Synopsis
n the last decades of the eighteenth century, old arguments about what constituted true Christianity resumed with the newly refined tools and methods of linguistics, history, and comparative literature. The most sensitive questions sought to probe through the centuries and discover the original Jesus. Why, scholars asked, is the New Testament silent about most of Jesus's life? Why didn't Paul say more about the life of Jesus? To what extent was Jesus Jewish? How significant were the differences among the Gospels? What evidence could be trusted and what views justified? As scholars sought to discover and describe what they thought the "true"Jesus might be, they proved that Jesus could be many things. In this broad survey of the efforts to establish, amend, or deny the historical Jesus, Albert Schweitzer presents the history of a debate about what mattered most to millions of people: If God had entered human history, what could history tell about it? Throughout the course of this heated and prolonged dispute, one retelling of the life of Jesus followed another, enjoying -- in Schweitzer's phrase -- "the immortality of revised editions".Lesser writers might consider differences of opinion as signs of a hopeless enterprise, but Schweitzer instead finds immense value in the differences. Approaches and conclusions may differ, he concludes, but the quest for the historical Jesus has provided ample testimony to the importance of the effort and the rewards of the experience.
source link
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Albert Schweitzer’s ‘consistent eschatology’
Kwang Kyung Hoon
TOWARDS A MOSIM CHRISTOLOGY: A KOREAN RESPONSE
...............
Geza Vermes classifies the various discussions regarding the reign of God:
Albert Schweitzer’s ‘consistent eschatology’ (konsequente Eschatologie) assigns it to the near future. C.H. Dodd places it in the present time in the form of a ‘realized eschatology.’ Joachim Jeremias compromises, and with his ’sich realisierende Eschatologie,’ eschatology in process of being realized. He allots it partly to the present and partly to the future" (Vermes 1983:37).
Vermes points out the weakness of these eschatologies. He says that the chief weakness of the Schweitzer-Dodd-Jeremias’ school of thought is that it applies ordinary time-concepts to Jesus’ eschatological outlook. He insists that Jesus himself holds out the fact that the hour of the reign of God is unknown, citing Lk 17:20, "The reign of God is not coming with signs to be observed." Even Jesus does not know it. In other words, Jesus interpreted it not as the harsh judgment of a terrifying God but as the intimate presence of a loving Father (59).
Sheehan stresses that by the reign of God, Jesus meant the immediate presence of God as a loving Father. He explains that the reign of God has nothing to do with the fanciful geopolitics of the apocalyptists and messianists or with the juridical, hierarchical church. Nor was it any form of religion. The reign of God, Sheehan asserts, was the Father himself given over to his people.6 Given that the reign of God is the Father himself and is entirely and purely God’s gift as invitation, what remains for humans to do is to respond to the invitation. Sheehan picks up forgiveness, justice and charity as ethical virtues with which people can and must respond to God’s gift. He says that this mutuality—eschatology as the ground of ethics, and ethics as the realization of eschatology—is what made Jesus’ moral demands so radical (Kasper, 63).7
While Sheehan stresses practicing the ethical virtues, James Dunn emphasizes Jesus’ total surrender to God in the kingdom. Dunn sees that abba became the expression of the complete surrender of Jesus as Son to the Father’s will. Jesus’ self-surrender to God’s will is based on the intimate relationship of Jesus to God. The complete surrender of Jesus which was geared to his mission should be found in the fact that Jesus’ sense of being God’s son was an existential conviction, not intellectual belief. In other words, as Dunn explains, Jesus’ consciousness of an intimate relationship with God is not an awareness of metaphysical sonship, nor of a ‘divine consciousness’ (second Person of the Trinity). Dunn stresses that the only words adequate to express the experience of the relationship of sonship were that of Father and Son. By the experienced relationship of sonship, Dunn means that Jesus felt intimacy with God (abba experience), he had the approval of God (from Jesus’ baptism onward), dependence on God (Jesus’ total surrender and mission) and responsibility to God (Dunn, 383).
Schillebeeckx also focuses on the relation of Jesus as son and God. He notes that in Jesus’ time what the abba signified for him was authority and instruction: the father is the authority and the teacher. In other words, being a son meant ‘belonging to’ and one demonstrated this sonship by carrying out the father’s instruction. Schillebeeckx stresses that Jesus uses the familial term abba in addressing God and that shows the quite natural expression of the very core of his religious life: ‘Not my will, but your will, Father’ (Lk 21:42, Mt 26:42). According to Jewish spirituality, that is ‘doing God’s will,’ the familial concept of father and son can be applicable to the relationship of Jesus towards God who is understood as abba (263). Schillebeeckx also stresses that the soul, the source and ground of Jesus’ message, praxis and ministry as a whole served to illuminate the exceptional and peculiar character of the abba experience (266). Therefore, we suggest that the event of God’s reign must be considered in the light of Jesus’ response to God’s pure gift as invitation.
Being the sons and daughters of God in this sense expects filial piety of us. In the Korean cultural religious tradition we call this filial piety mosim, or reverence. We show this piety and reverence by doing ‘hyo,’ filial piety and we show this piety towards our parents or elders. We would like to suggest that Jesus who addressed his Father as Abba and who’s life was spent in bringing about the reign of God is the model of doing mosim whose filial piety, passion, mission. His whole life clearly shows it more than anyone else.8 more
TOWARDS A MOSIM CHRISTOLOGY: A KOREAN RESPONSE
...............
Geza Vermes classifies the various discussions regarding the reign of God:
Albert Schweitzer’s ‘consistent eschatology’ (konsequente Eschatologie) assigns it to the near future. C.H. Dodd places it in the present time in the form of a ‘realized eschatology.’ Joachim Jeremias compromises, and with his ’sich realisierende Eschatologie,’ eschatology in process of being realized. He allots it partly to the present and partly to the future" (Vermes 1983:37).
Vermes points out the weakness of these eschatologies. He says that the chief weakness of the Schweitzer-Dodd-Jeremias’ school of thought is that it applies ordinary time-concepts to Jesus’ eschatological outlook. He insists that Jesus himself holds out the fact that the hour of the reign of God is unknown, citing Lk 17:20, "The reign of God is not coming with signs to be observed." Even Jesus does not know it. In other words, Jesus interpreted it not as the harsh judgment of a terrifying God but as the intimate presence of a loving Father (59).
Sheehan stresses that by the reign of God, Jesus meant the immediate presence of God as a loving Father. He explains that the reign of God has nothing to do with the fanciful geopolitics of the apocalyptists and messianists or with the juridical, hierarchical church. Nor was it any form of religion. The reign of God, Sheehan asserts, was the Father himself given over to his people.6 Given that the reign of God is the Father himself and is entirely and purely God’s gift as invitation, what remains for humans to do is to respond to the invitation. Sheehan picks up forgiveness, justice and charity as ethical virtues with which people can and must respond to God’s gift. He says that this mutuality—eschatology as the ground of ethics, and ethics as the realization of eschatology—is what made Jesus’ moral demands so radical (Kasper, 63).7
While Sheehan stresses practicing the ethical virtues, James Dunn emphasizes Jesus’ total surrender to God in the kingdom. Dunn sees that abba became the expression of the complete surrender of Jesus as Son to the Father’s will. Jesus’ self-surrender to God’s will is based on the intimate relationship of Jesus to God. The complete surrender of Jesus which was geared to his mission should be found in the fact that Jesus’ sense of being God’s son was an existential conviction, not intellectual belief. In other words, as Dunn explains, Jesus’ consciousness of an intimate relationship with God is not an awareness of metaphysical sonship, nor of a ‘divine consciousness’ (second Person of the Trinity). Dunn stresses that the only words adequate to express the experience of the relationship of sonship were that of Father and Son. By the experienced relationship of sonship, Dunn means that Jesus felt intimacy with God (abba experience), he had the approval of God (from Jesus’ baptism onward), dependence on God (Jesus’ total surrender and mission) and responsibility to God (Dunn, 383).
Schillebeeckx also focuses on the relation of Jesus as son and God. He notes that in Jesus’ time what the abba signified for him was authority and instruction: the father is the authority and the teacher. In other words, being a son meant ‘belonging to’ and one demonstrated this sonship by carrying out the father’s instruction. Schillebeeckx stresses that Jesus uses the familial term abba in addressing God and that shows the quite natural expression of the very core of his religious life: ‘Not my will, but your will, Father’ (Lk 21:42, Mt 26:42). According to Jewish spirituality, that is ‘doing God’s will,’ the familial concept of father and son can be applicable to the relationship of Jesus towards God who is understood as abba (263). Schillebeeckx also stresses that the soul, the source and ground of Jesus’ message, praxis and ministry as a whole served to illuminate the exceptional and peculiar character of the abba experience (266). Therefore, we suggest that the event of God’s reign must be considered in the light of Jesus’ response to God’s pure gift as invitation.
Being the sons and daughters of God in this sense expects filial piety of us. In the Korean cultural religious tradition we call this filial piety mosim, or reverence. We show this piety and reverence by doing ‘hyo,’ filial piety and we show this piety towards our parents or elders. We would like to suggest that Jesus who addressed his Father as Abba and who’s life was spent in bringing about the reign of God is the model of doing mosim whose filial piety, passion, mission. His whole life clearly shows it more than anyone else.8 more
Christology Schweitzer
Albert Schweitzer, the world famous theologian and missionary, has traced in a well-known book published in 1906 the progress of Christology from Hermann Samuel Reimarus, who wrote in the middle of the eighteenth century, to Wilhelm Wrede whose book on this subject was published in 1901. "The study of the Life of Jesus," he says, "has had a curious history. It set out in quest of the historical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could bring Him straight into our time as a Teacher and Saviour..."51 Coming to the "Results", he mourns, "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. This image has not been destroyed from without. It has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another, and in spite of all the artifice, art, artificiality, and violence which was applied to them, refused to be planed down to fit the design on which Jesus of the theology of the last hundred and thirty years had been constructed and were no sooner covered over than they appeared again in a new form.."52 He concludes, "We thought that it was for us to lead our time by the roundabout way through the historical Jesus, as we understood Him, in order to bring it to the Jesus who is a spiritual power in the present. This roundabout way has now been closed by genuine history."53
James P. Mackey confirms Schweitzer. "It was just about two centuries ago," he says, "that people began to pride themselves on the bringing at last to academic Christology the scientific methods of the historian. Previous to the eighteenth century, it was felt, people had built their portraits of Jesus from all kinds of unscientific assumptions. Small wonder if false Christs had appeared in Christian devotion and Christian literature. Small wonder if different Christs had appeared at different times and places or in different Christian traditions. The modern quarters set out with the calm confidence that by the use of the trusty methods of scientific history the real Jesus could at last be made to stand up. And with the same calm confidence they produced first one portrait of Jesus... and then another... and then another, each disturbingly different from the one before... Pessimism spread far beyond the confines of professional scholarship: the 'real Jesus' could not really be found..."54 more
James P. Mackey confirms Schweitzer. "It was just about two centuries ago," he says, "that people began to pride themselves on the bringing at last to academic Christology the scientific methods of the historian. Previous to the eighteenth century, it was felt, people had built their portraits of Jesus from all kinds of unscientific assumptions. Small wonder if false Christs had appeared in Christian devotion and Christian literature. Small wonder if different Christs had appeared at different times and places or in different Christian traditions. The modern quarters set out with the calm confidence that by the use of the trusty methods of scientific history the real Jesus could at last be made to stand up. And with the same calm confidence they produced first one portrait of Jesus... and then another... and then another, each disturbingly different from the one before... Pessimism spread far beyond the confines of professional scholarship: the 'real Jesus' could not really be found..."54 more
A Christological Hermeneutic by Donald G. Bloesch
return to religion-online
: Crisis and Conflict in Hermeneutics
Donald G. Bloesch, Ph. D., is Professor of Theology Emeritus, Dubuque Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa. Among his most significant publications are: Crumbling Foundations, Zondervan, 1984; The Future of Evangelical Christianity, Doubleday, 1983; The Struggle of Prayer, Harper & Row, 1980; Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Harper & Row, 1978-1979; Jesus Is Victor!, Abingdon, 1976; The Ground of Certainty, Eerdmans, I971; and The Reform of the Church, Eerdmans, I970. The following was Chapter 5 in Robert K. Johnston, The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options, John Knox Press, 1985). The following was Chapter 5 in Robert K. Johnston, The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options, John Knox Press, 1985).
This is a test of The discipline of biblical hermeneutics, which deals with the principles governing the interpretation of Scripture, is presently in crisis. For some time it has been obvious in the academic world that the scriptural texts cannot simply be taken at face value but presuppose a thought world that is alien to our own. In an attempt to bring some degree of coherence to the interpretation of Scripture, scholars have appealed to current philosophies or sociologies of knowledge. Their aim has been to come to an understanding of what is essential and what is peripheral in the Bible, but too often in the process they have lost contact with the biblical message. It is fashionable among both theologians and biblical scholars today to contend that there is no one biblical view or message but instead a plurality of viewpoints that stand at considerable variance with one an other as well as with the modem world-view. more
: Crisis and Conflict in Hermeneutics
Donald G. Bloesch, Ph. D., is Professor of Theology Emeritus, Dubuque Theological Seminary, Dubuque, Iowa. Among his most significant publications are: Crumbling Foundations, Zondervan, 1984; The Future of Evangelical Christianity, Doubleday, 1983; The Struggle of Prayer, Harper & Row, 1980; Essentials of Evangelical Theology, Harper & Row, 1978-1979; Jesus Is Victor!, Abingdon, 1976; The Ground of Certainty, Eerdmans, I971; and The Reform of the Church, Eerdmans, I970. The following was Chapter 5 in Robert K. Johnston, The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options, John Knox Press, 1985). The following was Chapter 5 in Robert K. Johnston, The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options, John Knox Press, 1985).
This is a test of The discipline of biblical hermeneutics, which deals with the principles governing the interpretation of Scripture, is presently in crisis. For some time it has been obvious in the academic world that the scriptural texts cannot simply be taken at face value but presuppose a thought world that is alien to our own. In an attempt to bring some degree of coherence to the interpretation of Scripture, scholars have appealed to current philosophies or sociologies of knowledge. Their aim has been to come to an understanding of what is essential and what is peripheral in the Bible, but too often in the process they have lost contact with the biblical message. It is fashionable among both theologians and biblical scholars today to contend that there is no one biblical view or message but instead a plurality of viewpoints that stand at considerable variance with one an other as well as with the modem world-view. more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
gurukulam