What do you think?
Rate this book
Library of Early Christology
The Christology of the New Testament
This book is invigorating to read, for it is how biblical theology should be written. Professor Cullmann has set a high standard of biblical scholarship in this book, and it will be a great resource for students of scripture.
364 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1957
3 people are currently reading
97 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 16, 2022
I just finished "The Christology of the New Testament, Revised Edition," by Oscar Cullmann (translated by Shirley C. Gunthrie and Charles A. M. Hall), 1957.
This is the Christology that other Christological works footnote.
We can see by early creedal affirmations that Christ is seen in His role in creation (not just redemption) but the Father can be seen in His relation to Christ, as the one who resurrected Him. We must allow this overlap of economy: Christ preexistant in creation and the Father continually working for our salvation.
The titles of Christ are attempts to explain His uniqueness and His uniqueness is the question to the Christological problem (what was Jesus' self-consciousness?). Cullmann will use form criticism to achieve this without falling into skepticism.
"Christology is the doctrine of an 'event,' not a doctrine of natures," p9.
Cullmann dives into Christology as it pertains to the person of Christ via His titles:
The earthly work of Christ--
Prophet:
The profession of prophet in Israel was long gone by the time of the Christ event. Jesus wasn't called a prophet along with others but the prophet, the final and eschatological prophet who would fulfill all prophecy. (Extra points if you remember that the going use of prophet during this time was proclaimer; foreteller was extremely rare.) Prophecy carried an eschatological element with it so when John the Baptist appeared it was taken (after years of prophetic absence) to be an eschatological event if not the beginning of the last things.
I'm not very far in but I can tell how Cullmann got so heavily footnoted. He is easy to read for a German translation and he is going places I haven't read about yet. I have said to friends that I have to stop going backwards reading the footnoted works and read the new works but I'm glad I grabbed this one.
That the Baptist was a forerunner prophet for the Messiah can be seen most concretely in he was a prophet of the Word of God (Jesus). This is kinda awesome: the prophets of the OT got the word of God but John got the Word of God and proclaimed His coming. John proclaimed the coming of the radiant essence of God. The OT prophets got the intention of God while John proclaimed the coming of Very-God.
Jesus as prophet, LOGOS, and Christ edges Moses out of the slot of absolute prophet. This can be seen in His "you have heard it said...but I say to you..." comments where Jesus sifts the law and prophets by His own authority; the prophet brings the word of God, Jesus is the Word of God. Some apocryphal writings linked the suffering servant directly to the Messiah. It is here that we can speak of a suffering Messiah. But nothing demands him be consciously suffering vicariously in atonement.
The suffering servant of God:
Cullmann links the suffering servant in Is. to representation and salvation history/history of salvation. The passages in Is. sometimes speak individually and sometimes as "Israel." This would make the suffering servant as the one representative of the whole people. One link Cullmann makes between the suffering servant of Is. and Jesus is the eucharistic saying in four places in the NT about dying "for many." When did Jesus know he was the suffering servant?--Cullmann suggests that at his baptism when all reports of "you are my son..." has Greek that corresponds to the Septuagint in Is. 42's similar wording.
This Christological motif is quite old. It is able to be traced to the proclamation of the infant church in Stephen and the Ethiopian, not to mention four occurances from Peter in Acts.
High Priest:
Jesus is the final high priest because He is the final priest of the New covenant, the fulfillment of all priests, He is also the temple rebuilt in three days; incarnated, "He came and dwelt [tabernacled] among us."
The Hebrew writer considers Jesus in shockingly human and Divine terms and in so doing makes us see Him as the final High Priest and the completion (TELOS) of His work as the totality of His life, death and resurrection.
The future work of Christ--
Messiah:
The Jews expected a political Messiah and priestly Messiah but not a single Messiah. The temptation in the desert was Satan offering Jesus the world of political Kingdoms rather than Isreals kingdom unknowing that Jesus was bringing a different kind of Kingdom and he was both the political and priestly Messiah. This is echoed in Peter saying Jesus is the Messiah and then when he tells Jesus that he won't die Jesus tells him as Satan to get behind Him. This should also reflect how great were both Satans and Peter's temptations for political power. Jesus rejected it. Be like Jesus.
Son of Man:
One thing to keep in mind here is that when the Jews were trying to get Rome to drop the hammer on Jesus by admitting that he was the Messiah (read: a competing ruler, King of the Jews) Jesus really only admitted that "you say so but I say that you will see the Son of Man coming..." So we can't read Messiah and Son of Man as the same thing in a title. Jesus was owning something different in Son of Man than in Messiah. I believe it easily stretches out to Rm 5 where we see Adam (man/humanity) and the new Adam, Jesus (Son of Man/Humanity), and how that works into Recapitulation or "reheading" mankind. Jesus'preference for the title of Son of Man blends Jesus' then present and future, eschatological, duties together into one title.
The present--exalted--work of Jesus--
Jesus the Lord (KYRIOS):
Hellenism saw the title KYRIOS come into popularity as a revolution against Rome and especially Emperor worship. Also since religions external to Judaism and Christianity utilized KYRIOS, like the Egyptian religion(s) for Osiris and Isis, for the exalted Jesus to be designated KYRIOS is to remove that honor from false gods; they have been conquered by and subjected to Christ the KYRIOS. KYRIOS meaning owner/master shows why it was desired by the Emperor. The Jews wouldn't speak the holy name of Yahweh and soon the Hebrew Adonai became a substitute. A couple hundred years before the incarnation of Jesus the Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek and where Adonai became KYRIOS. The Divinity of KYRIOS is apparent.
Maranatha is the Aramaic for "Lord Come," Mar = Adonai = KYRIOS = Lord. This was a eucharistic prayer which had a double meaning of "Lord come at the end to establish your Kingdom," and "Lord come now while we are gathered at this meal." The Early church had a realized eschatology: it was realized during the eschatological meal (that's some legit writing on Cullmann's part). Maranatha is His ever presence and His coming.
What function of the exalted Christ does KYRIOS point? First KYRIOS echos PS. 110: 1, which is the most often quoted OT passage in the NT: "The LORD [Yahweh] says to my lord [Adonai=KYRIOS] 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'." 1 PT. 3:22 reflects this with "angels, authorities and powers" as the enemies and footstool. Other places in the NT reflect this inaugurated eschatology of a already ruling KYRIOS who has not yet consummated His Kingdom and yet has conquered His foe.
Christological titles which point to the preexistance of Christ--
Jesus the Word (LOGOS):
Cullmann begins by saying that LOGOS Christology is only supported in the Johannine writings and not often there.
This is a tough one to track down. LOGOS was used in philosophy like stoicism and Platonism, other religions like Egyptian and Hellenistic ones, and also in Judaism (remember the influential LXX which was the OT from in Greek). The philosophers and other religions didn't know of a personal (hypostasis) LOGOS. JN. 1 plays on GN. 1 and one need not look far to find "the Word of God" therein. Further, once in PS. one begins to see a personified LOGOS who acts as a mediator (33:6; 107:20; 147:15). The most personified we find the LOGOS in the OT is IS. 55:10. Also in Jewish writings the LOGOS and SOPHIA (Word and Wisdom) get quite close to each other almost to the point of interchangeably.
And so much more.
I'll leave you with this:
"It is only meaningful to speak of the Son in view of God's revelatory action, not in view of His being," p 293.
"A oneness of essence exists because there is a oneness of will," p 300.
#TheChristologyOfTheNewTestament #Christology #NewTestamentChristology #OscarCullmann #Cullmann #Kenosis #Kyrios #Logos #KenoticChristology #KyriosChristology #LogosChristology #BiblicalScholarship #NewTestamentScholarship
This is the Christology that other Christological works footnote.
We can see by early creedal affirmations that Christ is seen in His role in creation (not just redemption) but the Father can be seen in His relation to Christ, as the one who resurrected Him. We must allow this overlap of economy: Christ preexistant in creation and the Father continually working for our salvation.
The titles of Christ are attempts to explain His uniqueness and His uniqueness is the question to the Christological problem (what was Jesus' self-consciousness?). Cullmann will use form criticism to achieve this without falling into skepticism.
"Christology is the doctrine of an 'event,' not a doctrine of natures," p9.
Cullmann dives into Christology as it pertains to the person of Christ via His titles:
The earthly work of Christ--
Prophet:
The profession of prophet in Israel was long gone by the time of the Christ event. Jesus wasn't called a prophet along with others but the prophet, the final and eschatological prophet who would fulfill all prophecy. (Extra points if you remember that the going use of prophet during this time was proclaimer; foreteller was extremely rare.) Prophecy carried an eschatological element with it so when John the Baptist appeared it was taken (after years of prophetic absence) to be an eschatological event if not the beginning of the last things.
I'm not very far in but I can tell how Cullmann got so heavily footnoted. He is easy to read for a German translation and he is going places I haven't read about yet. I have said to friends that I have to stop going backwards reading the footnoted works and read the new works but I'm glad I grabbed this one.
That the Baptist was a forerunner prophet for the Messiah can be seen most concretely in he was a prophet of the Word of God (Jesus). This is kinda awesome: the prophets of the OT got the word of God but John got the Word of God and proclaimed His coming. John proclaimed the coming of the radiant essence of God. The OT prophets got the intention of God while John proclaimed the coming of Very-God.
Jesus as prophet, LOGOS, and Christ edges Moses out of the slot of absolute prophet. This can be seen in His "you have heard it said...but I say to you..." comments where Jesus sifts the law and prophets by His own authority; the prophet brings the word of God, Jesus is the Word of God. Some apocryphal writings linked the suffering servant directly to the Messiah. It is here that we can speak of a suffering Messiah. But nothing demands him be consciously suffering vicariously in atonement.
The suffering servant of God:
Cullmann links the suffering servant in Is. to representation and salvation history/history of salvation. The passages in Is. sometimes speak individually and sometimes as "Israel." This would make the suffering servant as the one representative of the whole people. One link Cullmann makes between the suffering servant of Is. and Jesus is the eucharistic saying in four places in the NT about dying "for many." When did Jesus know he was the suffering servant?--Cullmann suggests that at his baptism when all reports of "you are my son..." has Greek that corresponds to the Septuagint in Is. 42's similar wording.
This Christological motif is quite old. It is able to be traced to the proclamation of the infant church in Stephen and the Ethiopian, not to mention four occurances from Peter in Acts.
High Priest:
Jesus is the final high priest because He is the final priest of the New covenant, the fulfillment of all priests, He is also the temple rebuilt in three days; incarnated, "He came and dwelt [tabernacled] among us."
The Hebrew writer considers Jesus in shockingly human and Divine terms and in so doing makes us see Him as the final High Priest and the completion (TELOS) of His work as the totality of His life, death and resurrection.
The future work of Christ--
Messiah:
The Jews expected a political Messiah and priestly Messiah but not a single Messiah. The temptation in the desert was Satan offering Jesus the world of political Kingdoms rather than Isreals kingdom unknowing that Jesus was bringing a different kind of Kingdom and he was both the political and priestly Messiah. This is echoed in Peter saying Jesus is the Messiah and then when he tells Jesus that he won't die Jesus tells him as Satan to get behind Him. This should also reflect how great were both Satans and Peter's temptations for political power. Jesus rejected it. Be like Jesus.
Son of Man:
One thing to keep in mind here is that when the Jews were trying to get Rome to drop the hammer on Jesus by admitting that he was the Messiah (read: a competing ruler, King of the Jews) Jesus really only admitted that "you say so but I say that you will see the Son of Man coming..." So we can't read Messiah and Son of Man as the same thing in a title. Jesus was owning something different in Son of Man than in Messiah. I believe it easily stretches out to Rm 5 where we see Adam (man/humanity) and the new Adam, Jesus (Son of Man/Humanity), and how that works into Recapitulation or "reheading" mankind. Jesus'preference for the title of Son of Man blends Jesus' then present and future, eschatological, duties together into one title.
The present--exalted--work of Jesus--
Jesus the Lord (KYRIOS):
Hellenism saw the title KYRIOS come into popularity as a revolution against Rome and especially Emperor worship. Also since religions external to Judaism and Christianity utilized KYRIOS, like the Egyptian religion(s) for Osiris and Isis, for the exalted Jesus to be designated KYRIOS is to remove that honor from false gods; they have been conquered by and subjected to Christ the KYRIOS. KYRIOS meaning owner/master shows why it was desired by the Emperor. The Jews wouldn't speak the holy name of Yahweh and soon the Hebrew Adonai became a substitute. A couple hundred years before the incarnation of Jesus the Hebrew scripture was translated into Greek and where Adonai became KYRIOS. The Divinity of KYRIOS is apparent.
Maranatha is the Aramaic for "Lord Come," Mar = Adonai = KYRIOS = Lord. This was a eucharistic prayer which had a double meaning of "Lord come at the end to establish your Kingdom," and "Lord come now while we are gathered at this meal." The Early church had a realized eschatology: it was realized during the eschatological meal (that's some legit writing on Cullmann's part). Maranatha is His ever presence and His coming.
What function of the exalted Christ does KYRIOS point? First KYRIOS echos PS. 110: 1, which is the most often quoted OT passage in the NT: "The LORD [Yahweh] says to my lord [Adonai=KYRIOS] 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'." 1 PT. 3:22 reflects this with "angels, authorities and powers" as the enemies and footstool. Other places in the NT reflect this inaugurated eschatology of a already ruling KYRIOS who has not yet consummated His Kingdom and yet has conquered His foe.
Christological titles which point to the preexistance of Christ--
Jesus the Word (LOGOS):
Cullmann begins by saying that LOGOS Christology is only supported in the Johannine writings and not often there.
This is a tough one to track down. LOGOS was used in philosophy like stoicism and Platonism, other religions like Egyptian and Hellenistic ones, and also in Judaism (remember the influential LXX which was the OT from in Greek). The philosophers and other religions didn't know of a personal (hypostasis) LOGOS. JN. 1 plays on GN. 1 and one need not look far to find "the Word of God" therein. Further, once in PS. one begins to see a personified LOGOS who acts as a mediator (33:6; 107:20; 147:15). The most personified we find the LOGOS in the OT is IS. 55:10. Also in Jewish writings the LOGOS and SOPHIA (Word and Wisdom) get quite close to each other almost to the point of interchangeably.
And so much more.
I'll leave you with this:
"It is only meaningful to speak of the Son in view of God's revelatory action, not in view of His being," p 293.
"A oneness of essence exists because there is a oneness of will," p 300.
#TheChristologyOfTheNewTestament #Christology #NewTestamentChristology #OscarCullmann #Cullmann #Kenosis #Kyrios #Logos #KenoticChristology #KyriosChristology #LogosChristology #BiblicalScholarship #NewTestamentScholarship
May 29, 2024
AN INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTOLOGY AS ‘SALVATION HISTORY’
[NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 342-page edition.]
Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999) was a German Christian theologian in the Lutheran tradition, best known for his work in the ecumenical movement. He wrote many books, such as Early Christian Worship, Baptism in the New Testament, The Johannine Circle, etc.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1957 book, “To the reader: The structure of the book might suggest that it could be used as a work of reference on the Christology of the New Testament. But it should not be used in this way… because… the various parts are very closely connected… This book is an exegetical work… I emphasize here that I know no other ‘method’ than the proven philological-historical one. I know of no other ‘attitude’ than … the willingness to guard against designating a biblical statement a dispensable ‘form’ because it is unacceptable to me on the basis of my opinions.”
He observes, “What is true for John the Baptist in this respect is also true of Jesus: the very fact that a prophet appeared again after the long interruption of prophecy was considered in itself a sign that the end time was breaking in. The appearance of Jesus, of course, may have caused less of a sensation in this respect after the appearance of John as a prophet shortly before him.” (Pg. 30)
He suggests, “The function of the eschatological prophet in the Jewish texts consists primarily in preparing the people of Israel and the world by his preaching for the coming of the Kingdom of God. He fulfills this function… as the immediate Preparer of the way for the Kingdom of God itself… This function exactly corresponds to the earthly vocation of Jesus as he actually conceived and executed it… He wants to prepare men to become members of the coming Kingdom. No one contests the eschatological aim of Jesus’ preaching.” (Pg. 43-44)
He states, “Concerning the EARTHLY work of Jesus, we can say that the ‘ebed Yahweh’ [‘Servant of Yahweh’] concept comprehends the central Christological event in a way which does full justice to the total witness of the New Testament. The atoning death of Jesus is not only the central act of his earthly life, but also the central act of the total history of salvation from the first creation … to the new creation at the end of time.” (Pg. 80)
He notes, “This statement of Hebrews [4:15], which thus goes beyond the Synoptic reports of Jesus’ being tempted, is perhaps the boldest assertion of the completely human character of Jesus in the New Testament. It … casts a special light on the life of Jesus, leading us to consider aspects of his life with which we are not acquainted and with which the author of Hebrews was probably not acquainted… We know nothing exact about these temptations …” (Pg. 95)
He says, “Along with the concept ‘ebed Yahweh,’ the Son of Man is the most important concept we have to investigate. Its Christological use also goes back to Jesus himself… the ‘ebed Yahweh’ concept explains the Christological work of the incarnate Jesus in an exhaustive way. Above all it explains the central act of salvation, his death… the idea of the Son of Man … embraces the total work of Jesus as does almost no other idea.” (Pg. 137)
He argues, “It is relevant to the much maligned ‘Jesus and Paul’ debate that precisely at this point we find a basic agreement between the two. In this Christologically important passage [Rom 5:12, ff], Paul united the two basic concepts Son of Man and Servant of God exactly as Jesus united them… The very fact that [the early Church] … use the term ‘Son of Man’ and emphasize the ideas connected with the ‘ebed Yahweh’ when they report Jesus speaking shows that at this point they do not simply reflect the early Church’s theology. They preserve the memory of a historical situation. It is therefore all the more noteworthy that the Apostle Paul here interprets Jesus’ own thoughts so correctly.” (Pg. 171)
He asserts, “the title ‘Logos’ as a designation for Jesus occurs in the Gospel of John only in the prologue, and in only two passages in the other Johannine writings. It is used as a title for Jesus in other New Testament writings and in no other early Christian literature except that of Ignatius of Antioch… One might think, therefore, that the Logos is not a central concept of other New Testament… Nevertheless this title expresses very forcefully an important aspect of New Testament Christology---the unity in historical revelation of the incarnate and the pre-existent Jesus.” (Pg. 258)
He summarizes, “Here lies the key to all New Testament Christology. It is only meaningful to speak of the Son in view of God’s revelatory action, not in view of his being. But precisely for this reason, Father and Son are really one in this activity. Now we can say of the ‘Son of God’ what we said earlier of the Logos: he is God as God reveals himself in redemptive action... Therefore the kingdom in which we live now, before the end, is the ‘kingdom of the Son.’” (Pg. 293-294)
He concludes, “All Christology is founded upon the life of Jesus… The question ‘Who is Jesus?’ did not emerge for the first time with the early community’s experience of Easter. The life of Jesus already provided the starting point of all Christological thought in a double way: in Jesus’ own self-consciousness and in the concrete presentiment his person and work evoked among the disciples and the people. From the moment of his baptism Jesus himself was conscious of carrying out God’s plan... he was conscious of fulfilling this double function of the ‘Servant of God’ and the ‘Son of Man’ in the complete and unique oneness with God which he experienced continually and in a manner beyond all human possibilities as the ‘Son.’ … The few sayings in which Jesus spoke with deliberate reserve about this ‘self-consciousness’ did not directly cause the disciples to raise the Christological question during his lifetime… it was simply acquaintance with [Jesus] and with the teaching and activity they witnessed which led [the disciples] to ask what kind of man he was and what his actions signified.” (Pg. 317-318) Later, he adds, “Therefore all Christology is Heilsgeschichte [salvation history], and all Heilsgeschichte is Christology.” (Pg. 326)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the historical development of Christology.
[NOTE: page numbers below refer to a 342-page edition.]
Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999) was a German Christian theologian in the Lutheran tradition, best known for his work in the ecumenical movement. He wrote many books, such as Early Christian Worship, Baptism in the New Testament, The Johannine Circle, etc.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1957 book, “To the reader: The structure of the book might suggest that it could be used as a work of reference on the Christology of the New Testament. But it should not be used in this way… because… the various parts are very closely connected… This book is an exegetical work… I emphasize here that I know no other ‘method’ than the proven philological-historical one. I know of no other ‘attitude’ than … the willingness to guard against designating a biblical statement a dispensable ‘form’ because it is unacceptable to me on the basis of my opinions.”
He observes, “What is true for John the Baptist in this respect is also true of Jesus: the very fact that a prophet appeared again after the long interruption of prophecy was considered in itself a sign that the end time was breaking in. The appearance of Jesus, of course, may have caused less of a sensation in this respect after the appearance of John as a prophet shortly before him.” (Pg. 30)
He suggests, “The function of the eschatological prophet in the Jewish texts consists primarily in preparing the people of Israel and the world by his preaching for the coming of the Kingdom of God. He fulfills this function… as the immediate Preparer of the way for the Kingdom of God itself… This function exactly corresponds to the earthly vocation of Jesus as he actually conceived and executed it… He wants to prepare men to become members of the coming Kingdom. No one contests the eschatological aim of Jesus’ preaching.” (Pg. 43-44)
He states, “Concerning the EARTHLY work of Jesus, we can say that the ‘ebed Yahweh’ [‘Servant of Yahweh’] concept comprehends the central Christological event in a way which does full justice to the total witness of the New Testament. The atoning death of Jesus is not only the central act of his earthly life, but also the central act of the total history of salvation from the first creation … to the new creation at the end of time.” (Pg. 80)
He notes, “This statement of Hebrews [4:15], which thus goes beyond the Synoptic reports of Jesus’ being tempted, is perhaps the boldest assertion of the completely human character of Jesus in the New Testament. It … casts a special light on the life of Jesus, leading us to consider aspects of his life with which we are not acquainted and with which the author of Hebrews was probably not acquainted… We know nothing exact about these temptations …” (Pg. 95)
He says, “Along with the concept ‘ebed Yahweh,’ the Son of Man is the most important concept we have to investigate. Its Christological use also goes back to Jesus himself… the ‘ebed Yahweh’ concept explains the Christological work of the incarnate Jesus in an exhaustive way. Above all it explains the central act of salvation, his death… the idea of the Son of Man … embraces the total work of Jesus as does almost no other idea.” (Pg. 137)
He argues, “It is relevant to the much maligned ‘Jesus and Paul’ debate that precisely at this point we find a basic agreement between the two. In this Christologically important passage [Rom 5:12, ff], Paul united the two basic concepts Son of Man and Servant of God exactly as Jesus united them… The very fact that [the early Church] … use the term ‘Son of Man’ and emphasize the ideas connected with the ‘ebed Yahweh’ when they report Jesus speaking shows that at this point they do not simply reflect the early Church’s theology. They preserve the memory of a historical situation. It is therefore all the more noteworthy that the Apostle Paul here interprets Jesus’ own thoughts so correctly.” (Pg. 171)
He asserts, “the title ‘Logos’ as a designation for Jesus occurs in the Gospel of John only in the prologue, and in only two passages in the other Johannine writings. It is used as a title for Jesus in other New Testament writings and in no other early Christian literature except that of Ignatius of Antioch… One might think, therefore, that the Logos is not a central concept of other New Testament… Nevertheless this title expresses very forcefully an important aspect of New Testament Christology---the unity in historical revelation of the incarnate and the pre-existent Jesus.” (Pg. 258)
He summarizes, “Here lies the key to all New Testament Christology. It is only meaningful to speak of the Son in view of God’s revelatory action, not in view of his being. But precisely for this reason, Father and Son are really one in this activity. Now we can say of the ‘Son of God’ what we said earlier of the Logos: he is God as God reveals himself in redemptive action... Therefore the kingdom in which we live now, before the end, is the ‘kingdom of the Son.’” (Pg. 293-294)
He concludes, “All Christology is founded upon the life of Jesus… The question ‘Who is Jesus?’ did not emerge for the first time with the early community’s experience of Easter. The life of Jesus already provided the starting point of all Christological thought in a double way: in Jesus’ own self-consciousness and in the concrete presentiment his person and work evoked among the disciples and the people. From the moment of his baptism Jesus himself was conscious of carrying out God’s plan... he was conscious of fulfilling this double function of the ‘Servant of God’ and the ‘Son of Man’ in the complete and unique oneness with God which he experienced continually and in a manner beyond all human possibilities as the ‘Son.’ … The few sayings in which Jesus spoke with deliberate reserve about this ‘self-consciousness’ did not directly cause the disciples to raise the Christological question during his lifetime… it was simply acquaintance with [Jesus] and with the teaching and activity they witnessed which led [the disciples] to ask what kind of man he was and what his actions signified.” (Pg. 317-318) Later, he adds, “Therefore all Christology is Heilsgeschichte [salvation history], and all Heilsgeschichte is Christology.” (Pg. 326)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the historical development of Christology.
December 6, 2011
Classic work and "must read" for every pastor and serious student of the New Testament.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews