Christology
Jesus-God and Man: Wolfhart Pannenberg
Simbarashe Sigauke
First Paper
Unlike Karl Barth and Rudolph
Bultmann, Pannenberg asserts that Christology does not begin with the kerygma
of the Christian community but from the history of Jesus.[1] He
claims that the Jesus of faith is the Jesus of history. Pannenberg is operating
with a Christology from below just like Schleiermacher, Althaus, Brunner and
Ebling.[2] The
Jesus proclaimed today is the same one who walked in Jerusalem during the reign
of Emperor Tiberius and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.[3]
Pannenberg argues that Jesus’ message was hugely anchored upon his
eschatological claim, however he believes that the historical Jesus never made
the claim to be the Messiah. But he affirms that Jesus did make a big claim to
authority insisting that people who believed in his message about the pending
kingdom of God would be saved on the Judgment day before the “Son of Man”.
According to Pannenberg, the “Son of Man” is distinct from Jesus Christ. Therefore,
Pannenberg aims to show that God reveals God-self through Jesus Christ by the
means of historical reflection in such a way that faith is not a necessary
condition for finding revelation of Christ. In this sense history substantiates
the Jesus of faith. The divinity of Jesus can be located through the claim of
Jesus, which is substantiated by the resurrection as a historic event. (The
kerygma and resurrection are not separate)
Pannenberg disagrees with modern
scholarship that has painted a picture that the Jesus of history is very
different from the dogmatic Jesus. According to Pannenberg modern approaches to
Christology have put a wedge between the God-man of Christological dogma with
the historical reality of Jesus.[4] Therefore Pannenberg aims to solve the errors
of classical Christology. He insists that individuals can locate the Christ of
faith through historical critical reflection.[5] Contemporary
Christology must grapple with the tension between dogmatic Christology and
historical Christology. He asserts that the study of the tradition of
Christological doctrine is not contradistinctive and antithetical to the
history of Jesus but rather it services in the promotion of it.[6]
Pannenberg states that, “ such a way of approaching the question presupposes
that the history of Jesus carries its meaning in itself.”[7] This
means that the revelation of the Jesus of faith in history is glaringly apparent
to the historian.
The history of Jesus and his
historical context are not mutually exclusive details. Pannenberg reveals that
the activity and destiny of Jesus have their significance in the context of
Jewish traditions within which Jesus appeared.[8] The
historical background of Jesus was Jewish apocalyptic theology. Jesus does not totally
disappear into this apocalyptic background; rather his uniqueness is uplifted
from it. But the universal eschatological claim of the appearance and his
history has driven the Christological tradition beyond Jewish borders to
embrace the gentiles in particular the Greek speaking nations.(Hellenism)[9]
Therefore the development of Christological doctrines emerges from the
primitive times, through the patristic times and finally into modernity.[10]
Pannenberg shows the dangers of
prioritizing soteriology, unlike Tillich; Pannenberg asserts that Christology
has priority over Soteriology.[11] He
is trying to prevent the projections of selfish human images upon Jesus.[12] Unlike
Karl Barth, Athanasius, Anselm, St. John, Cyril of Alexandria, and others who
developed a “Christology from above”, Pannenberg offers an alternative
“Christology from below”. Unlike Athanasius who begins with the incarnation,
Pannenberg begins with Jesus’ resurrection as the ground for his unity with
God. He reveals the proleptic element in Jesus’ claim to authority. Pannenberg
argues that contemporary Christology which pursues a Christology “from below”
erroneously claim that Jesus’ unity with God is substantiated by the claim to
authority instead of his resurrection.[13]Pannenberg
seems to retain the idea of the preexistence and the incarnation of Jesus only
in the sense that these concepts only reveal Jesus’ full and complete
affiliation with God.[14] However
Pannenberg’s conceptualization of the incarnation is different from St John’s
ideas or even Athanasius. He states that the incarnation only occurred in the
eschatological event of the resurrection of Jesus. He relegated the Athanasius
formulations of incarnation to mythology.[15]
Pannenberg argues that those that work with a Christology “from above” must
deal with the complexity of understanding how God and man in Jesus are
constituted ontologically.[16] A
disagreement is event primarily between those who hold an Alexandrian fusion of
Jesus and God and the Antiochene separation between Jesus and God.[17] Pannenberg
makes the resurrection and not the incarnation the only reasonable way to
explain the union between Jesus and God.
Pannenberg argues that resurrection
is a historic event which is substantiated by the tradition of appearances of the
resurrected Lord and traditions about the discovery of Jesus’ empty grave.[18]Pannenberg
has considerably less confidence in the appearance accounts reported in the
Gospels than he has in the Pauline report.[19]
The appearances recorded in the Gospels have a strong legendary character and
seem to have little historical probability. However Pannenberg still believes
that behind all these accounts lies a historic core. [20]The
appearances were visual and not psychological visions. The reason there was so
much detail about the resurrection of Jesus was to give proof to the historicity
of the event.[21]Pannenberg
also argues that the other reason for confidence in the historicity of the
resurrection is the empty tomb. He argues that the empty tomb argument has many
problems primarily the idea that the body was stolen but Pannenberg argues by
quoting Paul Althaus stating that the resurrection kerygma could not have stood
in Jerusalem for a single day or hour if the whole story was a hoax.[22] The
empty tomb also creates difficulties for the theory that the appearances of the
risen Jesus were mere hallucinations.It also buttress the idea that Jesus
appeared in actual time and space.This also implies that the resurrection
occurred in this world and in particular in the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem. The
other reason for the historicity of the resurrection according to Pannenberg, is
that it is a vital link in the chain of historic events which explain the birth
of Christianity. Christianity itself is a historical fact which encapsulates
others historic facts such as the resurrection message, the kerygma, the
worship of Jesus, the writing of the gospels and the faith of the early
disciples in the risen Jesus.This body of facts is not self explanatory, it
requires another fact equally historical to explain it.That argues Pannenberg , can be non other than the
resurrection:it is only through the resurrection that it was possible to
believe in Jesus again after his death on the cross. Consequently, the resurrection
was, historically the point of departure of Christendom.Without it, faith in
this man who had experienced rejection and suffered crucifixion would have
never been possible.
However I think that Pannenberg
cannot consistently articulate the “Christology from below”. Such a Christology
would require the assumption that Jesus was a real human being located in
history without any traces of divinity. Pannenberg cannot do that because he
still appeals to some of the dogmatic Christology that was developed from a
Christology from above. Even though Pannenberg objects to Athanasius
formulations of the incarnation he still has affinity to the doctrine of
incarnation but he only finds its fulfillment in the resurrection of Jesus.
This shows Pannenberg’s bias towards the “Christology from above”. Pannenberg
cannot logically formulate a “Christology from below” because he is a believer
who is already looking at “below” from above, approaching the whole endeavor
from the vantage point of the resurrection.
I also find it difficult to
reconcile the relationship between faith and history, given that historical
critical methods are rooted in scientific methods. It is impossible for science
to measure such things as experience, the mystic and the phenomenal. It is from
this premise that I think it is impossible to locate the Jesus of faith in
history. Even a Christology from below must first assume an above. Hence one
cannot accurately employ a Christology from below if they already have a faith
experience. I do not agree with what Pannenberg is trying to accomplish because
he seems to have already experienced the Jesus of faith and is intelligently
trying to locate this Jesus through historical enquiry. He is already biased
towards a Christology from above. My belief is that faith only comes through
the proclamation of the Gospel. History is inadequate to fulfill this task. History
will only lead to skepticism. Science most often causes doubt in the Jesus of
faith. Science primarily operates on empirical methods rooted in evidence. It
is difficult to prove an event like the resurrection scientifically. The
problem begins with the speaking of resurrection as an historic event. The
meaning of the word resurrection is widely debated. The resurrection occurred
in a different dimension that is not compatible with science. Another issue is
weather we can call a supernatural event like the resurrection historical. The
historicity of a visionary experience is also widely debated among scholars.
Pannenberg tries to prove that the resurrection is historical by challenging
the presupposition of modern physics judgment but still I find this redefining
of the term history unscientific and incompatible with modern science.
Finally I believe that the
resurrection of Jesus occurred as a metaphorical event just like Pannenberg. It
is my belief that the resurrection was not just the mere resuscitation of a
dead body but the total transformation of a dead body into a new heavenly body
in the same way a seed is transformed into a plant after it is buried and dead.
I cannot fully comprehend weather this event is historical or non – historical.
But my conclusion is highly biased by my prior commitment to the Jesus of faith;
therefore I can safely conclude that I operate with a “Christology from above”.
Bibliography
1. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus: God and Man. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987, ©1968.
Comments
Post a Comment