
meant as an exegesis of an individual text) are the last words of Christ, found
in Luke's Gospel, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" This passage captures for Rahner what
basically happens in Jesus' death (though this may not have been visible to a
bystander).
Inseparability
Of Christ's Death And Resurrection
From
the considerations reviewed in the previous paragraph, Rahner draws the
explicit conclusion that the salvific meaning of Christ's death and the
salvific meaning of his Resurrection are inseparable from each other. Rahner would say that we can illuminate the
salvific meaning of Christ's life and death from different angles. In this sense, we may find that thinking
about the Crucifixion as such sheds light on certain things, whereas thinking
about the Resurrection as such sheds light on the same thing from a different
perspective. Rahner would not preach the
same homily on Good Friday that he would preach on Easter Sunday, but, in the
long run, he holds that one is looking at the same event from two
perspectives. Rahner holds that it is not
possible to attribute salvific significance to either death or Resurrection in
isolation from the other. This
conclusion is drawn explicitly in the following passage:
".
. .the resurrection does not mean the beginning of a new period in the life of
Jesus, a further extension of time filled with new and different things. [Rather, it means precisely that permanent,
saved definitiveness of the single, unique life of Jesus who achieved this
permanent definitiveness of his life precisely through his free death in
obedience.] From this perspective, if
the fate of Jesus has any soteriological significance at all, this significance
can be situated neither in death nor in resurrection taken separately, but can
only be illuminated now from the one and now from the other aspect of this
single event."
Perhaps
one way of putting this more concretely is to approach the question from the
following angle: Rahner takes the
position that the Resurrection is the only possible result of Jesus' life and
death. It is the consequence of that
life and death. This leaves open the
question as to whether that could have been recognized before the fact (this is
another issue), but in fact, it is inconceivable that this life and death would
conclude and culminate in any other way.
Revelation
Of The Resurrection
At
this point we move to a brief discussion of the question of the revelation of
the Resurrection. Rahner generally
accents the appearance tradition more than the empty-tomb tradition. From the early days of his writing (1950s and
pre-conciliar) Rahner insisted that the Biblical accounts of the appearances do
not provide us with descriptive information about what risen bodies look like
or behave like. What is involved in
those accounts, even if they are taken as descriptive in their own right, has
to do with the transposition of the Risen Jesus into the range of the disciples
possible perception.
Limitation
Of Knowledge About The Resurrection
In
an article entitled "What can we say about the life of the dead?"
Rahner says that there are certain things that Christians affirm about the life
of the dead, but we must always keep in mind the limitations of knowledge of
things of this sort (i.e., we cannot claim to have very exact descriptions
about what the risen body looks like, etc.).
In this article Rahner also raises the possible objection that perhaps
we can learn more about what a risen body looks like. He says that we may be able to do this by
considering the Gospel accounts of the appearances of the Risen Christ. At least for the purposes of the article in
question, but perhaps in general, Rahner has no doubts about those accounts as
literal description of visions of the Risen Christ. Rahner still asserts that the most we can say
is that this is the way in which the Risen Christ showed himself to his
followers. He says that we must allow,
in this kind of instance, for what could be perceived by those who saw
him. This conclusion is reached on the
presupposition that we have an accurate record of what the disciples saw.
Dependence
On The Witness Of The Early Church
The
next issue, discussed below just briefly, involves the question, "What is
the relationship between these experiences and our own coming to
faith?" On this question, Rahner's
position has varied slightly from one text to another. His most common position, which is reflected
in his essay, "Resurrection of Christ,"
is that these experiences were limited to the early Church. He claims that these experience are part of
the early Church's foundational situation.
And so we are dependent on the first witnesses, not only for the
statement of fact that Jesus has appeared to them, but also for our knowledge
of the possibility of it. Rahner speaks
about this more colloquially when he uses, as a contrary example, the idea that
someone has seen someone else jump in the water--if we hear and accept that
type of report, we have learned through the report that the person has jumped
into the water. Prior to the report, we
did not know that such-and-such a person had jumped into the water, but we do
know from other experiences what is meant by someone jumping in the water
(i.e., we have seen it done in other circumstances). Rahner argues that this is not the situation
with regards to the Resurrection--when the disciples say that "Jesus has
appeared and the Lord is truly Risen," it is not as if we have had other
experiences of such an event and know this too; instead, we are dependent on
the witnesses (to a much greater extent here than we are in the other type of
situation--because we not only learn that Jesus has done this, but we also rely
on this as our source of information for what it is that Jesus has done).
Differing
Lines Of Interpretation
The
line of thought related in the last paragraph is perhaps a more common line of
thought in Rahner's writings, but there are also a couple of places in which he
suggests a somewhat different line of interpretation. He tends to assimilate the appearances more
closely, at least, to the overall experience of grace. In these contexts he still says that there is
something indispensable in the apostolic message. But here the decisive element (i.e., the
indispensable element of he apostolic message) is the identification of
Jesus. This, Rahner says, is what we
could not provide apart from the apostolic witness.
Rahner
Compared With Other Theologians
The
points above are a discussion of the main themes of Rahner's thought. Resurrection is seen here as a completion
rather that a correction--something suggested in the writings of Pannenberg. Also we find in Rahner a similarity with
Bultmann, in that he sees a very close link between the Crucifixion and
Resurrection. There are also certain
differences between Bultmann and Rahner that should not be overlooked (the
chief of which is that Rahner believes that the Resurrection affects Jesus
personally--although it includes a sense of the disciples coming to faith, the
Resurrection is more than that).
Edward
Schillebeeckx
We
turn now to a discussion of Edward Schillebeeckx. In broad terms, Schillebeeckx is the major
contemporary Roman Catholic alternative to Rahner's position. Schillebeeckx is very explicit about his
differences with Rahner.
Death
As Extreme Moment Of Human Weakness And Helplessness
Schillebeeckx
sees death from a more phenomenological perspective. Death, according to Schillebeeckx, is the
extreme moment of human weakness and helplessness. Schillebeeckx says that there is nothing
triumphant and nothing dignified about death.
This is true, not only of death in general, but very concretely of
Jesus' death. Jesus' death has the added
dimension of being first and foremost, an act of cruelty and injustice.
Schillebeeckx
Compared With Rahner
We
can see the difference that Schillebeeckx has here with Rahner--it is a
difference in perspective and a difference in the perspective from which this
one event is approached. Whereas Rahner
had the idea that Jesus' death was an act of self-emptying before God,
Schillebeeckx looks at the same death from the perspective of those who put Jesus to death (and this is the triumph
of the forces of evil--a major incidence of injustice in the world). Schillebeeckx fears anything which might blur
or undercut that perspective. And so
from Schillebeeckx's point of view, death and Resurrection are not to be looked
at as one event (i.e., one event with two sides). The Resurrection is not the revelation of
what happened in death, but a Divine victory over death. The Resurrection is a Divine act that confers
on Jesus' death new meaning (this gives a contemporary expression to what was
discussed above as the meaning of the word "correction"). The Resurrection does effect Jesus personally
(this is a common belief of both Schillebeeckx and Rahner), but it is something
meta-historical.
Resurrection
Not A Return To Conditions Of Prior Life
According
to Schillebeeckx, the Resurrection is not to be confused with a return to the
conditions of Jesus' prior life. [When
Schillebeeckx uses the word meta-historical, it is his way of saying that the
Resurrection is something "real"--even though it is not to be
understood on the same historical level of the life and death. Schillebeeckx does not use the same type of
language as Rahner when addressing this question. Schillebeeckx's position is that Jesus is put
to death, yet is raised (he is closer here to Pannenberg than he is to
Rahner). Schillebeeckx then goes on to
say that Resurrection is a confirmation that Jesus belongs to God (though this
is not a confirmation in the normal sense of the word, because a final
confirmation of Christian faith still remains in the future).
Revelation
And The Resurrection
We
turn now to a discussion of Schillebeeckx's position on the revelation of the
Resurrection. This is an aspect of his
theology which has attracted a good bit of attention. The following comments are prefaced by saying
that the attention given to Schillebeeckx on this point has mostly been
critical, but in response to the criticism, Schillebeeckx has somewhat modified
his position in subsequent writings. The
discussion below involves an overview of Schillebeeckx's earlier articulation
of this material.
Change
Of Heart On The Part Of The Disciples
First
of all, the discovery of the empty-tomb is not a factor in the origin of faith
in Jesus' Resurrection. Schillebeeckx
analyzes the Biblical narratives and he thinks that they are of a later
origin. On the other hand, there is a
change of heart on the part of the disciples between the time of the
Crucifixion and a period of a short time later.
There is a need for something to account for this change of heart. Schillebeeckx identifies this something as
grace filled experiences of God's renewed offer of salvation in Jesus. Schillebeeckx would say that the disciples
had already experienced [this offer of salvation from God] in anticipatory
fashion because Jesus had referred to it during his lifetime. Even though the disciples had somehow failed
and let Jesus down during his arrest and Crucifixion, they later experienced
renewed offers of salvation from God in Jesus after Jesus' death.
Original
Faith Of The Disciples And The Faith Of Later Christians
The
essential component of this (see above) is not visually seen--an in keeping
with this position, Schillebeeckx stresses similarities between the original
disciples' coming to faith on the one hand, and development of the faith of
later Christians on the other hand. This
gets spelled out further in a very unusual way in Schillebeeckx's thought. He asks the questions, "Can we be
somewhat more concrete about these experiences?" and "Can some of the
material in the Gospel appearance stories help us?" (the problem with
relying on some of the Gospel appearance stories is that the way in which we
have them is the product of later period--and because of that the question
remains, can we conclude from them two events that may have occurred in the
days just after Jesus' death).
A
Discussion Of Acts Of The Apostles
Here
Schillebeeckx suggests that it may helpful to look at the accounts of what
happened to Paul as found in the Acts of the Apostles. The Acts of the Apostles provide us with
three accounts of Paul's becoming what he became (we will come back to an
explanation of this). The accounts in
chapters nine, twenty-two and twenty-six, stress the theme of conversion. The issue in chapter nine is that of Paul's
becoming a Christian. The account in
chapter twenty-six accents rather a theme of mission. The focus here is of Paul's becoming of a
missionary (we might say an "apostle" thought the text does not use
this word). Chapter twenty-two is a
version which incorporates both the themes of chapter nine and twenty-six. These accounts in Acts are three tellings of
the same event which accent different ecclesialogical realities (i.e., they are
not three separate occurrences).
A
Discussion Of The Gospels
Schillebeeckx
says that when we go to the Gospel appearance stories, we find in them rather
strong emphasis on mission (e.g., "Go therefore and make disciples of all
nations!"). The wording of each case in the Gospels
varies from case to case (i.e., this is not a uniform with regard to the
passages in general). Schillebeeckx
suggests, very tentatively, that perhaps the Gospel tradition has gone through
the same process as Acts of the Apostles (i.e., that a conversion story in Acts
picked up missionary dimensions and then chose the mission story--he thinks
that the Gospels may also reflect this mission oriented stage). Schillebeeckx suggest that behind the Gospel
account may lie earlier stages which focused on conversion, a forgiveness of
sin, and a renewed experience of forgiveness which leads to the disciples
coming back together. It should be noted
that this is an earlier construction of Schillebeeckx that has been widely
criticized.
Difference
Between Revelation Of The Event And The Event Itself
It
is very important to keep in mind that when speaking of this material,
Schillebeeckx is speaking of the Revelation of the Resurrection--he is not
saying that the Resurrection itself is the disciples experience of forgiveness
(he has sometimes been criticized for that).
Christology
April 18, 1991
Schillebeeckx
(Continued)
In
this class we will finish our discussion of Schillebeeckx's conception of the
Resurrection. We noted at the end of the
last class Schillebeeckx's effort to reconstruct the possible history of the
tradition which reads the appearance accounts of the Gospels. That position of Schillebeeckx has been
criticized by many.
Schillebeeckx's
Modified Position
Schillebeeckx
gives considerable attention to his theology of the Resurrection in his
writings. To some extent, Schillebeeckx
has modified his position as a result of some of the criticism of his theology. Although he has modified his position
somewhat, Schillebeeckx still insists on the theme of the Divine origin of
faith in the Resurrection. He insists on
the need for new experiences on the part of the disciples after Jesus' death
(though he is now less certain about what these new experiences are--he would
certainly say that they had experiences of grace, but his previous
specification on these experiences as 'conversion' experiences is something
from which he now moves away).
Schillebeeckx now leaves room for a possible visible component
(this is not the same as asserting it as a necessary part of the picture). The one thing that Schillebeeckx rules out,
without giving a particular explanation, what he calls 'supernaturalistic
explanations' (this has a pejorative overtone, but he does not leave out the
operation of grace or anything supernatural in that sense--he does, however,
immediately rule out anything that would be so dramatically imposed on the
disciples that they would be almost compelled to assent).
Rudolf
Pesch
At
this point we turn to Rudolf Pesch, the last of the figures in our discussion
of the Resurrection. Pesch is a German Roman-Catholic New
Testament scholar and layman. Pesch has
specialized on the Gospel of Mark and has taken the general position in his
interpretation of Mark that this Gospel contains a great deal of reliable
historical information about Jesus. This
is particularly true with regards to his opinion about the Passion narrative. Pesch considers the Passion narrative of Mark
to be quite ancient in substance and comparatively lengthy from early on. Although this is not the place to go into the
detail about Pesch's argument with regards to the Passion narrative, it is
important to note this as we begin our discussion of his position on the
Resurrection. Pesch starts out from the
standpoint that we know a great deal about the historical Jesus (and that there
is a great deal of theologically significant information present in Jesus'
lifetime). In general terms, simply
looking at issues of the treatment of the Resurrection, it can be said that
someone who starts off with Pesch's position has more to rely on before even
beginning a study of the Resurrection materials (i.e., a study of what are
usually called the Resurrection narratives).
Jesus
As Prophetic Messiah/Disciples Prepared/Death As Salvific
Let
us get more specific about Pesch's position on these issues. The first point is that Pesch is
convinced that prior to Easter, the disciples recognized Jesus as Prophetic
Messiah (i.e., not in the sense of messiah as foretold by the prophets, but
rather as himself, at least a, if not the messiah in the
prophetic sense). An example of this for
Pesch is found in the scene captured in Mark, chapter eight where Peter says,
"You are the Christ." Pesch believes that this passage in Mark is
historically reliable information. Secondly, Pesch holds that Jesus
prepared his disciples for his approaching death. And thirdly, that at the Last Supper
Jesus interpreted his coming death as salvific.
Pesch holds that we can have very extensive picture of the historical
Jesus and a rather extensive understanding of the instruction of the disciples
by the historical Jesus.
Pesch's
Position On The Easter Texts
What
does Pesch have to say about the Easter texts themselves? First, Pesch finds the story of the
discovery of the empty-tomb inconclusive (his general position on the
reliability of the Markan narrative does not apply to the material on the
empty-tomb in chapter sixteen). Secondly,
Pesch judges the appearance stories to be illustrations of various theological
points, but not reliable historical descriptions.
A
Disclaimer On The Early Work Of Pesch
As
was the case with Schillebeeckx, we must now describe a bit of a disclaimer
before discussing the rest of Pesch's position.
Like Schillebeeckx, Pesch has written on the Resurrection in a number of
different places, and there has been a considerable amount of discussion on his
positions. As a result of the discussion
and criticisms, Pesch has more recently moved away from some of the positions
that he originally held. There is no
significant modification of his position with regard to the empty-tomb stories,
but there has been a modification of his position with regard to the
appearances. What will be first
described below is Pesch's initial position on the appearances, and then
secondly, a brief description of his revised position.
1
Corinthians 15
Pesch's
initial position on the appearances is that the relevant Biblical text is First
Corinthians, chapter fifteen. Pesch
holds that this formula is intended to express the ecclesial position of those
who are listed as seeing the Risen Christ.
He holds that First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, does not give us
factual information about the basis for their position.
Pesch
Compared With Pannenberg
At
this point it is wise to go back to an issue that came up in the discussion of
Pannenberg. In speaking about
Pannenberg's position on the Resurrection, one of the elements in the picture
was Pannenberg's judgement that the background in Christian speaking of the
Resurrection of Jesus is the notion of general resurrection at the end of the
world--Jesus, however is raised as an individual while the history of the world
continues on its course. One part of
Pannenberg's arguments is that in order to account for the disciples acceptance
of this idea, it is necessary to appeal to rather extraordinary events after
Jesus' death to make this alteration of the general picture possible. Pesch takes the position that this reference
to the general resurrection at the end of the world is not the right place to
look (or to put this a bit more cautiously, it is not the only place to
look). Instead, he holds (drawing partly
on the work of Klaus Berger) that the reference point here is Jewish
expectation of the resurrection or exaltation of significant individual figures
while history continues on its course. Pesch's position is that this is the general
reference point for the Christian statements about Jesus. This does not involve the same type of
transposition that is indigent in Pannenberg's argumentation.
Faith
In Resurrection Originated With Historical Jesus
Pesch's
position is that faith in the Resurrection originated with the historical
Jesus. It is what Jesus does in his
lifetime, and what Jesus does in going to his death
that brings forth faith from the disciples.
This faith is able to survive the Crucifixion (and here we find the
ideas of the Prophet-Martyr and Righteous Sufferer), and it provides a basis
for the valid conviction that God has raised Jesus from the dead.
The
Question Posed To Different Theologians
We
can put concepts about the Resurrection in slightly different categories--the
following are the questions that have been present consistently with regard to
the different treatments of the Resurrection according to the various
theologians: Is a given author
presenting the Resurrection as a confession or statement of faith? Or, is that author presenting the
Resurrection as something that can be established historically? Or, is both done?
Pesch:
The Resurrection Is A Confession Of Faith
Pesch's
position is that the affirmation of the Resurrection is a confession of faith,
not something that can be proven through historical investigation of events
after Jesus' death. What this means for
the issue of investigation into fundamental theology, is that the inquirer is
directed to the historical Jesus (or is directed into looking at the public
life and death of Jesus), and is not directed toward events after Jesus' death
which would demonstrate his status.
Contents
Of Resurrection Not Historically Accessible
It
is Pesch's position that the content of the Resurrection is not accessible to a
historian doing an investigation of events after Jesus' death. Christians say that, "Christ died for
our sins." Christians believe this
to be objectively true (i.e., not a figment of their imagination), on the other
hand, Christians do not claim to be able to demonstrate that in the way that
they can demonstrate the fact of the Crucifixion. Pesch says the same thing here about the
Resurrection--it is not the sort of thing that is historically demonstrable,
but if we understand properly what Christians mean by Resurrection (i.e., that
it is not a return to a prior way of life, etc.), it is something that really
happened to Jesus and is not just a pious thought on the individual's
part--[this is the sense in which Pesch uses the word 'objective' with regard
to the Resurrection]. The second sense
is, if asked the question, "Why believe?" Pesch does not say as
Bultmann or Marxen would say it "Its God's word. . . [???]." He also does not say, as Pannenberg says,
"Look at this event for evidence for events after Jesus' death." Instead, Pesch says, look to the life and
death of Jesus and see if that provides sufficient grounds for faith. If it does, then faith that is engendered in
that way (although faith is always God's gift) and includes the conviction that
God and Jesus are inseparable by death.
A
Question With Regard To Pesch's Thesis
One
of the exegetical questions in the background (of Pesch's thought) that is
still discussed and is still disputed, is the extent to which these ideas of
resurrection or exaltation of individual figures were widespread at the time of
Jesus. Most of the evidence about this
comes from later texts, or texts in which the dating is somewhat
uncertain. Partly in response to such
criticism, Pesch has more recently altered his position.
Pesch's
Later Position
The
following is a brief exposition of his later position: He continues to hold that the empty-tomb
tradition is not historically reliable.
He also continues to hold in principle that Jesus' disciples had, from
Jesus life and death, sufficient basis for believing in the Resurrection. Pesch now holds that the disciples break
through to renewed faith after the Crucifixion was stimulated by visions. These were visions of Jesus as the exalted
Son of Man (part of the reason for interest in this is that he wants to show
that the visions must show not only that Jesus has returned to life, but also
shows some type of glorification or exaltation--he links this specifically with
the category of the Son of Man who is expected to come on the Clouds of Heaven
in triumph). In Galvin's opinion, this
final speculation is rather dubious (the indication that anyone has seen such a
vision are uncertain--although we may look, for example, to the story in Acts
where Stephen sees a vision as he is martyred--although this is not
Resurrection material).
Differences
Between The Earlier And Later Pesch
The
differences between Pesch's earlier position and his later position are not as
great as that one element (i.e., Son of Man imagery), because he does continue
to insist that even without this, the disciples should have been in a position
to sufficiently be able to continue in faith.
Many have questioned the accuracy of Pesch's portrayal of the historical
Jesus. Pesch realizes that there are
many exegetes who do not have as theologically rich a portrayal of the
historical Jesus as he has presented him (and as he needs to present his
argumentation). There has also been a
kind of exegetical argument that Pesch may underestimate the negative impact of
the Crucifixion on Jesus' followers. All
of these factors have gone together in the criticisms of Pesch. Pesch does not concede on all the points that
his critics have raised, but he also now sees a bit more in the visual
dimension. His more recent position has
not attracted a much interest (it is closer to a standard position).
General
Comments With Regard To The Resurrection
The
following are general comments about the Resurrection. These are overall points to keep in
mind. First of all, it has been argued
that, at a minimum, it has been necessary to understand the Resurrection as
impacting Jesus personally and as not being reducible to changes on the part of
his disciples (although it may very well entail such change--but that is not
all there is to it). On the other side
of the coin, it is necessary to avoid thinking of the Resurrection as a return
to the conditions of life prior to death. To speak about the Resurrection, there are
two elements (again in broad terms) that must be present. These are first, some sense of continuity and
second, some sense of transformation.
One effort to articulate this is found in reflections of Paul on the
resurrected body found in First Corinthians, chapter fifteen, verses
thirty-five to fifty-seven. In that
passage Paul does not speak exclusively of Christ, but rather offers a general
reflection on the resurrection.
The
Importance Of What Goes Before The Easter Texts
There
is at least one important element in Pesch's thought on the Resurrection that
is good to review. Pesch emphasizes
references back to the events of Jesus' life and death. It may be that Pesch exaggerates these
things, but certainly he offers a reminder of the importance of what goes
before the Resurrection material in the Gospels. This is important to note because Christians
do not profess that, "somebody has been raised from the dead," but
rather that, "Jesus has been raised from the dead." The reason it makes a difference has to do
with who Jesus was and what went on in his life and death. So this is at least a significant element to
keep in mind.
One
Last Note: The Crucifixion-Resurrection Connection
Finally,
it is important to note, the importance of comparing what one says about the
Crucifixion with what one says about the Resurrection. It is important to ask whether or not things
tie together (e.g., if we say that Jesus' way of life is salvific, that Jesus'
way of life brought him to the Cross, and that the Cross is a complete and
utter failure, then this seems to be contradiction in thought). We should have a certain caution about
theologies of the Resurrection that are predicated on highly negative
assessments of the meaning of Jesus' death (and this is a judgement that is not
universally shared).
Christology
April 23, 1991
A
General Sketch Of Rahner And Schillebeeckx
In
this class we will outline, very briefly, the overall Christological approaches
of both Rahner and Schillebeeckx. We
might think of these two theologians of modern representatives of two systems
of approach to soteriology that have been present within Christianity for a
long time (and which show no signs of disappearing). One of these, that of Karl Rahner, is a
conception which sees salvation primarily in terms of the perfection of
creation (i.e., the completion, elevation and improvement of what is already
principally good). The second, that of
Edward Schillebeeckx, is one that accents more the overcoming of evil. As we reflect on these two systems, it is
fitting to think of the discussion in terms of the use of the word
"grace." The first perspective,
which draws on the Medieval Scotist system, is one which primarily addresses a
nature-grace issue (nature here more in the abstract sense of the way that
things are--created by God and not in the more concrete sense we are
describing). In the first perspective,
grace is the elevation and perfection of nature. Accordingly, the Christological question
becomes one of the role of Jesus Christ in that perfection of nature. The second perspective, [which draws on the
Thomist position], is one which thinks primarily in terms of grace as
"remedy" for sin and Divine opposition to sin. In Christological terms, this second
perspective, asks the question of the role of Christ in that overcoming of
sin. In traditional treatments of grace,
both of these dimensions are covered in different places--sometimes in terms of
"elevated grace" in the first case, and in terms of "medicinal
grace" in the second case. In
various ways, each of these dimensions is present in both Rahner and
Schillebeeckx, but the primarily accent in each case is different. This has a considerable effect on each
theologian's development of Christology and Soteriology. The result is that in Rahner's perspective
the overcoming of sin is brought in as a subordinate theme under the
nature-grace heading and in Schillebeeckx's perspective the perfection of
creation is brought in as a subordinate theme under the sin-grace heading.
Karl
Rahner's Perspective
The
following is a discussion of Rahner's perspective on these matters (not
presented in the sequence in which Rahner thought about the issues, but rather
in a synthetic fashion).
The
Starting Point For Rahner
The
starting point for Rahner is God's salvific will which is universal and which
is the ultimate reason for creation.
Grace is seen as God's self-gift.
Creation takes place in order that there be a recipient for that self-gift
of God. The point is that if God is
going to give himself (outside of God), then there must be something there to
receive the gift. The only way that this
can come about is for God to create something.
We might say that it is not the case that creation comes first in all
senses and then that grace is something of an afterthought when things go
awry. Instead, the purpose from the
beginning is the offer of grace--creation as such does not compel that offer to
take place because if it was not free it would not be grace. But, the Divine intention from the start is
to bring about not only creation in the sense of nature, but also creation as
[perfection of grace]. So the offer of
grace is present from the start.
A
Problem With Anthropomorphic Imagery
It
is difficult to say something on this subject without speaking in rather
anthropomorphic terms, but the point for Rahner is that grace and nature are
two exercises of Divine freedom. We
could say that there is nothing that compels God to create and there is nothing
that compels God to offer grace (even given the fact of creation). So we could theoretically have God simply
without creation and we could theoretically have creation without the offer of
grace (there are two levels of freedom).
Various
Dimension Of Human Existence
Rahner
then takes the position that this offer of grace must address various
dimensions of human existence. It must
do this in the sense that this is what the offer of grace needs to have in
order to achieve its own purposes. One
dimension of this is more public (historical), while the other dimension is
more visual. It is the public dimension
that interests us more in this Christological context. There is a public history to the offer of
grace and there is a public history to the human response to the offer of
grace. The offer is free on God's part
and it seeks free acceptance the human side (i.e., this is an appeal to human
freedom). The suggestion on this point
is that the offer of grace has various dimensions to it--that in some respects
it is present from the very beginning, while in other respects it has a history
(i.e., although it points to it from the start, it develops toward a climax
which is not present from the very beginning).
In a sense, we can think here of the theology of the Old Testament, but
with the understanding that such a theology is also being extended backward
toward the beginning of time (as far as the origins of this are concerned).
Jesus
As The Climax Of The Historical Offer Of Grace
It
is important to keep in mind that Rahner sees grace primarily as God's gift of
self. This is not the gift of some
lesser reality. The climax of this
historical offer of grace comes with Jesus.
In his writings, Rahner speaks of Jesus in slightly varying terminology
(e.g., Absolute Savior, Definitive Savior or sometimes Eschatological
Savior--in the sense of definitive at the present time and not to be surpassed
in the future). The argument that Jesus is to be identified
as this Definitive Savior needs to be fleshed out with specific
historical/Biblical considerations not germane to our discussion here. The overall, systematic point that Rahner
makes here is that the offer of grace has a history (including a public
history) that is in keeping with these public aspects of human nature. Accordingly, in order for the offer of grace
to be complete, it must achieve historical expression and acceptance in this
public dimension. Rahner speaks in some
places of a kind of "searching Christology" which looks in history
for a Definitive Savior (in such a search one would ask, "What would the
Definitive Savior need to be in order to be the Definitive Savior?").
Ecclesiological
Ramifications
Rahner
says that from Jesus' position as the Christ, it follows immediately that there
must be a Church. It follows immediately
that the Church must be the sign and instrument (i.e., the sacramental
understanding of the Church) of the continued presence of this definitive
salvation in the world. It follows
immediately that the Church as a whole, subjectively, can never fall away from
the grace of God. We see that ecclesiology
follows from this and serves as a bridge between the objective and subjective
side of the question. The same type of
guarantee is not also present when applied to individuals or to portions of the
Church. When we speak of the universal
salvific will of God then the ecclesiological emphasis is that the Church is a
sacrament of salvation (i.e., it is a sign and instrument, not only for its own
members but also for the entire world).
This is a system of ecclesiology that is not pessimistic about
salvation, but on the contrary is quite optimistic about salvation--even though
there is no guarantee that the offer is universally accepted.
Jesus
As God's Definitive Word?
What
is involved in this as far as Jesus is concerned? Rahner argues that the only way that Jesus
can be God's Definitive Word (i.e., God's definitive salvific presence in
history), is for Jesus to stand in a unique relationship with the Father. Anything short of that (i.e., anything short
of Nicean and Chalcedonian Christology) would leave Jesus on the level of the
prophets. Such a position would, in
principle, not be definitive--because something greater or something more would
always be possible.
What
Rahner argues is that when we say that Jesus is the Christ, then we mean by
this that Jesus is the definitive revelation or the definitive salvific
figure. Implied in this statement is the
Chalcedonian teaching that Jesus is truly God and truly man. If Jesus were not truly God, then he would
not be definitively salvific and if he were not truly man, then he also would
not be definitively salvific. The thrust
of Rahner's thought here is to say that the confession of the Divinity and
humanity of Christ is not at all an addition to this statement, but rather an
explication of certain elements contained in that teaching. So far, this is thinking more in terms of the
person of Christ, but the [terminology] that Rahner has used is also a formula
which has accented the salvific dimension of Jesus' presence.
How
does Rahner spell out the salvific activity of Christ? The basic reference point to answer this is
twofold. One is the idea that Jesus is
the Definitive presence of God (i.e., the Definitive presence of the offer of
Salvation). This is a line of thought
that is reminiscent of some Eastern strands of Patristic theology (i.e., the
Incarnation is itself salvific). The
second is the perspective that Jesus is the definitive acceptance of that offer
from the human side.
One
basic theme, particularly of Rahner's theology of grace, is that through the
offer of grace the recipient has been already transformed (even prior to
response). In this sense, the offer
itself puts the recipient of the offer in a position to respond for the first
time (i.e., it raises the individual to a point where acceptance is
possible--so that if acceptance takes place, it is a free human act, but not a
completely autonomous or independent human act). Human nature is openness toward God and the
fulfillment of that offer is grace. When
the offer of fulfillment is placed in perfect correspondence to what human
nature is, then it is not a destruction of it but rather is a fulfillment of it
(otherwise it would not be salvific). We
can say that the offer itself has an initial transformative effect on each
individual. So that what we have in this
case is not human nature in the sense of abstraction from grace, but rather
nature that is already permeated in a preliminary way by the offer of grace. We use the phrase "in a preliminary
way" because a full presence of grace is not there until human freedom is
then engaged in acceptance of it.
The
following treatment of Rahner's theology of the Crucifixion, is the last part
of this brief sketch of his theology (here we are talking about his soteriology). Earlier, in our discussed Rahner's theology
of death and Resurrection, it was noted that death, for Rahner, is intimately
linked with the culmination of the exercise of freedom (and that as long as
life goes on this exercise of freedom has not reached its climax). This is true also with regard to Jesus. It is in Jesus' death that his human freedom
reaches its definitive exercise. It is
in Jesus' death that his acceptance of the Divine self-gift becomes
complete. In order to understand this, we
must note a few words of caution: Rahner
does not say that it was doubtful about what Jesus was going to do; Rahner does
not say that Jesus wavered back and forth; Rahner does not say that Jesus becomes
Divine at that point. Rather, Rahner
says that in accepting (assuming) a human nature, God has taken on not a static
reality but a human-life history. This
life history, this human freedom, is present from the beginning, but it is not
fully exercised until that life history runs its course. In terms of the acceptance of the human
nature (i.e., with a body, soul and all that goes with that) this is complete
from the beginning (from the moment of the Incarnation). The exercise of freedom in that light,
however, is not present from the very beginning--it begins to be present when
Jesus becomes an adult, but is not definitive until his life is complete. Until Jesus makes his self-gift in death to
the Father we do not have the final exercise of Jesus' freedom.
Edward
Schillebeeckx
The
starting point for Schillebeeckx is the presence of evil. Evil is made concrete in the form of unjust
suffering of the innocent. When
confronted with suffering (i.e., suffering of innocent), the appropriate
response for Christ is to seek to overcome it.
The idea here is the removal of what ought not to be. The focus, therefore is action rather than
the theory of our explanation.
Explanations are likely to freeze things as they are.
The
Two Dimensions Of Narrative Stories
Action
needs support and direction, lest it become aimless (i.e., diffused). The basic repository of such strength lies in
narrative stories which involve two dimensions.
The first of these two dimensions are the keeping alive of the memory
of past suffering and the second is offering parables of hope (i.e.,
anticipations of a more just future.
These two dimensions here have just been expressed in general terms of
human responses to suffering. The
distinctive element is that the story that Christians tell in this context is
the story of Jesus as a story of God.
There is a deliberate ambiguity in the way that this was just
expressed--it is intended both as God's story and as a story about God.
Jesus'
Story As An Offer Of Definitive Salvation
Schillebeeckx
then retells, in considerable detail, Jesus' life story as an offer of
definitive salvation from God. This
offer of definitive salvation from God in Jesus is evident in his preaching and
in his conduct (e.g., Jesus preaching of the Kingdom).
The
Basis Of Jesus Preaching And Source Of Confidence
This
leave Schillebeeckx asking the questions, "What could be the basis of
Jesus' preaching?" and "What is the source of Jesus' confidence that
God's Kingdom is coming and coming soon?"
In answer to these questions, Schillebeeckx says that there are only two
possibilities. Either this is all an
illusion on Jesus' part or it is based on Jesus' unique experience of God (as
unsurpassably close and as opposed to everything evil or inhuman). This is what Schillebeeckx calls Jesus' Abba
experience, which Schillebeeckx finds to be the root of everything that
Jesus stands for and does. It should be
noted that Schillebeeckx does not claim that this can be proven as an objective
reality, yet he claims that there is no other explanation for what Jesus does,
but we cannot accept the message of Jesus without also accepting that this is
at the root of it (though we are not required to use the same
terminology).
Similarities
With Rahner
This
point is very close to Rahner's idea that Jesus is consciously and
unsurpassably close to God. The
difference between Schillebeeckx and Rahner is not a matter of contradiction,
but there is a different accent in Schillebeeckx' component of evil (which is more
prominent than Rahner).
Jesus
As Eschatological Prophet
In
order to articulate Jesus' position, Schillebeeckx favors the notion of eschatological
prophet. In this sense, Jesus is a
prophet like Moses (who is foretold in Deuteronomy, chapter eighteen). Such a prophet speaks to God face to face and
goes beyond other prophetic figures. The
terminology here is not quite the same, but is close to Rahner's notion of
Jesus as Definitive Savior. Jesus
however is rejected and put to death.
This death is first and foremost a triumph of evil. As an assault on Jesus, it is also and
assault on the offer of salvation which he embodied. It was an effort to remove him from our midst. However, this death is not the last
word. After his Crucifixion, the Church
experience knew his salvific presence and therefore recognizes that God has
raised Jesus from the dead.
Differences
With Rahner
At
this point we can notice considerable difference between Schillebeeckx and
Rahner--particularly in their respective theologies of death. For Schillebeeckx, death is not seen as a
culmination of the exercise of freedom, but primarily as something done to
Jesus by his foes. According to Schillebeeckx,
the Resurrection then restores Jesus to a new stage of life and to presence to
the Church.
Christian
Response To Jesus/Categories To Articulate Convictions
The
story, however does not end here.
Schillebeeckx attempts to trace on the story of the Christian response
to Jesus. He traces this to the New
Testament and principle points beyond that as well. He then concludes that Christians have
considerable freedom in the choice of categories with which to articulate their
basic conviction of God's salvific gift.
The Christian is not committed (i.e., required to submit) to the details
of Biblical terminology, but the Christian is committed to preserving four dimensions
in the articulation of a soteriology.
These four dimensions (or structural elements) are God, [Jesus]
Christ, Church and the Future. Schillebeeckx says that we cannot have an
atheistic Christianity, or a Christianity without Jesus, or a soteriology that
does not point toward the Church as a body of believers and we cannot have a
soteriology that holds that salvation is already completely present with
nothing to be expected in the future.
These are the four dimensions which seem to be Schillebeeckx's effort to
flesh-out a bit more what is meant by salvation from God and which at the same
time stops considerably short of using the typical New Testament categories.
For a concise study of Reimarus see: James
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Vatican II,
(New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 30.
Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus. (London: SCM, 1979).
The chief reference point here is chapter
seven of the Book of Daniel.
For a concise study of Lessing see:
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, pp. 30-35.
John Galvin claims that he has read
literature of authors who have had access to Reuther's manuscript and
apologizes for this "second hand" summary.
For a concise study of Strauss see:
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, pp. 173-180.
For a concise study of Hegel see: Livingston,
Modern Christian Thought, pp. 144-157.
For a concise study of Strauss see: James
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Vatican II,
(New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 173-180.
For a concise study of Reimarus see: James
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought: From the Enlightenment to Vatican II,
(New York: Macmillan, 1971) p. 30.
For a concise study of Hegel see: Livingston,
Modern Christian Thought, pp. 144-157.
David Friedrick Strauss, The Old Faith and
the New.
For a concise study of Schleiermacher see:
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, pp. 96-112.
For a concise study of Ritschl see:
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, pp. 247-257.
For a concise study of Harnack see:
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, pp. 257-262.
Martin Kahler, The So-Called Historical
Jesus and the Historical Biblical Christ.
p. 66.
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the
Historical Jesus, A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. (New York: Macmillan, 1968).
Schweitzer's own words, but no reference
given.
See article in The Tablet entitled
"The Most Recent Heretical Book of Edward Schillebeeckx." Specific bibliographical information (i.e.,
author and date) was not given.
"The Lord your God will raise up for
you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren--him you shall
heed--just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the
assembly, when you said, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God,
or see this great fire any more, lest I die.'
And the Lord said to me, 'They have rightly said all that they have
spoken. I will raise up for them a
prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my word in his
mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will not give heed to my words
which he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word
in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name
of other gods, that same prophet shall die.'" (Deuteronomy 18:15-20 RSV).
For a concise study of Barth see: Livingston,
Modern Christian Thought, pp. 324-339.
See: Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans
(London: Oxford University Press, 1933).
Note: the two dates noted refer to the first and second edition of this
work. The second edition was a
re-thinking and expansion of the first edition.
See chapter eight of Barth's commentary on
Romans.
The following passages are from Barth's first
commentary on chapter one of Romans.
Galvin did not give the specific reference.
Compare with Romans, chapter eight, verse
five.
Galvin did not give the specific reference
here.
For a concise study of Bultmann see:
Livingston, Modern Christian Thought, pp. 370-380.
This book was translated into English in 1934
under the title Jesus and the Word.
This is from Bultmann's Jesus, but the
precise reference was not given.
Mark 8:29b (RSV). Matthew's version reads, "You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God."
(Matthew 16:16).
An example of this is found in Matthew
5:21-22. In these passages we read,
"You have heart that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not
kill. . ." to which Jesus adds, "But I say to you. . ."
Specific reference not given.
Earnst Kasemann, Essays On New Testament
Themes. (London 1964).
Specific reference not given.
Specific reference not given.
Mark 14:25 (RSV). Compare with Matthew 26:29 and Luke 22:18.
Ogden recently wrote a book entitled The
Point of Christology.
See Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian
Faith (New York: Crossroad, 1987), pp. 243-249.
Mark 14:25 (RSV). Compare with Matthew 26:29 and Luke 22:18.
Karl Rahner, Foundations of Christian
Faith. (New York: Crossroad, 1987),
p. 248.
No specific references were given in class.
This Psalm begins: "My God, my God,
why has thou forsaken me?"
(Psalm 22, RSV).
Isaiah 53:4-5 and 11-12, (RSV).
For a comparative outline of the various
Resurrection appearances in the Gospels see "The Variant Accounts of
Resurrection Appearances" on page 1376 of the New Jerome Biblical
Commentary (Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmeyer and Roland Murphy, eds.,
Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990).
It is Galvin's opinion that a more accurate title for this outline in
the NJBC would be "The Variant Resurrection Narratives In The
Gospels." He believes that this
would be a more appropriate title because the outline includes events where
there are no appearances.
See MK 15:47 and MK 16:1.
"And he bought a linen shroud, and
taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud and laid him in a tomb which
had been hewn out of the rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the
tomb." (MK 14:46, RSV).
Luke 24:12, (as found in the footnotes of the
RSV).
See John 21:15,16 and 17.
In a 1978 edition of The Journal of
Biblical Studies there appears an article by Raymond Brown entitled "Other
Sheep Not Of This Fold." In
this article we find a study of ecclesialogical themes of John's Gospel. Among others, chapter twenty-one is discussed
by Brown with this theme in mind.
The passage reads: "And when they had
fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and
laid him in a tomb." (Acts 13:29, RSV). This passage gives the impression that Jesus'
enemies (those responsible for his death) disposed of the body.
For a further study of the Resurrection
material see: Reginald Fuller. The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives.
(New York: Macmillan, 1971). In a
two-page commentary for each, this study explores the different Gospel accounts
and also 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Galvin
does not suggest that Fuller's analysis of the texts is definitive in all
respects, but that it is a reputable treatment of the material.
This passage is from the Apocryphal Gospel
of Peter (the specific publication reference was inaudible on the tape, but
whatever the source, it is found on pages 190-192).
1 Corinthians 15:3-8, (RSV).
1 Corinthians 15:1, (RSV).
This Old Testament passage reads:
"Surely
he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted. But he
was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him
was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. .
.He shall see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be satisfied; by his
knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted
righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out his soul to death, and
was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors."
(Isaiah 53:4-5,11-12, RSV).
For a detailed
discussion of this theme, see the class notes from March 26, 1991.
See Psalm 22 and WS 2:12-14 for passages
related to this conception. For a
detailed discussion of this theme, see the class notes from March 26, 1991.
"Do you not know that all of us who
have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism
into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the
Father, we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 5:3-4, RSV).
"And you were buried with him in
baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of
God, who raised him from the dead."
(Colossians 2:12, RSV).
There is a book in German entitled Auferweckt
am dritten Tagnack der Schrift (Raised on the third day, according to
the Scriptures) by Karl Lehmann in which the author assumes this particular
formulation. Lehmann advocates the
position that "on the third day" is not to be understood as an
indication of time, but rather as an indication of Divine activity.
The passage in Galatians reads: "But
when he who has set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his
grace, was pleased to reveal his son to me, in order that I might preach
him among the Gentiles. . ."
(Galatians 1:15-16, RSV).
1 Corinthians 15:4-5, (RSV).
Examples of this are found in Genesis 12:7,
17:1, 18:1; Exodus 3:2, 4:1 and 6:3. The
use of this word is also not limited to these passages.
Found in: The Significance of the Message
of the Resurrection for Faith in Jesus Christ, ed. C. F. D. Moule (London:
SCM, 1968), pp. 15-50.
Willi Marxen, The Resurrection of Jesus of
Nazareth (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970).
Rudolf Bultmann, "New Testament and
Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Proclamation."
in New Testament and Mythology and Other Basic Writings, ed. Schubert M.
Ogden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), p. 40.
Rudolf Bultmann, "New Testament and
Mythology. . ." in New Testament and Mythology. . .. p. 39.
Willi Marxen, "The Resurrection of Jesus
as a Historical and Theological Problem," in The Significance of the
Message. . . p. 50.
Revelation As History is the title of
a book Pannenburg edited in 1961. There
he defended the thesis that history is the primary location of revelation, that
the Word accompanies it, explains it and so on, but still the Word is
secondary--in the sense that it is secondary to the events themselves.
1 Corinthians 15:3-8, (RSV).
On this point attention can also be drawn to
New Testament exegete Ulrich Wilckens.
Wilckens has long been associated with Pannenberg's works as one of the
contributors to the topic of "Revelation as History." Wilckens has also written a small book entitled
Resurrection, (John Knox Press).
See Jesus--God and Man (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1968), Pp. 53-114, and "The Revelation of God in Jesus of
Nazareth," in Theology as History ed. James M. Robinson and John B.
Cobb (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), Pp. 101-133.
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
(Publication information not given), 544 p..
This work, something of a standard reference work during the 1950s and
1960s, is a summary of Roman Catholic dogmatic theology.
Although the following is not an exhaustive
inventory of his handling of the subject, one may find treatments of Rahner's
theology of the Resurrection in the following works: "Dogmatic Questions on Easter," in Theological
Investigations IV (Baltimore: Helicon, 1966), pp. 121-133; Foundations
of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity (New York:
Seabury, 1978), pp. 245-249, 266-278, 282-285; "Resurrection of
Christ," in Sacramentum Mundi 5 (New York: Herder, 1969), pp.
323-324, 329-333.
Karl Rahner, "The Death of Jesus and the
Closure of Revelation," in Theological Investigations XVIII (New
York: Crossroad, 1983), p. 142. Note: In
the translation of this English edition we read "is dissolved by"
rather than "elevates itself" (the 'correction' to the translation
was made by John Galvin).
This is John Galvin's translation. The translation in Theological
Investigations IV reads as follows:
". . .the
resurrection of Christ is not another event after his passion and
death. In spite of the duration of time
which intervenes, which is anyway an intrinsic component of even the most
unified and indivisible act of spatio-temporal man, the resurrection is the
manifestation of what happened in the death of Christ: the imposed and enforced
handing over of the whole bodily man to the mystery of the merciful loving God,
by the concentrated freedom of Christ as he disposes of his whole life and
existence." (p. 128).
The translation in Theological
Investigations looses these two dimensions which are intrinsic to Rahner's
conception.
This translation has been modified by John
Galvin. The bracketed sentence above
appears in Foundations. . . in the following manner:
"It means
rather and precisely the permanent, redeemed, final and definitive validity of
the single and unique life of Jesus who achieved the permanent and final
validity of his life precisely through his death in freedom and
obedience." (p. 266).
Specific publication information not given.
Sacramentum Mundi 5, Pp. 323-333.
The following is an explanation of what is
meant by "correction" in the sense that is not accented by
Rahner: In the Acts of the Apostles, we
find that the speeches that are given by Peter and Paul, typically give a very
compressed account of Jesus' public life, then say "but you people have
put him to death and yet God raised him from the dead." This is a perspective that we find suggested
by Pannenberg (i.e., Jesus has been put to death but God does x.
in a way that "corrects" the evil or the misjugement of Jesus'
foes). Accordingly, while in the
Crucifixion is Jesus is put to death, in the Resurrection is Jesus is raised to
life (though not restored to prior conditions).
Rahner's statements on the relationship
between the death and Resurrection have been picked up by a good number of
other Roman Catholic theologians. We
find in the writings of Hans Kung, Walter Kaspar and to some extent Gerald
O'Collins passages which are substantial paraphrases to Rahner's writings. When we then get to Rahner's conclusion that
the significance of death and the significance of the Resurrection go hand in
hand those authors do not always adopt that conclusion. Schillebeeckx does not follow Rahner on these
points.
From Rahner's perspective the Resurrection is
historical in the sense that it is the other side of death. According to his view, it is so tightly
linked to the historical event of death, that in a sense we can speak of the
Resurrection as an historical event--but we then must allow for the fact that
death is a kind of exit from history (or completion of history). Schillebeeckx does not use this type of
language--specifically because he does not wish to tie the death to the
Resurrection.
Modifications of very complex texts are included
in later additions of Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (New York:
Seabury, 1979), pp. 329-397, 518-544, 636-650.
Sometimes the modifications are incorporated into the texts
themselves. The English edition of Jesus
is based on the later modified edition.
Pages 644-650 of this book are those specifically added to the third
Dutch edition to explain further his position on the Resurrection as a result
of questions which arose in connection to the first Dutch editions. In the Dutch version, the pages are numbered
in such a way as to clearly indicate that these pages were added, however this
demarcation is unfortunately lost in the English translation (nothing in the
English edition alerts the reader to this point).
The modifications of
Schillebeeckx's theology are best expressed in his book Interim Report on
the Books "Jesus" and "Christ" (New York: Seabury,
1980), pp. 74-93. This work has a
special section specifically devoted to a recapitulation of his position on the
Resurrection material in the light of criticism.
In these
texts, Schillebeeckx insists on some points from his earlier presentation and
he moves away from others.
For a further study of Pesch's theology of
the Resurrection consult the following:
John P. Galvin, "Resurrection as Theologia crucis Jesu: The
Foundational Theology of Rudolf Pesch," Theological Studies 38
(1977): 513-525; "The Origin of
Faith in the Resurrection of Jesus: Two Recent Perspectives," TS 49
(1988): 25-44.
Pesch has a two-volume treatment of Mark in
which he takes up this type of argument.
The name of the work and the publication information was not given in
class.
Examples of this would be exaltation or
resurrection of the prophets (i.e., significant prophets such as Elijah or the
Son of Man). A direct example in the New
Testament of this concept can be found in the Transfiguration scene where Moses
and Elijah appear (in this case we find appearances from heaven of individuals
from the course of history who are now thought to be exalted in some sense and
therefore in the position to appear while history still continues its course).
We can think here of the centurion in the
Gospel of Mark (who says, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"--see
Mark 15:39, RSV). The theological theme
that somehow Jesus' true identity is finally revealed in the death, is the
theme that Pesch is advancing here.
Pesch's original lecture on this subject was
delivered in 1972 at the University of Tubigen as a guest lecturer. This lecture was published the following year
(and was expanded upon). As a result of
the circumstances of the origin of Pesch's public delivery of this material, it
was commented on very quickly by various prominent theologians (including
Waltar Kaspar and Hans Kung--both of whom were teaching at Tubigen, and both of
whom disagreed with Pesch's position).
We can think here of contrasts to this (e.g.,
the story of the raising of Jairus' daughter, the widows' son and of
Lazareth). Jesus' Resurrection was not a
resurrections like that others from the Gospels. The other people, presuming the stories are
historical, go back about their business after they are raised from the
dead--and they die again at the end of their earthly life.
This term can be understood from the
perspective of the Old Testament. The
prophets were religious figures who represented God, but each of these figures
eventually recede from picture and another figure takes his place. While some of these figures are more
important than others, in principle a prophet can be replaced by another
prophet. Jesus stands on the one hand
against the background of that tradition, but differs from the others in that
Jesus is God's final Word. History does
not come to an end with the death of Jesus, but he himself is not surpassed by
another religious figure in the future (the titles of Absolute, Definitive,
Eschatological are all meant to suggest this).
This means that Jesus is God's definitive self-expression in history.
The same theme is present in a Christological
context, because the human nature of Christ corresponds, in a sense, to the
acceptance or the human freedom of Christ.
This human freedom of Christ, which responds to the offer, is itself a
freedom which is already permeated by the presence of God--it is not a human
freedom distant from that.
