Eschatological existence: The meaning of eschatology: A study of Rudolf Bultmann's understanding of eschatology in the New Testament

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ESCHATOLOGICAL EXISTENCE: THE MEANING OF ESCHATOLOGY n A Study of Rudolf Bultmann's Understanding of Eschatology in the New Testament by Charles Webster Hedrick A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (Religion) January 19 6 8 UMI Number: EP65318 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. DissBttsliffin RiblisMng UMI EP65318 F^ublished by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7 ' feg H TJns thesis, w ritten by . L k a r^ e s w e h s tfir' j f e J r i c k 2-o<s-<rc. under the direction o f h.iJS...Thesis Committee, and approved by a ll its members, has been p re sented to and accepted by the Dean o f The G raduate School, in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t o f the requirements fo r the degree of ......... Dean January; 1968 THESIS EE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ........................................... 1 PART I. THE ARGUMENT FOR ESCHATOLOGICAL EXISTENCE Chapter I. SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ............. 7 Demythologizing Bultmann and Heidegger History Biblical Theology II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF ESCHATOLOGY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT W O R L D .......... .................2 3 Eschatology in the Hellenistic World The Old Testament Eschatology The Rise of Apocalyptic III. THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS AND THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ....................... 40 The Eschatology of Jesus The Early Christian Eschatology IV. THE RE-INTERPRETAT:ON OF ESCHATOLOGY ........ 57 The Recognition of the Problem: Pre- Pauline Hellenistic Christianity Eschatology as Existence "Between the Times": Paul Eschatology as Existence in the Present: John PART II. A DEFENSE OF ESCHATOLOGICAL EXISTENCE AS BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION V. MEETING THE OBJECTIONS......................... 112 A Theological Discrepancy Apocalyptic Eschatology in John Futuristic Eschatology in John CONCLUSION.............................................. 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................... 191 INTRODUCTION The eschatology of the New Testament poses a gen uine problem to man in a modern society. It presupposes an ancient mythological mode of thought that is foreign to a man accustomed to thinking in modern scientific categories. Such a man just does not seriously consider it a real pos sibility that the world will end in a supernatural cosmic tragedy. This does not imply that he cannot conceive of the world, as he knows it, ending in his lifetime. This fact, in truth, has never been more real to him than it is today.^ It is simply that he conceives of its happening as the result of a natural catastrophe and not as a super- 2 natural event. Thus, the eschatological message of the F. W. Albright, ’ ’Bultmann’s History and Eschatol ogy,’ ’ Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVII (September, 1953), p. 248. Albright suggests that the ’ ’eschatological iprophecy" has been fulfilled by "man’s age old dream of j discovering how to destroy himself and his entire world as I we know it." This however, is just precisely the objec- jtion: ’ man is capable of destroying himself 1 ; The New ! Testament anticipates the destruction of the world through a supernatural event that by-passes human responsibility ■and decision. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (London: SOM Press, 1958), p. 25. I 2 ! See the following: Henry M. Shires, The Escha tology of Paul in the Light of Modern Scholarship (Phila delphia: Westminster Press, 1966), pp. 9-12. John A. T. Robinson, Honest to God (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, I 1963), pp. 7-10; 32-35 . John Macquarrie, Studies in 1 2 New Testament does not speak to him with the same compel ling force that it spoke to a man of the first century. The man who thinks scientifically, if he considers it at all, would associate a primitive eschatology with the supernatural feats of the ancient Greek gods or regard it 3 as suitable material for Frazer's The Golden Bough. A line from John Macquarrie has aptly expressed the situa tion: To modern minds the whole belief, if taken at all literally, looks like a piece of naive supersti tion. If the church insists on enforcing the temporal and cosmological motifs of the traditional biblical es chatology as an article of its faith without attempting a re-interpretation, it will have misplaced the emphasis 5 and missed the essential meaning of eschatology. How Christian Existentialism (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 19 6 5), pp. 99-124. Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, pp. 35-38. Robinson, In the End, God . . . (London: James Clark and Company, 1950), pp. 9-24. 3 Cf. Robinson, In the End, God . . ., p. 9. "... Despite its incompatibility with the modern out look, the biblical view of the last things . . . has hardly stirred a ripple of controversy. The entire Christian eschatological scheme has been silently dis missed without even so much as a serious protest from within the ecclesiastical camp. This could only have happened if the church's doctrine at this point had be come not merely incredible but irrelevant." 14 Macquarrie, Studies . . ., p. 118. 5 Norman Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the. Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 19 6 3), pi 1861 3 long can a man continue living on the edge of his seat waiting for an imminent end to the world that has already- been delayed for 19 0 0 years? Inevitably, under such con ditions eschatology will lose its power to regulate life. It may survive, indeed it has survived, but in most cases its survival has been in the form of a curious remnant of faith of a by-gone day. It survives in much the same man ner as a hurricane lamp in a home with electric lights : the lamp is suitable for decoration but has no useful pur pose. The tragedy is that while eschatology may have pre served its biblical form it has lost its meaning and is no longer seriously considered as a concept by which men order their lives. Merely to repeat the biblical eschatology in its same form will not give it the significance that it once possessed.^ Indeed, if one utilizes the same mythological categories, one has insured that eschatology will not have the same significance that it once possessed. When Jesus announced that the Kingdom, long anticipated by Israel, was now dawning, it had significance to those who heard, for it I employed contemporary patterns of thought. Today, not all men think that way. Is it necessary, therefore, that such men be first converted to a mythological Denkweise in order ^Gunther Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth, trans. jJames M. Robinson (London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1960), ip. 92. 4 for them t© understand the eschatological message of the New Testament, or can it be re-interpreted to them in dif ferent more meaningful categories and yet not lose its 7 essential meaning? Is it possible that New Testament eschatology can speak to the twentieth century as well as it did to the first century? This issue is a timely one that has, as yet, not been completely settled. Only tentative conclusions have been reached, and the discussion still continues. One controversial question, still confronting scholarship, is how to understand the New Testament eschatology: On the one hand Bultmann can argue that the apoc alyptic concept cannot be understood in the con text of the world,history or time and must therefore be interpreted existentially, and on the other hand Cullmann can argue that the ex pectation is concerned with a new era which is the final stage of a continuous time process.& As is indicated in the above quotation, Rudolf Bultmann has argued for a demythologized (existential) eschatology or an eschatology translated into existence-- ; 7 ' Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology, " Kerygma , and Myth, ed. Hans W. Bartsch (New York: Harper and Row, |1953), p. 3. (The English translation was revised in [1961 for the Torchbook edition.) : ^Perrin, p. 159. Cf. pp. 185-190. He describes [the contemporary consensus as to the present and future 'eschatology in the New Testament in terms that remind ,one of a "stale-mate." That is, no one has proven his ipoint, so scholarship must hold that the Kingdom is both , present and future. 5 an eschatological existence! His objective is to re-in- terpret the first century mythological eschatology by 9 modern existential categories in order that modern man, if he "stumbles" over the Christian message at all, might have the opportunity to "stumble" over the real Scandalon of the Kerygma. The purpose of this thesis will be to show that Bultmann's interpretation of eschatology in terms of existence is not inconsistent with the New Testament but is a legitimate interpretation of its eschatology for a 11 modern era. It permits the New Testament to speak essentially the same message in the twentieth century that primitive Christianity proclaimed in the first century. 9 Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma j and Myth, p. 12. I ^^Bultmann, "Reply to the Thesis of J. Schniewind," I Kerygma and Myth, p. 122. I 11 I Bultmann, History and Eschatology: The Presence | of Eternity (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1957), p. 151. Bultmann regards his understanding of eschatology to be an eschatology according to the New Testament. That |is, his eschatology is the result of exegesis. A modern existential category is as legitimate a hermeneutical method as first century mythology. PART I THE ARGUMENT FOR ESCHATOLOGICAL EXISTENCE CHAPTER I SOME PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS In order to give Bultmann's understanding of eschatology a fair hearing, it will be necessary to con sider some preliminary matters. It is not a sound pro cedure to criticize the finished product without consid ering its bases and methods. These preliminary matters are essential to understanding how Bultmann arrives at an existential understanding of eschatology. Each matter has been discussed extensively in various publications, and it will be necessary only to show how they are related to Bultmann's view of eschatology. Rudolf Bultmann has done more to affect the course of New Testament studies than any other man in his gener ation.^ No serious student of the New Testament can afford to be ignorant of the issues he has raised and the solutions he has proposed. Out of these issues and his Cf. Schubert M. Ogden, "The Significance of Rudolf Bultmann for Contemporary Theology," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, ed. Charles W. Kegley (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. 104. "Through a long and pro ductive scholarly career . . . he has Come to be one of the most decisive influences on the direction of Protes tant Theology in the twentieth century." solutions to them has come a unique understanding of biblical eschatology. Demythologizing In 1941 there appeared in Germany a short essay 2 entitled, "Neues Testament und Mythologie," that began a debate in Europe which has had a significant influence on 3 contemporary New Testament scholarship. In this essay Bultmann described the problem posed by the presence of mythological elements in the New Testament and raised the issue of their re-interpretation in categories more mean ingful to modern man. This process of re-interpretation he termed demythologizing.^ In a now well-known statement he says, "Mythology is the use of imagery to express the other worldly in terms of this world and the divine in terms of human life, and the other side in terms of this 5 side." It is the form in which first century man 2 Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology, " Kerygma and Myth, pp. 1-44. 3 R. H, Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study (1st ed. rev.; London: SCM Press, 1962), p. 10 and preface. I 4 I Actually the term "demythologizing" in English is misleading. The German expression Entmythologizierung 'has the meaning "to free from," that is, to interpret. ; The popular English translation associates the expression ' with "removing the myth." Bultmann desires to interpret it and not to remove it. See Bultmann, Jesus Christ and : Mythology, p. 18. 5 j Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma understood himself, his world, and his relationship to his world.^ Two quotations from Bultmann will illustrate this primitive understanding: The cosmology of the New Testament is essen tially mythical in character. The world is viewed as a three-storied structure, with the earth in the centre, the heaven above, and the underworld beneath. Heaven is the abode of God and of celes tial beings--the angels. The underworld is Hell, the place of torment. Even the earth is more than the scene of natural, everyday events, of the trivial round and common task. It is the scene of the supernatural activity of God and his angels on the one hand, and of Satan and his daemons on the other.^ The whole conception of the world which is presup posed in the preaching of Jesus as in the New Testa ment generally is mythological; i.e., the conception of the world as being structured in three stories, heaven, earth and hell; the conception of the inter vention of supernatural powers in the course of events ; and the conception of miracles, especially the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the inner life of the soul, the concep tion that men can be tempted and corrupted by the devil and possessed by evil spirits.^ This Weltanschauung is unacceptable to modern man for it does not express meaningfully his understanding of himself and his world. It has, thus, for the most part been rejected by modern man. In rejecting it, however. , and Myth, p. 10, footnote 2. I ^Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 19. Of. H. and H. A. Frankfort, "Myth and Reality," Before Philos- ! ophy (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1946), p. 16. 7 ' Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma and Myth, p. 1. * 8 I Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 15. I — there is always the danger that he will reject the Kerygma, the essential message of the New Testament which primitive Christianity proclaimed wrapped up in a first 9 century Weltanschauung. Thus , a way must be found to communicate the meaning of the Kerygma. The relationship of his program of demythologizing to eschatology in the New Testament is immediately ob vious. In its traditional garb eschatology is temporal, cosmic, and requires the primitive world view which Bultmann says is unacceptable to modern man. The eschaton the end of the world, and the cessation of the course of history is accomplished as a supernatural cosmic event. Since modern man no longer thinks of the end of the world in supernatural cosmic categories, the traditional escha tology has little meaning for him and must be demytholo gized, that is, re-interpreted to him in meaningful cate gories . Bultmann's solution to the problem posed to 9 Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma and Myth, p. 3. It is senseless to insist that this world view be accepted as true "because there is nothing specifically Christian in the mythical view of the world ; as such." 10 I Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma 1 and Myth, p. 5. "The mythical eschatology is untenable for the simple reason that the parousia of Christ never took place as the New Testament expected. History did not come to an end, and, as every schoolboy knows, it will I continue to run its course. Even as we believe that the ' world as we know it will come to an end in time, we expect I the end to take the form of a natural catastrophe, not of ! a mythical event such as the New Testament expects." Cf. 11 modern man by the traditional apocalyptic eschatology is 11 formulated in his view of existence "as eschatological." Bultmann and Heidegger ThiR Roluti on callR attention to another prelimi nary matter : the relationship between the theological formulations of Rudolf Bultmann and.the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger. It is no accident that Bultmann's theology is expressed in the framework of existential philosophy. At Marburg, quite early in his academic career, Bultmann came under the influence of 12 Heidegger's thought. The dialogue between the two men had a great impact upon the thought of the young Bultmann. Recently, he was able to say of this influence: The work of existential philosophy which I came to know through my discussions with Martin Heidegger, became of decisive significance for me. I found here the concept through which it became possible for me to speak adequately of human existence and therefore also of the existence of the believer. "A Reply to J. Schniewind," Kerygma and Myth, p. 118. "I do not see why it is necessary to think of a temporal end of time . . . indeed, it is impossible to do so. All we can think of is the end in time of everything that charac terizes the world of time, the end of time as we know it." I i ^^Ibid., p. 20. Cf. "A Reply to the Thesis of J. ISchniewind," Kerygma and Myth, p. 10 6. "The only true ; interpretation of eschatology is one which makes it a real experience of human life." ■ 1 2 ' Bultmann, "Autobiographical Reflections of Ru- jdolf Bultmann," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, p. xxii. ^ ^^ihid., p. xxiv. 12 Bultmann found that Heidegger's categories of human existence enabled him to speak in a meaningful way I’ l to modern man. He, thus, adopted them as the conceptual 15 framework for his theology. He has been criticized for this"^^ and it has been suggested that his use of Heidegger's categories turns Christianity into a mere 17 philosophy of existence. Bultmann, however-, insisting that his use of Heidegger is justified, has replied. Some critics have objected that I am borrowing 14 Bultmann, "Reply to Gotz Harbsmeier, " The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 276. 15 John Macquarrie, "Philosophy and Theology in Bultmann's Thought," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 133. Cf. his An Existentialist Theology: A Comparison of Heidegger and Bultmann (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 19 5 5). ^^Helmut Thielicke, "The Restatement of New Testa ment Mythology," Kerygma and Myth, pp. 149-150. Thielicke indicates that Bultmann's use of Heidegger leaves no course open to Bultmann except for Christianity to become a philosophy of existence. Cf. Macquarrie's discussion of Jasper’s criticism "Philosophy and Theology in Bult mann' s Thought," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, pp. 13 6- 13 7. [Karl Jaspers, "Myth and Religion, " Myth and Christianity : An Inquiry into the Possibility of Religion Without Myth, trans. Norbert Guterman (New York: The ; Noonday Press, 1958), pp. 8-10.] To this criticism by ■Jaspers, Bultmann has replied in his "Reply to John Macquarrie," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 2 75. "I I acknowledge my one-sidedness. .Heidegger's analysis of 'existence has become for me fruitful for hermeneutics, jthat is, for the interpretation of the New Testament and ot the Christian Eaith. 1 am willing to be shown whether other theologians can make fruitful use of other philos ophies for hermeneutics, and I will gladly learn from j them." Thielicke, p. 149. 13 Heidegger's categories and forcing them upon the New Testament. I am afraid this only shows they are blinding their eyes to the real problem. I mean, one should rather be startled that philosophy is saying the same thing as the New Testament and saying it quite independently.^8 The real issue is not Bultmann's dependence on modern existential philosophy as a framework for his theology but, rather, do such categories enable one to say of human existence what the New Testament by means of mythology is trying to say? Is it possible "to show that there is some sympathy and affinity between the idea of being made explicit by this philosophy, and the idea of being that is implicit in the thought of the New Testa- 1 9 ment?" It is not the object of this study to give a de tailed analysis of the relationship between Bultmann and Heidegger or to assess the value of existential philosophy as a hermeneutical tool, but merely to point out the im portance of Heidegger's thought for Bultmann and to empha size its significance for understanding Bultmann's escha tology. An excellent brief analysis of their relation ship, one that reveals Heidegger's importance to Bultmann, is available to the reader in a publication by John ^ ^^Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma .and Myth, p. 25. 19 Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology . . ., !p. 15. 14 20 Macquarrie. The basic two-fold division of Heidegger, authentic and inauthentic existence, which appears in Bultmann as "man prior to the revelation of Faith" and "Man under Faith" provides Bultmann with categories which permit a translation of traditional apocalyptic (cosmic) eschatology into existential terms: Thus, "... eschatology ceases to be merely a curious belief that has survived from a remote and superstitious past. It can be understood as a 21 way of facing our own human existence. ..." Authentic existence, Heidegger's term which Bultmann has adopted, is 2 2 a new kind of being-in-the-world. It is life in faith; it is existing eschatologieally. Exactly what Bultmann means by existing eschatologieally and how he is able to understand eschatology in existential categories will be considered in a later chapter. History Another concept which has significance for escha tology is Bultmann's understanding of history. History is 2 0 Macquarrie, "Philosophy and Theology in Bult mann 's Thought," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, pp. 13 3 134. Cf. his An Existentialist Theology. . . . 21 Macquarrie, Studies . . ., pp. 118-119. 2 2 It is interesting that Bultmann has not -used the expression "inauthentic existence" to describe man prior to the revelation of Faith. 15 2 3 both anthropological and existential. It is anthropo logical in the sense that man is both the subject and core of history. History is not a process of cause and effect which creates a continuum. It is not social, political, or economic movements understood temporally or in tension with one another. The essence of history is man. Now we have seen that the question about meaning in history cannot be answered when we ask for the meaning of history as the entire historical process, as though it were some human undertaking whose meaning we can recognize when we can survey it in its entirety. For meaning in history in this sense could only be recognized if we could stand at the end or goal of history and detect its meaning by looking backwards; or if we could stand outside of history. But man can neither stand at the goal nor outside of history. He stands within history. The question about meaning in history however can be put and must be put in a different sense, namely, as the question about the nature, the essence of history. And this brings us again to the question: What is the core of history? What is its real sub ject? The answer is man.^H It is existential in the sense that ultimately history is concerned with possibilities of existence. As the quotation from Bultmann indicated, it is meaningless to speak of a meaning to history. But there can be 2 3 [ Macquarrie, An Existentialist Theology . . ., pp. 161, 164. Cf. Bultmann5 "The Historicity of Man and I Faith," Existence and Faith : Shorter Writings of Rudolf ! Bultmann"^ ed. Shube^rt Ml Ogden ( Cleveland and New York: I World Publishing Co., 1960), p. 10 2. Contrary to IMacquarrie (p. 164) Bultmann has previously acknowledged his indebtedness to Heidegger. i 24 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., I pp. 13 8-13 9. 16 meaning in history, or, perhaps better, there can be meaning in history. Meaning in history lies in the achievement of historicity by an individual. historicity-- meaning to my life--is the latent possibility of existence in the tension between my present moment of decision and the future toward which my decisions are directed. Authen tic existence or my genuine life is always a future possi bility which is being realized in the present moment of decision. The genuine life of man is always before him; it is always to be apprehended, to be realized. Man is always on the way ; each present hour is questioned and challenged by its future. That means at the same time that the real essence of all that man does and undertakes in his present becomes revealed only in the future as important or vain, as fulfillment or failure.25 History is the "range of possibilities for human 2 6 self-understanding" which confronts man and the essence of history can only be my own personal human existence as one possibility of self-understanding in process of reali zation. How this understanding of history relates to es chatology is immediately obvious. Since meaning in the I historical process cannot be detected, it is meaningless ■ to speak of the eschaton as a cosmic event that initiates ' ^^ibid., p. 140. j ^^Bultmann, "Reply to Paul S. Minear," The I Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 267. 17 the end or goal of history. For the eschaton to have any meaning at all it must in some way be related to me as an existential possibility. Bultmann has achieved this by his re-interpretation of eschatology into existential 27 categories. Biblical Theology Bultmann's understanding of the method of biblical theology effectively guides his approach to understanding eschatology. At the beginning of his Theology of the New Testament he describes his basic approach to the biblical material: The Synoptic Gospels are the source for Jesus' mes sage. . . . Throughout the synoptics three strands must be distinguished: Old tradition, ideas pro duced in and by the church, and editorial work of the evangelists.28 If one would distinguish the oldest tradition from later Christian tradition, one must use the critical principles 2 9 of the so-called "Higher Criticism." ^’ ’ibid. , pp. 267-268 . 2 8 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. Kendrick Grobel (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1951), I, 3. 2 9 ' . . Bultmann sets forth his principles of Form Criticism in The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans John Marsh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963) . An example of his principles of style and source criticism is avail able in Das Evangelium des Johannes (Gottingen: Vanden- hoeck und Ruprecht, 1957). This is not a systematized treatment. Cf. Dwight Moody Smith, The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (New Haven and London: Yale 18 Although Bultmann expresses skepticism that the oldest strata of the authentic words of Jesus can ever be defined "with certainty," he nevertheless has high regard for the effectiveness of his methods for distinguishing the various "layers" of traditions and for revealing the influence of later Christian thought upon the earlier • 1 30 material. When one approaches the biblical tradition in this manner it appears that one should speak of theology ini the New Testament rather than the theology of. New Testa ment . The question may be raised whether it is more ap propriate to treat the theological thought of the New Testament writings as a systematically ordered unity--a New Testament system of dogmatics, so to say--or to treat them in their variety, each writing or group of writings by itself, in which case the individual writings can then be understood as members of an historical continuity. The second procedure is the one chosen in the treatment here offered. By this choice the opinion is expressed that there can be no normative Christian dogmatics, in other words, that it is not possible to accom plish the theological task once for all--the task which consists of unfolding that understanding of God, and hence of the world and man, which arises from faith, for this task permits only ever-re peated solutions, or attempts at solution each i University Press, 1965). Smith attempts to state in ' systematic fashion the methods by which Bultmann works in j Das Evangelium des Johannes. ^^Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels," i Form Criticism, trans. F. C. Grant (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1934), p. 60-61. 19 31 in its particular historical situation. That is 5 the New Testament does not reflect a unitary dogmatic theology but reveals a variety of theological reflection whose re-interpretation is incumbent upon every theological generation. But more significant is the fact that this task of re-interprétâtion has already been 3 2 begun within the biblical tradition itself. Given such an understanding of biblical theology one would not expect to find a single dogmatic eschatology; rather, the New Testament would be expected to reflect a varied eschatol ogy. Where can the variety be seen? Certainly one can expect different writings to reflect a variety of thought. The comparison of textual variants within a particular writing may reveal conceptual varieties at the written stage in the life of a New Testament writing; but what about its pre-literary life? Is it not possible that a theological editor revised his source material to coincide with his own view? Bultmann believes that it is not only 3 3 possible but that it did in fact occur. How this ap proach, which has by no means been generally accepted. I 3 2 I Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, I p. 23 7. ! ^^Ibid., I, pp. 33-37. 3 3 ! Bultmann, "Die kirchliche Redaktion des ersten Johannesbriefes," In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer, ed. Werner ' Schmauch (Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk GMBH, : 1951), p. 189. 20 enables him to overcome successfully what is regarded as a crucial flaw in his argument for an existential eschatology will be discussed in part two. One must "come to grips" with these presupposi tions before the validity of Bultmann's understanding of eschatology may be seriously questioned. It is important that one clarify one's own thinking as to the meaning and significance of history, and the method of a biblical theology. Certainly the problem of mythology in the New Testament is so obvious that no one is able to avoid it completely. If mythology as a means for expressing the message of the Kerygma has failed significantly to touch the life of a man who thinks in modern categories, what is the hermeneutic that shall be used? Will Heidegger's categories speak to the twentieth century as well as mythology did to the first century? Do they say the same thing? To fail to consider seriously these issues could possibly lead one into the same error as, for example, L. van Hartingsveld. He dismisses the possibility of any redaction in a text that is not supported by a textual variant. His beginning premise presupposes his conclu sion: "A condition must be stipulated: it is not per missible to alter the substance of a text in order to make it say something completely different. . . . Bultmann de- mythologizes not only the form but the content of the New 21 Testament m e s s a g e . Thus it is not surprising that he concludes : If one considers all this, one must conclude that Bultmann's idea of eschatology is not a sound interpretation of eschatology in the New Testament, and is no interpretation of Johannine eschatology for our time. The formal "that" of Revelation con fronts one with an "either-or" decision. Thus, John's Gospel is robbed of its ideas and only the responsibility of the individual remains. The essence of salvation is reduced to the moment of Christian preaching. This is a mutilation of the eschatological message of the New Testament.85 Of course, between the two statements lie several pages of discussion, but is it not true that in the first statement one already senses the latter? Van Hartingsveld has made the mistake of discussing the issue without properly analyzing its presuppositions. In part one of the thesis Bultmann's argument for eschatological existence as a valid interpretation of biblical eschatology will be described. His argument appears in the form of a reconstruction of eschatological thought as a phenomenon of the ancient world. To approach Bultmann's interpretation of the biblical eschatology without first considering eschatology in the ancient world could conceivably lead one unjustifiably to accuse Bultmann of one-sidedness in his interpretation. If one would , L. van Hartingsveld, Die Eschatologie des Johannesevangeliums (Assen : van Gorcum and Comp., 1962), i p. 19 8. ^^Ibid., p. 213. 22 avoid this and gain Bultmann’s own perspective, the bib lical eschatology cannot be treated as though it sprang fully-developed from the mind of Jesus or as if it existed in a vacuum, but one must consider it as a part of its world. Part one, therefore, attempts to provide the reader with Bultmann-s Sitz-im-Leben for the biblical eschatology, and for this reason appears to be essential to understand ing Bultmann's interpretation of eschatology as a present possibility of existence. CHAPTER II THE DEVELOPMENT OF ESCHATOLOGY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WORLD^ As a result of Alexander’s conquest of the East in 3 31 B.C., the religious and cultural setting of the world began to undergo reorganization. The significant merging of East and West, a result of his conquest, began the development of a variegated and complex background in which primitive Christianity arose. Although it had its historical roots in later Judaism and the Old Testament, Christianity felt the influences of its broader environ- 3 ment and in fact assimilated many of its traditions. No where is this fact any more evident than in the variety of For a short schematic development of this topic see: Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., pp. 23-27, and Bultmann, "History and Eschatology in the New Testa ment," New Testament Studies, I (1954-1955), pp. 5-7. Cf. Paul S. Minear, "Bultmann’s Interpretation of New Testament Eschatology," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, pp. 6 7-7 0 . 2 Cf. F. C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New I Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 19 6 2), pp. 82-84, and M. S. Enslin, Christian Beginnings (New I York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 19 3 8) , pp. 6^0. 3 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in Its Contempo- irary Setting, trans. R. H. Fuller (New York: Meridian ,Books, 1956), p. 11. ^ 23 24 eschatological thought reflected in the New Testament.^ Behind this variety lies a complex history to which many traditions have contributed. I do not propose to attempt the unraveling of these traditions but rather, after the example of Bult mann, to describe their schematic development.^ Behind the New Testament lie two primary traditions out of which its eschatology has developed. There is an Old Testament tradition and an apocalyptic tradition.^ Eschatology in the Hellenistic World The apocalyptic hope for a new age which was so widespread in later Judaism is not, however, peculiar to Judaism. It is, rather, a phenomenon which by the first 7 century A.D. had spread into the western world. The 14 Compare a statement by Minear, p. 67: "The whole range of Biblical eschatologies is seen in contrast to characteristic Greek views." The italics are mine. 5 Cf. Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 35. When Bultmann speaks of eschatology developing, two things are involved. Eschatology as a means of under standing history was part of a historical development which grew from a naive cyclical understanding of history to an existential one. Eschatology as a means of man’s self-understanding develops from a primitive mythological concept to a modern existential one. ^Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 7. By "apoc alyptic" he has reference to a special kind of eschatology which could briefly be described as cosmic and temporal. Cf. D. S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apoca- lyptic (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), pp. 104- 139. 7 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 86. 25 occasion of this cosmic, temporal eschatology in Greek thought Bultmann attributes to Iranian influences which found a fertile soil in the breakdown of the Greek city states and the crises it produced in the early Greek view 8 of life. However, the designation "eschatology" cannot be used until the Graeco-Roman Period, for in early Greek thought there was no eschatology in the traditional 9 sense. Prior to the unification of Greece under Phillip and the opening of the East by Alexander, the Greek under stood himself in the framework of his polis. His place in the world was as a member of a divine city state which had freed him from the arbitrary whims of nature.He was free but free to do his duty to the State. His dignity as Jewish apocalyptic was the vehicle through which the cos mic eschatology was passed to the West. Of. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, trans. L. P. Smith and E. H. Lantero (New York:Charles Scribners Sons, 1934), pp. 18-19. For a long time Israel had been influenced by the East : "The prophets themselves were already saturated with oriental mythology and the later hope of Judaism was also deeply influenced by the mythology of oriental eschatol- jogies, of Persian or Babylonian origin." ^Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 236, ; 135, 146. 9 ! Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 27. Cf. Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 22. "In I the language of traditional theology, eschatology is the doctrine of the last things, and ’last' means last in the course of time, that is, the end of the world. . . ." i i ^*^Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . . , p. 104. 26 11 an individual he found in political responsibility. To be cut off from his city meant "ostracism from society, 12 from all that gave a man justice and dignity." The constitution of the city-state was thus an em pirical manifestation of an eternal principle. The Gods watched over it and protected it, punishing the wrongdoer. The state had an aura of sanctity about it, and the relation of the citizen to it was in effect his religion with its external expression in the official cultus.13 With the disintegration of the city state man be gan to orient himself in relation to the world. 14 The Stoics envisioned a closed universe that was regulated according to a well established system of laws. There was no room for miracle or supernatural intervention. The cosmos was a harmonious unity and man could feel secure. The world was his home, and he felt at home. The Greek had no philosophy of history but related time to nature. "The historical process is conceived as 17 the movement of cosmic events." The course of time was conceived by analogy with nature : ^^Ibid., P* 106 . ^^Ibid., P* 107 . ^^Ibid., P- 108 . ^^Ibid., p. 126 . ^^Ibid., P* 135 . ^^Ibid., P- 128 . ^^Ibid., P- 131. 27 As the seasons of the year follow each other, so do the corresponding periods in the course of the world, comprising the so-called "year of the world" or "the great world year." Probably this transference by i analogy arises out of the astronomical discovery that the place of the sunrise alters from year to year until, having rounded the ecliptic it returns to its j original position. When the round is finished the ! end of the great world year is reached. But, just as a new year follows the old, as the seasons go round, so a new world year will follow, and all the events of the old year will return again. The course of time is not a constant progression, but is cyclical. Within such a Weltanschauung there could be no eschatology in the traditional sense, for the cosmos is not alien to man. It is his home. He is not threatened here by supernatural powers beyond his understanding. In the 19 cosmos he is secure. Even death may be accepted as a natural part of his world. The end of the cosmos is a completely foreign concept, for man’s goal is to "mold I 2 0 ! himself into the unity of the cosmos. . . ." ; With the final breakdown of the city state and the influence of oriental philosophy this view of life experi ences a modification that provides a basis for the develop ment of an eschatology. Man felt himself cut adrift in a world which was becoming strangely alien to him. He no longer had a hand in determining his destiny as he did Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., pp. 23- 24. Bultmann attributes the idea of the "return of all things" to oriental influences. 19 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 128. ^°Ibid., p. 132. 28 within his political framework. His life was exposed to 2 1 the arbitrary whims of fate. Such a situation left man open to a new understanding of himself and his world. Into the vortex flowed the influences of Iranian mythology to suggest a new way of apprehending the world that seemed to 2 2 be more in keeping with reality. These influences introduced a new dualism into Greek thought that replaced the old dualism of form and matter. It was the "dualism of the two worlds, the sub- 2 3 lunary and the world of the stars." Temporarily the Stoic philosophers were able to reconcile it with the 2 4 traditional Greek view of the universe but ultimately the oriental astrology won out, and a new attitude to time and history resulted that eventually led to a cosmic eschatology. The stars are the world rulers because they are the lords of time. World events move with their motion in periods. History is not governed by its own immanent laws, proceeding automatically at every moment of time as a harmonious process. It is subjected to the changes of time governed by the motions of the stars. It runs in periods, each of which--days, weeks or epochs--is under the con trol of a particular planet. . . . The divisions of time into periods provides a congenial soil for the development of an eschatology. Men begin to ^^Ibid., pp. 147 ^^Ibid., p. 148 . ^^Ibid., P- 152 . ^^Ibid., P- 149 . 29 look for an age of redemption which will follow the confusions and disasters of the present.25 The result is that by Virgil’s time it is possible to speak of a concept of eschatology as present in the broader Hellenistic world.^^ While it is not possible to infer from this that a cosmic eschatology was a widespread phenomenon in the Hellenistic world, certainly one may conclude that its influences were being felt. The proclaiming of an imminent eschatological drama, a cosmic revolution, was for many hearers nothing basically new or unheard of. Eschatological ideas of this sort had long since penetrated the Hellenis tic world from the orient.27 Thus, it may be said that : Here we may speak of eschatology in the real sense for here indeed the "last things" happen with the end of the present world and the beginning of the new and endless world.28 There is a further development which has signifi cance for Bultmann’s understanding of eschatology. The astrological influences issue in what he calls "an escha- 2 9 tology of the individual." In an attempt to regain con trol of his destiny and escape the arbitrary decisions of ^^Ibid., p. 153 . 2 6 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 2 7 2 7 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, { pp. 9 2-9 3. ! 28 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 2 7 2 9 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 15 3 30 fate 5 the individual looks to the heavens for escape. The soul, so the astrologists taught, which had originally descended from the star world, at death would escape its earthly prison by returning. There in the heavens lay 3 0 man’s true home; there he could be free. Death ended the tyranny of the stars and delivered the individual from his earthly prison. This individual solution to man’s dilemma appeared 31 also in the mystery religions. For the average man the only possible explanation of the universe is in terms of fate. He knows he is the slave of fate. It makes no difference whether he turns to astrology, or if, in a naive and primi tive fashion he regards himself as the plaything of chance (Tyche). He knows that he is exposed to the vicissitudes of good and evil. He knows finally, that he is subject to the gloomy prospect of death, and that enemy he can never hope to conquer. If any god can help him, it is not the patron deity of the city state and its constitution, nor even the Logos, the rational Law of nature which makes the world a unity. . . . It must be a deity above the world, on whose caprice or grace he is utterly dependent.^^ By submission to this deity which comes to him in the mystery he escapes his predicament and again becomes 3 3 the master of his destiny. It is significant that this is not escape from an ^^Ibid., pp. 156-161. ^^Ibid., pp. 160-161. ^^Ibid., p. 154. 31 evil world. The majority of the mystery devotees did not regard the world as evil, nor was immortality alone the i salvation acquired through the mystery. The devotee ex- | i pected his faith to produce protection and blessing in the | . ^ 34 i present life. I I The seeds of a radical dualism are, however, al- | ready present in the West and they bear fruit in the indi- i 3 5 ' vidual eschatology of Gnosticism, In the Gnostic myth man discovers that there is a radical difference between j himself and his world. It is an alien land and man re- i I quires deliverance from it. The cosmos is still viewed as j a unity of law and order but its very nature as law and i order imprisons man. The stars which once were viewed as ; symbols of divine nature are the evil powers that control | man’s earthly prison. In short, "the separation between God and the world has become complete.Matter is evil and man’s true self is imprisoned within it. Deliverance,; the achievement of other-worldliness, comes from without, j I The acquiring of Gnosis--Knowledge--ends the control of I evil and permits the true self to return to its heavenly i home ! ^‘ ^Ibid. , p. 161. I ^^Ibid., pp. 162-171. I ^®Ibid., p. 167. I ^^Ibid., pp. 163-164. This individual eschatology j 32 The Old Testament Eschatology When one turns to the Old Testament, the second major historical root of early Christian eschatology, it is discovered that it contains no eschatology in the 3 8 traditional sense. There is no anticipation of the world’s end. The future state of welfare for the people of Israel, the golden age which they anticipated, was the return of the idealized Davidic kingdom--a state of wel- 3 9 fare within the world. Although the Old Testament contains the seeds for 40 the development of an eschatology, the radical dualism of Gnosticism provided for John the most satisfactory i framework for understanding eschatology. Of. Bultmann, j Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 178. , 3 8 . Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 27. It must be admitted that Bultmann is a bit ambiguous at ; this point. He makes the statement that the Old Testament■ has "a pre-occupation with eschatology’ ’ which serves as i the "clue" to the meaning of history (Primitive Christian-| ity . . ., p. 22). Paul S. Minear (Minear, pp. 6 8 - 6 9) | recognized this and reconciled it by insisting that in | Bultmann’s later statements he has defined eschatology ! more narrowly as a "doctrine of the end of the world fol- I lowed by a time of salvation." See footnote #40 below. 39 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 45; pp.80-82. ^^This statement is never made by Bultmann but it j is obvious from his discussion of Israel’s future hope ! that it lies behind the development of apocalyptic in ! Judaism. The seeds of eschatology in the traditional I sense of an end to the world lay in certain problems which' perplexed the people. These problems, listed below, could; not be solved within the framework of a future hope within^ the world: (1) How could the future be understood as the goal' 33 necessary for such a view was not present. In fact the radical dualism of a cosmic eschatology contradicts the Old Testament concept of God as Creator. How could the world and matter be understood as evil when it was the work of God? Was not God the sustaining force of the world and did he not care for the creation his hands had 42 fashioned? How could it then be evil? In the Old Testament man did not understand him self in a dualistic sense or as in Gnostic thought in a ^ . 4 3 tricotomous sense. Flesh and soul are not opposed to one another in a dualistic sense. The soul does not belong intrin- of history when its realization was seen as welfare within history (Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 21)? (2) If the full realization of the covenant was conditioned upon the obedience of men, the maintenance of the covenant relationship must always be in doubt and its realization always future (Bultmann, Primitive Christian ity . . ., p. 40). T3) If the promise were realized in the present, it would be for the welfare of the people alive at the time. What about those who had already died (Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 22)? The conclusion arrived at in Old Testament thought was not an answer: "In other words, the covenant is not capable of realization in actual history : Its realiza tion is only conceivable in some mythical future of re demption" (Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 41; of. p. 45). Only Jewish apocalyptic had the answer (Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 2 2). *^^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., pp. 27- 28. 4 2 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 15, 25. , p. 166. 34 sically to a higher world, here imprisoned in a material body. Instead, the soul is the energy which gives life to the flesh. Its seat is generally in the blood, though it is sometimes equated with the divine breath. The goal of life was not escape from God's world. There is no remedy for death except to wish for a long life at the end of which a man may go down tired but contented to the grave. A long and happy life is the supreme blessing the individual i may enjoy. . . . ^ 8 ' Thus, the world is man's home--to the obedient the medium I of God's blessing and to the disobedient the occasion of his punishment. ! The Israelites did not confuse history with nature j 46 ! as had been done by the Greeks. The center or essence ; I of history lay in the deeds and experiences of the men of ; Israel. Its structure was understood as periods or epochs- that led to a certain goal. Meaning in history was God's 47 direction of the people to the goal. Thus, In all this picture of history, history is conceived j as a unity full of meaning. Its course runs accord- | ing to the plan of God. He will guide his people | into a prosperous future, and he carries out his plan j in spite of the obstinacy of the nation.^ 8 j 4 4 Ibid., p. 46. , pp. 46-47. ^^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 21 Cf. Bultmann, New Testament Studies, pp. 5-6. 47 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 18 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 6. 35 Of course the Old Testament contains predictions of doom and salvation but these are not cosmic events. The predictions of punishment are upon Israel for her disobedience or upon Israel’s enemies. The predictions of salvation and promise of covenant fulfillment relate to ! Israel’s future as the people of God in the world. The ; judgments and blessings of God were not anticipated out side of history but were to be experienced within history. The mythological images which describe these judgments and blessings are merely ornamental and are not to be associated with the bizarre figures characteristic of later Jewish apocalyptic. Such use of metaphor does not change the fact that judgment and salvation are con- 14 9 ceptualized as happening within history. Israel understood eschatology from the standpoint of history. The eschaton was not the end of history but its fulfillment. It was not a final curtain to a meaningless, hopeless drama but it was the realization of its meaning--the ultimate goal to which God had been 14 9 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., pp. 28- 29. ^^Bultmann is not using eschatology here in the narrow traditional sense as an end to the world but wlien used of the Old Testament it has a broad sense as objec tive or goal. The goal to history was not the achieve- i ment of otherworldliness but seems to be the initiation , of an idealized earthly existence. It is eschatological f in that it is always future. Cf. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 41. 36 leading his people. The Old Testament concept of eschatology from the standpoint of history was continued and is still to be found during the time of Jesus as a live option for 51 Israel’s future. The Rise of Apocalyptic By its side, however, evolved another form of future hope which frequently entered into various combina tions with it. Under the pressure of oriental mythology Israel "lost its historical moorings" and a cosmic escha tology developed which all but eclipsed the nationalistic 5 2 hope. It was the rise of Jewish apocalyptic. Under the impact of present disasters as well as through Babylonian and Persian mythology, the Jewish world view was modified along the lines of a pessi mistic dualism, though not without abandoning the doctrine of creation. This earth, the scene of so much distress and misery, sickness and death, sin and violence, is the habitat of evil spirits with Satan at their head, opposing the sovereignty of God. The power of darkness is not eternal and static, so that the way to gain freedom from it would be by sacraments and asceticism, which enable 51 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 31. Cf. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 81. 5 2 Cf. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, pp. 18-19. Some of these oriental mythological concepts which so radically altered Judaism include: angels, p. 139; Satan and his evil spirits, pp. 136-141; the cosmic catastrophe as prelude to judgment, p. 141; the two age concept, p. 141. Cf. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . .: a radical dualism, p. 83; the idea of hell as a place of torment, p. 8 6 ; the supernatural agent of redemption, p . 86 . 37 the soul to rise to the realm of light, where it will ascend one day after death. As in the Iranian religion the present state of affairs will come to an end, and God will vindicate his kingly rule.53 The Iranian influences which so effectively altered the Greek view of time and history were equally as I I Î effective with the Israelite view and the concept of two I 5 1 | ! ages or epochs evolved in later Judaism. According to this concept it was no longer pos sible to,realize the promised Salvation by a strict obser vance of the sabbath as some expected, for it would come 5 5 in God's own pre-determined time. Its character was entirely supernatural. In its expectations the historical figure of the Davidic Messiah was replaced by the super- 5 6 natural Son of Man. The event which would begin the age of salvation was no longer seen as historical crises but as cosmic catastrophe. It was accompanied by bizarre 5 3 I Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 82. j Bultmann does not elaborate on the effect of the "present ; disasters.” The events of the period in which apocalyptic j arose were certainly tragic enough to discourage the Jews | in their hope for an idealized political kingdom and to i effect its translation into a hope for a supernatural , otherworldly kingdom. Cf. Russell, pp. 15-20. For a discussion of the events of the period see : Enslin, pp. 8-37. 54 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . p. 29. 5 5 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 7. Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 30. 38 5 7 convulsions of nature. Its blessings were not intended for the nation or for the people as a whole but for indi viduals who would be judged according to their works. The two-age concept represented the triumph of 5 9 mythology over history. The cosmological and historical points of view are combined in the Jewish eschatology. The pre dominance of the cosmological is shown by the fact that the end is really the end of the world and its history. This end of history no longer belongs to history as such. Therefore it cannot be called the goal of history towards which the course of history moves by steps. The end is not the completion of history but its breaking-off, it is, so to speak, the death of the world due to its age. The old world will be replaced by a new creation, and there is no continuity between the two aeons. The very memory of the past will disappear and, with that, history vanishes. In the new aeon vanity is passed away and times and years will be annihilated, and months and days and hours will be no more.60 It is not to be inferred that such a schematic view of eschatology in Judaism is readily available from the literature of the period. Judaism--as was all the world--was reeling under many pressures. The cosmic and nationalistic hopes merged at many points and images from ^^Ibid., p. 29. Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 7. Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 27 ". . .in early Christianity history is swallowed up in eschatology." Of. Minear, p. 70. "... history was cosmologized." ^'^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . . , p. 3 0 39 both views were interchanged freely.But the most im portant and influential development remains the apocalyptic 62 two-age pattern. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ♦, p. 8 6 The intermediate Messianic kingdom is one of the more systematic combinations which appears. The Rabbis con ceived a Messianic age as prelude to the final aeon. ®^Ibid., p. 82. CHAPTER III THE ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS AND THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY^ A In his later works Bultmann has discussed only briefly the eschatology of Jesus and^that of the earliest Christian community.^ These conceptions are not really , decisive for the development of his understanding of escha tology .^ The earliest Christian community differs very | 1 For discussions of Bultmann’s understanding of eschatology in Jesus' message, the earliest Christian community, the Hellenistic Church, Paul and John see the following: D. E. Holwerda, The Holy Spirit and Eschatol ogy in the Gospel of John (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 19 59), pp. 9 4-112; Johannes Korner, Eschatologie und Geschichte (Hamburg - Bergstadt: Herbert Reich - Evangelische Verlag, 1957), pp. 16-61. 2 Cf. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 86-9 3. 3 However, it must be admitted that Bultmann ap pears to regard Jesus' views a little more highly in Jesus and the Word. At least his eschatology is given a more significant place in the development of Bultmann's own ideas. In Jesus and the Word, he associates Jesus' views more closely with an existential outlook than he does in his later works. A question should be raised at I this point : Why does Jesus come out so poorly as an | "existentialist" in Bultmann's later years? In 1934, 1 Bultmann appears to regard Jesus' views as justification i for arguing that a modern existential apprehension of life | is the same as that contained in the mythology of Jesus. In his later years Bultmann appears to rely more on the ! thought of Paul and John. Is this a modification of | 40 J 41 little from Jesus and Jesus differs only slightly from the apocalyptic hopes of later Judaism. By discussing their eschatological hopes in a separate chapter it is possible to suggest that their importance to Bultmann is greater than it actually is. It will be immediately obvious that their views are significant to Bultmann only as they are I demythologized 5 that is, re-interpreted in existential i categories. The Eschatology of Jesus With a very dramatic stroke Bultmann establishes a I framework for understanding the eschatology of Jesus. ' ! The proclamation of Jesus must be considered within the framework of Judaism. Jesus was not a "Christian" but a Jew, and his preaching is couched in the thought forms and imagery of Judaism, even where it is critical of traditional Jewish piety. Thus, his message cannot be regarded as a Christian message' but it is a presupposition of that message. Jesus j 5 I preached, and the church proclaimed Jesus. I If one would accurately understand the message of : Bultmann's understanding? Cf. Perrin, pp. 116-117. How ever, of. Bultmann, "Reply to Paul S. Minear," The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 268. Here he appears to reaffirm the position he took in Jesus and the Word. I ! j Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 71- j j 72. Cf, pp. 85-8 7*, Bultmann, Theology of the New Testa- j ; ment, I, p. 34. Bultmann describes here what it means to | j say that Jesus stands within Judaism. : I C i I Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 3. ' 42 Jesus, one must not approach it from the vantage point of the faith of later Christian tradition, rather an approach must be made through the historical traditions which pre- I I cede his message and ultimately converge in first century ! Palestine.^ Bultmann approaches Jesus from this stand- 7 point and consequently understands him as a blend of Old Testament tradition and contemporary Judaism. Jesus was both rabbi and eschatological prophet who combined a moral demand for obedience to the will of God with a personal | challenge to decision in view of an impending cosmic. j crisis which would initiate the end of the world and ! final Judgment.^ | I The dominant concept of his message was the future I j Kingdom of God. The Kingdom in Jesus' preaching is not toj be confused with a metaphysical reality. It was not even 9 . an event in time. The Kingdom signified deliverance for : men--an "eschatological deliverance which ends everything earthly. " It was the reign or regime of God already Minear, p. 57. Minear indicates that Bultmann's historical methodology is "determined very largely by the canons of the religionsgeschichtliche study." 7 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 29. Bultmann regards the eschatological message of Jesus as the ful crum for interpreting his life. Cf. pp. 126-127. " " ibid. , pp. 124-127. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 19. 9 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 51. ^°Ibid., p. 35. 43 making itself felt in the present hour in Jesus' own words 11 12 and deeds. Thus man could not possess it nor enter into it ; he must decide for or against it. Reign of God is an eschatological concept. It means the regime of God which will destroy the present course of the world, wipe out all the contra- divine, Satanic power under which the present world groans--and thereby, terminating all pain and sor row, bring in salvation for the People of God which awaits the fulfillment of the prophets promises. The coming of God's reign is a miraculous event, which will be brought about by God alone without the help of men.15 The message of Jesus as viewed by Bultmann appears to be a natural phenomenon of the period. It and the movement he initiated blend with their apocalyptic setting in Palestinian Judaism, and one must look closely to 11 I Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, I pp. 4-8. Cf. Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., ; p. 31. He acknowledges that C. H. Dodd's view of "real- I ized eschatology" has raised a question which is still ' open: Is the Kingdom to be understood as present in the ministry of Jesus or do these serve proleptically as signs of the approaching Kingdom? . Bultmann insists that the Kingdom is a future reality that is "dawning," "breaking in" or "at hand" but is to be thought of by no means as "present." Norman Perrin has brought the discussion together, cf. pages 58-78; 112-119; 158-159. For a discussion of the biblical passages in question cf. W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfillment, trans. D. M. Barton (London: SCM Press, 1961). R? H? Filller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London : SCM Press, 1954), pp. 20-35 12 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 35. ^^Ibid., p. 37. ^^Ibid., p. 3 5. 15 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 4 44 discern the differences.^^ However, although the expectations of Jesus may appear to have been quite similar to these current Jewish hopes, they do differ, and in some cases they differ radi cally I Jesus has rejected the whole content of apocalyptic 17 speculation. He attempts in no way to predict when the final event will occur. No sign of its coming will appear | other than his own activities now being experienced. Un- ( like the apocalyptic expectations it cannot be rushed or ' delayed by man. It is to be effected by God at a time of ' his own choosing. Jesus does not indulge himself in the fanciful imagination or bizarre imagery which characterize ! the apocalyptic literature. For example, the extent of his imagery of the Kingdom is a description of the coming salvation as a great heavenly banquet at which the right eous will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.The character of this coming salvation he describes simply as 19 "life," to be experienced as the angels in heaven. To be sure, the end will be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead, and he does describe Hell as a place of fiery torment for the damned but the detail ^^Ibid., pp. 4-5. 17 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 39. ^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 5 ^^Bultmann, New Testament Studies, pp. 8-9. 45 usually found in the apocalyptic literature is missing. In short 5 Jesus has repudiated the apocalyptic speculation with such statements as : For when they rise from the dead they neither marry, nor arc given in marriage but are like angels in heaven (Mark 12:25, RSV). The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand (Mark 1:15, R S V ) . 20 However, Jesus has adopted the current apocalyptic framework for his message but unlike the apocalyptic writers his understanding of the tension between the present age and the future age was not dictated by a 21 pessimistic or even a limited dualism. The Kingdom of God, then, is not to be under stood in terms of a metaphysical or cosmological 2 0 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 87. 2 1 Cf. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, pp. 155-157. The fact that there are, in Bultmann’s judgment, no authentic sayings of Jesus in which the phrasing "present age--future age" appears is no occasion to argue that Jesus’ view did not operate within this framework. Clear 1]/ Jesus believed that the present age was under the rule of Satan and that in his hour the turning-point of the ages was at hand. In fact, his emphasis on the immediacy of the Kingdom "does not show a fundamental difference from the dualistic judgment of the world." However, Bultmann would not infer that God’s power for Jesus was limited, for the "belief in God as the cause of all that happens did not, in Jesus’ undeveloped thought, untrained in logical consistency, exclude the assumption of other active causes of world events * , . . . the strength of Jesus’ faith in God is shown precisely in his holding fast, in spite of the belief in Satan, to the thought of God as the final cause of all events." What Bultmann means by "God as final cause" is that God "is the power which determines man in his concrete reality"--i.e., in his present existence. 46 dualism. The present world is not deprived of value because of a dualistic pessimism. . . . To Jesus the world is not evil, but men are evil; . . . No theory of dualism, but the urgency of the demand leads to the insight that the will of men as a rule is bad, that before God at least none can be called good. . . . The real evil in the world, then, is the evil will of jiLen. 2 2 A metaphysical or cosmological dualism was impos sible for Jesus, since he was well grounded in the Old Testament idea of the world as God’s creation. For Jesus, the authority of God was never in question and the character of the world was never understood as having a nature hostile to God. "God is the Almighty, in spite of 2 3 Satan to whom he permits temporary activity." Jesus regards God as both God of the present and the future 24 ages . The two-age pattern seems to have been taken over 2 5 by Jesus because of its temporal division. The present age and the coming age were temporally and not metaphysi cally conceived. True, the present age was a period of corruption and evil but not in a metaphysical sense. Its evil character derived from the fact that men are evil. ^^Ibid., pp. 48-50. ^^Ibid. , p. 137. 2 4 Ibid., p. 141. The unification of these periods under God was never achieved in Judaism and therefore it is possible to speak of a dualism here in the sense that the omnipotence of God is limited in the present age. ^^Ibid. , pp. 155-156. 4 7 Their wills are now controlled by Satan and his evil spirits. . . . God's rule is evidently seen as not yet sovereign in the present; His name is not yet hallowed. His will is not yet done on earth as it is in heaven. If Jesus believed that he then saw the demons fleeing before the name of the Kingdom of God, and Satan put to flight, clearly he thought that until then the world was under the rule of Satan and his evil spirits.26 The "age to come," now dawning in the present hour, would annihilate all these Satanic powers hostile to God and would be characterized by the unquestioned omnipotence of God's Rule over the wills of men. However, it should not be supposed that this even approximates the nationalistic expectations. In his view of the coming age Jesus is strongly individualistic. He holds no prospects for the future of the People of Israel. He never speaks of a political Messiah who will destroy the enemies of Israel, of the establishment of a Jewish world empire, the gathering of the twelve tribes, of peace and prosperity in the land, or anything of that kind.28 2 9 Neither did he teach a universal Kingdom. On the contrary, the Kingdom was for the benefit of the 2 7 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, pp. 7-8. Of. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 79. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . . , p. 87. O Q Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, pp. 43-45. The passages which imply a gentile mission Bultmann attri butes to the interpretation of the earliest Christian community. 48 3 0 Jewish people but not for the people as a whole. He preached to the Jews and called them individually to de cide for or against the Kingdom. The impending crisis 31 was an individual issue and not the judgment of nations. Thus, he "proclaims promises to the poor, the hungry and | I thirsty, for those who weep, that is to say for all men j i . . . 3 2 I ’who are really waiting for the coming Kingdom of God." i Although the Kingdom for Jesus was in its entirety ! I a future reality, Jesus' emphasis fell not upon the future but upon the present which was determined by the future. The certainty that the Kingdom was at that moment "break ing in" on the present is really the distinctive element in the preaching of Jesus and Bultmann continually empha- 34 sizes it. This and the fact that Jesus has little to 3 5 say about the character of the Kingdom, except to empha size himself as its only sign, center Bultmann's emphasis upon the "now" in Jesus' proclamation. His Word invites men to decide for the Reign of God now breaking in. Now it is Either--Or. Now the ^°lbid., p. 43 . 31 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 32. Cf. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 79. 3 2 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 8 . 3 3 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 51. 3 4 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 6 . 3 5 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 56. 49 question is: Do men really want God’s Reign? Or is it the world they want? The decision they must make is a radical o n e . 36 In fact, the final significance of Jesus’ eschatological message is not the future cosmic crisis but "that now man 3 7 stands under the necessity of decision. . . ." The reason that Jesus did not follow the apocalyp tic mythology to its ultimate conclusion and emphasize the end of the world as the major motif of his message was be cause his eschatology was tempered by his concept of God and understanding of man. His message grows neither out of weariness with the world and longing for the world beyond nor out of fanciful speculation, but out of knowing the world’s futility and man’s corruption in God's eyes and out of knowing the will of God. The essential thing about the eschatological message is the idea of God that operates in it and the idea of human existence that it contains--not the belief that the end of the world is just a h e a d . 38 His view of God stood in the Old Testament tradi tion which understood God as the creator who governs and 3 9 sustains the world. Jewish apocalyptic, however, had driven God into a distant transcendance.*^*^ He was still ^^Bultmann, Primitive Christianity. . ., p. 90. Of. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 51. 3 7 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 131. 3 8 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 23. 39 Ibid. Of. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity , p. 77. 40 Ibid. Of. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word 50 creator but too high and distant to be concerned with the mundane affairs of the individual. Jesus altered this characteristic view of later Judaism and brought God near. He removed the false transcendence that separated creator from the created and re-interpreted God as he who "defines the present, embracing us all, delimiting us and making 41 demands upon us." His view of man is contingent upon his view of * God. If God is the coming God whose hour is dawning in I this moment, then man must now stand before him at the ^ end-time. The impending catastrophe has thrown man into a | crisis; he must make a decision. The alternatives which | confront him are clearly spelled out by Jesus : "God and ’ his Reign or the world and its goods,but the important ! 44 I thing in Bultmann's mind is the decision. The real significance of "the Kingdom of God" ' for the message of Jesus does not in any sense I depend on the dramatic events attending its coming, ! nor on any circumstances which the imagination can pp. 137-141. 41 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 77. 42 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 51. 4 3 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 9-in. Of. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 90. 44 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, I p. 43. According to Bultmann the content of Jesus' mes- ' sage was not decisive for the early Christian community i but the significant thing was the fact that Jesus demanded' a decision. 51 conceive. It interests him not at all as a describ- able state of existence, but rather as the transcendent event, which signifies for man the ultimate Either-Or, which constrains him to d e c i s i o n . In the crisis of the decision one finds the essential | characteristic of man's humanity. ^ ^ Before a man may I adopt an attitude he is already constrained to decision | "and therefore he must understand that just this necessity j of decision constitutes the essential part of his human | 4 7 * nature." Man's response in the crises determines his | value as a human being. Thus, one should not look to the ' mythology of Jesus in order to understand his eschatology, j for this is merely the vehicle that Jesus used to communi-I 4 8 ' cate the radical nature of man's choice. If men are standing in the crisis of decision, and ; if precisely this crisis is the essential character- ; istic of their humanity, then every hour is the last | hour, and we can understand that for Jesus the whole ' contemporary mythology is pressed into the service of this conception of human e x i s t e n c e . ! I Jesus' emphasis could not be upon the coming cosmic catastrophe nor upon the future. His message was con- | cerned with the present into which the future was breaking j 45 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, pp. 40-41. ^^Ibid., p. 52. ^^ibid. ! *^^Minear, p. 71. I 49 Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p. 52. Cf. I Perrin, pp. 115-118. Perrin has correctly raised a ' question: To what extent does Bultmann regard Jesus as , responsible for this existential view? 52 and he fastened upon the decision called for by the crisis. The eschatological message of Jesus, the preach ing of the coming of the Kingdom and of the call to repentance, can be understood only when one con siders the conception of man which in the last analysis underlies it, and when one remembers that it can have meaning only for him who is ready to question the habitual human self interpretation and to measure it by this opposed interpretation of human existence. Then it becomes obvious that the attention is not to be turned to the contemporary mythology in terms of which the real meaning in Jesus' teaching finds its outward expression. This mythology ends by abandoning the fundamental insight which gave it birth, the conception of man as forced to decision through a future act of G o d . 6 0 The Early Christian Eschatology^^ The earliest Christian community continued the eschatological preaching of Jesus enriching it with j apocalyptic themes.^^ In accordance with the hopes of | Jesus and the Jewish expectations the end of the world and 5 3 the Kingdom of God were still future. The Kingdom was ^*^Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, pp. 55-56 . 51 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 17 5. By the earliest community Bultmann means the Palestinian community which coincided with the Christ event. It saw itself as a part of Judaism and was distinguished from other sects in Judaism by the fact that it awaited Jesus as the Son of Man and conceived itself as an eschatologi cal occurrence. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testa ment , I, p. 42. The break with Judaism did not come until the "good news of Jesus was carried beyond the con fines of Judaism." 5 2 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 33. 5 3 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 34, 42. 53 still understood as having an otherworldly character. There were, however, two significant changes in I the hopes of the community. The Son of Man whom Jesus had j anticipated as a supernatural judge by whom God would 5 4 5 5 bring in his Kingdom they identified with Jesus. Al' though his past activity was not yet considered to be Messianic, they did anticipate Jesus as the coming Mes- 56 siah. The events of his life were not regarded as eschatological occurrence, for they still looked to the immediate future for the parousia when Jesus would come as Messiah - Son of Man to inaugurate the Kingdom of God A second difference lay in the fact that the Christian community understood itself as an eschatologi cal phenomenon.^^ That is, they did not regard them- 54 Ibid., pp. 2 8-31. Cf. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 90. The interpretation of the Son of Man passages is still a part of the contemporary dis cussion, and Bultmann's interpretation is still being challenged. Cf. R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1965) , pp. 119-125. 5 5 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 9. 5 6 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 36-3 7. ^^Ibid. , p. 43. However, the idea that Jesus' ministry was eschatological occurrence is implicit in I the community's concept of itself as the congregation of 1 the end-time. I 58 Ibid., pp. 37-43 54 selves in historical continuity with Israel but, as the new People of God, they stood at the end of time. In effect the community did not consider itself a historical reality at all but they regarded themselves as an escha tological reality--for had they not been taken out of the world? They are "the vestibule . . . of God's reign that 5 9 is shortly to appear." The new people of God has no real history, for it is the community of the end-time, an eschatological phenomenon. How could it have a history now when the world-time is finished and the end is imminent.' The consciousness of being the eschatological com munity is at the same time the consciousness of being taken out of the still existing world. 6 6 This awareness of being an eschatological phenome- non--of not belonging to the world of time but rather | belonging to the coming world--expressed itself in various j ways. Soon after the resurrection experiences the church withdrew to Jerusalem to await the imminent end of the world and the coming Reign of God. It adopted for itself the Old Testament eschatological designation of the "congregation of God," thereby declaring itself to be the fulfillment of the apocalyptic hopes.Its fellow ship meals were characterized by a mood of joyful 37 ®^Ibid., p. 37. Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . . , p. 36. ^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, ®^Ibid., pp. 37-38. 55 anticipation, for would they not soon recline together with Jesus at the heavenly banquet?Their practice of baptism, hardly different in significance from John's baptism, was a bath of purification in conjunction with repentance which prepared them for the coming Reign of 64 God. The end-time was beginning. The salvation- p r o m i s e s o f t h e p r o p h e t s a n d t h e f u l f i l l m e n t o f c o v e n a n t I hopes are now in process of realization and the church saw 1 itself as that ultimate goal: the consummation of Israel's: 6 5 I divine history of salvation. After all, had they not received "the Spirit," the I I departed prophetic gift whose renewal was promised at the ! end?Were they not now experiencing the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies of the end? ^ Thus, in early Christianity "history is swallowed up in eschatology."^^ The fact that the Christian commu nity existed as an eschatological phenomenon meant that the course of history was concluded. The end of the world was at hand, the Reign of God was "breaking in." History, ®^Ibid., p. 40. ^^Ibid. , p . 39. 6 5 . Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 34. ^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p.41 ^ " ^ ibid. , p . 4 2. ^^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . . , p. 37, 56 time, and the course of the world were about to be broken off. However, nothing happened. The appearance of the supernatural Son of Man did not materialize. The world did not end. History and time continued and the Christian church faced a very embarrassing reality--the non-appear- i Iance of the parousia! The joyful anticipation of the I j church for the immediate intrusion of God's Reign and the coming of Jesus as Messiah - Son of Man gave way to doubt and finally complete disappointment. Thus, Bultmann con cludes, Jesus was mistaken in the distinctive element of his message: the certainty of the imminent end of the 6 9 world. The world has not ended, and the course of history has prevailed over mythology. This hope of Jesus and of the early Christian com munity was not fulfilled. The same world still exists and history continues. The course of history has refuted mythology.7 0 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 92. 7 0 Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 14. CHAPTER IV THE RE-INTERPRETATION OF ESCHATOLOGY History had been understood in mythological cate gories by Jesus and the early Christian community. They looked for an immediate cosmic catastrophe which would j conclude the course of history. The Son of Man, the super natural agent of God, would appear and bring with him j God's judgment. Time would end and the present corrupting ; powers of evil would be annihilated. However, these hopes j did not materialize; Jesus was mistaken and the course of 3 _ I the world continued. ; This non-occurrence or non-appearance of the parousia posed a problem to the Christian community, and raised a disturbing question: How can faith in the im- ! mediate end of the world be maintained when it becomes 2 apparent that the end obviously has been delayed? In addition to becoming increasingly aware of the presence of I this irritating question, the church was experiencing | ^Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 14. Cf. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 92. 2 Bultmann, "Man Between the Times According to the New Testament," Existence and Faith, pp. 249-250. 57 58 growing pains that subjected it to new influences pressur- 3 ' ing for changes in its Kerygma. Quite obviously under j these circumstances the same type of eschatological antici-j pation could not be held by the enlarging Christian com munity as was held by Jesus and the small provincial band of Palestinian Christians. A change, a shifting of empha sis or a re-interprétâtion was imminent. The Recognition of the Problem: Pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity^ While a solution to the problem of eschatology was not achieved in pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity, it 5 was brought into proper focus. This is significant in that Hellenistic Christianity served as a bridge between Jesus and Paul and thus served as the basis of Pauline 176, 3 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 17 5- 4 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 64. The sources from which the eschatological hopes of pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity are reconstructed must themselves be obtained by reconstruction. Careful attention should be given to the fact that Bultmann does not use only the "canonical sources" but regards extra- canonical Christian documents to be of equal weight as sources for evidence of Hellenistic Christianity. See p. 63. Although Bultmann calls it "pre-Pauline Hellen istic Christianity," this is not to imply that it was a unitary phenomenon nor that it could be neatly "sand wiched" between early Christianity on the one hand and Pauline Christianity on the other. It existed in a variety of forms and even existed side by side with Paul. Johannine Christianity is one of its variety of forms. 5 Cf. Holwerda, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology . . ID. 99. 59 eschatology.^ Paul inherited the problem with which they had struggled. Hellenistic Christianity was swiftly becoming a syncretistic phenomenon. The sources reveal to Bultmann I a church in transition both theologically and geographi- 7 cally. As the Kerygma was carried beyond the boundaries of Palestine changes were taking place both in the commu nity and in its Kerygma. Hellenistic Christianity re tained an eschatological character in its preaching, and, as the earliest church before them, still proclaimed an imminent conclusion to the world. They proclaimed that "the end of history had come and the end of the world was at the door."^ But it did not occur and the Christian literature reflects the impatience of the church at its delay.^ Their hopes for an immediate parousia and end to the world grow weaker and the disappointment spreads until the biting question is finally asked: "Are the promises ^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 6 3 7 Ibid., pp. 63-64. Bultmann has expressed its transitional character by means of rhetorical questions. To borrow his terminology, Hellenistic Christianity was on the way between the "already: and the "not yet." The seeds for a solution were present but the church had only succeeded in recognizing the problem. Cf. pp. 91, 92, 93, 106, 117, 119, 151, 152, 153, 161, et al. ^Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 9. ^Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . . Exist ence and Faith, pp. 249-250. I 6 0 'of his coming really true?"^*^ I At this point the church faces a critical question: !In what manner can eschatology be maintained when the ex- jpectation of the imminent end pales and dies out? "Will faith in the one God take on the character of an 'enlight ened' Weltanschauung or will God be understood as the power who determines human existence . . .?" And if an answer is sought in the latter manner, as Bultmann believes it to have been, there still remains the question: "To what extent will eschatological Faith outgrow mythological 11 imagination?" One may pose the question, why did not the Hellen istic churches reject the eschatological hope altogether , I when it became evident to them that their hope for an i I immediate end were in vain? Bultmann points out that cosmic eschatology was not a novel idea in the Hellenistic ' I world. Ideas of this sort had been present in the West j 12 for some time. So the presuppositions for retaining a cosmic eschatology were present but not, of course, for understanding it as the closing act to a history of salva tion . Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 10. See also Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 10 3. i 11 I Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, ! p. 92. I 12 I Ibid., pp. 92-93. See pages 22-24. 61 So far as it meant fulfillment of the promise for the benefit of the Chosen People--the presupposi tions for understanding it were not present. How could the consciousness of the earliest Church of being the eschatological "Congregation" of the end of days 5 for whom the promises were now being ful- filled--how could the consciousness of being "true Israel" find a footing in Hellenistic congrega- tions?18 Another reason that eschatology was retained is that it was inextricably tied up with a particular under standing of history. "The end of the world was thought of ' as the end and goal of a history guided by God. A I final reason, certainly the most significant to Bultmann, I is the fact that mythological eschatology "contained a ! specific understanding of human existence" which could be j 15 satisfactorily expressed in the mythological categories. However, although a cosmic eschatology was retained in most Christian circles it was retained with certain modi fications . These modifications are the result of the influ ences of a new environment and Hellenistic Christianity's realization that it was no longer an eschatological phe nomenon but had become a historical phenomenon. As new ^^Ibid., p. 93. ^**Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 10. 15 Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . . .," Existence and Faith, p. 252. ^^Bultmann, History and Eschatology, p. 38 62 congregations sprang up outside of Palestine and the first generation of Christians began to die, the tradition began to gain in importance. "Indeed, the growth and development of the ecclesiastical office had its ground especially in 17 the need to guarantee the safety of the tradition." With these developments the church began to be painfully aware that the parousia would not take place as antici pated. It could not help but recognize that it was, in- . I deed, a historical phenomenon, a new religion in the | world. I Its spread into the Hellenistic world caused a decisive break with Palestinian Judaism and exposed it to the variety of influences which would eventually suggest possibilities, other than apocalyptic eschatology, for interpreting its eschatological Kerygma. Yet in spite of these influences, its change in setting and the subsequent shift in the emphasis of its Kerygma, Hellenistic Christianity was able, though not without struggle, to maintain a distinctive emphasis--its understanding of God, the world, and man. The form, how- j ever, in which these distinctives were expressed was called into question and eventually, in some cases, gave way to the influence of Hellenistic pressures. As did the earliest church before them, the ^'^Ibid. , p. 39 . 63 Hellenistic congregations proclaimed an impending judgment 18 upon the world to be accompanied by the resurrection of 19 the dead. The eschatological Judge and Savior acting in God's behalf is "none other than the crucified Jesus of Nazareth whom God raised from the dead and appointed to 2 0 his eschatological role." However, there was a notice able difference between the two. Hellenistic Christianity I "ceased to be dominated by the eschatological expectations j and the philosophy of life which that implied," and there | developed a new pattern of piety centered in the cultus of . 91 ! the church. ' [ Jesus, previously anticipated as the supernatural j "Son of Man," becomes the "divine Son of God" whose death j I upon the cross and resurrection served as an expiatory 2 2 : sacrifice. As is indicated by his new title, "Kurios," Jesus emerges in Hellenistic Christianity as the culticallyl worshipped Lord. As the Lord worshipped in the cult, he 2 3 is present in the life of the church. This emphasis Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p.74. ^^Ibid., p. 77. ^°Ibid., p. 80. 2 1 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 17 6 . 2 2 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 79-86. Cf. p. 130. This was a motif widespread in the Hellenistic World. ^^Ibid., p. 124. 64 upon the cult rather than upon the eschaton offers an opportunity for the development of a concept of salvation 2 4 which is available in the present. For example, baptism which had been understood in the earliest congregation as a rite of purification for 2 5 the coming salvation experiences a shift of emphasis and in the cult is understood as analogous to the initiation- sacraments of the mystery religions.^ ^ Through baptism an individual becomes a part of the eschatological con gregation and, thus, enters into a relationship with the 2 7 Lord. In fact, in this act he is an active participant 2 8 in the death and resurrection of Christ. Such an interpretation of the meaning of baptism doubtlessly exposed the young church to the danger that Christian existence might be based upon sacramental magic but it also opened another possibility, later seized by Paul : To interpret it as an existence determined by Christ's death and resurrection and hence to under stand it as an actualization, here and now, of the 177. p. 39 2 4 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 17 6 - 2 5 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, ^^Ibid., P- 140 ^^Ibid., p. 133. ^^Ibid., P- 140 . 65 2 9 occurrence of salvation. The double concept of the Spirit in the church is another example of the idea that salvation is present in the life of the church. At the basis of this double con cept of the Spirit lies the idea that the "world to come" determines the Christian's present existence. On the one hand the Spirit is the power conferred in baptism which makes one a Christian. On the other hand the same Spirit is a power given for a limited period, now and again, for specific tasks. For the statements which conceive the Spirit as a power given for the occasion and accomplishing extraordinary things are attempts to understand it as the power that determines Christian existence. In this contradiction it comes to light that the baptized Christian who, as such, belongs to the world to come, is, in his temporary present exist ence, not yet what he is to be and in the sight of God what he already is, but that his belonging to the world to come nevertheless determines his present existence.80 Although the Hellenistic Church recognizes that it is not an eschatological phenomenon and is not the commu nity of the last days, it, nevertheless, does not surren der the characteristics of the eschatological congregation. It has in fact retained them but only in an existential 31 manner. As the earliest Christian community was ^^Ibid. , p. 144. ^^Ibid., pp. 162-163. For the solution to the double concept of the Spirit see pages 336-337. ^^Ibid., p. 99. 66 conscious of no longer having any ties to the world by virtue of the fact that the final drama had begun, so the Hellenistic church was conscious of a separation and de limitation from the world. The eschatological congregation really no longer belongs to the perishing world. Its members have no home here ; their . . . [citizenship] is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), their city is the one that is to come (Heb. 13:14). Here, in this world, they are away from home on a p i l g r i m a g e . ^ 2 In this consciousness of separation one encounters a presupposition for the Pauline theology. Paul has re duced to a brief formula--"no longer" and "not yet"--what everywhere in Hellenistic Christianity is described in a great variety of terms as the Christian's situation in the world. Though Christian existence can, on one hand, be described by the indicatives--we are sanctified, ' we are purified--nevertheless, so long as it moves within this world, it stands within the imperative. ^ Though, on the one hand, it is separated from its j past and its environment, yet this separation must ' be newly made again and again.3 3 j This concept of salvation as a present reality : does not mean, however, that the future hope has been given up. Jesus is the Lord present in the church but he is 34 also the Judge and Savior who is to come in the Last Day. ^^Ibid., P* 1 0 0 . ^^Ibid., P* 1 0 1 . ^^Ibid., P* 103. 67 Thus 5 the church comes face to face with its most perplex ing question: How will the relationship between cult and escha tology be settled? When Christ is worshipped as the present Lord, will the expectation of the coming ChrisL remain alive? Or will it fade out and thereby push the eschatological expectation clear into the ' background? Will the end of the world be postponed ! into an indefinite future, resulting in the reduction of Christian hope for the future to the hope for in dividual "immortality"? Or will the conception that 1 the cult is the appropriate form for representing the | eschatological transcendence of the Church win out?35 , I Perhaps the single most significant influence upon ! the Christian church as a result of these questions was Gnosticism.There were, of course, definite contrasts 3 7 between Gnosticism and Christianity. In some cases the contrast was so great that the church rejected Gnosticism 3 8 altogether but in other cases they combined and Christi anity used Gnosticism as a vehicle for re-interpreting and communicating its eschatological Kerygma within the Hel- ' lenistic world. I The most helpful suggestion Gnosticism offered for re-interpreting the eschatological Kerygma lay in the individualistic eschatology. The Gnostic mythology had ^^Ibid. ^®Ibid. p. 152. pp. 164-18 3 pp. 168-172 p. 16 4. pp. 172-183 68 the advantage of being understandable to the Hellenistic 4 0 world and of standing within the context of a cosmic eschatology. Individualistic eschatology--i.e. the doctrine of the emancipation of the individual self at death and of its journey to heaven--stands within the context of a cosmic eschatology--i.e. the doctrine of the emancipation of all the sparks of light and their elevation into the light-world, after which this present world of mingled light and darkness will sink back into the primeval chaos of darkness, and the demonic rulers of the world will be judged. Although it was easily adaptable for kerygmatic purposes, the Gnostic mythology, if followed to its ulti mate conclusion would result in changing the distinctive emphasis of the Christian message. Salvation would be the escape of the divine spark from the evil world and escha tological existence would be an unearthly immortality. But just at this point Hellenistic Christianity for the 42 most part shows a distinctive unity, for it rejected 43 this aspect of Gnosticism. Ibid., p. 164. For Bultmann's discussion of Gnosticism in relation to Hellenistic Christianity see pages 15M--183. His purpose here is "to set forth con nectedly the extent to which the understanding of the Christian message in Hellenistic Christianity was unfolded by means of Gnostic terminology." ^^Ibid., p. 166. 4 2 Ibid., p. 168. The Gospel of John must remain the exception for "his conception of the reception of the righteous into heaven and the idea of heavenly bliss were strongly influenced by Gnosticism." 69 Gnosticism further developed the cosmological dualism which Christianity had inherited through Jewish apocalyptic, and carried it beyond the history of salva tion dimensions by making it more consistently cosmologi- 44 cal. The dualistic emphasis further clarified the position of man as an alien in an evil world dominated by J • . 45 demonic cosmic powers. The Gnostic myth suggested a framework in which Jesus could be understood as a cosmic redeemer figure. Thus, he became a . . . pre-existent divine being, Son of the Father, who came down from heaven and assumed human form and who, after his activity on earth, was exalted to heavenly glory and wrested sovereignty over the spirit-powers to himself. ^ 6 Thus, for believers the cosmic triumph of Christ means emancipation from the demonic world-rulers, from sin, and especially from death ; hence the declara tion that "the resurrection has already occurred" (II Tim. 2:18) is comprehensible. In this con nection the Gnostic idea is frequently utilized that the redeemer by his ascent has prepared the way through the spheres of the spirit powers into the heavenly world. The exalted Redeemer will draw after himself, his own (Jn. 12:32); he is, Ibid., pp, 172-173. The dualistic emphases in both Christianity and Gnosticism had a common heritage in the Persian and Babylonian mythology. , p. 164. ^^Ibid., p. 175. See also Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 19 8 .. Bultmann's use of the Gnostic myth as a background at such an early period is widely questioned. See below, pages 126-131. 70 himself, the "way" (Jn. 14:6). The idea is ex pressed in Hebrews by the term "pioneer" (. . . 2:10; 12:22; Cf. Acts 3:15; 5:31; II Clem. 20:5-- same word in all five cases). Christ is the pioneer-guide to heaven ; being, himself, "made perfect" by attaining heaven (. . . 2:10; 5:9), he is also the "perfecter" (. . , 1 2 :2 ) of his own. However, Hebrews re-interprets the Gnostic idea of the self-s ascent to its heavenly "resting- place" . . . into the idea that the People of God on earth is on pilgrimage to its heavenly home (3:7-4:11).47 Ultimately the whole cosmos must pay homage to him. Yet the realization of this event is modified by the Jewish- Christian eschatology and must await the parousia of T 48 Jesus. Since Hellenistic Christianity was not a unity, there could be no one solution to the problem of escha- 49 tology. Attempts were made to reach some adequate solu tion. In some circles, although the eschatological hope 5 0 was preserved, it was delayed to an indefinite future. Others became skeptical of the traditional Jewish escha- 51 tology and attempted to reject it altogether. In short, a satisfactory solution to the problem was not achieved in pre-Pauline Hellenistic Christianity. The issue remained p. 177. 178. 4 7 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, , p. 176. 49 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 177- 5 0 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 10. 51 Bultmann,_Primitive Christianity . . .,_p. _ 176. 71 open: Is eschatological consciousness to be based upon Gnostic dualism or is it to be based upon a concept of present existence determined by the future? Will eschato- | logical existence be simply the result of a natural processj that by-passes human conduct, responsibility, and deci- j sions or will it be conceived as genuine historical occur- 5 2 . . rence? This is the point at which the problem is faced by Paul and John. In their response a new understanding 5 3 of history and eschatology appears for the first time. Eschatology as Existence "Between the Times" : Paul^M- Paul's understanding of history is determined by 5 5 apocalyptic eschatology. The past of which he is aware is a history of the whole of humanity. It is unified in that all men are sinners and stand guilty before God. The past is "the old Aeon" which is ruled by the Devil and its God, and which will endure only a very short time till the day of the parousia of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, the Last 5 2 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 181, 18 2 . 5 3 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 40. 5 4 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 190. Bultmann uses for his sources "only the undoubt edly genuine letters of Paul." They are Romans, I - II Corinthians, Galatians, Phillippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. ! r r I Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . ' Existence and Faith, pp. 248-266. 5 72 Judgment and the final establishment of the reign of G o d . 56 Thus, Paul does not anticipate the end of history as the result of a historical development ’ ’but only its breaking off accujaplished by God.”^*^ One immediately recognizes the familiar two-age pattern of later Judaism which was adopted by Jesus and was passed on to Hellenistic Christianity by the earliest Christian community. Paul, however, has only adopted this framework for his understanding of the eschatological drama with certain modifications. While for Jesus and early Palestinian Christianity the final and decisive act of God is yet to come, for Paul it has already taken place: ’ ’God^s eschato logical sentence of judgment has already been passed, namely in the death and resurrection of Christ.In this emphasis lies the striking differ ence in Paul's eschatological scheme. While Jesus and early Christianity proclaim . . . a final and decisive act of God, the Reign of God, as coming or, indeed, as now breaking in, . . . Paul affirms that the turn of the aeon has already taken place and, to be sure, [has already taken place] with the coming, the death and the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, for Paul, it is Jesus' cross and resurrection that are the decisive 5 6 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 41. ^^ibid., p. 40. ^^Bultmann, "Paul," Existence and Faith, p. 137. 73 events of salvation through which the forgiveness of sins, the reconciliation of man with God is affected, and with which, therefore, the new crea tion is introduced. Consequently, while the per son and history of Jesus do indeed constitute a presupposition of his theology, they do not do so from the standpoint of their historical or ideal content, but rather as the act of God, as the occurrence of the revelation of salvation. Paul does not teach other and new ideas from those that Jesus teaches, but rather teaches us to understand an event in a new way.59 Since Paul understands the salvation occurrence as past event, he must necessarily modify the basic scheme of the two-age pattern. According to a rabbinic theory, between the old aeon and the new aeon falls an inter mediate period which is to be the Reign of the Messiah.^^ For Paul this reign and the blessings of the age to come are already present in the interim between Christ's Ibid., pp. 124-125, Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 189. The coming Reign of God that played such a significant role in the message of Jesus has lost its dominant position in Paul's eschato- logical Kerygma. 60. I T 9 Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . . Existence and Faith, p. 248. This apparently represents the fusing of the apocalyptic hope of later Judaism and the eschatological hope of the Old Testament. It will be recalled that the Messiah played little part in the eschatological hopes of later Judaism. His place was assumed by the supernatural "Son of Man." See the fol lowing: Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, pp. 34-43; Russell, pp. 285-352; Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson (New York and Nashville : Abingdon Press, 1954), pp. 261-279. See page 277: "Finally it must be noted that we often find an attempt to reconcile the nationalistic, this- worldly eschatology with the universalistic, individual istic, other-worldly eschatology, by means of the idea of the millennium." 74 resurrection and parousia.^^ The salvation occurrence-- I the death and resurrection of Jesus--is, in effect, the eschatological occurrence by which God has ended the old aeon. However, Paul still expects a final cosmic drama to I come in the grand tradition of the apocalyptic expecta tions . This event, initiated by the parousia of Christ, is the "completion and confirmation of the eschatological occurrence that has now already begun.It will be I accompanied by the resurrection of the dead, the Last Judgment, and the end of the world.^^ In this manner Bultmann reconstructs the mytho logical scheme of Paul's eschatological anticipations. However, he does not regard it as the essential element of Paul's eschatological Kerygma. The important emphasis is the understanding of human existence bound up in it. "Paul has interpreted the apocalyptic view of history on the basis of his anthropology."^^ By "historicizing its cosmic components" he has converted the eschatological event into an eschatological existence and understands it as a genuine possibility for man in the present. p. 3 0 6 61 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 42. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, ^^Ibid., pp. 346-347. ^^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 41. 6 5 Minear, p. 72. What Minear means by this i 75 I Since the Christ-event--his death and resurrec- j tion--initiated the final drama of the ages, it, thereby, I signaled the end of the world and its history,^^ and since j an interest in the history of peoples, nations, or even mankind was : meaningless in the light of this fact, Paul directed his interest to the individual. The history of the nation and the world had lost interest for Paul, he brings to light another phenomenon, the historicity of man, the true historical life of the human being, the history which everyone experiences for himself and by which he gains his real essence.67 Paul’s interest in man is of paramount concern for Bultmann. It is, in fact, the point on which his understanding of Paul’s theology turns. Accordingly, Bultmann approaches Paul's theology as a doctrine of man in relation to God. According to Bultmann's interpreta tion Paul's theology has a twofold division: man prior to expression is that Paul is using the cosmological cate gories to express a particular understanding of human existence. For example, of. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 228. "God's creatorship is not, for Paul, a cosmological theory which professes to explain the origin of the world and its existence as it is. Rather it is a proposition that concerns man's existence." ^^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., pp. 40- 41. p. 43. R p Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 190-191. For example, this is the only approach which Bultmann feels will correctly explain Paul's soteriology; "every assertion about man speaks of God's deed and demands. . . ." the revelation of faith and man under faith. 76 69 After a discussion of the terms used by Paul to 7 0 describe man's existence in relation to God, Bultmann summarizes Paul's understanding.of human existence: Man is a living unity. He is a person who can be come an object to himself. He is a person having a relationship to himself (soma). He is a person who lives in his intentionality, his pursuit of some purpose, his willing and knowing (psyche, pneuma). This state of living toward some goal, having some attitude, willing something and know ing something, belongs to man's very nature and in itself is neither good nor bad. The goal toward which one's life is oriented is left still unde- ■ termined in the mere ontological structure of having ' some orientation or other; but this structure (which for Paul is, of course, the gift of the life-giving Creator) offers the possibility of choosing one's goal, of deciding for good or evil, for or against God.71 Thus, ontologically, Paul regards man as faced by two possibilities. He can "lay hold" of his true exist ence by "acknowledging God as the Creator" or he can "miss : his true existence" by denying God as Creator, which is 1 synonymous with "failure to acknowledge one's own crea- j 7 2 tureliness." The latter possibility is the ultimate j sin : "The false assumption of receiving life not as the gift of the Creator but procuring it by one's own power. ®®Ibid. ’ ^°Ibid. , pp. 192-210. ^^Ibid., p. 2 09. ^^Ibid., p. 232. 77 7 3 of living from one's self rather than from God." While both of these alternatives are ontological possibilities, in reality, man has already missed the possibility of re lation to God and exists in the world as a sinner ; "his intent is basically perverse, evil."*^^ There are different ways in which Paul expresses the ontical reality of man's existence in the world. It is "life according to the flesh" as opposed to "life according to the Spirit." Such life brands one's exist ence or attitudes as an antithesis to God which realizes itself when the individual sets his mind on things of the flesh, i.e., engages himself "in the pursuit of the 7 5 merely human, the earthly-transitory." Paul can look on man's existence in the world as being under the control of "powers"--sin and the flesh-- to which man has fallen victim and against which he is I ' - j 0 powerless. As one dominated by these powers, man 7 3 Ibid., Bultmann acknowledges that Paul did not develop his thought so compactly as this but insists that it "underlies his discussion of sin." ^^Ibid., p. 227. Cf. Macquarrie, An Existen tialist .Theology . . ., pp. 30-32. An ontological state ment tells about Being and its range of possibilities. An ontical statement tells about some entity in its actual relationship with other entities. 7 5 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 236-238. ^^Ibid., pp. 244-245. 78 exists within the cosmos, "the sphere of anti-godly power under whose sway the individual who is surrounded by it 77 has fallen." He, thus, exists as a slave and in his bondage is rushed towards death, the opposite of his in tent, completely powerless to prevent the ultimate ^ ^ 78 catastrophe. Perhaps the most significant thing about man’s situation is that it is not the result of natural forces or mythological powers that have arbitrarily by-passed hu man responsibility and decision. Rather, man has per mitted the cosmos to gain the upper hand over him by be- 7 9 stowing upon it his concern and care. These powers only have existence for those "who let them exist. The control of the cosmos does not come over man "as a sheer curse of fate" but rather "grows up" out of man 81 himself. In short, the "powers" represent the reality that man is constantly confronted with a necessity for decision and that he "has always already decided against God, his true Lord, and has let the threatening and Ibid., pp. 254-259. Of. page 255. There are other ways in which Paul uses the term "cosmos" but this usage Bultmann regards as most significant. ^^Tbid,, P ' 246 . ^^Ibid., P- 256. ^°Ibid., P- 258. ®^Ibid., P- 256. 79 8 2 tempting world become Lord over him." But if man has already decided for the world against God and is completely powerless, how can the ontological possibility of a relation to God become an 8 3 ontical reality? Is it, after all, a genuine possi bility? How is one able to "choose God," i.e., to achieve a new self-understanding? Or to phrase the ques tion using mythological categories: Given such a set of circumstances, what hope does man have for salvation? The apocalyptic hope for salvation was in a future cosmic drama--the eschaton--at which time God 1 would intervene in world affairs to save his people. This hope for salvation in Paul’s theology became also a 8 4 ; present possibility. Paul regards Christ’s death and resurrection as the eschatological occurrence^^ in which 8 6 God has ended the old aeon, shattered the control of 8 7 the "powers" enslaving man and introduced the new aeon as a new sphere of existence by making its blessings a 8 8 present possibility for man. ^^Ibid., P* 259 . ^^Ibid., P- 209 . ^^Ibid., pp. 278-279. ®^Ibid., pp. 292-294. ^^Ibid., pp. 278-279. ^"^Ibid. , . PP- 297, 299 ^^Ibid., pp. 306-307. 80 But in order to express the salvation occurrence 8 9 "as happening actually to and for and in man," Paul had to utilize new categories. He found that the Jewish cultic and legalistic categories were a handicap. They did not permit the meaning of the resurrection to take its rightful place with reference to human existence.^^ He found some help in the thought patterns of the mystery religions and Gnostic mythology^^ but even these were not adequate to 9 2 express his understanding of the salvation occurrence. Neither did they satisfactorily answer the perplexing question : . . . How can this occurrence be recognized and experienced by man as the deed of Grace? For only then can it take effect as a compelling and trans forming power, when it can be understood as directed at man, reaching him, happening to him--i.e. when the challenge to accept it as salvation-occurrence thrusts him into genuine decision.9 3 Paul discovers the solution in preaching--i.e., by presenting the salvation occurrence as a decision-ques- tion. The Kerygma itself as the decision-question con- ^ ^ 94 fronts man, as to ®^Ibid., p. 300. , pp. 298-300. ^^Ibid., p. 300. 9 3 Ibid., pp. 294-295. QU Ibid., p. 301. . . . whether he will acknowledge that God has made a crucified one Lord; whether he will thereby ack nowledge the demand to take up the cross by the surrender of his previous understanding of himself, making the cross the determining power of his life, letting himself be crucified with Christ.95 Thus, the proclamation of the salvation occurrence is I itself the call for faith ; it is itself the challenge to surrender a previous self understanding. If that is so, then that means that the salvation- occurrence is nowhere present except in the pro claiming, accosting, demanding, and promising word of preaching, A merely "reminiscent" historical account referring to what happened in the past cannot make the salvation-occurrence visible. It means that the salvation-occurrence continues to take place in the proclamation of the word. The salvation-occurrence is eschatological occurrence just in this fact, that it does not become a fact of the past but constantly takes place anew in the present. It is present not in the after-effect of a significant fact of world-history but in the proclamation of the word, , , , Consequently, in the proclamation Christ himself, indeed God himself, encounters the hearer, and the "Now" in which the preached word sounds forth is the "Now" of the g g eschatological occurrence itself (II Cor, 6:2), In this manner can the salvation-occurrence be said to have significance to the hearer: for it con fronts him and compels him to decide for or against it; it thrusts him into decision. Though Paul describes the present actuality of the new Life in Gnostic terminology . , , he neverthe less has lifted the present eschatological occur rence out of the dimension of cosmic occurrence into that of historic---by regarding it as taking 82 place in the preaching of the word which proclaims Jesus as the crucified and risen Lord. In this proclamation the judgment already is taking place, for it spreads abroad death for refusal of life and life for faith (II Cor. 2:15f). Paul has histori- cized the Jewish apocalyptic speculation of an intermediate Messianic reign preceding the new aeon by conceiving the time of the Messiah’s reign as the time between Christ’s resurrection and parousia-- i.e. as the Now in which the proclamation is sounding forth (I Cor. 1 5 :2 3 -2 8 ).97 By obedience to the word of preaching^^ the believer is j set free from his past and existence in faith, a life of 9 9 I responsible decisions is possible to him. , As was indicated by Bultmann in the above quota- I I tion, this represents a "historicizing” of Paul’s cosmo- | logical eschatology in that the blessings of the Messianic | Reign are now a present possibility. The beginning of the ^ new aeon is not a cosmic catastrophe but a historic ! . 100 ' event. With this, that life in freedom has become a real j possibility, and the old aeon has reached its end. | For the believer who is "in Christ" the word is j true: "The old has passed away, behold, the new | is come" (II Cor. v. 17). Christ is the end of I history because God has sent him forth "when the j time has fully come" (Gal. iv.4). The believer is not , still subjected under the Law but under Grace (Rom. | vi. 14); he stands in the freedom of the children of God (Gal. iv. Iff). He belongs no more to this world. ^^Ibid., p. 307. ^^Ibid., p. 316. ^^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 45. ^Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . . ., Existence and Faith, p. 2 54. I t 8 3 to the old vanishing aeon (Gal. i. 4; I Cor. vii. 31) 5 and his relation to all worldly engagements is the "as if not" (I Cor. vii. 29-31).101 But how is it possible for Paul to understand the chrono logical interim as an existential or historical phenom enon? The answer . . .is to be found, first of all, in the recognition that the past, the old aeon, is understood as the aeon of sin, and freedom from it, as freedom from sin. As soon as this is seen, the existential meaning of the mythological statements concerning the turn of the age at once becomes I clear. For the past that is ended is not only a : cosmic situâtion--although it is also this for ' mythological thinking--but rather my particular past in which I was a sinner. And the future for | which I am freed is likewise my future.19 2 j The believer is freed from his past in the sense that he i is separated from the influence of the cumulative effect of, all his previous decisions. ^ His freedom, however, is not a static phenomenon; "it never loses the character of a' gift that never becomes a secure possession. Thus, the' decision to surrender one’s care and strength to God and | one's break with the past must be made again and again. j Paul expresses the paradoxical character of this ' ^Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 14. 1 0 2 Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . . .," Existence and Faith, pp. 254-255. 103 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 44. 104 Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . f f 5 Existence and Faith, p. 255. See also Bultmann, Theology ! of the New Testament, I, p. 322. 84 freedom by means of dialectic. In fact, the historicity of the Christian life arises out of the dialectic symbo lized by Paul in the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Existence in faith can be described as a move ment, a continuous being on the way between the "no longer" and "not yet."^*^^ For example, the Christian "Mo longer" belongs to this old vanishing aeon and yet the age to come has "not yet" fully appeared. He is "no longer" controlled by his previous decisions but freedom 10 7 is "not yet" a secure possession for him. Existence in faith can also be described by the paradoxical fact that the Christian exists in two worlds at the same time. He is in the world but he lives "as though not" of the world. He has, in effect, been desecu larized. Although he still exists in the world, he has been lifted out of a secular existence and is no longer controlled by the cares and anxieties of the world. He turns his back on the world and its values and evidences a new attitude towards it. It is, in fact, an "eschato logical existence." 322 . 10 5 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 14. ^Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 46. 10 7 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 85 Now, this is eschatological existence; it means being a "new creature" (11 Cor. 5:17). The escha tology of Jewish apocalyptic and of Gnosticism has been emancipated from its accompanying mythology, in so far as the age of salvation has already dawned for the believer and the life of the future has be come a present reality.108 Existence in faith can also be understood in indicative-imperative categories. Although the believer has been liberated from the power of sin (the indicative), I I ihe should not permit sin to reign in his life (the impera tive ) --Romans 6:12, 14. If we live by the Spirit (the indicative), let us also walk by the Spirit (the impera- 10 9 tive)--Galatians 5:16. In short, the believer has a 110 responsibility to become what he already is. The two categories do not contradict but together serve to express the fluid character and open-endedness 111 of the Christian life as freedom for the future and 112 obedience to God. The indicative is the foundation for 113 the imperative. ^Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma and Myth, p. 20. See also Bultmann, "Man Between 10 9 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., PP 47 . 110 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 332--333 . 13 1 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., PP 45. 112 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 331--332. 113 Ibid., p. 3 3 3. 86 To be crucified and risen with Christ does not mean the acquirement of a mysterious power"of immortality, but rather the freedom of a life lived in the ser vice of God.^^^ The use of the dialectic clearly reveals a para doxical character to the Christian life, but it also describes it as one of responsible decision. To exist as a Christian means to live in freedom, a freedom into which the believer is brought by the divine Grace which appeared in Christ. The one justified by faith is set free from his past, from his sin, from himself. And he is set free for a real historical life in free decisions. As was indicated above, Bultmann has cited the paradoxical character of Christian existence by calling it ! "eschatological existence." By that he means to say that * the Christian "has been taken out of the world,that he is now experiencing God's reign in his present exist- 117 ence, and that his life evidences the qualities of ^^^Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . . .," Existence and Faith, pp. 255-256. 115 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 45. ^^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 3 3 8. 117 Ibid., pp. 268-269. There is a basic ontologi cal continuity between man's existence prior to faith and man's existence under faith. "No break takes place ; no magical or mysterious transformation of man in regard to his substance, the basis of his nature, lakes place." See Roy A. Harrisville, "Bultmann's Concept of the Transi tion from Inauthentic to Authentic Existence," Kerygma and History, eds. Carl E. Braaten and Roy A. Harrisville (New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962), pp. 212- 228 . 118 that reign. He is already the "new creation" of the anticipated eschaton (II Cor. 5:17). Thus, true salvation is not the ultimate cosmic catastrophe which Paul did expect but : True salvation is righteousness and therewith freedom. The Kingdom of God is "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom xiv. 17). This means that the conception of salvation is 1 determined by the salvation of the individual who is a new creature in Christ (II Cor. v. 17). And , this salvation is present for the believer who is | "in Christ." It is true it will be perfected by | the resurrection of the dead and the transforma tion of the living.119 Obviously only a partial solution to the problem j i of eschatology has been achieved by Paul. It can only ; be regarded as partial, for Paul was not able completely | to escape the mythology in which his view of the histori- ! I city of man was couched. The complete solution must ' I wait for John. 339 . 118 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 119 Bultmann, New Testament Studies, p. 13. 12 0 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 18 6. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, pp. 19 2, 19 8. Paul could not separate human existence from the soma. Since soma stood for both human existence and the material body, "he connects this idea of somatic existence in the eschatological consummation with a mythological teaching on the resurrection." 121 Eschatology as Existence in the Present: John The understanding of Christian existence as a life in which God is always One who comes, and as a life which is always a future possibility is, of course, not always fully explicit in the New Testa ment in all its ramifications. In fact, there was at the outset a serious obstacle to its full reali zation. That obstacle was the eschatology which the early Church took over from Judaism, with its expectation of an imminent end of the world, and the ushering in of ultimate salvation by a cosmic catastrophe. Only the author of the Fourth Gospel has emancipated himself from this eschatology. 2 John removed the "obstacle" because he understood eschatology as a possibility of existence in the present 12 3 moment. However, he has not simply eliminated the 121 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 6-10. A word should be said about the relationship of John to Paul. John "does not pre-suppose Paul as a link between himself and the earliest Church." The two do not lie in linear development from the theology of the Palestinian community but have branched off in different directions. Paul formulates his eschatology from a back ground of later Judaism and John uses the framework of Gnosticism. 12 2 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 186. 12 3 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 39, 85. However, Bultmann acknowledges that in John's Gospel and First Epistle as they now stand there are passages which reflect the traditional futuristic eschatology. Bultmann does not recognize those passages in the Gospel as belonging to the original author. Rather, they are, in his opinion, the work of a redactor. Bultmann's treatment of these passages will be discussed in Part two. Cf. W. F. Howard, The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation (London: The Epworth Press, 19 31), 2 44. "It was theFourth Evangelist who set. the teaching of Jesus free from the Jewish time-per spective in which the earliest Christians naturally pre served it. By transposing the thought of the return of ! Jesus from the dialect of Jewish apocalyptic into the I universal language of mystical fellowship, he has given it ! a permanent place in Christian experience." 89 cosmic eschatology; he has, to use Bultmann's own words, "historicized" it or, perhaps better, "demythologized" 124 it. John accomplishes this by departing from the later Jewish apocalyptic understanding of eschatology and at tempting a radical restatement of eschatology in terms of 125 Gnostic mythology. His is "the most thorough-going attempt to restate the redemptive work of Jesus in Gnostic terms. . . . It is easy to see why the Christian Church took over these ideas from the Gnostic redemption myth. That myth offered a terminology in which the redemp tion wrought in the person and work of Jesus could be made intelligible as a present reality.12 7 It is true that Bultmann regards the Gospel of John as 12 8 coming out of oriental Christianity, but its basic I 1 2 4 ; Bultmann uses both terms to express the fact that John understands the eschaton, a future cosmic 'event, as a present existential possibility. John is, thus, "interpreting" a cosmological eschatology as an 'existential eschatology. Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 10, 38-39, for the terms. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (London: Hodder and •Stroughton, 1946), pp. liii-liv. Although C. H. Dodd believes that John retains a belief in a Judgment on the last day, John's re-interpretation of eschatology "ap pears to do fuller justice to the teaching of Jesus Christ than the naive thinking of the primitive church." 12 5 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 4 7 ^Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 197 ^^’ ^Ibid. , pp. 197-198 . 12 8 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 10, 13. The Gospel comes from a background of pre- Christian "Gnosticizing Judaism." 90 framework has been decidedly altered in terms of the 12 9 Gnostic redeemer-myth. For example 5 one does not find the Jewish dualism of the two-ages in John. Rather, here one finds a dualism 13 0 of two realms, but not in the cosmic sense in which 131 they appear in Gnostic mythology. "The cosmological dualism of Gnosticism has become in John a dualism of 13 2 decision." John understands man as confronted by opposing possibilities of existence, rather than opposing ages. One has the choice "to be of God" or "to be of the 13 3 world." John's terminology, however, loses the cos mological associations which it had in Gnosticism and serves him to describe men and their conduct. It denotes "the individual's essence which asserts itself in all his speaking and doing and determines the Whither of his 134 way." The two opposing realms appear as: light or darkness, truth or falsehood, above or below, life or 1 99 Ibi^., pp. 12-14. 13 0 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 17 8 Cf. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 11, 15-21. 131 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 13, 20. Cf. Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., I p. 54. I I , p. 21. ! I ^^^Ibid., p. 20. ! ^^‘ ^Ibid. 91 135 death, freedom or bondage, and serve John by indicating two possibilities of existence for man or two ways of being-in-the-world. ^ Man has the choice to exist in obedience to God’s will or to exist in rebellion against God’s will.^57 This alternative is only made possible by the 13 8 13 9 appearance of the Revelation-bearer whose "word" casts men into decision by demanding a response of faith.It is in this situation of proclamation-re- sponse that the ancient hopes are fulfilled and that the future eschatological occurrence becomes a present possi bility of existence. That John regards the moment of ^^^Ibid., p. 17. Of. Bultmann, Primitive Chris tianity . . ., p. 178, ^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 20 . ^^^Ibid., p. 76. The "world" is not to be con fused with a cosmic mythological power. It is "a his torical power constituted by men who have rebelled against God." 13 8 Ibid., p. 34. 13 9 The "word" which Jesus proclaims has no doc trinal content at all (Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 6 2-6 3); rather, in his "word" is com municated the bare fact of revelation itself--in short, Jesus reveals that he is the revealer (Ibid., p. 63). What he communicates is not a body of doctrine or cor rect formulae but "God’s very reality revealing itself-- occurring!--in Jesus" (Ibid., p. 19). ^^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p. 75 . ^^^Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 185. 92 proclamation-response as the anticipated eschatological occurrence is evident in several different respects. The incarnation and the death of Jesus are under stood by John as a unity and are regarded as the decisive salvation-event--in short, as eschatological occur- 142 rence. Their unity is evident in that John regards 14 3 both as God’s revelation of himself in the world --hence their decisive character, for in Gnosticism, and Johannine 144 theology, the fact of revelation is the decisive thing. It is eschatological in that it produces crises in the world. It is, in fact, the Krisis--Judgment--of the 145 world. 146 John regards the person and the work of Jesus as the Judgment in that . . . upon the encounter with Jesus the sunder- ance between faith and unfaith, between the sighted and the blind, is accomplished (3:19; 142 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p . 52 . 14 3 ' Ibid., pp. 19, 35, 58. The entire salvation- drama is concentrated into this one event of revelation. | The facts of redemption in the traditional sense--incarna-I tion, death, resurrection, Pentecost, parousia--have significance for John only as revelation. 144 Ibid., pp. 66-67. 14 5 iMâ* , p. 37. ^^^Ibid. , p. 60. The ’ ’ work’ ’ of Jesus is "judg ing" and "making alive." Since this is accomplished through his word, Bultmann regards his "work" and his "word" as identical occurrences. 9 3 9:39). He who believes is not judged (i.e. not condemned), but he who does not believe remains in darkness, remains under the wrath of God, and is thereby judged (i.e. condemned) . . . the judgment, then, is no dramatic cosmic event but takes place in the response of men to the word of Jesus.147 By encounter with the Revelation-bearer man is forced into decision. If he does not believe the word, he is judged. Thus, the Judgment is no future cosmic event in John but takes place in the response of men to the word of Jesus--in the situation of proclamation-response.^^^ John sees the resurrection anticipated at the end-time as present possibility in proclamation-response. He has completely removed the resurrection from its cosmic framework. The ability to raise the dead is not given to Jesus by virtue of the fact that he has himself been physically resurrected, but it has always belonged to him. In fact, the resurrection of Jesus as an actual 14 9 event has little significance for John. The decisive thing occurs in the incarnation and death of Jesus, i.e., in revelation. In order to perform his work of "judging" and "making alive" it was unnecessary for Jesus ^^^Ibid., p. 38. ^Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 18 5. Of Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, pp. 31-3 2. p. 5 6. 1 ^Bultmann, Theology of the. New Testament, I, , pp. 56-57. 94 to be resurrected. All he had to do was speak and when men responded in faith, the resurrection became reality. Thus, the nature of the resurrection was not the resusci tation of a physically dead body but a change in self- 151 understanding. Resurrection does not occur at the end- time; it is a present possibility for man in that Jesus "calls" men to "Life" and in the moment of faith-response, . ^ 152 ' I bestows it. j The coming eschatological hour, which hope antici- | pates at the end of time, is interpreted as the ' present moment in which the word of the Revelation- bearer resounds ; it is the hour of the resurrec- i tion.15 3 I The "dead" who are called by Jesus are men who ; exist under bondage to the cosmos. Their "death" is a kind of self-understanding, a kind of being-in-the-world. i It is a life lived in a seIf-contrived security which has been erected in independence of God. It is a false under standing of life which Bultmann characterizes as "unreal." | The "Life" he bestows upon them is "openness to God and I , p. 75. 15 2 Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 194. The Gnostic myth, as illustrated by Mandaean Gnosticism, is regarded as the background of the concept that the resur rection takes place in the call of Jesus. The call of .the Mandaean envoy is said "to awaken the dead" and also that "life rests in his mouth." Of. Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion (2nd ed. rev.; Boston: Beacon Press, 19 6 3) , PP. 48-49. 15 3 Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., pp. 194-195. 95 154 to him who makes God manifest." Thus, John demytho- logizes the resurrection, translating it from its cosmic framework by understanding it as taking place in proclama tion-response, i.e., in the faith-response of men to the I word of Jesus. Neither is the parousia a cosmic occurrence. In John it is not expected as the future appearance of Jesus 15 5 in the clouds of heaven at the end, but is understood as taking place in the proclamation-response framework. The parousia as event is identical with Pentecost, the coming of the Spirit and Easter, the resurrection of Jesus. Consequently 5 the terminology appropriate to Easter again and again mingles with that appropriate to the parousia--reunion with him is mentioned in 14:19; 16:16, 19, 20; the fact that he lives, 14:9; his appearing to the disciples, 14:21f. But out of the traditional parousia-expectation these themes occur : his coming, 14:3 , 18 , 23 , 28 ; and the phrases characteristic of eschatology, "in that day" 14:20; 16:23, 26 and "the hour is coming," 16:25. And into the midst of these the promise of the Spirit is thrust : 14:15-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-11, 13-15. But the one event that is meant by all these is not an external occurrence, but an inner one : the victory which Jesus wins when faith arises in a man by the overcoming of the offense that Jesus is to him.156 However, Bultmann appears to regard the parousia p. 19 . ^^*^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, , pp. 35, 84. ^^®Ibid., p. 57. 96 } as having a double meaning in John. In one sense, as indicated in the above quotation, it can be said to be an inner occurrence. Yet, in another sense John interprets it as "the future of the individual believer after the end 15 7 of his earthly life." In this respect it serves John as a terminus ad quem of the "between time." The present time is regarded as the period between the glorification of Jesus at his crucifixion and the end of the individual believer’s earthly life. The resulting tension--Jesus has come but is yet to come--sets up a dialectic by which the Christian’s present existence gains its essential mean ing. However, just exactly how this double emphasis 15 9 is to be reconciled Bultmann has not indicated. At any rate the parousia is not an impending cosmic occur rence but a historic event. In one sense it takes place in proclamation-response, yet in another sense it will 15 7 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 49. 15 9 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p. 85. One can only wonder to what extent these two meanings may be reconciled at all. If the parousia takes place when the believer submits himself in faith to Jesus, in what sense is it to occur again at the be liever’s death? Are they not, perhaps, two different occurrences? One is keenly aware of the confusion caused by Bultmann’s double emphasis. Does his later statement ' History and Eschatology . . . represent a shifting or I a change of emphasis? His later interpretation empha- j sizes that there is still a futuristic aspect to John’s ; eschatology. See pages 166-184. 97 occur at the end of the individual believer’s earthly life. Thus 5 the eschaton, the great eschatological drama of the ages, the end of the world, God’s supernatural con clusion to history is completely removed from its cosmic setting and occurs only in the present. It is not a transformation of nature but offers the possibility for a new understanding of existence, for a new kind of being- in-the-world, for. the possibility of existing eschatolog- icallyI This existence is not the unearthly ethereal I existence anticipated by Gnosticism^^nor the transfor mation and idealization of existence upon the earth. It ; is rather desecularization : ^ In the midst of the world the believer is lifted out of secular existence--though he is still "in the world," he is no longer "of the world" (17:11, 14, 16). He has already gone through the Judgment and gone over into Life (3:18; 5:24f.). He already has Death behind him (8:51; 11: 2 5f.) ; he already has Life (3:36; 6:47; I Jn. 5:12 . . .). To him "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining" (I Jn. 2:8). As Jesus was a foreigner in the world because of his foreign "glory," so the believers who belong to him are also foreigners. . . .162 Faith is not flight from the world nor asceticism. ■^^^Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . . , p. 164. ^^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 85-86 . 16 2 -^^^Ibid. , p. 78. 98 but desecularization in the sense of a smashing of all human standards and evaluations. It is in this sense that the believer is no longer "of the world" (15:19; 17:14, 16); i.e. since the world is no longer his determining origin, . . . he no longer belongs to it.163 Faith is turning away from the world, the act of desecularization, the surrender of all seeming security and every pretense, the willingness to live by the strength of the invisible and uncon trollable. It means accepting completely different standards as to what is to be called death and what life. It means accepting the life that Jesus gives and is ( 5 :19f f.; 11: 2 5f . ) --a life that to the world’s point of view cannot even be proved to exist,16 4 Eschatological existence sets the believer free 16 5 from the world and its "sham reality." It means that he has surrendered his old self-understanding in order to understand his life as one of obedience and faith.In the moment of surrender he realizes his longing for life and the eschatological blessings--peace, joy, and the gift of the Spirit--become his present possession. ^ However, although eschatological existence is possible as a present possession, it does not have a static character. It has an "open-endedness" similar to 16 8 Pauline existence in faith, although perhaps a little P- 76 . P- 75 . 16 5y.. n . 1 . L ) 2 , Cj » 1 ) P • 78. ^^^Ibid., P- 75. ^^"^Ibid. , PP . 78-88. ^Bultmann, History 99 16 9 more clearly expressed. While the believer may exist in faith (indicative), his faith is not a once for all conviction that is eternally possessed. Rather, it is a permanent overcoming of the world which must be done 17 0 again and again (imperative). The dialectical tension is evident, for example, in the declaration that the be liever does not sin (I John 3:9; 5:18) and the fact that he is a sinner who must constantly confess his sin (I John 1:9) It is expressed again in the discourse on the vine and the branches. The condition on which the branch abides in the vine is that it bear fruit; but at the same time the con dition that the branch bear fruit is that it abide in the vine (xv. 2-4).17 2 Thus, although the believer is existing eschatologically the imperative stands ever before him: he must exist eschatologicallyI The dialectical character of Johannine eschatolog ical existence, is further expressed by an "already-not yet" 16 9 Bultmann, "Man Between the Times . . " 5 I ^ ---- ---------------- I Existence and Faith, p. 256 . ' 17 0 ! Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p. 79 . 171 Ibid.; of. Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 48. It would appear that the present tense should be emphasized in I John 3:9 and 5:18 as well as I John 1:9. 17 2 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 48. 100 tension identical to that encountered in Paul’s thought. For example, although the believer has "already" been set free, his freedom, as the eschatological blessings of joy and peace, is conditional. It always lies just ahead of 17 3 him as something "not yet" fully realized. Thus, "freedom . . . is not a once for all act, but . . . one’s 174 entire life stands under forgiveness." In this manner John compresses the entire spectrum of eschatological redemption into a present process of proclamation-response: . . . The Revelation of God’s "reality" . . . in the earthly activity of the man Jesus combined with the overcoming of the "offense" in it by man’s accepting it in faith. But this raises a question: if the eschatological occurrence is happening in Jesus, i.e., in a definite historical person, has it not now become past event? After all Jesus of Nazareth is no longer present. His preaching and his person can no longer confront man with the alternatives of existence. Bultmann insists, however, that the eschatological occurrence is still present 17 3 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p. 8 3. tmenn 5 "Man Between the Times . . Existence and Faith, p. 256. 17 5 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p. 58. Cf. p. 12. "The eschatological event becomes present reality in his word which as the ambassador he speaks in his Father’s commission." 101 possibility. How can this be so? Revelation was not terminated in the sense that it is absent when the historical life of the Revelation- bearer is concluded but revelation is constantly recurring in the activity of the Spirit. In fact, it is Jesus 17 7 himself who comes in the Spirit. Thus, it is possible for Bultmann to say that "Jesus’ life on earth does not become an item of the historical past but constnatly re- - 1 ,,178 mains as a present reality." As the Spirit bears witness to Jesus, so the be lievers bear witness (John 15:26). This means . . . that the knowledge bestowed by the Spirit is to have its activity in the proclamation, in preaching. It is in and through it that the Revelation time and again becomes event. Thus, the church, the eschatological community, constantly offers to the world through its proclamation the possibility of eschatological existence. The testimony of the Church is the testimony of the Spirit that was given it. The Spirit, as the "other Counselor," is Jesus’ substitute (14:16). And when the Spirit "reminds" believers of all that Jesus said (14:26), this reminding is not an evocation of the past by historical reproduction. ^^^Ibid., P- 89 . ^^^Tbid., P* 90 . ^^^Ibid., P- 49 . ^^^Ibid., P- 90 ^^°Ibid., PP . 90 102 Rather, it is that which makes present the eschato logical occurrence which with him burst into the world ( 1 6 : 8 -1 1 ).161 John has transformed the tradition that he re- 182 ceived. Redemption, no longer the future cosmic act of God which concludes history, is the present possibility 18 3 of realizing historicity. The true solution to the problem of eschatology, therefore, is found . . . in the thought of Paul and John, namely in the idea that Christ is the ever present or ever becoming present eschatological event. That is to say, that the Now gets eschatological character by the encounter with Christ or with the Word which proclaims him, because in the encounter with him, the world and its history comes to its end and the believer becomes free from the world by becoming a 1 84 new creature. The "high-water mark" of biblical eschatology lies in the thought of John.1^^ Prior to his complete demythologizing of eschatology, a meaningful understanding ^^^Ibid., p. 69. 182 183 Ibid., p. 91. 5 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . p. 143: "Historicity is the nature of a man who can never possess his genuine life in any present moment but I is always on the way and yet is not at the mercy of a I course of history independent of himself. Every moment ' is the now of responsibility, of decision. From this the unity of history is to be understood." ^^^Bultmann, New Testament Studies, pp. 15-16. ^Bultmann, "Reply to the Thesis of J. Schnie- wind," Kerygma and Myth, p. 116. While Bultmann relies heavily upon Paul’s understanding of human existence, he can still be critical of his eschatology. 103 of man is hampered by cosmic categories. It is true that a cosmological understanding of history did not prevent Paul partially from achieving an existential understanding of man, but, as it has been seen, he was not able com pletely to extricate himself from the first century mythology. Only John has done this and his eschatology has provided Bultmann with a complete and satisfactory answer to a question which for him has great significance: "Does primitive Chritianity contain a single, new and unique doctrine of human existence?" ^ Bultmann’s answer is, that it does and that it is most clearly ex pressed in the eschatology of John. To exist eschato logically is the essence of human existence ; to exist eschatologically is to achieve historicity. Unfortunately this solution could not be main tained. The "time-between" lost its essential meaning for the Church and retained only its cosmological mean ing. Eschatology prevailed not as an understanding of existence but as the doctrine of the end of the world 18 7 delayed to an indefinite future. In part one Bultmann’s argument for eschatology as a special way of understanding existence has been ^^^Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 179. 18 7 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., pp. 49 5 5 . 104 reconstructed. Before proceeding it will be useful to review the essential points of his argument. 1. Bultmann presupposes that the New Testament is not a theological unity, at least not in the traditional sense. That this is so is indicated by the variety in its theological concepts. Not every author formulates his thought in exactly the same way, nor was every book written in the same cultural setting or historical period. Thus, the New Testament can be expected to reflect a vari ety of positions with regard to different theological concepts, in this case, eschatology. Bultmann’s recon struction of eschatology has shown the conceptual variety of the New Testament in a concise manner and forces the conclusion that there is no single simple biblical escha tology which can be tenaciously held with dogmatic zeal, j Bultmann argues that within this variety of thought the j eschatology which most meaningfully relates to human 18 8 I existence should be selected as valid. Such an escha- I tology Bultmann discovers in the theology of Paul and 'John. Their explication of eschatology as existence rep- I resents a "peak" in the New Testament theological See Shubert M. Ogden, Christ Without Myth j (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1961), p. 99. This is in keeping with Bultmann’s central concern of making the message of the New Testament rele vant to modern man. Cf. W. Rordorf, "The Theology of j Rudolf Bultmann and Second Century Gnosis," New Testament , Studies, XIII (July, 1967), p. 354. ! 105 reflection. However, it should be pointed out that Bult mann maintains that even the apocalyptic eschatology of Jesus, when demythologized, meaningfully relates to human existence. 2. The world-view of the New Testament represents a mythological apprehension of existence, both human and 18 9 natural. The mythology itself is not an essential part of the Kerygma but merely the hermeneutical framework within which the Kerygma is proclaimed. While the Kerygma and its primitive world-view spoke in a meaningful way to the first century, it is now the twentieth century and that mythological apprehension of existence has become outmoded. Thus, the Kerygma must be re-interpreted in 19 0 categories more meaningful to modern man. While one may choose to argue with Bultmann that many people may still think this way, it is nevertheless true that such a belief has become totally irrelevant for regulating life and has thus, in this sense, been rejected. 3. In Bultmann’s view the eschatological Kerygma of the New Testament is that the grace of God provides in I the proclaimed word of the church the possibility for man ! to understand himself in a new way. It has been objected Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma and Myth, p. 1. See Ogden, Christ Without Myth, pp. 31-35. ^^*^Ogden, Christ Without Myth, p. 44. 106 that such a view fails to express the Christ-event as an 19 1 event "significant in itself," That is, it has been deprived of all its objective significance. It is true that Bultmann’s emphasis does not fall upon the Christ- event as an occurrence of the first century. However, it should be emphasized that Bultmann does speak about an "act of God" but his emphasis is upon the meaning of that event for the life of modern man. His primary concern is that the first century "act of God" should be significant to the life of a man in the present century. As Bultmann has stated it: Just this is the meaning of the Christian message. It does not proclaim the idea of the grace of God as a general idea but addresses and calls man and imparts to him the grace of God which makes him free from h i m s e l f . 192 Thus , . . . in the decision of faith I do not decide on a responsible action, but on a new understanding of myself by the grace of God and as endowed with my new self, and this is at the same time the decision to accept a new life grounded in the grace of G o d . 19 3 IBultmann has labeled this new self-understanding "eschato- 'logical existence," and in this manner he re-interprets i the mythological framework of the eschatological Kerygma j ' in terms of an existential framework. 191 ^-^Ibid. , pp. 101-102. 19 2 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 151. , p. 152. 107 4. The process of re-interpretation has already 19 4 begun within the New Testament itself, as is shown by the theology of Paul and John. Paul has re-interpreted the basic two-age pattern of apocalyptic Juda.i sm used by Jesus and primitive Christianity. He recognizes his time as a "time-between"--a period having both cosmic and existential characteristics. John on the other hand has completely transmuted the cosmological eschatology into an eschatology of existence in the present. For example, the Judgment, expressed elsewhere in the New Testament as a future cosmic catastrophe which ends both time and his- j tory, John understands as taking place in a present moment I of proclamation-response: ! It is the paradox of the Christian message that the eschatological event, according to Paul and John, is not to be understood as a dramatic cosmic catastrophe but as happening within history. . . , It becomes an event repeatedly in preaching and faith.19 5 It is in this moment that an individual is freed from "this world"--a figure which represents his old existence lived in bondage to the cares and concerns of the world-- and begins understanding himself in a new way. ^ Accordingly, the present-future "tension" in the 'New Testament is incorrectly perceived if it is understood I 194 I Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, p. 34. ! See Ogden, Christ Without Myth, p. 95. j 1 1 9 5 ! I Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 151.' 108 as a cosmological or temporal tension. It is best under stood as an existential tension in the dialectical sense of Paul and John, 5. The apocalyptic eschatology reflected in the New Testament and insisted on by the church is actually the result of the church’s failure to retain the solution found in its beginning stages in Paul but radically car- 197 ried through by John. What 3 if anything, has been eliminated from the New Testament by Bultmann’s concept of eschatological existence? His contention is: Nothing I Rather, it is by an existential interpretation that the New Testament yields its basic intention. The temporal and cosmological characteristics of eschatology have been transmuted into statements concerning human existence, and eschatology, 19 8 thus, has had its existential character exposed. The cosmology and temporality are still present but they have assumed an existentialized form. However, that Bultmann has successfully succeeded in retaining the biblical 1 9 R Ibid., p. 49. It must be stated that this is i against the direction of contemporary New Testament I scholarship. The "tension" is generally understood in a ! temporal framework. In one sense the Kingdom has come but in another sense it is yet to come. The anticipa tion implied is, of course, a cosmic hope. 19 7 Ibid., pp. 49-50. ^^^See Macquarrie, Studies . . ., pp. 99-112; Ogden, Christ Without Myth, pp. 44-64. j 109 ^ eschatology is not necessarily conceded by all, or perhaps better, by many. For example, Rordorf recently has said: What remains of biblical eschatology after such I demythologizing? Not very much. The constant , openness, the readiness to give up things past and to reach out for the future of the genuine, I das Ganz-Andere, remains ; the hope that God is I always there, wherever a man goes, that God is always there first, even in the darkness of death, this remains. In other words, conscious knowledge about the temporal future is definitely j out of place. . . .19 9 I In one sense this criticism is true. Bultmann is not in terested in maintaining the biblical eschatology but he is interested in interpreting the biblical eschatology! He wants to answer the question: What does the apocalyptic Ieschatology say about the existence of man? He believes I that the "eschatological existence" of Paul and John has ^ answered it. In short, Bultmann contends that his inter- I 'pretation has revealed the essential truth of the eschato- ,logical Kerygma, which the New Testament proclaims within I a view of existence now irrelevant to the modern mind, and I expressed it in a relevant, modern way.^*^^ ! On what basis can Bultmann claim to have legiti- Imately re-interpreted the Kerygma to modern man? Is this I not equivalent to superimposing arbitrarily a modern IDenkweise upon the New Testament? Could he not at least 1 19 9 Rordorf, New Testament Studies, p. 36 0. ^^^Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma and Myth, pp. 43-44. 110 be accused of forcing the concepts of the New Testament into alien categories? After all, would not a modern existentialism be foreign to Jesus and the writers of the New Testament? Bultmann has shown that a process of re-interpre- 2 01 tation has already been begun within the New Testament. The purpose of this process was to make the Kerygma mean ingful to man in his changed situation. It is true, how ever, that modern existentialism is not the Kerygma, but Bultmann never claims that it is I While the New Testament writers cannot be expected to have thought in such modern categories, Bultmann contends that such categories do accurately interpret the essential meaning of the eschato logical Kerygma. In short, a modern existential interpre tation of the New Testament is saying the same thing as 20 2 the first century mythology. A striking example of such re-interprétâtion is found in Paul’s sermon in Acts 17. While it is not I possible to argue for the authenticity of the sermon in its present form, it does show that the author of Acts ^ was aware of the difficulties of preaching in a culture alien to the Denkweise of the primitive Christian Kerygma See Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles i (London: SCM Press, 1956), pp. 2 6-7 7 ; Macquarrie, Studies . . ., p. 123. 9 0 9 Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," Kerygma and Myth, p. 25. PART II I I I A DEFENSE OF ESCHATOLOGICAL EXISTENCE AS BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION CHAPTER V MEETING THE OBJECTIONS It is an understatement to say that Bultmann’s interpretation of New Testament eschatology has not been received without criticism. However, in America those criticisms with few exceptions have been neither detailed nor critical.^ There appears to have been little attempt either to understand the basis of Bultmann’s interpreta- I tion or to enter into a dialogue with him.^ Without a ; detailed critical evaluation of his eschatology it is I possible for one to dismiss Bultmann’s interpretation as an aberration of the message of the New Testament and to criticize him in a dogmatic manner as some reviewers have done; for example, compare the following: This is basically the most radical form of the dissolution of New Testament eschatology. By this maneuver New Testament eschatology is, in fact, totally abandoned.6 o ^For a critical evaluation of Bultmann’s eschatol gy see Smith, pp. 141-152; 215-219. ' 2 I For example, compare the following criticisms : : Albright, Journal of Biblical Literature, pp. 244-248. |G. R. Beasley-Murray, "Demythologized Eschatology," : Theology Today, XIV (April, 1957), pp. 61-79. j 0 Johannes Schneider, "Dare We Follow Bultmann?" ! 112 113 It is the purpose of part two to enter into the dialogue which Bultmann’s existential interpretation de mands and to weigh that interpretation against the judg ment of his critics. There are numerous questions which Bultmann’s existential theology has raised and the debate still continues. However, few criticisms have been raised which can be regarded as decisive arguments against Bultmann’s position. The question basically is whether or not Bultmann’s eschatology is an "interpretation" or a "transformation" of the New Testament eschatologyI Those criticisms which appear most effectively to call into question his explanation of eschatology as biblical inter pretation will be considered. A Theological Discrepancy One notable exception in recent days has appeared in the Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. Here Paul Minear has raised the objection that Bultmann’s absolute distinction between nature and history--the world and man--is not a valid formulation nor an accurate interpretation of the Christianity Today, V (June, 1961), p. 8 (6-9). There I are numerous articles of this same uncritical character I in which Bultmann’s eschatology is denounced. Apparently i few English speaking reviewers have seriously regarded I Bultmann’s interpretation as a possibility and, hence, j have not deemed it necessary to enter into a dialogue on t the subject. Unfortunately, few articles which have been ; published have permanent value as critical reviews of Bultmann’s position. 114 4 New Testament. He argues that Bultmann has exalted the 'distinction to the status of metaphysical truth which must 5 always be maintained, and, thus, in his view Bultmann limits theology to an eschatology in which all cosmologi cal terms are fully transposed into anthropological terms. Such a solution appears to Minear to betray Bultmann’s ultimate concern of securing the full historicity of man.^ ! For with such an interpretation man’s objective environ ment remains unchanged and the sovereignty of death, at least over nature, will never be ended. The chasm between nature and man would remain un bridged. The dualism would remain as an ultimate metaphysical fact. God would forever be bound by it, and so would man. Struggling for authentic freedom against his objective environment, man would be doomed to defeat, to despair and death. It may be that before man arrives ’ ’in the darkness of death," God would be there. God and man would meet in that darkness. But man would know in ad vance that death’s sovereignty would not be ended, at least over the realm of nature.^ Thus, Minear can argue that this is the reason that no New Testament writer, not even the Fourth Evangelist, has completely jettisoned the cosmological component in escha- I tology. Its elimination would deny the sovereignty of God’s ^Minear, p. 76. ^Ibid., p. 76. ^Ibid., p. 7 9. ^Ibid., pp. 79-80 115 grace over the whole creation. Since faith is a response to grace and since the realization of historicity is a corollary of faith, a grace which is unable to redeem man’s objective environment will at most produce a humanity which remains alien to an unredeemable world.6 To the JMew Testament writers cosmological and anthropologi cal elements were not incompatible but interdependent. For Bultmann to insist on an absolute dichotomy is to have created categories in which biblical thought can never be 9 expressed. Minear further insists that there are certain cosmological components (which he fails to specify) that would not undercut Bultmann’s central existential concerns but which would, in fact, sharpen the existentialist posi tion. However, he does not say just how this can be done. j Minear’s criticism of Bultmann is basically two- | fold: (1) Bultmann has eliminated all cosmological com ponents because of his absolute distinction between man and nature. (2) In contradiction to Bultmann the biblical writers were able to maintain both a historicized and a cosmological eschatology. Minear, therefore, calls for Bultmann to formulate a historicized eschatology which in cludes a new cosmology, even if it is necessary to use Ibid., p. 8 0. i ^Ibid. ' 10 Ibid., p. 81. 12 116 categories "which do not appear modern enough to be rele vant . " Bultmann has replied to Minear’s criticism, that his distinction is not metaphysical but phenomenological. Since the methods of research into nature and history are different, it is possible to view them in different ways. If one elects to view history as a range of possibilities for human self-understanding, he has not arbitrarily by that choice created an unbridgeable gap between man and his objective environment. In fact, the two are still quite closely related. Man achieves his authentic exist- 13 ence "within the situations which condition his life." | j Since these situations are given also through i nature, which is not separable from history but | bound up with it in reciprocal action, it is not ! true that an existentialist anthropology destroys | the connection with nature, as Minear supposes. j Furthermore, when cosmological motifs are histori- cized there is no cosmological dualism, for the freedom I I which is given is not freedom from the natural world or | the objective environment, it is freedom from the old [ self. Thus, the world actually regains its character as 11 Ibid., p. 82. 1 2 Bultmann, "Reply to . of Rudolf Bultmann, p. 266. 13 14 Ibid., p. 2 6 7. Ibid. Minear," The Theology 117 15 creation. However, Bultmann does admit that the dualism of which Minear has accused him is present in the New Testa ment . . . in so far as the world is viewed as a realm under the dominance of demonic powers and Satan. In so far as that is the case, what is also ex pected is man’s liberation from the world through its being transformed by a cosmic catastrophe.16 But this was not the case for Jesus, Paul, or John. They understood liberation as an existential liberation. "This 17 world" is finished for the man of faith. There are several places that Minear’s criticism i I of Bultmann betrays a certain lack of clarity. For I example, in what sense is it possible to speak of "redeem- i . , qg jing man’s objective environment" in a meaningful way? I jIs it not true that such a language already essentially presupposes a metaphysical dualism? It suggests to the reader that the cosmos is evil and needs to be made holy. It may be possible to argue that the world is evil by 1 virtue of the fact that it is controlled by evil powers or demons, but within such a framework must not its redemp-' tion come through a great cosmic struggle and a ^^Ibid., p. 268. ^^Ibid. ^'^Ibid. ^^Minear, p. 80. 1 118 supernatural breaking-off of the control of evil? This implies that there is an ethical dualism to the structures of reality for the present order is evil and must be re placed by a holy order. If this is what Minear means by "redeeming man’s objective environment," has he not made the same error that he has accused Bultmann of making? One is prompted to ask : has not Minear himself created a metaphysical dualism? In exactly what way Minear’s argu ment will help Bultmann to salvage the historicity of man is not clear.Although Minear freely concedes his will ingness to settle for categories that are somewhat lacking ■ in relevance, his solution appears to be a lapse into com- ' n ^ • n 20 plete irrelevancy. Another example of Minear’s lack of clarity is his use of the term "theological" to describe the Denkweise of I ; the New Testament writers. Exactly what does Minear mean by "thinking in theological categories?" He says that it j means : ' Both nature and man, both the world and history I have beginning and end in God, however inconceivable ' this may be.21 ' ^^Ibid., p. 77. Minear has stated that his ob- ' jective is to help Bultmann achieve his ultimate con cern, which is, he says, "Salvation from nihilism by way of a fuller understanding of the historicity of man." Cf. Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 11. ^*^Minear, p . 82 . , p. 80. 119 Thus, it would appear that the New Testament writers con ceived of the end of the world in a supernatural frame work. However, this category sounds strangely similar to what Bultmann would designate as mythology, and one is prompted to ask in what way it is different. If there is no difference, as the case seems to be, it would appear that Minear is arguing for a mythological conception of redemption and Bultmann certainly would not concede this as a buttressing of his position. Besides, Bultmann has argued that John has surrendered a mythological concept of redemption for an existential concept, i The large divergence, then, between Bultmann and I Minear, lies in their different understanding of the Johannine eschatology. Bultmann is arguing for an inter pretation of eschatology as eschatological existence--a demythologized eschatology--ultimately on the basis that John has shown the way to a historicized eschatology by a 2 2 radical re-interpretation of apocalyptic eschatology. Minear, on the other hand, can argue that "not even the Fourth Evangelist has utterly jettisoned the cosmological 2 3 components in eschatology," or that for Paul and John cosmology and anthropology were not incompatible but 2 2 Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology, pp. 3 3-34. I Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., pp. 4 7-49. I ^ ^Minear, p. 8 0. 120 24 intrinsically interdependent. Minear, in effect, is suggesting that Bultmann has created a dichotomy between man and nature by a misinterpretation of Johannine escha tology. Bultmann, on the other hand, is claiming to have interpreted accurately the thought of the New Testament, and especially the thought of John. This criticism of Bultmann’s understanding of Johannine eschatology raises a serious objection to his understanding of eschatology in 2 5 the New Testament. While it may not totally negate his explanation of eschatology as a special way of understand ing existence, it certainly raises some serious questions i I with regard to an eschatology so radically historicized I ! , that it does not include a cosmology. This large diver- ^gence of opinion with Bultmann in regard to John’s escha- I . . . . . . 26 I tology is apparently what lies behind Minear’s criticism. ! ! Apocalyptic Eschatology in John j It is no secret that Bultmann’s explanation of I . 2 7 Johannine eschatology has not been well received. The ? 4 Ibid., p. 78. I ^^See Macquarrie, Studies . . ., pp. 121, 157; Albright, Journal of Biblical Literature, p. 24 7. I ^ ^Minear, p. 82 * 2 7 See the following: Raymond E. Brown, The ' Gospel According to John: I-XII (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1966), pp. cxvii-cxix; D. M. Smith, pp. 217-219 ; I E. C. Hoskyns and F. N. Davey, The Fourth Gospel (2nd ed. I rev.; London : Faber and Faber, 1940), pp. 107-128 , 271; 121 major objection has been the lack of textual evidence to support the position that there was ever a time when the passages containing the apocalyptic eschatology were not a part of John’s Gospel. Thus, Bultmann has been accused of eliminating the passages because they do not agree with - u • • • 28 his own presuppositions. Bultmann’s argument for his position has been tied in with his literary criticism of John’s Gospel. For cer tain literary-critical reasons the passages in John which reflect the apocalyptic eschatology are not regarded by 2 9 Bultmann as the work of the original author. That his i position has been rejected, apparently after a peremptory ' consideration, would appear to be the result of one or ^ more of the following : the principles of literary criti- I cism are not seriously regarded as valid bases for inter pretation; Bultmann has failed to set forth a systematic . 3 0 statement for his critical methodology in John ; or the ! reasons that Bultmann has given for his excising of the ' apocalyptic passages as redactional do not appear to the C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to. St. John (London: j SPCK, 1958), pp. 218-219. Cf. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, p. 135. 2 8 I van Hart1 ngsveld5 p. 19 8, Smith, pp. 213-214; 217-219. i Q n Ibid., pp. 3-4. 122 I critic to be compelling enough in themselves. ' Since Bultmann's interpretation of the Johannine Ieschatology seems most radically to call into question the validity of his interpretation, it would appear that a consideration of the bases for his position on John’s eschatology is in order. The object of the inquiry will be to determine if Bultmann’s interpretation is warranted; that is, does reasonable basis exist for his explanation of the Johannine eschatology? The passages in John in which the apocalyptic eschatology appears have been attributed by Bultmann to ; the redactional activity of an ecclesiastical editor. ! I Thus, they belong neither to the evangelist nor to his j ^ sources but were added at a later period. In these pas- I ; I I sages the editor, whose corrections appear at several | ! places in the gospel,^^ was consciously attempting to make the unorthodox gospel of John acceptable to the | 3 2 1 developing theology of the second century church. I Bultmann’s reasons for regarding these passages as redac- ' tions will not necessitate a defense of his source theory because the possibility of redaction in the gospel is not ^^Ibid., pp. 213-238. ^^Ibid., p. 213. The Gospel of John would have been an embarrassment to a church combating the infiltra tion of a Gnostic heresy. 123 3 3 an inextricable part of his theory. Since Bultmann be- Ilieves the activity of a redactor to be the best solution to the problems he encountered in the Gospel, it is pos sible to consider his evidence and arguments for elimi nating the apocalyptic passages apart from his source theory. However, the issue of Bultmann’s proposed back ground for the Gospel is more critical and should be con sidered briefly, for it establishes the framework against which the passages are to be interpreted.^^ Bultmann argues that the evangelist used as his major source a jhypothetical non-Christian document, which he, Bultmann, 3 5 j designates the Offenbarungsreden-Revelation Discourses. The speeches of this document ultimately spring from a type of early oriental Gnosticism,^^ and the document it- : self originated within the same Baptist sect from which I the evangelist had been converted.^^ 3 3 ' Ibid. The possibility of redaction in the gos- I pel has been suggested before Bultmann. Of. for example, G. H. C. Macgregor, The Gospel of John (London: Hodder ^ and Stroughton, 19 28), p. xiv. Qli Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, ^ pp. 130—141. ^^For a reconstruction of this source see Smith, pp. 23-24. ^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p . 10 . ^^Smith, pp. 1, 16. 124 The Gnostic Denkweise which the Offenbarungsreden presupposes . . . is defined by Bultmann on the basis of a com parison of the prologue and other Johannine speeches with other Gnostic documents, in particular the Odes of Solomon and the Mandaean literature. He has also investigated a variety of Gnostic or quasi-Gnostic material including, the Naasene hymn, the Ignatian corpus, and certain early Christian writings from the so-called apocryphal New Testament. In the first place, these documents are supposed to demon strate the existence of a thought world which could, and did, produce religious texts not unlike the hypothetical Offenbarungsreden. Furthermore, they manifest a form and a poetic structure that show a certain kinship with the style of the speeches of the Gospel of John. Thus, both the substantial and for mal characteristics of parallel documents are taken to support the contention that a text such as the Johannine Offenbarungsreden existed independently before the composition of the Fourth Gospel. So Bultmann is able to make the claim that the identi fication of the Offenbarungsreden is not solely dependent on the internal evidence of the Gospel but draws support also from the existence of a religious Denkweise and of documents which can be traced to a time nearly contemporary with the Fourth Gospel.^ ^ The evangelist reworks his source and transposes the primitive faith in miracles, which sees Jesus as a divine supernatural man, and the miracles become signs which testify to Jesus as the bearer of revelation. Like the words of Jesus they . . . do not compel faith in the supernatural or other-worldly but demand existential decision about himself.^ ^ Thus, the evangelist re-interprets Jesus in the framework 125 of the Gnostic Redeemer-myth which Bultmann regards as 40 pre-Christian in its origin. Bultmann, however, recog nizes that the Gnostic literature which he uses to demon strate the existence of a thought-world out of which John may have been written, comes from a period later than the origins of Christianity (second century A.D.) and, further, he is aware that there is no "crystallized" source prior to primitive Christianity for the Redeemer-myth except his 41 own Revelation Discourse source of the evangelist. How ever, he feels that the Mandaean writings and his Dis course source indicate that the roots of an oriental Gnosticism extend into the pre-Christian period and he can, thus, argue that . . . it is difficult to explain such evidence as the Mandaean literature on the basis of the Gospel of John, while it is easier to explain certain aspects of the Johannine Christology on the basis of the Mandaean literature.^^ Bultmann regards this hypothesis as verified by the Qumran literature which evidences motifs similar to the Gnosticism of the Gospel of John and proves the 4 3 existence of a pre-Christian gnosticizing Judaism. The ^^Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . . , p. 16 2. ^^Smith, pp. 16-17. ' ^^Ibid., p. 84. ^ 4 3 , Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, 'p. 13. However, of. Brown, p. 18 6, and Albright, Journal I of Biblical Literature, p. 169. 126 absence of the Redeemer-myth from the Qumran writings poses no problem to his hypothesis. It is argued from its non-appearance at Qumran that Qumran was not the 44 direct source of John’s Gospel. It is at this point, however, that questions be gin to arise. The pre-Christian Gnostic Redeemer-myth, which Bultmann has reconstructed from his style-criticism of John with the use of the Gnostic materials mentioned above, appears neither at Qumran nor, at least at the present time, has any evidence of its existence appeared 4 5 in the Gnostic library at Chenoboskion. Bultmann’s use of later documents for reconstructing an earlier type of Gnosticism is regarded as highly questionable when there is no extant literary evidence to show that it, in fact, ever existed.However, Bultmann and others feel that it ; is impossible to account adequately for the widespread influence of Gnosticism unless one assumes that it has a I - , . . 47 I long pre-history. 44 Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, ' p. 141. I ^^ibid., p. 136. ^^Robert McLachlan Wilson, "Response to G. Quispel’s ’Gnosticism and the New Testament,’" The Bible , in Modern Scholarship, ed. J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville and I New York: Abingdon Press, 1965), p. 274. 4 7 ! G. Quispel, "Gnosticism and the New Testament," ; The Bible and Modern Scholarship, pp. 259-260; 265-266. 127 Doresse has recognized that the existence of es sentially anti-Christian groups like the Mandaeans make it highly unlikely that Gnosticism owes its origin to a split from primitive Christianity. That is, although the influence of Gnosticism did cause heretical movements within primitive Christianity, Gnosticism did not begin as a Christian heresy.Further, he believes that the in dependent origin of Gnosticism is suggested by its notion of time. The concept of time in Gnosticism is distinct from both Hellenism and Christianity. Hellenism was characterized by a notion of time that was cyclic, circular, perpetually repeating itself. . . . Under the influence of the astronom ical movements which decide and regulate . . . its course. But in Christian thought, time is recti linear, it is a scroll unrolling itself irreversibly from the creation straight on to the end of the universe. Whereas Gnosticism, taking its conception as a whole, never adapted its outlook to either of these two notions of time.^^ It appears more likely, therefore, that Gnosticism and Christianity owe their similarity to the same basic "stock of myth and imagery inherited from some identical source before the beginning of our era."^^ From his study of the "Gospel of Truth," a Gnostic ^^Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian I Gnostics, trans. Philip Mairet (New York: Viking Press, : 196U), p. 110. I Ibid., p. .111. ®°Ibid., p. 110. 128 document discovered at Chenoboskion, C. K. Barrett be lieves that it is unlikely "for many reasons" that a non- Christian Gnosticism arose full-grown between the writing of John and the "Gospel of Truth" in such a way that the author of the "Gospel of Truth" was influenced by John. We must speak (however slight the direct evidence may be) of a pre-Johannine (no doubt also of a pre- Christian) Gnosticism. And since John appears to use its language we must assume that he was aware of it and took it into account.51 Quispel believes that Torgny Save Soderbergh has shown that the Manichaean Psalms of Thomas were based upon some extant Mandaean hymns "thus proving that the Mandaean sect in Iraq must have a very long pre-history." He notes that the curious expression "Lord of Greatness" has been found in the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon. This leads him to conclude that the Mandaeans must have very old western roots. Thus, he concludes, the parallels be tween the names of the Mandaean divinities found in the Hellenistic magical papyri can only be explained by the fact that Mandaeanism was descended from Western Pales- . . 52 tine. C. K. Barrett, "The Theological Vocabulary of the Fourth Gospel and of the Gospel of Truth," Current Issues in New Testament Scholarship, eds. William Klassen and Graydon F. Snyder (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), p. 223. Cf. R. M. Wilson, The Gnostic Problem (London: A. R. Mowbray and Co., 1958), pp. 106, 116. ^ ^Quispel, pp. 265-266 . 129 i That there existed a pre-Christian Gnosticism in ' 53 i some form seems to be a general conclusion of modern j scholarship. Few scholars today would deny that there was | a widespread Gnostic movement which, in fact, ante-dated | Christianity and through its stock of ideas and motifs in- 5 4 fluenced the developing Christian theology. However, Bultmann’s reconstruction of the pre- Christian Gnostic Redeemer-myth is still highly contro versial. The fact that all the literary evidence in its favor falls after the beginning of Christianity and that there is no pre-Christian evidence for such a myth weighs heavily against it. And if the Gnostic library at Chenoboskion produces any evidence of such a myth, scholarship will still be confronted with a chronological problem for the Chenoboskion documents have been dated in 5 5 the second century C.E. and are much too late to be used in their present form as evidence for a pre-Christian 5 3 Cf. Hans Jonas, "Response to G. Quispel’s ’Gnosticism and the New Testament,’" The Bible and Modern Scholarship, p. 293. Jonas’ concept of Gnosticism poses the problem of terminology. At what point does one speak of Gnosticism proper? Should one speak of a pre-Gnosti- cism or perhaps a proto-Gnosticism? 5 4 Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, pp. 135-13 6, J. A. T. Robinson, "The New Look on the Fourth Gospel," Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 98-99. Smith, p. 83. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion,,p. 33. ^^Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, pp. 136-137. 130 Redeemer-myth. However, the possibility still exists that such support could come from Chenoboskion.^^ Once the principles of form critical analysis have been applied to the documents it is possible that earlier levels in the life of the material will become evident. It has been claimed that Bultmann’s proposed Johannine background of a Gnostic Redeemer-myth has been refuted. This, however, is not the case. While it is true that one may not regard it as proven beyond all ques tion, it cannot be said to have been disproven. It still remains possible. . . . Bultmann’s theory, far from undermining the authority of the Fourth Gospel, actually allows its distinctive witness to stand out in even sharper relief. If we reject the theory of the Gnostic Redeemer myth we do so on purely scholarly grounds--that it remains unproven, and that the chronological evidence weighs heavily against it.^ 7 At this point the possible background of a Gnostic Redeem er-myth seems to be contingent upon the reliability of Bultmann’s literary criticism. Can Bultmann’s recon structed Johannine eschatology seriously be regarded as evidence? Quite obviously the issue will continue to be debated until other evidence has been produced either in support or refutation of Bultmann’s hypothesis. ^^Cf. Doresse, p. 114. 5 7 Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, pp. 136-137. Cf. Floyd V. Filson, "The Gospel of Life," Current Issues in New Testament Scholarship, p. 118. 131 The passages in the Gospel of John which Bultmann regards as reflecting the apocalyptic eschatology are: 5:28f.; 6:39, 40, 44, 54; and 12:48. In the First Epistle of John it appears in the following : 2:28; 3:2; and 4:17. It will be seen that Bultmann has not arbitrarily elimi nated the passages on the basis of his presuppositions but, as we shall see, he believes that there are critical and, in some cases, compelling reasons for regarding them as redactional.^ ^ John 5 : 2 8f. The theme of the passage in which John 5: 2 8f. appears (John 5:19-30) is: Jesus’ work as the eschato- logical Judge is equal to the work of God. In verses I9f. this similarity is grounded in the absolute dependence of Jesus upon the Father. 5:21-23 describes the character of his work and in 5:24-2 7 the work which is accomplished through his "word" is equated with the eschatological Judgment. The final verse of the passage, verse 30, looks back to the beginning idea of the passage and asserts that 5 9 Jesus is totally dependent upon the Father. 5 : 2 8f. is But of. Smith, p. 218. It will be noted that I have not employed the Greek terms in discussing Bultmann’s criticism of these passages. Where a knowledge of Greek is necessary for understanding Bultmann’s argument an explanation is given. 5 9 Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 18 5. 132 obviously the work of a redactor who is seeking to re establish a connection between the radical assertion of verse 24 and the traditional eschatology.^^ Verse 24 has boldly asserted that the eschatological event occurs in the present in the speaking of the "word"; thus, it re gards the eschaton and its attendant resurrection as a present existential possibility.^^ It may be, Bultmann suggests, that the redaction should begin at verse 26b with the addition of the phrase "because he is the Son of Man," for following the pre ceding verses (19-23, 26) the strongest statement that one would expect would be "because he is the son." Pos sibly only "of man" has been added to give it an apocalyp- j tic "flavor" and to prepare the way for the statement I 0 2 ; concerning the traditional eschatology. I ! At any rate it appears to Bultmann, and it must surely be agreed, that 5:28f. clashes with its context ®°Ibid., pp. 196-197. Cf. H. H. Wendt, The Gospel According to St. John (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 19 0 2), pp. 133-134. Wendt concurs in this hypoth esis for verse 30 is totally unconnected with 5 : 28f., whereas it forms a perfectly natural continuation of verses 26 and 27. In fact, "verse 30 is connected as closely with verse 26b as verse 20 with verse 19." ^^Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 19 6. ^^Ibid. In Greek "of man"-is only one word. Such an addition would naturally suggest itself since "Son of Man" is a widely recognized apocalyptic title. Cf. Wendt, p. 129. 133 and cannot be the work of the evangelist. John 5:28f. teaches a universal resurrection that lies in the future and all that was necessary to "awaken" one to life in verses 21 and 24f. was a "hearing of the word."^^ Can 5:28f. be reconciled with its context? Bult mann suggests that there is one possibility which may have been the redactor’s own way of solving the discrepancy. Possibly he attempted to reconcile them by regarding the Judgment which Jesus accomplished in the present as a judgment in anticipation of the final Judgment and the 6 4 future Resurrection. C. K. Barrett links 5:28f. with 5:24 in the same way that Bultmann suggests the redactor might have done it :^ ^ "Do not marvel at this,"--that is, that the Son of Man now quickens and judges the spiritually dead--"for this ; is but an anticipation of the ultimate victory to come : the final Judgment and Resurrection of the dead I" Barrett argues further that there is no reason to regard 5 : 28f. as a redactional supplement unless one be lieves that John could not have thought of resurrection in both present and future aspects.^^ ^^Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 196. ^^Ibid., p. 197. Cf. Smith, pp. 218-219. ^^Barrett, pp. 218-219. ^^By this he is suggesting his own presupposition that they should be reconciled. 134 How should this suggestion be regarded? Barrett j has recognized that the passage reflects a contradiction I but suggests that it should be reconciled because it was ! not impossible for the evangelist to hold both present and ■ future aspects of eschatology. However, as shall be seen, • the future aspect of the kingdom is retained in John in a form other than apocalyptic eschatology. The question therefore is not could John hold both present and future aspects of the Kingdom at the same time but rather did he hold both apocalyptic and realized aspects of eschatology? . Following the example of the Synoptic evangelists it may be possible that he did, but is it not an improper argu ment to insist that he does, merely because it is possible for him to do so? The most important question, therefore, is not whether it was possible or not, but does he? Barrett has correctly recognized that 5:28f. poses a difficulty in the passage. His reconciling explanation may be possible but could it not just as well reflect the theology of a redactor? To Bultmann this seems to be the case. Bultmann’s critical analysis has appeared far too extreme for some commentators, and forceful arguments have appeared in favor of retaining the apocalyptic eschatology as an original part of the Gospel. Therefore, a compari son of his explanation with some recent works which take his explanation into consideration would seem to be in order. 135 j R. E. Brown, in keeping with his own literary the- , 67 ! ory of John, attributes 5:26-30 to a redactor who has I I included it as a variant of the speech reported in the preceding passage, 5:19-25. It apparently represents to him a speech that the evangelist delivered on another occasion but which was not originally included in the 6 8 Gospel. Although he recognizes that the contrast be tween the eschatology of 5:19-25 and 5:26-30 is quite 6 9 marked, he does not regard them as contradictory. Since both speeches originated with the author of the Gospel the fact that 5:26-30 was "added at the last stage of the Gospel does not mean that it was any less ancient than 7 0 material that found its way into the earlier additions." It is apparent that Brown has presupposed the , unity of the apocalyptic and present elements by tracing i 7 q ' them to a "tension" in the message of Jesus. Thus, he must attempt to reconcile the present and apocalyptic eschatology in John. The recognition that there were both realized and final elements in Jesus’ own eschatology means that . . . the New Testament writers were not Brown, PP . xxxiv-xxxix. ^^Ibid., PP . xxxvi-xxxvii ®^Ibid., P- 220 . "^°Ibid. , p. xxxvii. "^^Ibid. , p. cxix. 136 creating ex nihilo theories of realized or of final eschatology, but were applying to a particular situation one or the other strain already present in Jesus’ thought.7 2 Brown’s answer to Bultmann, who argued that the passage belongs to a redactor who was consciously attempt ing to correct the traditional eschatology, is entirely unsatisfactory. He gives two reasons for rejecting Bult mann’s suggestions: (1) D. M. Smith has shown that ’ ’even on purely literary grounds . . . some of the passages do not seem to be additions . ’ ’ (2) The book of Revelation 7 3 reflects an apocalyptic eschatology. However, he has established no connection between his argument and the passages that Smith is supposed to have shown to be an 74 integral part of the Gospel. Also, it has recently been questioned that Revelation reflects the apocalyptic escha- ' 7 5 j tology and Brown himself is well aware of the diffi culties of establishing the relationship of Revelation to ^^Ibid.) p. cxviii. 74 See below for Smith’s argument 7 5 James Kallas, "The Apocalypse--An Apocalyptic Book?" Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI (March, 19 67), p. 78. "The failure of the parousia has forced Revelation into that same realized eschatology which dominates its companion book, the Gospel of John." How ever, in regard to this article it must be admitted that Kallas’ central thesis has scarcely been proven. He has not shown that all characteristics of apocalyptic thought are to be subordinated to the apocalyptic attitude toward suffering. Cf. pp. 69-71. 137 the Gospel of John. However, Brown does agree with Bultmann in recog nizing that 5:26-30 reflects a different view than 5:19- 7 7 25. Brown’s support of the "tension" in John by appeal ing to the current consensus that Jesus held both present and traditional views of eschatology is unsatisfactory. The fact remains that 5: 2 8f. does not appear to be an integral part of the passage because it directly contra dicts the preceding verses. 7 8 Smith has suggested that 5 : 2 8f. reflects "nothing explicitly Christian" and for that reason "the possibility that it is a piece of traditional material 7 9 appears strong." Therefore, it is just possible that it should be regarded as an integral part of the passage. Smith calls attention to Bultmann’s support of his--Bultmann’s--argument by the use of the Mandaean Ginza, a Gnostic writing which does anticipate a future judgment from which the elect are exempt. Smith argues that this anticipation of the future is more in keeping R. E. Brown, "The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,” The Scrolls and the New Testament, ed. Krister Stendahl (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), p. 282 #2. 7 7 Bultmann only assigns 5 : 28f. to the redactor. Smith, pp. 229-231. ^^Ibid., p. 229 . 138 with John 5:28f. "than is the Jewish and primitive Chris tian idea of a general resurrection followed by a judgment 8 U for all." Furthermore, on the basis of Bultmann’s own ' I proposed background for the Gospel, the Mandaean material, if relevant at all, would be more relevant for the evan gelist than for the redactor. Thus, Smith concludes that 5:28f. is entirely conceivable as traditional material and is not entirely incompatible with the view of the evange list. It may supplement rather than stand in tension with what precedes. 5;28f. would then refer to those physically dead who never heard "the call" and is simply stating that they too will enter either life or judgment at the end. In this sense it purports to answer questions about those who died before the eschatological event took place. His explanation is certainly appealing for it admits the same framework for the Gospel as Bultmann and yet manages to retain both present and traditional aspects to the eschatology of the Gospel. However, it only manages this at the loss of the Johannine emphasis, for the escha tology he would retain is that of Mandaean Gnosticism. Smith’s argument has neglected to consider that such an interpretation fails to agree with the other pos sible additions of the apocalyptic eschatology in chapter ®°Ibid., p. 231. 139 ! six. Here it appears that those to be resurrected at the ! Last Day are only the ones who have already "heard the j call" of Jesus (compare 6:39, 40, 44). If we assume, as Smith does, that both passages belong to the same hand, it : would appear that Smith’s suggested solution for 5:28f. has failed. Further, to interpret the "marvel" (5:28) as mean ing that even those who are physically dead will share in I the resurrection does not appear to be what the evangelist meant in 5:20. Here it appears that although the Son per forms miraculous signs the greater sign is what happens when men "hear the word" (5:21)1 Without question the emphasis in the Gospel is upon the fact that men are "judged" and "resurrected" in the present. In fact the primary emphasis in the Gospel is not upon a physical I resurrection at all (compare for example : 6 : 26-27 ; . 11:24-26 ; 14:22; 20 : 29 ) . When one considers the preceding chapters of the Gospel and the emphasis upon "life" as a gift of the present (3:15, 16, 36; 4:14; 5:21, 24, 25), the viewpoint of 5: 2 8f. actually sounds a discordant note within the unity of John. Prior to this verse the gift of "eternal life" becomes a present possession when those who are "spiritually dead" are "awakened to life" by "the word of Jesus." It is completely inconsistent that the time to marvel will come at a future hour in which those dead in 140 the tombs "will hear his voice" and come forth to resur rection, after it has already been stated that at the call of Jesus "the hour is come" in which men pass from death to' life. Rather than to attempt a reconciliation of the dis- ' cordant verses it would appear that Bultmann's explanation has more merit and is more in keeping with the basic theme of John’s Gospel. John 6:39, 40, 44, 54 Another passage which Bultmann believes to show evidence of an extensive redaction of the evangelist’s eschatology appears in chapter six. He detects the apoca lyptic eschatology of the redactor in four verses of the chapter : 39 , 40 , 44, 54.^^ 8 2 The passage 6 :51b-58 in which verse 54 appears is regarded by Bultmann as a redaction in its entirety for it stems from a completely different viewpoint than the 8 3 preceding passage 6 : 27-51a. This passage, he argues, represents the redactor’s attempt to restore a sacra- mentalism to the Gospel.In 6:27-51a Jesus is portrayed ^^Cf. Wendt, p. 136. 8 2 Since Bultmann’s commentary on John has ap peared there has been extensive interest taken in John 6:51-5 8. See Smith, p. 141, for a bibliography. 8 3 Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 16 2. Of. J. H. Benard, The Gospel According to St. John (New York Charles Scribners Sons, 1929), p. clxviii. 84 Cf. Smith, pp. 215-217. 141 in several metaphors that describe him as the Revelation- bearer who bestows (6:27) and is (6:35, 41, 48) the "bread of life." To these who "come to him" (6:35; of. 3: 2 0 f.; 5:40), that is, to those who believe on him (6:35; of. 3:20 with 3:18), he bestows the living water (4:10) and is the "light of the world" (6:33). Moreover, this has oc curred without the necessity of a sacramental act of any n . n 8 5 kind. An analysis of 6: 5lb-5 8 reveals that it does have an entirely different character from the preceding pas sage. Here it is the "flesh" of Jesus that is described as the "bread of life" (of. 6 : 5 3f. with 6 : 3 5 f.). The ' image portrayed is undoubtedly the primitive Christian view that Jesus has been surrendered in death in behalf of 8 6 sinners. The rhythmic organization of verse 53, Bult mann feels, clearly presupposes the liturgical formula of the early church. The possibility that it is a liturgical formula is increased by the sudden appearance of the enig matic "Son of Man" where one would expect merely a simple "my" (cf. 6:52, 54-56). Unless one wishes to take the passage literally, which the "Jews" in the passage (6:53) obviously did, it can only be intelligible when regarded as the liturgical language of the church, for Jesus ^^Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . . , p. 16 2. ®®Ibid., p. 175. 142 certainly did not mean that one must practice omophagia. Just as the redactor missed a reference to baptism and added it in chapter three, so he has missed a reference to 8 7 the Eucharist and supplied it here. Thus, the implica tion of the passage is: he who participates in the sacra mental meal "carries in himself the power which guarantees him resurrection from the dead," for Jesus will awaken him on the Last Day (6:54).^^ There is a development from 6:53 to 6:54 and the image of the Eucharist is heightened. The verb "to eat" has taken on the characteristics of an actual literal "eating." It means "to crunch" or "to masticate," and can 8 9 only have reference to a physical partaking. In con junction with 6:55 this suggests a literal meal. In 6:56 the thought of sacramental union is clearly expressed and explicates the meaning of 6:53. Thus, one can only con clude that he who partakes of Jesus’ flesh and blood in the Eucharist is united with him in a mysterious way. ®^Ibid., p. 162. 8 8 Ibid. Bultmann regards the apocalyptic expres sion in 6:54 as an integral part of 6 : 5lb-5 8. Cf. Macgregor, p. 15 3. Although Macgregor interprets verse 54 as a part of the context, he also places it in his translation in parentheses. ^^Ibid., p. 176. See A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord’s Supper in the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1952), p. 82. Cf. Oscar Cullmann, Early Christian Wor ship , trans. A. S. Todd and J. B. Torrance (London : SCM Press, 1953), p. 99. 143 The formula by which this union is expressed--"he in me and I in him"--is the Johannine formula which else- j where in John describes a faith-relationship to the Reve- I lation-bearer (of. 15:4f.; 17:21-23; 10:14f.)^*^ and not a i sacramental union. In 6:57 the redactor is seeking to bring his addition into union with its context by alluding to the theme of 5:21, 26. In 6:58 the redactor seals his insertion by resuming an idea discovered in the previous passage--the difference of the living bread from the man- ' na--although here he has changed its meaning. The "bread of heaven" referred to in 6:33, 50, 51a has been changed from Jesus himself to his flesh and blood. The partaking of the bread has been changed from "coming to Jesus" and "believing in Jesus" to "eating his flesh" and "drinking his blood" (6:58). The contrast of 6 : 5lb-5 8 to 6 : 2 7-5 8a is immediately obvious when the theme of 6:27-58a is resumed in 6: 6 Off. (of. 6:63-64 with 6:53-54 and then with 6:47). Thus, Bultmann concludes that the passage belongs to the hand of a redactor, and 6:54 which contains the apocalyptic eschatology is immediately dismissed from con sideration as a reflection of the evangelist’s eschatology. In the other verses (6:39, 40, 44) the short expression, "but raise him up at the. Last Day," is obviously an inser tion by the redactor. It disrupts the thought of the 9 0 Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 17 6. 144 entire passage and appears to be an "attempt of the re dactor to place the entire speech under the view of verses q 1 51b-58." 9 2 Brown recognizes the basically different charac ter of the first passage, 6:35-50 (corresponding to Bult mann’s 6 : 2 7-5la), from the second, 6:51-59 (corresponding to Bultmann’s 6 : 5lb-58) . In the first passage he concurs that the "bread of life" was the unveiling of the Revela- 9 3 tion-bearer and that "eternal life" comes as the result of believing in him. In the second passage he sees that the "bread of life" is the "flesh" of Jesus and that life comes from "feeding on his flesh" and "drinking his 9 4 blood." Brown believes, however, that he has good reason for regarding the first passage as having a second- i ary eucharistie theme which has become primary in 6:51- I 95 ; 5Q. Thus, he would understand the first passage as pre- 9 6 liminary and not contradictory to the second. According to Brown 6:51-58 reflects genuine Q 1 Ibid., P- 162. See Macgregor, pp. 147-149 Brown, The Gospel According to John . . ., 294. ^^Ibid., P- 272 . ^^Ibid., P- 284. ^^Ibid., P- 274. ^^Ibid., P- 285 . 145 Johannine characteristics and argues that it was tradi tional material added at a later stage in the editing of chapter six, but not for the purpose of correcting the chapter to make the discourse more acceptable to the 9 7 church at large. His ob]ection--that the evidence of secondary eucharistie undertones in 6:22-24 and 6:35-50 makes the passage basically eucharistie and, thus, demands 6:51-58 as a logical completion--just will not carry the weight he 9 8 places on it. 6:22-24 and 6:35-50 may have eucharistie undertones but they have been set in the context of the Gnostic Redeemer-myth: Jesus is the "bread of life" and one receives "life" by "coming to him." 6:51-58, as Brown himself has clearly recognized, changes the basic emphasis of the chapter. One can scarcely help noticing 9 9 the resumption of the theme of 6:27-5la in 6:63. Brown's final conclusion is that 6:35-50 and 6:51- 5 8 represent two different forms of the same discourse and 6:51-58 is a later redaction. One is not convinced, how ever, by his attempt to preserve an authentic Johannine ^^Ibid., p. 286. ^^Ibid. ^^Cf. Wendt, pp. 138-139. Wendt recognizes the basic incompatibility of verse 6 3 with the preceding passage 51-5 8 and makes an unconvincing attempt to reconcile them. 145 ! character for this later edition of the discourse on the j basis that it has Johannine features. It would appear thatj anyone wishing to "correct" a writing would not be so ob- | vious as to employ features which were distinctively dif- ^ ferent but would use the characteristics of the document he was "correcting." It may be that the passage does contain an ancient tradition, ^ but this does not necessitate that ; it be Johannine or that it be an integral part of this par-: ticular setting. ' Smith has argued that one major reason Bultmann is able to excise 6: 5lb-5 8 is because he has previously excised. 6:27bc which "looks forward to and almost demands the Eucharistie discourse^ Smith insists that even if 2 7c is redactional and that the "Son of Man" in 27b should read, "which ^ shall give unto him," 2 7a still demands the eucharistie discourse. This is primarily because "food" is dropped after 6:27a but reappears at 6:55 in the passage in question. He argues that it is less likely that 2 7a (food) was added by a redactor and that it should be re garded as a legitimate connection which argues for a ^ ^ ^ 102 fusing of the two passages. Cf. Joachim Jeremias, The Eucharistie Words of Jesus, trans. Norman Perrin (New York; Charles Scribners Sons, 1955), pp 107-108. Jeremias regards it as an ancient tradition. ^Smith, p. 143. , pp. 147-148. 147 ! However, that 27a demands the eucharistie discourse! does not necessarily follow. As Bultmann has so clearly shown there are other and more compelling reasons for not . regarding the passage as a unity. Furthermore, had 6:51c- ' 5 8 not been included in the passage, who would imagine or insist on the strength of 27a that 6:27-51a is incomplete and demands a eucharistie discourse for its completion? Smith defends the use of "flesh" in 6:51c as con sistent with the total outlook of the Gospel. The bread of heaven is Jesus’ flesh given for the life of the world in his death. . . . For John as for Paul the death is the culminating salvific event. While the whole manifestation of the glory in the ministry is already the eschatological event in John, in contrast to Paul, the death retains a peculiar significance. The revelation of the glory is always anticipatory of the final glorification of the Son of Man in his elevation upon the cross. It is clear from the entire gospel that only through Jesus’ departure 3 i.e. his death, do his disciples really receive the eschatological blessedness which he brings... . In this connection the evangelist does not hesitate to employ traditional early Christian ideas (1:29, 36) and even . , . 3:16 contains an allusion to Jesus’ death as Bultmann acknowledges.10 3 It is true that the death of Christ is a basic emphasis in the gospel but it is not necessarily so that the use of "flesh" and the image it creates in this passage are Johan- nine. One would not expect such a harsh expression, 1 n 3 Ibid., pp. 145-146. ^^^Cf. Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 175. However, "flesh" is in keeping with the strong language of 6 :51c-58. 148 but would instead expect the more typical Johannine ex pression "life."^*^^ Smith imagines that there are at least two reasons why the evangelist might have expanded and interpreted the eating of the bread as the eating of Jesus' flesh. First of all, for New Testament Christianity the eating of bread would have certainly called to mind the Lord's table. Thus, a eucharistie allusion should be suspected 10 7 even apart from 6:51-5 8. This may be true, but it cannot be argued from this that the contested passage naturally followed in the evangelist's mind. Such a basis is highly questionable and furthermore it could be used just as readily of the redactor as of the evangelist. A second reason is that it is characteristic of I the gospel that Jesus' enigmatic sayings invariably evoke ! a specific question as to their meaning. Bultmann, how ever, has argued that the enigma perplexing the "Jews" and prompting their question does not coincide with the usual pattern of the gospel, for their misunderstanding does not involve the usual Johannine "dualism. In 6:52 the ins ^^^Ibid. Cf. John 10:11, 15, 17; 13:37f.; 15:13; I John 3:16. 106 Smith, p. 144. ^Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . . , p. 175. 149 "Jews" understand Jesus to be referring to his physical body when actually he is referring to the physical sub stance of the Eucharist. Smith objects that what Jesus had in mind was not the Eucharist but the "benefits of his 10 9 passion," and defends their misunderstanding by saying that it is "something which no one save Jesus himself really understands." Bultmann’s understanding of the passage as a ref erence to the Eucharist appears to be more consistent and convincing. It is really quite difficult to understand Smith's consistency at this point. In fact, he must be accused of an inconsistency I He has previously argued that the passage in question and its context refer to the Lord's Supper^^^ but here he has rejected that thesis without attempt at reconciliation and argues that the pas- 112 sage refers to the death of Jesus. It would seem that it could not be both. Finally, Smith raises the question as to why a redactor would have added the eucharistie discourse in ID 9 Smith, p. 145. 110 Ibid., p. 146. Smith's purpose in linking the passage with the death of Christ is to offset Bultmann's objection that it is atypical, Bultmann's objection is only valid, he believes, if the passage is understood as referring to the "medicine of immortality." Ill ^ Ibid., p. 144. , pp. 145-146. 150 this particular form and context. It would seem, he argues, that he would merely have added an account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper. There is, in fact, even ! an account of Jesus’ last supper with his disciples into 113 which he could have interpolated it. This question poses a difficulty only if one assumes that the redactor "created" his addition. If one assumes that John 6 : 5Ic-5 8, although an interpolation in John, is an authentic piece of tradition, the problem disappears. Would it not have been out of place in chap ter thirteen? As Brown has suggested, the figure of the bread and the eucharistie undertones of John 6:27-51a would naturally have suggested the Eucharist to the redactor. It would appear, therefore, after considering the objections against excising 6 :51b-58 as redactional, that Bultmann’s reasons for excising it should be seri ously considered. If 6: 5Ib-5 8 is regarded as a later redaction in what way is the clause--"and I will raise him up at the last"^ day, " appearing in 6:39, 40, 44--to be regarded? Bultmann has argued that these clauses are not integral parts of the context but belong to the same hand that 286 . ^^^Ibid., p. 148. ^^^Brown, The Gospel According to John . . ., 151 1 included 6: 5lb-5 8. That the clause is a disruption in the I text is especially clear in 6:44. Here there is nothing | I preceding it to suggest that it should follow as the ! I natural conclusion to its sentence. In 6:54 the clause ! appears as a more natural conclusion to its sentence, for the promise of immortality is given to those who eat his flesh. In 6:44 this is not the case. What in the pre ceding part of 6:44 would elicit a promise of immortality? : It must be admitted that this is not true of 6:39, 40. In these verses the phrase appears to be more closely related to the context. However, G. H. C. Macgregor has argued that this last phrase of verse 40 with its sudden change of subject is quite awkward and "gives further ground for the conjecture that these references to a resurrection on 115 the last day may be an addition of the redactor." At any rate if it may be assumed that 6:51c-5 8 is a redaction, it would be reasonable to conclude that the apocalyptic clause in 6:39, 40, 44 is at least equally as late. John 12:48 The final passage in John’s Gospel that reflects the apocalyptic • eschatology appears in John 12:48, "He 115 Macgregor, p. 148. ^^^However, it must be admitted that the phrase could be regarded as an original part of 6: 39f. and that the redactor merely interpolated it in 6:54 in order to make his redaction fit more readily into its context. 152 1 who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a j judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the' last day." The verse appears in John 12:44-50 which has as its basic theme : The Revelation-bearer is the Judge (12:46-48). 12:44f. is preliminary to the theme. In two parallel statements it is asserted that God is only vis ible in the person of the Revelation-bearer; to take a position with regards to him is decisive for one’s des tiny (12:46). However, the judgment is not the arbitrary decision of Jesus. In 9:39 it has already been established that the appearance of Jesus was for Judgment. Now in 12:47 another side of judgment is exposed. It appears that . . . it is a judgment for which man himself car ries the responsibility : he refuses the word of revelation, thus he himself causes the judgment. Bultmann recognizes both the exegetical comments of the evangelist and the hand of the redactor throughout the passage.He argues, for example, that the clause, "the word that I have spoken will be his judge . . .," is the exegetical comment of the evangelist. There are two reasons why it so appears to him: "that" is a repetition of the subject and is, thus, unnecessary in the 117 Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 26 3. ^^^Ibid., p. 262. 153 119 sentence; the style of the sentence is prose and dif- I fers from the poetic character of the entire passage. The ; I final phrase--"in the last day"--without any explanation j 12 0 he assigns to the redactor. He does refer to 6 : 5lc-58. ■ Presumably he intends this verse to be understood as an addition by the same hand that inserted 6 :51c-58 ; 5:39, 40, 44. Since the nature of the addition is the same, this is a possibility, but it is not demanded. It is also pos sible that it was a part of the evangelist’s exegetical comment. As Smith has suggested, without this ending the 121 passage appears to end rather abruptly. Yet when one compares the final phrase with the general train of thought of the gospel, if it refers to 119 Benard, p. 9. Benard finds the "that" to be a normal Johannine construction. John uses it often to express emphasis or to mark out clearly the person who is the main subject of the sentence. Cf. John 2:21, 5:11; 1 John 2:5; 3:7. Of. A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (New York Charles Scribners Sons, 1912), p. 124. He notes the use of an "extra" demonstrative pronoun in 1 John 4:17. It is interesting that Bultmann failed to use the same argu ment in 1 John 4:17. ^^^Ibid. But of. Smith, p. 232. ^^^Smith, p. 232. Cf. E. C, Colwell and E. L. Titus, The Gospel of the Spirit (New York : Harper and Brothers, 1953), pp. 169-170. An interesting indirect argument for retaining the phrase "on the last day" is made here. John 12:48 has been understood in the light of John 18:19-23. The authors understand "on the last day" to refer to the crucifixion and not the apocalyptic eschaton. Following John 18:23, Jesus is crucified as much for what he said as what he did. 154 I the apocalyptic eschatology, it would cause an insoluble i I conflict to assign it to the evangelist. Compare, for j example, 3:17-19 in which it is asserted that the Judgment takes place in the response of men to the Light (=the ! 12 2 Revelation-bearer=the words that he speaks). It would not agree with 9:39 where it is stated that Jesus came into the world for judgment. It would not agree with 12:31 where it specifically states that the Sovereign of the world is now judging. It would seem, therefore, that Bultmann’s sugges tion that the phrase should be regarded as a later redac tion on the basis of his previous arguments in chapters five and six can be seriously considered as a possibility. There are no further passages in John’s Gospel 12 3 I that pose a problem to Bultmann’s eschatology. How- 'ever, there are several passages in the First Epistle of John which seem to Bultmann to reflect the apocalyptic es- 124 chatology. If one concedes that the Gospel of John has undergone a process of redaction, the question automatically 12 2 Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., p. 263. Cf. John 5 : 21-24. 12 3 It will have been noticed that Bultmann’s interpretation eliminates only the apocalyptic eschatol ogy. There is still a futuristic eschatology in John. 12 4 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II p. 85. He does not consider the Book of Revelation in conjunction with John’s eschatology. 155 arises: Is the same process to be found in the Epis- 12 5 tie? Bultmann believes that it is, and that he has discovered the hand of the redactor correcting the his- toricized eschatology in three instances : 2:28; 3:2 and 4:17. This becomes more than a possibility in the light of the general outlook of the Epistle. In First John one finds no general warning of an imminent cosmic judgment nor of an apocalyptic end to the world such as one finds, for example, in Second Peter (3:7-13) or First Thessa- lonians (1:10; 4:14-18; 5:1-3). With the exception of the passages mentioned above the outlook of the Epistle sug gests an apocalyptic eschatology which has been transmuted into an existential eschatology. That is,, it is capable of realization in the present moment. This is immediately evident from several passages in the Epistle. For example, the "overcoming of the evil one," which in the apocalyptic eschatology must wait for the final eschaton, does not have to wait for a cosmic catas trophe at the end. It has already taken place in the present (1 John 1:13-14). Nor does the "overcoming of the world" have to wait for the final eschaton. It is a present reality in the believer's experience of faith in Christ (1 John 5:4). ^Bultmann, "Die . ; . Redaktion . . .," In Memorial Ernst Lohmeyer, p. 189. 156 ' The "darkness," which is currently "passing away," and the "true light already shining" are not to be under stood in a cosmic sense (1 John 2:8)., for as the "dark- ! ness" has to do with the conduct of the individual (1 John : 2:11), the "true light" shines in the sense that men are evidencing a new kind of conduct (1 John 2:10). The "true light" is, therefore, not an apocalyptic event for it is already shining in the lives of those who "abide in him" (1 John 2:6) and "walk in the light" (1 John 1:7). One should not be misled by 1 John 2:17 and inter pret the "world passing away" in the sense of apocalyptic hope. Such an interpretation is prohibited by the latter part of the verse : I and the world passes away, and the lust of it; but I fee who does the will of God abides for ever. While the author may be stressing the perishability and ’ impermanence of "things" and the "world," he is certainly not projecting the apocalyptic hope. Quite obviously the promise and its expectation are not intended in a literal physical sense, but rather in the sense of the author's present eschatology. That which is promised is not an everlasting physical existence nor the climactic "breaking- off" of the world but rather it is "eternal life" in the sense of 1 John 3:14 (cf. 1 John 2:25; 5:11-12). In 1 John 2:18 there are two motifs which the author has selected from the stock of apocalyptic imagery : 157 I I "the antichrist is coming" and "the last hour." It would j appear on the surface that the author certainly stands I within the apocalyptic tradition. However, if the ideas I i of I John 2:18-2 2 are followed through, one discovers that ' the author is consciously transmuting the apocalyptic es chatology into a concept whereby eschatology is in process of realization in the present. The antichrist, a motif which plays a part in the Jewish apocalyptic expecta tions, is understood as present. But here he does not appear as a mythological supernatural figure. Instead he is present in the false teachers who have attempted al ready to persuade John's congregations that Jesus was not the Christ (1 John 2:22-25). If a paraphrase of the pas sage is permitted, it would be similar to the following: I I Little children, it is already the last hour. The ! antichrist whom you expected at the end time is ' already present in the persons attempting to per suade you that Jesus is not the Christ. Thus, do we know it is the last hour. Thus, by utilizing the apocalyptic expectations of the people in a different framework, the author can be doing no less than transforming them. There are, however, the several passages in the Epistle which clearly reflect an apocalyptic eschatology. Have they actually been included by a redactor as Bultmann supposes? F. Howard, Christianity According to John (London: Duckworth, 19 4 pp. 125-126. 158 I 1 John 2:28 | Bultmann regards the sudden appearance of 2:28 in j the epistle as startling! The character of eschatology in the Epistle has already been established as something other than the traditional eschatology. In 2:8 it is stated that "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining." In 2:18 it is already the "last hour" and the coming of the antichrist has already taken place in the ap- 12 7 pearance of the false teachers of the present. It is for this reason "startling" that the epistle would speak of Christ's "appearing" or his "coming" as though it were 12 8 a future event. Although one may try, Bultmann feels that it is impossible adequately to reconcile 2:28 with the eschatology reflected elsewhere in the Gospel. He feels that a "seam" is discernible in the text 'at 2:28, for the transition from 2:27 to 2:28 reveals an inconsistency. In verse 27 the Christian is admonished to 12 7 Bultmann, "Die . . . Redaktion . . In Memo- riam Ernst Lohmeyer, p, 19 6. Of. Howard, Christianity According to St. John, pp. 125-126. He points out that the idea of the antichrist is part of an old Babylonian legend which reappears in Jewish apocalyptic. He has noticed "how completely the writer has abandoned all the mythical and apocalyptic conceptions that clustered round the antichrist legend." John uses the word for the "enemy who masquerades as the true interpreter of God. . . ." ^Bultmann, "Die . . . Redaktion . . .," In Memo- riam Ernst Lohmeyer, p. 19 6. Further, the term parousia appears no other place in the Gospel or the Epistle except in 2:28 and Bultmann regards this as a redaction. 159 12 9 remain in that which Christ taught. However, in 2:28 the expression, "so that when he appears," forces one to conclude that the Christian is admonished to abide in 13 0 Jesus and not in his teachings. A similar difficulty arises in the transition from 2:28 to 2:29. Following immediately after 2:28 the subject of the clause, "... if you know that he is righteous . . .," appears to refer to Jesus. However, Bultmann feels the subject of this final clause can only refer to Cod. The expression "to be born of him" is a favorite expression of John in which he refers to Cod. He never uses the expression "to be born 131 of Christ." (Cf. 1 John 3:9; 4:7; 5:4, 18; John 1:13.) Therefore, both clauses in 2:29 must be referring to Cod, and the clash with 2:28 is unavoidable I The difficulties will disappear if one will admit that "when he appears" and "at his coming" are redactional corrections and that the remainder of the verse should be Ibid., p. 189. Cf. B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John (London: Macmillan and Company, 1905), p. 81. Westcott argues that the Christian is ad monished to remain in Christ. The personal pronoun can be either neuter or masculine and, thus, refers either to a person or a thing. Bultmann regards it as neuter and as an obvious reference to the teachings of Jesus. One would only regard it as referring to a person because of verse 28, and this is the basis of Westcott's interpretation. ^^^Bultmann, "Die . . . Redaktion . . .," In Memo- riam Ernst Lohmeyer, p. 19 7. One can hardly speak of the "teachings" of Jesus as "appearing." 131 Brooke, p. 68. Note his reconciling solution! 160 interpreted in the sense of John 14:3 or 14: 18-24--that is, 13 2 in the sense of Jesus’ coming to the believer in faith. The earliest word order would then be: "And now little children abide in it so that we may have confidence toward God (as the phrase appears in 3:21) and not shrink from him." ^ 1 John 3:2^^^ In 3:2 there is another clause--"when he appears"-- which suggests the traditional eschatology. Although it is possible, Bultmann reasons, to understand it as the future completion of one's understanding of Jesus as Revelation- bearer in the sense of John 14:3 and 17:24, this does not appear to Bultmann to be the case. The phrase must belong to the same hand that altered 2:28. It is possible, he suggests, to understand the clause, "what we shall be," as the subject of the clause "when it (he?) shall appear," since it lies close at hand 13 5 in the preceding clause. Thus, the later part of the 13 2 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, pp. 84f.; 56f. ^Bultmann, "Die . . . Redaktion . . .," In Memo- riam Ernst Lohmeyer, p. 197. 1 34 Cf. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, p. 71. Al though Dodd does not question the authenticity of the apocalyptic implication in the verse, he does note the ambiguity of its grammatical construction. That is, there are two possible translations of the verse. 13 5 Cf. Brooke, p. 82. He recognizes the ambiguity 161 sentence would read, "We know that when it--i.e., what we shall be--shall appear, we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is." In Greek the subject is contained in the verb and may be either "he" or "it." However, the result is so awkward that the attempt to reconcile it in this manner fails. Therefore, since attempts to reconcile it fail, it must be understood in the light of 2:28 and regarded as the insertion of the redactor. Less the redactional insert, the passage would read : "We know that . . . we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."^^^ According to C. H. Dodd this meaning has no parallel elsewhere in the New Testament. However, it was a widely accepted belief in Hellenistic mysticism. Through Gnosis, it was taught, a man might become immor- 13 7 tal and even divine. Thus, this interpretation would fit in well with the possible Gnostic background of the Epistle. 1 John 4:17 A final instance of the traditional eschatology in of the phrase "When he [it] shall appear . . .," however, in contrast to Bultmann he believes the more natural construction to be: "When it [i.e., what we shall be] appears. ..." Cf. Westcott, p. 97. Westcott prefers "when he shall appear. . . ." ^Bultmann, "Die . . . . Redaktion . . . ," In MemO' riam Ernst Lohmeyer, p. 198. 13 7 Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, p. 71. 162 j contradiction to John 3:19; 5:24f.; 9:39; and 12:31 j appears in 1 John 4:17. Without doubt this passage re- j i fers to the eschatological Judgment Day. That the passage j quite early was found to be obscure is indicated by the [ fact that the last clause of the passage--"as he is, so are we in this world"--shows textual variations. These appear to Bultmann to be early attempts to clarify the meaning of the passage. For instance, instead of saying, "as he is . . . so are we," one correction reads : "as he is . . . we shall be. . . ." This is apparently a correc tion by someone who sensed the contradictionlbetween Jesus' present "heavenly" state and that of the believer who is currently in the world. Since Jesus is no longer in the world, the redactor must have reasoned that the evangelist was referring to the future state of the be- I ! I I I liever. Another variation attempts to explain what the Christian's character was to be in the world by comparing it to what Jesus' character had been in the world, and reads : "As he was blameless and pure in this world, so ,,138 are we. . . ." On the basis of the textual variations one should expect the passage to be obscure and, thus, approach its Bultmann, "Die . . . Redaktion . . .," In Memo- riam Ernst Lohmeyer, p. 19 8. The subject of the dependent clause, "as he was blameless and pure . . .," can only be Jesus. Cf. 2:6; 3:3, 5, 6, 16. 163 interpretation with caution. It appears that the phrase "in this world" could not be regarded as the completion of "so are we. . . ." Such a possibility would only be in telligible if the dependent clause read as the above vari ation : "As he was in this world. . . ." The phrase would then mean that the Christian's character was to reflect the character of Christ's earthly life. However, the verse reads, "As he is. . . ." Thus, one must ask in what sense is the Christian, presently in this world, like Christ who is in the heavenly world? The answer would be as awkward as the question is irrelevant I Bultmann suggests that an answer to the problem might be found by referring to John 15:10 and interpreting 1 John 4:17 in this light. By understanding an implied "in the Father's love" following "as he is" and substi tuting "in his love" for "in this world" following "so are we," a natural style might be restored to the passage. Thus, it would read: "As he is (in the Father's love), so are we in his love." This would fit well in the context and make a good connection with the first sentence of the following verse : "There is no fear in love. ..." Is it possible that this was originally the case? Did the re dactor substitute the phrase "in this world" for the phrase "in his love" which he had originally found behind "so are we?" The phrase "in this world" he had found located behind "we may have confidence" but it was 164 necessarily displaced by his addition "in the day of Judgment." Bultmann conjectures that this was the case. If the explanation is not convincing, he feels that one may certainly conjecture that "in the day of Judgment" has been substituted for an original "before him" (of. 3:19, 13 9 21). Bultmann, however, prefers the former. Jesus had left his disciples behind "in this world" (John 17:15). In the light of their present situa tion they are in need of confidence. Thus, the confidence of 4:17 must be a confidence given now "in this world." In fact, the significance of the confidence in 4:17 is explained by 4:18. The "punishment" mentioned in 4:18, traditionally used of the eschatological punishment, is understood as characterizing the fears of the present. Bultmann, therefore, conjectures that 4:17 should read: "In this is love perfected in us, that we may have con fidence in this world, because as he is (in the Father's love) so are we in his love."^^*^ If one does not concede that the passages which have been considered are to be interpreted as Bultmann suggests, one has the responsibility of explaining their obvious clash with such radical statements as: John 3:19; ^^hbid. 140 Ibid., p. 199. 165 5:21, 24; 11:24f.; 12:31; 1 John 2:18; 4:3. While it is true that one may appeal to the present-future "tension" found in the Synoptic Gospels and argue for the retention of the apocalyptic eschatology on the basis that John has merely extended a "tension" he found in the message of Jesus with an emphasis upon the present, for the following reasons this would appear to be an improbability : 1. The present-future "tension" in the Synoptic Gospels reflects a present eschatology that is indefinite. Those who argue for an eschatology realized in the minis try of Jesus see it taking place in his exorcisms and 141 preaching. " But with the exception of the exorcisms of Jesus this shows no close connection to the traditional picture of the end-time. John, on the other hand, has historicized the specific cosmological motifs and under stood them as possibilities of existence in the present. In essence John is saying that those occurrences which were expected to be present at the end-time are presently taking place. This particular emphasis, i.e., the his- torization of cosmological motifs is not found in the Synoptic Gospels. 2. The present-future "tension" of the Synoptic Gospels is no argument that John must show the same "ten sion" in the same manner. The "tension" may generally be 141 Cf. Perrin, p. 186. 166 accepted as belonging to the earliest discernible strata of synoptic tradition, but it does not follow that for this reason a similar "tension" must be maintained in John. Just because the synoptic evangelists were able to reconcile a present-future "tension" is no argument that John could reconcile it. Indeed, Bultmann has shown there is reason to believe that he could not or would not hold the same present-future "tension." It appears that John has radically demythologized the apocalyptic eschatology and that Bultmann's existential eschatology is validated at least as an interpretation of Johannine eschatology. Futuristic Eschatology in John? A third criticism which has been lodged against Bultmann is his failure to emphasize properly the futuris tic expectation which supposedly still appears in John's 142 eschatology and his failure to clarify his own position 14 3 with regard to it. Bultmann does believe that a "type" 144 of futuristic anticipation still remains in John, The coming of the Revelation-bearer to the world and his sub sequent "coming to the believer in faith" have not ex hausted the eschatology of John. Bultmann believes that 14 2 Holwerda, pp. 126-127. 143 See page 96 above. 144 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . ., p. 49. 167 i John expects a future coming of Jesus to the believer at I 14 5 ' the believer’s death. However, this is all Bultmann has| 14 b 1 to say on the issue. As noted on page 96 above his cor-j relation of this "residue" of futuristic eschatology in ! John and John’s obvious existential emphasis is not at all clear. In fact, by an indiscriminate use of the term "parousia," he has contributed to the confusion which ensues. Certainly the relationship of the two emphases needs to be clarified and, if possible, conclusions drawn. Bultmann’s slight emphasis on the futuristic anticipation in John is obvious, for example, in a brief discussion of the character of revelation in John he men tions it in passing. He argues that eschatological existence is a reality only in faith: Not in any direct relationship to Jesus or to God. God is available only through Jesus, which is to say: only through the incarnate One--and this in turn means : God is never available except when man overcomes that offense. . . . Neither is there any direct way or direct relationship to the exalted One--until He himself fetches the believer to him self (14:3). . . ,147 145 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, p . 85 . 146cf. Holwerda, p. 126. Holwerda attributes this to the fact that "it is not possible to say anything about this future existence, nor may this future existence ever become an object of concern. The believer may be concerned only about his believing existence in the world." 14 7 Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, II, D. 85 . 168 I Notice that, in some sense, Bultmann finds in John 14:3 | that the Gospel expects a future coming of Jesus I How- j ever, just exactly how this expectation is to be related j to an ensuing statement (on the same page) that the return ; of Jesus in the Spirit (i.e., the paraclete--John 16:7) is "the only way in which he will return," Bultmann fails to ^ say. The situation is rather confusing for Bultmann re gards both the coming of Jesus to the believer at death and the coming of Jesus to the believer in faith as the parousia.To regard the parousia as both the coming of Jesus to the believer in faith and the ultimate coming of Jesus to the believer at death appears to be an inconsist ency. It does not seem that both can be regarded as the same event nor can both signify the same thing. At this point seems to lie the problem: is John 14:3 (17:24) to be regarded as an anticipation of the future : an event that occurs at the end of the believer’s life; or should it, perhaps, be regarded instead as the coming of Jesus to the believer in faith? D. E. Holwerda has attempted to enter into a dia logue with Bultmann over the issue of futuristic escha- 14 9 tology in John. He discusses three passages in John which appear to reflect a type of futuristic hope that ^‘ ^^Ibid. , p. 57. 1 49 Holwerda, pp. 86-133. 169 cannot be accounted for within Bultmann’s existential framework. The passages in question are as follows : John 16:16-24;^^° John 14:1-3;^^^" and John 14:18-24.^^^ In John 16:16-24 there appears a discussion in i which twice it is suggested by Jesus that he and his disciples will "see" one another again (16:16, 22). It is obvious from the context that the traditional parousia is not meant by this experience. In 16:20-22 Jesus says that his disciples will be sorrowful when he, Jesus, leaves but the "world" will rejoice. That is, the de parture of Jesus takes place within the present world orderI Since the sorrow of the disciples designates their world-situation, it is reasonable to assume that the joy which would be theirs at the meeting with Jesus was also ! an experience within this world order. (Cf. 1 John 1:4 and' ' John 14:27.) This interpretation would also correspond to the emphasis in 16:8-11. The judgment, here, is not under stood in the sense of a cosmic drama that concludes time and history but as an existential experience that takes place within the world order. Thus, the meeting of Jesus with his disciples in John 16:16-24 is the communion they , pp. 122-125. ■'■^■'■Ibid. , pp. 115-117. ■'■^^Ibid. , pp. 120 = 122 . 170 I experience when they turn from the "world." That is, John | 15 3 ' has reference to the believer "meeting" Jesus in faith. I An additional argument in favor of such an inter- , pretation is the similarity between John 16:16-24 and ' i John 14:18-20. In John 14:19 it is stated that Jesus will not appear to the world (14:22). Thus, it would seem that the "meeting" in which the disciple will "see" Jesus is not to be a physical meeting but it is understood in an existential sense. One would naturally assume on the basis of their similarity that this is also true in John 16 : 16-24. In John 14:18-24 there appears another reference to the "coming of Jesus" and a meeting in which Jesus’ disciples will "see" him again. The context in which the "meeting” appears eliminates the traditional parousia as a, possible interpretation. In John 14:22 it is evident that the "appearance" of Jesus will not be exposed to the world in general but only to his disciples. In John 14:20, 2 3 this "meeting" is interpreted as the "coming of Jesus" to the individual believer in a mystical sense : "I am in my father, and you in me, and I in you"; "We will . . . make our home with him." A further emphasis in this re spect is found in John 14:19. This verse evidently refers 15 3 Cf. Bultmann, Das Evangelium . . ., pp. 447 448. Holwerda, p. 121. 171 to the "Easter-experience" of the disciples because it is 1 54 based on the fact that "Jesus lives." A final futuristic reference which Holwerda dis cusses is found in John 14:1-11. In John 14:3 there ap- 15 5 15 6 pears a phrase which to both Bultmann and Holwerda sounds different from that encountered in the previous pas sages. It is said here that Jesus not only will come to the believer but he will take the believer to be with himI The previous passages suggest that Jesus will "make his home" with the believer (14:23) or that the present sorrow of the believer will be turned to joy when he "sees" Jesus (16:22). In John 14:3 apparently the emphasis is upon the removal of the believer from the world: "I will come again and take you to myself, that where I am, there you may be Ialso." Hence, Bultmann interprets the verse in the sense of Jesus coming to the believer at death to "take him" to 15 7 his home in the Father’s house. On the other hand, Holwerda uses this passage as a fulcrum to insist on the retention of the traditional apocalyptic eschatology. Accordingly, with his critical ^^^Holwerda, pp. 70-71. 15 5 Bultmann, History and Eschatology . . p. 49. ^^^Holwerda, pp. 126-127. 15 7 Such an expectation was entirely consistent with contemporary futuristic anticipations of Gnosticism and the mystery religions. 172 : ear he "hears" the sound of apocalyptic eschatology in j John 14:3. The verb used to describe Jesus "fetching" his j disciples is found, he argues, in Matthew 24:40ff. and Lukej 17:34ff. in which it describes the day of the Son of ManI ' Thus, he argues, although it may also mean that Jesus comes to the believer at his death, "There is no reason for assuming that such an interpretation exhausts the meaning of this verse.Since Bultmann admits the presence of a futuristic motif unexplainable in terms of an existential eschatology, there exists in this verse, if no where else, the possibility of an eschatology in John understood in terms of the Jewish-Christian tradition, 15 9 i.e., a cosmic apocalyptic eschatology. However, perhaps a little closer attention should j be given to what is being said in John 14:3. What does one "hear" reflected in the verse? The background of this ; passage, John 14:1-6, can only be that of Gnosticism. Was not the Gnostic redeemer to escort the believer upon his death into the "heavenly world of light?The ^^^Holwerda, pp. 84-85. , pp. 126-127. , p. 115. "This future is not the mytho- logical future of the Jewish-Christian eschatology, but it is the individualistic future of the Gnostic myth in which the individual soul ascends to the Light-World after death." ^^^Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, p. 16 5 ; Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 153. 173 journey of Jesus to the world for his disciples (14:3) has j 16 2 ! a close parallel in the Gnostic mythology. I I The apocalyptic "undertones" which Holwerda finds j in the verb "receive" in 14:3 doubtlessly are there. How- j ever, instead of anticipating an apocalyptic eschaton by its use, John is seeking consciously to transpose the cosmic mythology. By the use of concepts, metaphor, and technical terms immediately associated with the cosmic eschaton, yet by giving them his own existential meaning, i John transposes the traditional eschatology into an eschatology of existence. ^ Quite obviously one is not dealing here with an apocalyptic expectation. John 14:3 does not speak of the physical creation but of the disciple; it does not antici- | pate the resuscitation of a dead body but rather it anticipates that the believer will be "taken to be with Jesus." But, on the other hand, neither is it a clear reference to the believer's death and continued existence after death as Bultmann supposes. Being taken "to Jesus" is identical to going to the Father (of. 14:6) and the "way" that one is "taken" to God (which is undoubtedly the believer's ultimate destination, John 14:1-2, 12) is not 16 2 Of. Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., pp. 163-164. ^^^Cf. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 396. 174 by a mythical journey through the stars to the Father's house of heavenly light but it is through Jesus himself (John 14:6) or more specifically through "knowing" Jesus (John 14:7). By "knowing" Jesus one has already, in fact, made the "journey" for "knowing" Jesus is at the same time "knowing" and "seeing" God (14:7).^^^ Thus it would ap pear that the existential emphasis made in 16:16-24 and 14:18-24 is also being made in John 14:3,^^^ and that 14:3 is best understood in the sense of Jesus coming to the believer in faith. A comparison of the predominant motif in John 14:1-12 with John 16:16-24 would seem to bear out this interpretation that 14:1-12 refers to the coming of Jesus to the believer in faith. The primary motif seems to be the continuation of an intimate fellowship with Jesus : which the author has described through the figure of "seeing Jesus again," i.e,, after his crucifixion : ^ John 14:18-19: I will come to you. The world will not see me. John 14:22-23: Judas inquires as to why Jesus 164 Of. Holwerda, p. 116. Holwerda correctly recognizes that the question concerning the "way" is turned into a question concerning the present communion with the Revealer. 16 5 That is, provided that one accepts John 14: 2-3 as an integral part of the passage. See below pages 176-179. ^^^Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 40 5. 175 will manifest himself to the disciples and not to the world. Jesus replies that he comes only to those that love him (it appears therefore that John has understood the "manifestation" of Jesus as the "coming" of Jesus. Hence, the "coming" and "seeing" would appear to be meta phors with the same meaning). John 16:16-17: A little while and you will see me no more. A little while and you will see me. John 16:22: I will see you again. This metaphor--i.e., the "coming" of Jesus as the continuation of an intimate fellowship of Jesus with his disciples, a coming in faith--can also be seen in John 14:3. It is said that Jesus appears for the purpose of taking the believer to (pros) himself. That is, they are I j "face-to-face" in an intimate fellowship which itself I brings a knowledge of God. ^ This suggests that the believer is not taken out of the world by his physical death but is joined eternally in an intimate fellowship when Jesus "comes" to him in faith (14:15-17). C. H. Dodd has said referring to John 14:1-24: This reinterprétâtion . . . of popular escha tology is carried through at length in xiv.1-24. . . . It turns out that Christ’s coming again must be understood in the sense that (a) Christ will con tinue his mighty works in his disciples (xiv.14 :12); (b) the paraclete will dwell in them (xiv.14:15-17); (c) they will live by virtue of the living Christ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 19 34), pC 623. Cf. John 1:1. 175 (xiv.14:19); and they will continue in a perpetual interchange of [love] with him' (xiv.14:21). In this sense he will come to them (xiv.14:18), they will see him though the world will not (xiv.14:19). He will manifest himself to them (xiv.14:21). That this language was intended to suggest thoughts of Christ’s final parusia is shown by the natural question coming ' from Jude (xiv.14:22). The answer shows that the true parusia is to be found in the interchange of divine [love] made possible through Christ’s death and resurrection (xiv.2 3 ).IG 8 Further, he states that John 14:3 should be under stood as the "epiphany of the love of God" which the evan- I gelist has set forth clearly and emphatically in John 14: 21-24. Such an interpretation of John 14:3 actually seems to be a more consistent interpretation of the passage than that advanced by either Bultmann or Holwerda for it is closer to John's central emphasis of existential eschatol ogy. This would appear to be an improvement on Bultmann’s interpretation, for John 14:3 is not a different anticipa tion but the expectation of Jesus coming to his disciples in faith. However, there is a built-in weakness to such an interpretation: it fails to do full justice to the logion in John 14:2-3. This metaphor is distinctly the future hope of Gnosticism and does describe a "journey" to the ^^^Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 395 . IRQ Ibid., p. 405. 177 heavenly home. For several reasons John 14:2-3 can only be regarded with some suspicion. In the first place, if the verbs in John 14:1 are translated as present indicative 17 0 ■ (they may also be present imperative) the tie-in with I verse four is unmistakable. The union is made quite naturally. Verse four appears as a further reason given by Jesus for allaying their anxiety over his departure : Let not your hearts be troubled; you believe in God and you believe in me. And you know the way where I am going. Thomas said to him, "Lord we do not know where you are going ; how can we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way the truth and the life ; no one comes to the Father but by me. (John 14:1, 4-5).^"^^ When this reconstruction is compared to its context the continuity is obvious. From 13 :31--14: 6 the theme is the departure of Jesus. The intrusion of 14:2-3 is obvious for one’s attention is directed to the return of Jesus and not to his departure. A second reason is that supposedly Jesus has just told the disciples in verses 2-3 "where he is going." Yet Thomas protests that they don’t know where he is going (14:5)/. Such a statement would seem logical and consistent 17 0 Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 3 8 0. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament (Cambridge : The University Press, 1957), p. 558. The verb, "you know," in verse four is actually a perfect form but is used as a present tense. 178 only if the logion concerning the father’s house did not originally appear in the passage. Further, it is quite j noticeable that the bright promise of the heavenly abode as the "Father’s hous-e" dies with verses 2-3. It is not even referred to in the rest of the chapter or even men- 17 2 tioned again in the gospel. A third reason for regarding John 14:2-3 as a redaction is the fact that it contains the only mythologi- I cal or metaphorical formulation in John for the destination of Jesus. Here it utilizes the image of the "Father’s house." Elsewhere in John Jesus refers to his destination * simply as "I go to the Father" (John 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 17:11).17 3 Finally, the destination of Jesus is described in the verses following 14:2,3 in quite a different manner than it is described in 14:2,3. Thomas says he doesn’t know where Jesus is going nor does he know the way. Jesus responds that h^ is the way and that no one reaches the destination to which Jesus is going unless he comes through Jesus. The destination is the Father (14:6, 12, 28) and 17 2 Cf. John 2:16. A reference is made here by Jesus to the temple as "my father’s house." 17 3 Nor does such an expression as John 14:2,3 appear anywhere in the Gospels as a metaphor for the heavenly abode. Cf. Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, pp. 77, 84, 113. In the excerpts of the Gnostic literature which Jonas quotes "the father’s house" is a frequent metaphor. 179 I he who "knows" Jesus has already achieved that destination j for he "sees" God (14:7)I | I It would appear, therefore, that there is some | basis for regarding the passage as a redactional insert. However, if it is to be retained, it is best interpreted in the sense of John’s present eschatology, and little emphasis should be given to the "removal" of the disciples ! from the world. Bultmann has pointed to an additional passage in John 17:24 which should be understood in the same way as John 14:3, that is, in the sense of Jesus’ "coming" to the believer at his death. It would appear from reading John 17:24 that it does contain a futuristic anticipation and that, perhaps, it could be interpreted in Bultmann’s sense ' as a reference to the death of the believer. However, there is strong reason, as shall be shown, for regarding it neither in this sense nor in the sense of the apocalyp tic "return" of Jesus. 174 As E. C. Colwell and Eric L. Titus have argued, the references in John's gospel to "the hour," "my hour," "the last hour," "the last day," "glorification," and similar statements refer to the crucifixion of Jesus. For example, in John 13:31-38 the glorification of which Jesus speaks (13:31) is anticipated as Jesus' departure. In 1 74 Colwell and Titus, pp. 114, 168-170 180 John 12:27-33 it is clearly stated that in the "lifting up" and "the judgment" God is "glorifying" his name. It would seem to be consistent interpretation, therefore, to understand John 17:1 in this same sense. That is, John 17:1 refers to the approaching crucifixion in which God’s glory will be given its greatest expression. This inter pretation would seem to be borne out by John 17:11: "And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee" (cf. John 17:13). One cannot fail to notice the similarity of John 17:4-5 to the above passages which were mentioned in con nection with the "glorification" of Jesus. It would seem that John 17:4-5 would be intended in this same sense. That is, the glorification of which Jesus is speaking in John 17:4-5 is the approaching crucifixion and not a mythical meeting in the "heavenly abode" at some future date. Jesus glorified the Father on earth by accomplishing "the work" which he was sent to do and now the Father will glorify himself again (cf. John 12:28) in the "lifting-up" of the Son. When one comes to John 17:24 with this background, it is only to realize that John 17:24 must be understood in the same sense as John 17:5. Notice the similarity between the two verses : And now Father, glorify thou me in thy.own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. (John 17:5) 181 Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me | before the foundation of the world. (John 17:24) | John 17: 5 John 17:24 j 1. . . . glorify thou 1. . . . that . . . they may me in thy own be with me . . . to behold presence. . . . my glory. . . . 2. with the glory which 2. which thou hast given me I had with thee. 3. before the world was 3. before the foundation of made. the world. Jesus’ glorification is the cross.’ His prayer in John 17: 24 is that his disciples will be with him in his moment , of glorification. Such an interpretation of 17:24 is practically demanded by John 17:15. Here Jesus categor ically states that he does not desire that his disciples be taken out of the world but only that they be kept safe as he has kept them safe (cf. John 17:11-12). If one attempts to interpret John 17: 24 in the sense of an apoca lyptic parousia or of an ultimate "coming" of Jesus to the believer at his death, he should be aware of the contra dictory character of John 17:15 where Jesus states that he does not desire that his disciples be taken out of the world. It would appear, therefore, from this considera tion of the "futuristic" passages in the Gospel of John that the eschatology of John is fully consistent with an existential eschatology. That which appears to be an 182 I unrealized futuristic anticipation in John is fully ex- j plainable in existential categories. i If it were to be agreed that Bultmann has accu- ! ! rately interpreted the Gospel of John, such an agreement | would not automatically resolve all the questions. In fact, it raises questions I For example, an obvious ques tion that will suggest itself is : Why does Bultmann rely so heavily upon John and neglect the rest of the New Testament? As Rordorf has stated it: Bultmann not only interprets one-sidedly on this point (i.e. does not take into account well enough the New Testament "as well as"), but puts himself into contradiction to an almost unanimous New Testament tradition. That is, although Bultmann may have interpreted John cor rectly, he has neglected the rest of the New Testament tradition. His interpretation is, thus, one-sided, pre cariously perched atop a very thin layer of biblical sup port and dangerously close to a second century Gnosti- 176 cism. However, upon reflection it does not appear to be a fair criticism to accuse Bultmann of "neglecting" the rest of the New Testament and in particular the apocalyptic eschatology of Jesus and the primitive Christian community. 17 5 Rordorf, New Testament Studies, p. 360; cf pp. 3 5 7-362. 176 Ibid., p. 3 61. 183 I It is true that Bultmann regards John’s formulation of ! eschatology as the most significant of the biblical escha- ! tologies but it does not follow that he has automatically ignored the message of the rest of the New Testament. On 17 7 the contrary 5 as it was indicated above, Bultmann has attempted to interpret the eschatological message of the New Testament by pointing to its underlying unity. The underlying unity of the New Testament is found in its 17 8 unique understanding of human existence. Bultmann be lieves that the understanding of man enshrined in the apocalyptic eschatology, when demythologized, is identical to that existential eschatology of John’s Gospel. They do not speak in the same categories about the world and time, for an existential interpretation uses categories referring I I to being and an apocalyptic interpretation uses mythologi- j cal categories. While the mythological categories may have spoken more effectively to primitive man, it appears that existential categories speak more effectively to one who thinks in modern scientific concepts, and lives in a technological society. Bultmann does not wish to contradict or reject the message of such books as I Thessalonians or II Peter, nor 177 See pages 11-17 above. For an example of how Bultmann demythologizes the apocalyptic eschatology, see pages 41-52 above. 17 8 Bultmann, Primitive Christianity . . ., p. 179. 184 is he arguing for the rejection of apocalyptic eschatology as such. His concern is to make the eschatological mes sage relevant and he believes that John’s understanding of existence as eschatological is the more relevant interpre tation . Thus 5 Rordorf ’ s criticism that ’ ’futuristic realis tic eschatology has lost any literal meaning for Bultmann" 17 9 is only partially true. It is true in the sense that Bultmann does not look for a cessation of the physical creation by an act of divine power from outside the natural order but it is not true that eschatology has no literal meaning. Bultmann in actuality wants to express in terms of human self-understanding the literal meaning (for human existence) that is enshrined within a mythical apocalyptic eschatology I The cosmology and temporality of apocalyptic eschatology expresses a unique understand ing of existence and this is what he purports to express through his formulation of existence as eschatological. , 179 Rordorf, New Testament Studies, p. 359. ^^^Robert W. Funk, Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York, Evanston and London: Harper and Row, 19 66), pp. 9 0-91. CONCLUSION 1. Bultmann's reconstruction of the biblical eschatolo gies gives a historical perspective to his work that one fails to find in a "literalistic biblicistic" view of eschatology. He demonstrates, quite adequately, that the apocalyptic eschatology of the New Testament was actually the result of a syncretistic process. It did not come as a unique divine revelation but evolved out of the impact of eastern ideas upon a disillusioned west.^ Thus, one is forced to conclude that the idea of the end of the world, a conclusion to time and history, is not a distinctly Christian concept. Actually, the concept of an end to the world was foreign to the Jewish idea of history. It had flowed into the theological vacuum created in Israel's faith when the hopes of the people for the "salvation" of God were repeatedly dashed to the ground. When their hopes for the idealized kingdom of David failed to mate rialize, the people turned their eyes "skyward" and looked for the dramatic intrusion of God into the natural order to correct the wrongs committed against his people and to , 2 establish hi s kingdom.' ^See above pages 23-39. 2 See above pages 36-39. 186 : Christianity inherited this apocalyptic hope of | Israel, When the apocalyptic expectations failed to ! materialize and as the eschatological congregation became ; increasingly conscious that it was a historical phenome- j non, the Christian hope for the future changed further still. Under the theology of Paul a recognizable change takes place^ and John, in order to make the Christian message relevant to life in a changing social, cultural, and ideological setting, completely transforms the apoca lyptic eschatology. If a process of re-interpretation is recognizable within the New Testament, one can only conclude that the apocalyptic hope is not the essential meaning of the es chatological Kerygma and that it must, after the example of the New Testament itself, continually be re-interpreted in order to be relevant to a changing world of thought. 2. Bultmann’s "eschatological existence" is a valid inter pretation of Johannine eschatology and, furthermore, is valid as a statement of the apocalyptic eschatology of the New Testament in terms of human existence. Many have felt that Bultmann has been excessively "creative" in his criti cal treatment of the apocalyptic passages in John’s Gospel 3 See above pages 40-56. L f See above pages 71-87. 187 and Epistle. That is, he has "strained" the text in an unnatural way in order to remove the apocalyptic elements. However, no one can deny that even with the retention of the apocalyptic passages there is an obvious contrast be tween John's eschatology and apocalyptic eschatologyI It does not appear that a satisfactory reconcilia tion of apocalyptic eschatology and present eschatology in John can be made so as to explain, for example, how John can regard "the final Judgment" as both a present reality and a future reality. All such attempts have their own . "unnatural" quality. However, Bultmann has explained the presence of the apocalyptic elements in John without harm to John's central eschatological concerns. I It will not suffice to accuse Bultmann of neglect- ! j ing the larger portion of the New Testament in order to : give a "one-sided" preference to John's eschatology, for Bultmann has accurately interpreted the concept of human 5 existence which is enshrined in the apocalyptic metaphor. Bultmann has, in short, simply applied the interpretative techniques of John to the apocalyptic message of the New Testament. 3. It might be objected that the admission of a demytholo gized eschatology in John would destroy the unity of the 5 See above pages 88-103; 49-52. 188 New Testament. After all, does it not conflict with the apocalyptic hope? Jesus expected the end of the world but John did not I Thus, there would be a basic contradiction to eschatology in the New Testament. However, a question must be raised at this point: does it insure the unity of the New Testament to insist that John's eschatology must agree with that traditional eschatology reflected else where in the New Testament? It would seem that only an unnatural unity would demand that each writer express himself in the same way. Indeed, if this is to be the basis of unity, one can scarcely conclude that the New Testament has any unity at allI Bultmann has shown, for example, that Paul and John do express themselves in different ways.^ This is true, furthermore, whether or not one retains the apoca- ! lyptic passages for John. Bultmann has, therefore, raised the issue of unity in the New Testament. Just exactly where does it lie? He has argued that mythology cannot be regarded as the unifying concept of the New Testament and has demon strated that a better unity lies in the way the New Testa ment understands human existence as "eschatological existence." Thus, Bultmann's eschatology does not destroy the unity of the New Testament but, in truth, points to a ^See above pages 71-103. 189 j unifying concept that is more basic and meaningful than | I mythology. Furthermore, such a unity permits the New i Testament to be exactly what it is: a unity in diversity I ' ! 4. Finally, sojiie conclusion should be drawn for the one ! who does not admit the possibility of redaction in either the Gospel or Epistle of John. It must surely be admitted by such a person that the Johannine Denkweise differs from ' the rest of the New Testament. A different emphasis in its eschatology, at least, appears obvious. If one would try to "pin-down" exactly what the difference is, one can only decide that John has begun to re-interpret the tradi tional eschatology. When John’s eschatology is compared, for example, to Paul, it is obvious that while Paul may differ from the early Christian community, John has made a distinct emphasis in eschatology as a possibility of existence in the present. Thus, if John has begun a re interpretation of eschatology should not modern theology follow his example? Should modern scholarship be satis fied with an unbridgeable "present-future" tension to its eschatology? The program of demythologizing mapped out by Bultmann recommends itself as the goal toward which the trajectory of John's re-interprétâtion is directed. Bultmann's restatement of eschatology in terms meaningful to modern man agrees with John's restatement of eschatology 190 ! in his day and should, thus, be regarded as the ultimate result of that which is anticipated in John's Gospel. n BI B LIO GR APH Y BIBLIOGRAPHY Albright, F. W. "Bultmann's History and Eschatology," Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXVII (September, 1953), 244-248. i Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich, F. W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Cambridge: The University Press, 19 57. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John. New York: SPCK, 1960. Bartsch, Hans Werner (ed.). Kerygma and Myth. New York : Harper and Row, 19 61. Beasley-Murray, G. R. "Demythologized Eschatology," Theology Today, XIV (April, 1957), 61-79. Benard, J. H. The Gospel According to St. John. New York : Charles Scribners Sons, 19 29. Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins. New York : Charles Scribners Sons, 1961. Bornkamm, Gunther. Jesus of Nazareth. Trans. James M. Robinson. London : Hodder and Stroughton, 1960 . Braaten, C. E., and Harrisville, Roy (eds.). Kerygma and History. New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1962. Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. New York : Charles Scribners Sons, 1912. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John I-XII. New York : Doubleday and Co., 1966 . Bultmann, Rudolf. Das Evangelium des Johannes. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 19 57. 192 193 Bultmann, Rudolf. History and Eschatology: The Presence I of Eternity. New York and Evanston: Harper and I Row, 19 57. i "History and Eschatology in the New Testament, t r I New Testament Studies, 1 (1954-1955), 5-16. . Jesus and the Word. Trans. L. P. Smith and E. H. Lantero. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1934. _. Jesus Christ and Mythology. London: SCM Press, 1958. _____ ^ Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting. Trans. R. H. Fuller. New York : Merid ian Books, 1956. . The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Trans. John Marsh. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1963. _______ _. Theology of the New Testament. Trans. Kendrick Grobel. 2 vols. New York : Charles Scribners Sons, 1951. ________ , and Jaspers, Karl. Myth and Christianity : An Inquiry into the Possibility of Religion Without Myth. Trans. Norbert Guterman. New York : The Noonday Press, 1958. \ ________ , and Kundsin, Karl. Form Criticism. Trans. F. C. Grant. New York : Harper and Brothers, 19 34. Colwell, E. C., and Titus, E. L. The Gospel of the Spirit. New York : Harper and Brothers, 195 3. Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. Trans. A. S. Todd and J. B. Torrance. London : SCM Press, 1953 . Dibelius, Martin. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. London: SCM Press, 1956. Dodd, C. H. The Johannine Epistles. London : Hodder and Stroughton, 1946. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cam bridge : The University Press, 1965. Doresse, Jean. The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics. Trans. Philip Mairet. New York : Viking Press, 194 1 1960 . Enslin, M. S. Christian Beginnings. New York: Harper and Row, 1938. Frankfurt, Henry, et al. Before Philosophy. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1946. Fuller, Reginald H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1965 . The Mission and Achievement of Jesus. London : SCM Press, 1954. ________ . The New Testament in Current Study. London : SCM Press, 1963. Funk, Robert W. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. New York, Evanston and London : Harper and Row, 1966 . Grant, F. C. Roman Hellenism and the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1962i Higgins, A. J. B. The Lord's Supper in the New Testament. London : SCM Press, 1952 . ! Holwerda, D. E. The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in the I Gospel of John. Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1959. 'Hoskyns, E. C., and Davey, F. N. The Fourth Gospel. 2nd ed. revised. London : Faber and Faber, 1940. Howard, W. F. Christianity According to John. London : Duckworth, 19 4 3. ________ . The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation. London: The Epworth Press, 19 31. Hyatt, J. Philip (ed.). The Bible in Modern Scholarship. Nashville and New York : Abingdon Press, 1965 . Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistie Words of Jesus. Trans. Norman Perrin. New York ; Charles Scribners Sons, 1966 . Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion. 2nd ed. revised. Boston: Beacon Hill Press, 1963. 195 Kallas, James. "The Apocalypse--An Apocalyptic Book?" Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXXVI (March, 1967), 69-80. Klassen, William, and Snyder, Graydon F. (eds.). Current Issues in New Testament Scholarship. New York; Harper and Brothers, 1962. Kegley, Charles W. (ed.). The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann. New York: Harper and Row, 19 66. Korner, Johannes. Eschatologie und Geschichte. Hamburg- Bergstadt: Herbert Reich-Evangelische Verlag, 1957 . Kummel, W. G. Promise and Fulfillment. Trans. D. M. Barton. London : SCM Press, 1961. Macgregor, G. H. C. The Gospel of John. London : Hodder and Stroughton, 1928. Macquarrie, John. An Existentialist Theology: A Compari son of Heidegger and Bultmann. New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1955. Studies in Christian Existentialism. Philadel phia: Westminster Press, 1965. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh. Trans. G. W. Ander son. New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1954. Ogden, Shubert M. Christ Without Myth. New York and Evanston : Harper and Row, 1961. ________ . (ed.). Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann. Cleveland and New York : World Publishing Company, 1960. Perrin, Norman. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963. Robinson, J. A. T. Honest to God. Philadelphia: West minster Press, 1963. ________ * In the End, God . . . London : James Clark and Company, 19 50. , ____ . Twelve New Testament Studies. London : SCM Pres s, 19 6 2 . 196 I Rordorf, W. "The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann and Second ! Century Gnosis," New Testament Studies, XIII | (July, 1967), 351-362. | Russell, D. S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyp- j tic. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956. Gchmauch, Werner (ed.). In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer. Stuttgart : Evangelisches Verlagswerk GMBH, 1951. Schneider, Johannes, "Dare We Follow Bultmann?" Chris tianity Today, V (June, 1961), 6-9. Shires, Henry M. The Eschatology of Paul in the Light of Modern Scholarship. Philadelphia : Westminster Press, 1966, Smith, Dwight M. The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel. New Haven and London : Yale University Press, 1965. Stendahl, Krister (ed,). The Scrolls and the New Testa ment . New York : Harper and Brothers, 1957 . van Hartingsveld, L. Die Eschatologie des Johannesevan- geliums. Assen: van Garcum and Comp., 1962. Wendt, H. H. The Gospel According to St. John. Trans. Edward Lummis. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 19 02. Westcott, B. F. The Epistles of St. John. London : MacMillan and Company, 19 05. Wilson, R. M. The Gnostic Problem. London : A. R. Mowbray and Co., 19 5 8.

Asset Metadata

Creator Hedrick, Charles Webster (author)

Core Title Eschatological existence: The meaning of eschatology: A study of Rudolf Bultmann's understanding of eschatology in the New Testament

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Master of Arts

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,philosophy, religion and theology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c39-380022

Unique identifier UC11313411

Identifier EP65318.pdf (filename),usctheses-c39-380022 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP65318.pdf

Dmrecord 380022

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Hedrick, Charles Webster

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA