By Schubert Ogden
Page History
...
A key concept in Marxsen's discussion in Die Auferstehung Jesu von Nazareth is "the offer of Jesus" (Jesu Angebot/der Angebot Jesu). Clearly, "the offer of Jesus" is interchangeable with "the faith that the earthly Jesus brought" (der Glaube, der der irdisehe irdische Jesus brac1ztebrachte). Thus he can say in succeeding sentences, lies "es geht immer mll um den Glauben, den del' der irdisehe Jesus braehtebrachte" and "es geht um sein Angebot" (150). Only a few pages later, then, he can define a heretic as "one who does not live out of Jesus' offer" (der, del' nieht der niect aus dem Angebot JesulebtJesu lebt) and say that lithe "the only question -- christianly -- is whether one is willing to accept Jesus' offer, and that means, in this world, in this life, to have to do with God" (die Frage, aufdie auf die es -- christlich -ehristlieh- allein ankommt: Wagt man es, sieh aufden auf den Angebot Jesu einzulassen, und das heij3theißt, es in dieser Welt, in diesem Leben mit Gott zu tUIl tun zu habellhaben) (157 f.).unmigrated-wiki-markup
_The other term that is evidently interchangeable with "the offer of Jesus" is "the demand of Jesus"__(Jesu Zumutung{_}_/_ _die Zumutung Jesu). _ _ Just as Marxsen speaks of accepting Jesus' offer _ _(sieh aufden Angebot Jesu (sich auf den Angebot Jesu einlassen), _ _ so can he speak about accepting Jesus' demand as well as Jesus' word. _ _"Sieh aufdas Wort des irdisehen Jeslls einzulassen forderte ein vertrauendes Glauben. Das war ein Wagnis. Dem irdisehen Jesus konnte man nieht ansehen, wer er war. Man konnte immer nul' glauben, daft er Gott aufdieser Erde vertratt; llnd man konnte das nur dann glauben, wenn man sieh aufseine Zumutung einliej3. Eine Sieherullg, die dieser Einlassung auf Jesu Zumutung vorausging, gab es nieht. Zeic1lenforderullgen, die ilm erst eimnal legitimierell sollen, hat Jesus abgelehnt._ _Er_ _war au\!,wagenden Glauben aus" (154)._ _But, significantly, all this is cast in the past tense--notwithstanding Marxsen's reiterated defense of Bultmann's "form critical reservation." That Jesus is represented in the synoptic traidition as having offered/demanded is clear enough. But, as Bornkamm rightly stressed,__"in_ _narrating the history that once was \[the gospels\] proclaim who Jesus is, not who he was." In other words, "the point of the witnesses in so representing \[Jesus\] was not to report what he did in the past, but rather to bear witness to what he was doing in the present-not only to them, but through their witness of faith also to their own hearers. Jesus, they claimed, is the one through whom both they themselves and then, by means_ _2{_}{_}of their witness, all of their own hearers as well are decisively re-presented with the gift and demand_
a strictly existential-historical assertion-the assertion, namely, that
love-not
boundless love are Inade fully explicit as authorizing our own possibility of
authentic faith and love"
"Sich auf das Wort des irdischen Jesus einzulassen forderte ein vertrauendes Glauben. Das war ein Wagnis. Dem irdischen Jesus konnte man niect ansehen, wer er war. Man konnte immer nur glauben, daß er Gott auf dieser Erde vertratt; und man konnte das nur dann glauben, wenn man sich auf seine Zumutung einließ. Eine Sicherung, die dieser Einlassung auf Jesu Zumutung vorausging, gab es nicht. Zeichenforderungen, die ihn erst eimnal legitimieren sollen, hat Jesus abgelehnt. Er war auf wagenden Glauben aus" (154).
But, significantly, all this is cast in the past tense-notwithstanding Marxsen's reiterated defense of Bultmann's "form critical reservation." That Jesus is represented in the synoptic tradition as having offered/demanded is clear enough. But, as Bornkamm rightly stressed,"in narrating the history that once was [the gospels] proclaim who Jesus is, not who he was." In other words, "the point of the witnesses in so representing [Jesus] was not to report what he did in the past, but rather to bear witness to what he was doing in the present -- not only to them, but through their witness of faith also to their own hearers. Jesus, they claimed, is the one through whom both they themselves and then, by means of their witness, all of their own hearers as well are decisively re-presented with the gift and demand [sc. den Angebot und die Zumutung] of God's love, and hence with the possibility of authentic existence in faith and returning love. Accordingly, to accept their claim in no way requires one to assent to the truth of certain empirical-historical assertions about Jesusto the effect that he himself made or implied the same claim now represented in their witness of faith. On the contrary, whatever the truth or falsity of any such empirical-historical assertions, to accept the claim represented in the apostolic witness as Jesus' claim is to accept a strictly existential-historical assertion-the assertion, namely, that Jesus means love--not that Jesus meant love, however true that may be also, but that Jesus means love, in the sense that through him the gift and demand of God's boundless love are Inade fully explicit as authorizing our own possibility of authentic faith and love"(The Point of Christology: 121 f.).
So, too, Wittgenstein:
"Das Christentum gründet sich nicht auf eine historische Wahrheit, sondern es gibt uns eine (historische) Nachricht und sagt: jetzt glaube! Aber nicht, glaube diese Nachricht mit dem Glauben, der zu einer geschichtlichen Nachricht gehört,-- sondern: glaube, durch dick und dünn und das kannst Du nur als Resultat eines Lebens. Hier hast Du eine Nachricht, -- verhalte Dich zu ihr nicht wie zu einer anderen historischen Nachricht! Lass sie eine ganz andere Stelle in Deinem Leben einnehmen. Daran ist nichts Paradoxes!"
13 April 2009Wiki Markup
Overview
Content Tools