heavily upon the thought of Ssren Kierkegaard. According to this posi- tion, our knowledge of Jesus’ deity is not grounded in any historically provable facts about his earthly life. It is a faith based upon the faith of the apostles as enunciated in the kerygma.
2. Conversely, Christology from below is primarily Thomistic. It at- tempts to demonstrate the supernatural character of Christ from histor- ical evidences. Hence, the deity of Christ is not a presupposition but a conclusion of the process. The appeal is to historical reason, not to faith or authority. As faith predominates in the former model, reason does here.
3. There is another possible model, namely, the Augustinian. In this model, faith precedes but does not remain permanently independent of reason. Faith provides the perspective or starting point from which reason may function, enabling one to understand what he otherwise could not.
28. Paul Althaus, “Offenbarung als Geschichte und Glaube: Bemerkungen zu Wolfhart Pannenbergs Begriff der Offenbarung,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 87, no. 5 (May 1962): 32 l-30.
29. Wolfhart Pannenberg, ‘Einsicht und Glaube: Antwort an Paul Althaus,” Theolo- g&he Literaturzeitung 88, no. 2 (February 1963): 81-92.
Contemporary Issues in Christological Method
673
When this model is applied to the construction of a Christology, the
starting point is the kerygma, the belief and preaching of the church
674 The Person of Christ
about Christ. The content of the kerygma serves as a hypothesis to interpret and integrate the data supplied by inquiry into the historical Jesus. According to this position, the early church’s interpretation of or faith in Christ enables us to make better sense of the historical phenom- ena than does any other hypothesis. Thus, our alternative model is not Christology from below, which, ignoring the kerygma, leads to conun- drums in attempting to understand the “mystery of Jesus,” as theologians often referred to it in the nineteenth century. Nor is our model an unsupported Christology from above, constructed without reference to the earthly life of Jesus of Nazareth; rather, it is tested and supported and rendered cogent by the ascertainable historical facts of who and what Jesus was and claimed to be.
Our model entails following neither faith alone nor historical reason alone, but both together in an intertwined, mutually dependent, sirnulta- neously progressing fashion. Increased familiarity with the kerygmatic Christ will enable us to understand and integrate more of the data of historical research. Similarly, increased understanding of the Jesus of history will more fully persuade us that the apostles’ interpretation of the Christ of faith is true.
There is biblical basis for this contention. Some of those who knew Jesus’ words and deeds very well did not arrive at an accurate knowledge of him thereby. For example, the Pharisees saw Jesus perform miracu- lous healings through the power of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 12:22-32; Mark 3:20-30; Luke 11:14-23). Although they certainly were familiar with the Jewish traditions and presumably had observed Jesus for quite some time, their appraisal was, “He casts out demons by the power of Beelze- bub.” Somehow they had failed to draw the right conclusion, although they possessed a knowledge of the facts. Even those closest to Jesus failed to know him fully. Judas betrayed him. The other disciples did not realize the significance of his crucifixion and even his resurrection. The religious authorities obviously knew that the tomb was empty, but did not interpret this fact correctly.
On a more positive note, there are also indications that when one comes to a correct perception of Jesus, it is on the basis of something more than natural perception. For example, when in response to Jesus’
question, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus commented, “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16: 15-17).
While we might debate at length over the exact meaning of “flesh and blood,” it is clear that Jesus is contrasting some sort of direct revelation from the Father with some purely human source such as the opinions of others.
Another case in point, proceeding from the other side of the dialectic,
Contemporary Issues in Christological Method
675
is John the Baptist. In
prisonhc began to wonder about Christ. And so he sent two of his disciples
to askthe Lord, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Luke 7:19). John may have been expecting some concrete historical event (perhaps his own release from prison?) as evidence that Jesus was indeed, as John knew him to be, the Christ. Jesus’
answer was to point to the deeds which he had been performing: “The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them”
(v. 22). The historical Jesus was the confirmation of the Christ of faith.
In this model the two factors are held in conjunction: neither the Jesus of history alone, nor the Christ of faith alone, but the kerygmatic Christ as the key that unlocks the historical Jesus, and the facts of Jesus’ life as support for the message that he is the Son of God. Faith in the Christ will lead us to an understanding of the Jesus of history.
The Person and the Work of Christ
A second major methodological question pertains to the relationship between the study of the person and the work of Christ. May they be separated, and if so, what is the logical order of Christology? Should the understanding of the person of Christ, his nature, be developed first, and then applied in order to give us an understanding of the work of Christ?
Or should we begin with the work of Christ and then deduce therefrom what type of person he is?
In the early history of the church, the two were held together in rather close connection. This approach changed during the medieval period, however. Scholastic theology separated the doctrine of the person of Christ (his divinity, humanity, and the unity of the two) from the offices and work of Christ. As a result, Christology was no longer relevant to most believers. The debates over Jesus’ deity, the extent of his knowledge, and his sinlessness, as well as questions like whether he had one will or two, were very abstract. It was difficult for average Christians to see what if any effect such issues had on their lives.
An opposite tendency developed in the nineteenth and twentieth cen- turies, however. It built on a famous sentence of Philipp Melanchthon:
“To know Christ is to know his benefits”30 This in turn is linked to Luther’s reaction against the scholastic concentration on the being of Christ.
Luther emphasized instead Christ’s saving activity
for u.s.3lThis emphasis
30. Melanchthon and Bucer, Library of Christian Classics 19, ed. Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), pp. 2 l-22.
3 1. What Luther Says, camp. Ewald M. Plass (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), vol. 1, p. 198.
676 The Person of Christ
on the work of Christ is explicitly realized in the Christology of Friedrich Schleiermacher, which appeared more than two centuries later. Schleier- macher begins his discussion of each doctrine with Christian experience.
This is in keeping with his general thesis that religion (or piety) is not a matter of dogma or of ethical activity, but of feeling. So for Schleier- macher the prime element in Christology is our experience of what Christ does within us. In theory, however, the person of Christ and his work are inseparable, and Christology can be approached from either angle.32
This correlating of the two considerations, but with priority given to the work of Christ, has been picked up by Bultmann and perhaps even more explicitly by Paul Tillich, who asserted that “Christology is a func- tion of soteriology. The problem of soteriology creates the Christological question and gives direction to the Christological answer.“33 In keeping with Tillich’s method of correlation, the theological answer is correlated with the existential question. Accordingly, we should concentrate upon the symbolism of the biblical materials, since it stresses the universal significance of the Christ event. The historical and legendary stories are to be used only as corroboration.34
It should be noted that there are two major reasons for approaching the topic of the person of Christ through study of the work of Christ.
One is the desire for greater coherence between Christology and soteri- ology. It is possible to treat the former in isolation from the latter. But it is not possible to speak of what Christ does in our lives without relating that work to the nature of Christ, which it presupposes. The second reason is the desire to demonstrate the relevance of the doctrine of Christ. It is difficult for most persons to take an interest in the discussion of some of the issues concerning the nature of Christ unless they see how it affects them.
Certain difficulties emerge from this approach, however. One is that when the emphasis is placed upon what Christ’s work does for humanity, it is the humans self-perception of need that tends to dictate or set the agenda for construction of the understanding of Christ’s person or na- ture. There is, then, a dilemma for those who focus their attention first on Christ’s work and only later on his person. Either they consider his work first and then apply their findings to the human situation, or they examine the situation first and then move back to the biblical materials
32. Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (New York Harper and Row, 1963) vol. 2, pp. 355-75.
33. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957), vol. 2, p. 150.
34. Ibid., pp. 151-52.
Contemporary Issues in Christological Method
677
regarding Christ’s work. In the former case, there is still the problem of potential irrelevance to the human situation. In the latter case, the danger is that the understanding of Christ’s work will be tailored to the human perception of need.
We should note here that there is a problem with the concern for relevance. It assumes that the person is asking the right questions. But is this assumption always valid? There may well be questions not being asked which ought to be. Analogous to this situation is the difference between telling one’s doctor about some specific symptoms and having a complete physical examination. The physical may reveal some facts of which the patient is unaware, but which are important nevertheless.
Likewise, there may be significant issues of Christology which will never be considered if the agenda is set by our subjective awareness of need.
Another problem is that a particular experience of Christ’s work will not necessarily settle a related issue concerning Christ’s person. A conclusion in soteriology may leave open more than one possible position on Christ’s nature. Therefore, basing one’s Christology upon “felt needs” will prove inadequate.
In spite of all these difficulties, there is an acceptable way of beginning Christology with Christ’s work. While it must not be allowed to set the agenda, it can be used as the point of contact for more elaborate discus- sions of his nature. These discussions will in turn give answers in the area of his work. We should be aware that if we are to build a complete Christology, we must look at considerations in each area to find answers to questions in the other.
Incarnation Mewed as
Mythology
Another issue which is of growing concern in the doing of Christology is whether the idea of incarnation is mythological. According to some, the idea that God became man and entered human history, which is basically what the doctrine of the incarnation has historically signified, is not to be taken literally.35 Indeed, according to this contention, it is neither necessary nor possible to do so. A number of factors have fostered this theory.
35. While this view was given particular exposure and impetus through the publica- tion of The Myth of Cod kvxrnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), it had many earlier expressions. Stephen Neill recalls the Girton Conference of the Modern Churchmen’s Union (1921) in such a way as to make The Myth of God Incarnate seem like a case of d6jti vu_ See Stephen NeiIl, “Jesus and Myth,” in The Truth of God Incarnate, cd. Michael Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), pp. 66-67.
678 The Person of Christ
One is Rudolf Bultmann’s program of demythologization. Bultmann concluded that much of the New Testament is myth. By “myth” he meant an attempt by human beings to give expression to the otherworldly in terms of symbolism drawn from the this-worldly. These conceptions are not to be thought of as a literal expression of the nature of reality. And they are not to be regarded as somehow specially revealed by God, nor is their presentation in the writings of the apostles and prophets to be regarded as being somehow divinely inspired. They are simply culturally conditioned conceptions of the nature of reality. In many cases, we can identify the sources from which they were taken: Hellenism, Judaism, Gnosticism. Bultmann insisted that these conceptions must be “demy- thologized.” He did not mean that they are to be eliminated, but rather that they are to be reinterpreted. Myth is used by the Scripture writers to give expression to what had happened to them existentially. Consider as an example the story of Jesus’ walking on the water (Matt. 1422-33).
Taken literally, it purports to tell us of an actual event, a miraculous occurrence. But when demythologized, it is seen to tell us something of what had happened to the disciples. Whatever actuaZZy happened is of little concern. The point is that Jesus had made a profound impact upon the Twelve. Whatever he was, he was incredibly impressive. The way they sought to give expression to the fact that Jesus had made an impression on them unequaled by anyone they had ever known was to tell this and other “miracle” stories about him. Jesus was the sort of person of whom one would have to say: “If anyone could walk on water, it would be Jesus!“36
A second influence contributing to the contention that the incarnation is mythological is the rise of a more generalized view of God’s relation- ship to the world. Traditionally, orthodox theology saw God’s contact with and involvement in the world as related especially to the person of Jesus during a thirty-year period in Palestine. By contrast, movements such as the short-lived Death of God theology posited an ongoing process through which the primordial God has become fully immanent within the world. This has taken place in steps or stages, with the most complete step occurring in Christ. From that point onward, the process has been one of diffusion outward from Christ into the rest of the human race, as his teachings and practices come to be adopted. The primordial God has ceased to exist; he is now totally immanent within the human race.37
36. Rudolf Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic Gospels,” in Rudolf Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism Two Essays on New Testament Research (New York:
Harper, 194 l), pp. 62-76; Rudolf Bultmann, “New Testament and Mythology,” in Kerygma and Myth, ed. Hans Bartsch (New York Harper and Row, 1961) pp. 34-44.
37. Thomas J. J. Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), pp. 102-12.
Contemporary Issues in Christological Method 679
This particular
cunccptionshows a great deal of similarity to the thought of Georg He& For Hegel, the event of Christ is not of singular significance in itself. It is merely a symbol of the greater abstract truth of God’s going forth into the world. It represents or symbolizes something of a more philosophical nature.38
There are many variations within the Christologies which view the incarnation as mythological. In spite of the variety and diversity, there are several points of agreement:
1. The idea that God literally became man is quite incredible and
Dalam dokumen
00031 Erickson Christian Theology Part 2.pdf - MEDIA SABDA
(Halaman 36-39)