The Understanding of Revelation: Our Dialogue with Existential Interpretation

It is necessary to preserve intact the revelation of the Bible which lays hold of so many layers of human existence, and not to lose sight of God’s way among men and in Israel. Man is related to God as creature to Creator, as object of God’s grace and judgment, and in his responsibility for his fellowmen. We should be aware in the present situation of these basic principles of God’s dealing with men because our world has fallen into disorder, and it doubts and even rejects so much of His word and commandment pertaining to our lives.

Schleiermacher, by defining religion as feeling and contemplation of the universe, thought in aesthetic categories, and thus missed the earnestness of the fundamental relation which the Bible sets forth between God and man. In the present age, when religion as such is threatened by secularization, we cannot be satisfied with a placid and aesthetic concept of it. We must discern what it is as prophecy and witness.

The reason that Christianity to a large extent has become so weak is because it has wasted its vitality on rationalistic theories and useless controversies. As a result the absoluteness of the biblical message and imperative has been lost to many areas of life. That has endangered its respect also among other religions and faiths. Whoever speaks of revelation must live with a sense of obligation, and not in denial of limits and enamored of Christian liberty. Even concentrating Christian faith on sole allegiance to Jesus Christ can become dangerous for it, when thereby the organic relation between the Old and New Testaments is disrupted. We must, therefore, raise the question, how far the contemporary theological schools enable us: 1. to expound the interrelation of the Old and New Testaments; 2. to take the text of the Bible seriously as God’s living message and instruction; and 3. to integrate the separate historical witness of each book into a total understanding. Thereby an important test is whether we preserve the revelation of God in a way which allows us to engage in fruitful dialogue with Israel as the older people of God.

The Contemporary Movements

The scientific situation of today is characterized by a remarkable state of transition which is quite typical for the general crisis of mankind. Nowhere in the field of science or in spiritual life do we find anything complete and definite which is able to determine the future. We can merely recognize beginnings, experiments, and critical comparisons and contrasts with previous scientific results. Existential interpretation which, in the area of Protestant theology, is especially connected with the name of Rudolf Bultmann, goes hand in hand with this condition of scientific and spiritual life. In view of the general crisis of mankind we are obliged to take this scientific method of hermeneutics very seriously. It remains to be seen how far it will yield something certain and lasting for future generations. That has been a subject of lively debate for some years, and is still going on.

Besides Bultmann and his followers, who lay stress on hermeneutics and existential exegesis, there are representatives also in German Protestant theology of the dialectic-dogmatic method. For Karl Barth and H. Diem the Word of God is basic, and they seek to uphold dogmatic certainty of interpretation over against the existential hermeneutics of Bultmann.

Last, but not least, we should mention the representatives of historical exegesis. They strive to understand the text out of the process of history and from the meaning inherent in it. As scholars of historical realism I would name in the field of Old Testament: A. Alt and M. Noth; in the field of New Testament: G. Dalman, A. Schlatter, J. Jeremias, and myself. We are not concerned with a romantic or heilsgeschichtliche line of interpretation, but try to grasp anew the objective truth which lies embedded in the process of life and of human existence. It should be clearly recognized that the path of theology, which has been so markedly influenced by the Enlightenment, by the new scientific understanding, by psychology, and by the development of human philosophy, cannot be allowed to forget a former period of scientific understanding. We must learn from the past as we face the tasks which are given in the present situation.

Deficiencies of Existentialism

Although existential interpretation should in principle be receptive to the requirements and criteria adduced above, it is held back by a certain attitude. It considers that its own consequent interpretation of the text is more to be desired than the full variety of biblical themes. Not the biblical word, but the kerygma distilled from it, is taken as decisive. The fact is, however, that the Old Testament proclaims a characteristic message of its own over against the New, that various parts of the New Testament do not entirely coincide with the main Pauline themes. What, then, does existential interpretation do? It proceeds critically to call these passages in question, to subordinate their importance, or to interpret them otherwise than the text intended.

Our understanding of history in the Bible becomes difficult if one uses Formgeschichte, so often connected with existential interpretation, in a radical way. Such is the case when it is assumed that the sayings of Jesus belong to an earlier stage of the tradition, to which later the narrative material was attached. That leads to a skeptical attitude toward the life of Jesus. Must we, however, give up a realistic picture of Jesus for the sake of the kerygma? If the historical elements, which the Evangelists used, prove to be unreliable, then the message to be proclaimed, the kerygma, would lose its power. The primitive Christian proclamation did more than offer us the grace of God and summon us to a new understanding of ourselves. It showed how the grace of God, offered through Jesus, was accepted, exhibited, and fulfilled in his life. The truth which he lived out was decisive for the offer and summons of the kerygma. There came into being a definite history which was integral to revelation, and cannot be detached from it. This history could pass through stages, be interrupted and concealed, undergo transformation and renewal, but it retained the character of valid and final truth. All the biblical traditions are directed toward the future goal of God. Their history partakes so essentially of it, that none of them can give it up. To be sure the present ever requires decision, but a decision always with reference to the future which includes and transcends it. As biblical history went on, it issued in traditions which became normative for subsequent times, even though subject to continual question and opposition. But they made their way despite invidious effort from within and without to discredit and to invalidate them. Man was never capable of grasping and holding the mystery of God. The entrance of God’s revelation into history always met with forces which sought to suppress it. From that we know that we must ever hear again and understand anew the history of God’s revelation, and upon the basis of our study and understanding be ready at any time to make a fresh start. But we do not thereby put an end to the past. Its traditions help us to distinguish more clearly between truth and error, light and darkness.

Since each biblical tradition converges upon an ultimate goal, we should hesitate to set one over against another, as the Synoptic against the Johannine, or the Jerusalemic against the Hellenistic. Each performs its service as a strand of history mingling with others to reach a single end. It should not be unraveled and exposed to each person’s existential judgment. The radical existential criticism in Germany today, which puts Paul in opposition to James and to Luke, is in the last analysis unhistorical; for it disguises the inner logic of history whose character as revelation is given us in the Old Testament, and is an important heritage of the Christian faith.

Our present crisis in exegesis recalls the controversy of Apostolic preaching with Gnosis. The Gnostics interpreted the message of the Gospel in the light of the hic et nunc, adapted it to the existence of the believer, to his intention and feelings. That thrust out of the picture the historical setting of the Gospel, the objective continuity of revelation in history, and displaced it with anthropological criteria.

So also existential interpretation discounts the understanding of revelation in history which the Old Testament, itself bound up with that history, began to disclose. It disputes the Messianic self-consciousness of Jesus which linked his life with the hope of Israel. It slights the apocalyptic heritage received from Jewish tradition. All that produces a shrinkage in the substance of the kerygma which cannot be made good by recasting it in the mold of existentialism.

The Inroads of Philosophy

Existential interpretation is drawn from Formgeschichte, from the philosophy of Heidegger, and from the theology of the Reformation. The combination of these various elements lends considerable strength to its method, but therein lies also its weakness. What happens if this combination breaks up? The weakest element within it is that of philosophy. In field of faith and theology it is the element least able to bear its weight. While it offers considerations and reflections which are akin to the Christian faith, they must not be confused with it. The concern of Christian faith is to take God seriously, and to conform experience to his Word, not to interpret philosophically the essence of human existence. It is at this point that Bultmann is the most vulnerable. Existential philosophy imbues the believer with a new sense of self-understanding, whereas the believer should recognize the necessity to be cautious and to admit fallibility of judgment. In the midst of the dangers of history the believer must look beyond himself into a future that is more than his present. In his existence before God the believer can only draw partial conclusions as to the true nature of man from the Bible. It is not likely that at the beginning the kerygma had an anthropology. Certainly the chief aim of theology should not be to develop one, so that it can argue anthropologically.

The theology of the Reformation recovered and interpreted anew the truth of the Bible. It did not make place of itself for radical biblical criticism, of the kind that broke out later in the period of the Enlightenment. When we persist in the same sort of criticism, old struggles within the Christian church are kept alive. Basically the question is whether the faith of which E. Fuchs, G. Ebeling, and others speak today comes from the Bible, or rather from a philosophical position which feels itself constrained to establish a connection with the Bible. Further, can the program of “demythologizing,” which may be meaningful as a philosophical method to obtain theoretical understanding, be carried out in the field of religion? What is most important is not to make faith intelligible to our way of thinking, to our philosophical ideas, but rather to let the process of revelation in history speak for itself. The philosophical approach to faith has given rise to a “religion of the intellectual,” far remote from the faith of ordinary members of the church. For years there has been open, sometimes concealed, controversy between them. The “intellectual” side, with its group of theologians, contends that theology requires a new language for the modern mind, and to this end submits the categories of existential thinking. But these ideas meet with resistance on the part of biblical data and concepts which simply do not fit in with them. Here is objective ground which refuses to give way to varied forms of attack, and sets a limit to the introduction of existential categories. For this reason it has not been possible to break down resistance within the Christian church.

Still it is significant that all the problems concerning the “historical Jesus” have become acute again, although one was inclined to suppose from the side of neoorthodoxy that the case was closed. There is good reason, therefore, to keep before us the basic biblical position of A. Schlatter and M. Kähler, coupled with steadfastness, faithfulness, and patience, those primary attributes which go along with biblical faith. We are not thereby acting out of longing for human security, or with lack of courage to face the modern age. We know the way ahead is full of peril. That is a necessary consequence of decisions which have shaped our world in recent years. But we did not get our faith from subjective experience or hermeneutics. It is grounded on the all-embracing, objective order of creation, history, and church.

OTTO MICHEL

Director

Institute of Judaic Studies

University of Tübingen

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.