We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2014
This essay studies the treatment of Jesus' crucifixion in contemporary theology. After presenting four influential systematic conceptions, it isolates four historical issues with immediate systematic implications and concludes with some reflections on principles for constructing and evaluating theologies of the cross.
1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at a Workshop on Teaching Christology, held under the auspices of the College Theology Society and directed by Bernard P. Prusak of Villanova University, on May 29, 1985 at Salve Regina College in Newport, Rhode Island. The basic form of that presentation has been retained in the current essay.
2 For examples, see Saunders, Daniel J., Reason to Revelation (St. Louis: Herder, 1949), pp. 106–220Google Scholar, and Ott, Ludwig, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Cork: Mercier, 1962), pp. 129–95.Google Scholar Saunders includes in his work a brief apologetic treatment of Christ's divinity (pp. 147-62).
3 Despite this concentration on Jesus' death, neo-Scholastic soteriology sharply relatived the intrinsic significance of the crucifixion, as it frequently claimed that each action of Christ was infinitely meritorious and thus in principle sufficient for redemption (see, e.g., Pohle, Joseph, Soteriology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Redemption, trans, and adapted by Preuss, Arthur [St. Louis: Herder, 1914] pp. 72, 84Google Scholar). This conception is sharply criticized by Rahner, Karl (“Current Problems in Christology,” Theological Investigations 1 [Baltimore: Helicon, 1961], 192–97).Google Scholar
4 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Jesus—God and Man (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968).Google Scholar
5 Ibid., pp. 245-80.
6 Ibid., pp. 21-114. See also Pannenberg's, essay, “The Revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth” in Theology as History, ed. Robinson, James M. and Cobb, John B. (New York: Harper & Row, 1967), pp. 101–33.Google Scholar For references to Jesus' two-fold fate, see Jesus—God and Man, pp. 33, 210-11, 245-46.
7 Ibid., p. 246. This is noted and criticized by Klappert, Bertold, Diskussion um Kreuz und Auferstehung, ed. Klappert, B. (Wuppertal: Aussaat, 1967), p. 234.Google Scholar
8 “Neither the crucifixion nor the resurrection was actively accomplished by Jesus” (Jesus—God and Man, p. 245).Google Scholar
9 Schillebeeckx, Edward, Jesus: An Experiment in Christoiogy (New York: Crossroad, 1979);Google ScholarChrist: the Experience of Jesus as Lord (New York: Crossroad, 1980).Google Scholar
10 Christ, p. 22.
11 Jesus, p. 80.
12 Jesus, pp. 272-319.
13 See, e.g, Christ, p. 154.
14 See Schillebeeckx, E., “Leven ondanks de dood in heden en toekomst,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 10 (1970), 418–52.Google Scholar
15 See Jesus, pp. 648-49; Christ, pp. 272, 291, 729-30, 795-96, 799.
16 Christ, p. 729.
17 Ibid., pp. 729-30.
18 For a more complete presentation of Schillebeeckx' treatment of the crucifixion, see Galvin, John P., “The Death of Jesus in the Theology of Edward Schillebeeckx,” Irish Theological Quarterly 50 (1983–1984), 168–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 See, e.g., Rahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith (New York: Seabury, 1978), pp. 116–37.Google Scholar
20 See Ibid., pp. 178-212, and Rahner, Karl, “The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation,” Theological Investigations 16 (New York: Seabury, 1979), 199–224.Google Scholar
21 See Rahner, Karl, “Theology of Freedom,” Theological Investigations 6 (New York: Seabury, 1969), 178–96;Google ScholarRahner, Karl, On the Theology of Death (New York: Herder, 1965), pp. 26–31;Google ScholarFoundations, pp. 93-106, 435-41.
22 Rahner, Karl, “Dogmatische Fragen zur Osterfrömmigkeit,” Schriften zur Theologie 4 (Einsiedeln: Benziger, 1960), 165–66Google Scholar (the published English translation is inaccurate); Foundations, p. 266.
23 “Current Problems in Christology,” pp. 192-97; Rahner, Karl, “Salvation.IV. Theology. A. Redemption,” Sacramentum Mundi 5 (New York: Herder, 1970), 425–32;Google ScholarFoundations, pp. 282-85; Rahner, Karl, “The Death of Jesus and the Closure of Revelation,” Theological Investigations 18 (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 132–44.Google Scholar For a presentation of Rahner's soteriology, see Grün, Anselm, Erlösung durch das Kreuz:Karl Rahners Beitrag zu einem heutigen Erlösungverständnis (Münstersch warzach: Vier Türme, 1975), pp. 11–165.Google Scholar
24 See Wiese, Hans-Ulrich, “Die Lehre Anselms von Canterbury üiber den Tod Jesu in der Schrift ‘Cur Deus homo,’” Wissenschaft und Weisheit 42 (1979), 52–54;Google Scholarvon Balthasar, Hans Urs, Theodramatik 3: Die Handlung (Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1980), pp. 240–41, 257.Google Scholar
25 See “The One Christ and the Universality of Salvation;” “Salvation. IV. Theology. A. Redemption.” Also see Grün, Erlösung durch das Kreuz, pp. 145-67.
28 On these see, respectively, Loewe, William P., “Lonergan and the Law of the Cross: A Universalist View of Salvation,” Anglican Theological Review 59 (1977), 162–74;Google ScholarLoewe, W. P., “Two Theologians of the Cross: Karl Barth and Jürgen Moltmann,” Thomist 41 (1977), 510–39;CrossRefGoogle ScholarO'Donovan, Leo J., “The Mystery of God as a History of Love: Eberhard Jüngel's Doctrine of God,” Theological Studies 42 (1981), 251–71;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGalvin, J. P., “Jesus as Scapegoat?: Violence and the Sacred in the Theology of Raymund Schwager,” Thomist 46 (1982), 173–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 On this see Hengel, Martin, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).Google Scholar
28 Wolfhart Pannenberg, , Grundzüge der Christologie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1964), p. 218.Google Scholar My translation.
29 See Jesus, pp. 256-71, and Galvin, J. P., “The Uniqueness of Jesus and His ‘Abba Experience” in the Theology of Edward Schillebeeckx,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 55 (1980), 309–14.Google Scholar
30 Rahner, Karl, “The Position of Christology in the Church between Exegesis and Dogmatics,” Theological Investigations 11 (New York: Seabury, 1974), 185–206;Google ScholarFoundations, pp. 249-54.
31 See Strauss, D. F., The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 2 vols. (New York: Blanchard, 1860), esp. 2:894–97;Google Scholar see Slenczka, Reinhard, Geschichtlickkeit und Personsein Jesu Christi: Studien zur christologischen Problematik der historischen Jesusfrage (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), pp. 46–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Bultmann, Rudolf, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1934), pp. 14, 217;Google Scholar there is a counterweight to this in Bultmann's references to a christology implicit in Jesus' words and deeds (“The Significance of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul,” Faith and Understanding 1 [New York: Harper & Row, 1969), 237;Google Scholar“The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus,” The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic Christ, ed. Braaten, C. and Harrisville, R. [Nashville: Abingdon, 1964], p. 28).Google ScholarOgden, S., The Point of Christology (London: SCM, 1982), esp. pp. 41–63.Google Scholar For a report on William Madges' instructive comparison of Strauss' position with some contemporary christologies, see Fiorenza, Francis S., “Seminar on Nineteenth Century Theology,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 39 (1984), 170–74.Google Scholar
33 See esp. “The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the Historical Jesus,” pp. 23-24.
34 For a summary of Bultmann's position, see Galvin, J. P., “Jesus' Approach to Death: An Examination of Some Recent Studies,” Theological Studies 41 (1980), 713–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 For Schürmann's most recent discussion of the issue, see Gottes Reich—Jesu Geschick (Freiburg: Herder, 1983).Google Scholar For an account of Schürmann's work, see Galvin, , “Jesus' Approach to Death,” pp. 716–23.Google Scholar
36 See Rahner, , Foundations, p. 248;Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, , Jesus, pp. 298–312;Google ScholarKasper, Walter, Jesus the Christ (New York: Paulist, 1976), pp. 114–19;Google ScholarO'Collins, Gerald, Interpreting Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1983), pp. 84–86.Google Scholar
37 Pesch, Rudolf, Das Abendmahl und Jesu Todesverständnis (Freiburg: Herder, 1978).Google Scholar
38 Vögtle, Anton, “Todesanküindigungen und Todesverständnis Jesu” in Der Tod Jesu: Deutungen im Neuen Testament, ed. Kertelge, K. (Freiburg: Herder, 1976), pp. 51–113.Google Scholar
39 E.g., Rahner, , Foundations, pp. 248–49, 254–55, 283;Google ScholarSchillebeeckx, , Jesus, pp. 318–19.Google Scholar
40 E.g., Kasper, , Jesus the Christ, pp. 113–23;Google ScholarO'Collins, , Interpreting Jesus, pp. 79–92.Google Scholar
41 See Schupp, Franz, Vermittlung im Fragment: Überlegungen zur Christologie (Innsbruck: ÖH, 1975), pp. 15–19.Google Scholar
42 See Robinson, James M. and Koester, Helmut, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 205–31.Google Scholar
43 Schillebeeckx, , Jesus, pp. 403–515.Google Scholar
44 Ibid., pp. 274-94. The research is analyzed in greater detail by Gubler, Marie-Louise, Die frühesten Deutungen des Todes Jesu (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977).Google Scholar
45 Schillebeeckx, , Jesus, pp. 35, 274–75, 411, 414.Google Scholar
46 See the critique of Schoonenberg, Piet, “Schillebeeckx en de exegese,” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 15 (1975), 256–59.Google Scholar
47 It should be noted that the existence of such diversity is challenged by Hengel, M., The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981).Google Scholar
48 See the criticisms implied in Rahner's, seminal essay, “Current Problems in Christology,” p. 155.Google Scholar
49 See the argumentation of Pannenberg, (Jesus—God and Man, p. 96)Google Scholar, Kasper, (Jesus the Christ, pp. 124–29)Google Scholar, O'Collins, (Interpreting Jesus, pp. 115–20)Google Scholar, and Schillebeeckx, (Jesus, pp. 320–97).Google Scholar
50 Pesch, R., “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu,” Theologische Quartalschrift 153 (1973, 201–28;Google Scholar see also the argumentation of Verweyen, Hansjürgen, “Die Ostererscheinungen in fundamentaltheologischer Sicht,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 103 (1981), 426–45.Google Scholar
51 For a comparison of the alternative positions, represented chiefly by Pannenberg and Schillebeeckx on the one hand, Rahner on the other, see Galvin, J. P., “The Resurrection of Jesus in Contemporary Catholic Systematics,” Heythrop Journal 20 (1979), 123–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 See Schupp, , Vermittllung im Fragment, p. 31;Google Scholar and Pesch, R., “Zur Entstehung des Glaubens an die Auferstehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versuch,” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 30 (1983), 73–98.Google Scholar
53 See Meyer, Cornelius P., “Von der satisfactio zur liberatio?: Zur Problematik eines neuen Ansatzes in der Soteriologie,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 96 (1974), 405–14;Google ScholarMarsh, Thomas, “Soteriology Today,” Irish Theological Quarterly 46 (1979), 145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Letters and Papers from Prison: The Enlarged Edition (New York: Macmillan, 1971), pp. 336–37.Google Scholar
55 Commissio Theologica Internationalis, “Quaestiones selectae de Christologia,” Gregorianum 61 (1980), 609–32.Google Scholar “Mors passive tantum tolerata non esset eventus salutis ‘christologicus’” (p. 624).
56 On this terminology, see Rahner, Karl, “Following the Crucified,” Theological Investigations 18:157–70.Google Scholar In “The Church's Commission to Bring Salvation and the Humanization of the World” (Theological Investigations 14 [New York: Seabury, 1976], 296)Google Scholar, Rahner expresses reservations about the adequacy of this conception.
