Bultmann, Rudolf - Jesus Christ and Mythology

8/13/2019 Bultmann, Rudolf - Jesus Christ and Mythology

1/34

Jesus Christ and Mythologyby Rudolf Bultmann

a.b.e-book v3.0 / Notes at EOF

Back Cover:

A summary of Bultmann's controversial method of Biblical interpretation, which

tries to recover the deeper meaning behind the mythological concepts of the NewTestament.

Rudolf Bultmann is one of the greatest scholars in the field of New Testamentstudy. Few men have written more boos with serious claim to the term !epoch"maing.!

Born in #ermany in $%%&, Bultmann studied at Tubingen, Berlin and arburg. (n $)$*

he began his teaching career in New Testament at arburg, and remained there, e+cept

for five years, until his retirement in $)$. -uring the time of the Nai domination, he

too active part in the strong opposition which the churches built up. After /orld /ar ((he has spent much time lecturing in 0urope and the 1nited 2tates.

3 1958 by Rudolf Bultmann

ll !"#$ts !ese!ved. No %a!t of t$"s book may be

!e%!odu&ed "n any fo!m '"t$out t$e %e!m"ss"on

of ($a!les )&!"bne!*s )ons.

4 ) $$ $5 $ $4 $) 678 *9 $% $: $& $* $9 % : &

+!"nted "n t$e ,n"ted )tates of me!"&a

(2BN 9":%&"$4**%"5

"b!a!y of (on#!ess (atalo# (a!d Numbe! 58-8

The Biblical ;uotations are from the Revised 2tandard


2/34

Preface

This small volume contains the 2haffer ?ectures which ( delivered in @ctober

$)$ at ale 1niversity -ivinity 2chool and the >ole ?ectures, delivered at ole

?ectures was partly identical.

2ome of the lectures were also given at other institutions at /ellesley >ollege,Andover Newton Theological 2chool and Boston 1niversity 2chool of TheologyC

>hicago 1niversity DFederated Theological FacultyE and aywood ?utheran 2eminaryC

8rinceton 2eminary and -rew 2eminaryC artford Theological 2eminaryC 0mory1niversityC 1nion Theological 2eminary DNew orE and >roer Theological 2eminary.

( remember with pleasure my visits to these schools and am grateful for the

indness with which ( was received everywhere, and for all ( have learned in numerous

discussions with colleagues.

( am especially indebted to ale 1niversity and to ole ?ectures.

Finally, ( e+press my thans to 8rofessor 8aul 2chubert who has prepared themanuscript for publication, and to 8rofessor 0rich -inier, r. -. 0. . /hitely, and r.

hrist is the 6ingdom of #od. -uring the

nineteenth century e+egesis and theology understood the 6ingdom of #od as a spiritualcommunity consisting of men Goined together by obedience to the will of #od which

ruled in their wills. By such obedience they sought to enlarge the sphere of is rule in the

world. They were building, it was said, the 6ingdom of #od as a realm which is spiritual

but within the world, active and effective in this world, unfolding in the history of thisworld.

The year $%)* saw the publication of $e +!ea&$"n# of 2esus about t$e "n#dom

of 4odby =ohannes /eiss. This epoch"maing boo refuted the interpretation which washitherto generally accepted. /eiss showed that the 6ingdom of #od is not immanent in

the world and does not grow as part of the world's history, but is rather eschatologicalC

i.e., the 6ingdom of #od transcends the historical order. (t will come into being notthrough the moral endeavour of man, but solely through the supernatural action of #od.


3/34

#od will suddenly put an end to the world and to history, and e will bring in a new

world, the world of eternal blessedness.

This conception of the 6ingdom of #od was not an invention of =esus. (t was aconception familiar in certain circles of =ews who were waiting for the end of this world.

This picture of the eschatological drama was drawn in =ewish apocalyptic literature, of

which the boo of -aniel is the earliest still e+tant. The preaching of =esus isdistinguished from the typical apocalyptic pictures of the eschatological drama and of the

blessedness of the coming new age in so far as =esus refrained from drawing detailed

pictures. e confined himself to the statement that the 6ingdom of #od will come andthat men must be prepared to face the coming Gudgment. @therwise he shared the

eschatological e+pectations of his contemporaries. That is why he taught his disciples to

pray,

allowed be thy name,Thy 6ingdom come,

Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

=esus e+pected that this would tae place soon, in the immediate future, and he

said that the dawning of that age could already be perceived in the signs and wonderswhich he performed, especially in his casting out of demons. =esus envisaged the

inauguration of the 6ingdom of #od as a tremendous cosmic drama. The 2on of anwill come with the clouds of heaven, the dead will be raised and the day of Gudgment will

arriveC for the righteous the time of bliss will begin, whereas the damned will be

delivered to the torments of hell./hen ( began to study theology, theologians as well as laymen were e+cited and

frightened by the theories of =ohannes /eiss. ( remember that =ulius 6aftan, my teacher

in dogmatics in Berlin, said !(f =ohannes /eiss is right and the conception of the

6ingdom of #od is an eschatological one, then it is impossible to mae use of thisconception in dogmatics.! But in the following years the theologians, =. 6aftan among

them, became convinced that /eiss was correct. 8erhaps ( may here refer to Albert

2chweiter who carried the theory of /eiss to e+tremes. e maintains that not only thepreaching and the self"consciousness of =esus but also his day"to"day conduct of life were

dominated by an eschatological e+pectation which amounted to an all"pervading

eschatological dogma.Today nobody doubts that =esus' conception of the 6ingdom of #od is an

eschatological one "" at least in 0uropean theology and, as far as ( can see, also among

American New Testament scholars. (ndeed, it has become more and more clear that the

eschatological e+pectation and hope is the core of the New Testament preachingthroughout.

The earliest >hristian community understood the 6ingdom of #od in the same

sense as =esus. (t, too, e+pected the 6ingdom of #od to come in the immediate future. 2o8aul, too, thought that he would still be alive when the end of this world was to come and

the dead were to be raised. This general conviction is confirmed by the voices of

impatience, of an+iety and of doubt which are already audible in the synoptic gospels andwhich echo a little later and louder, for e+ample, in the 2econd 0pistle of 8eter.

>hristianity has always retained the hope that the 6ingdom of #od will come in the

immediate future, although it has waited in vain. /e may cite ar )$, which is not a

genuine saying of =esus but was ascribed to him by the earliest community !Truly, ( say


4/34

to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the ingdom

of #od come with power.! (s not the meaning of this verse clearH Though many of the

contemporaries of =esus are already dead, the hope must nevertheless be retained that the6ingdom of #od will still come in this generation.

2

This hope of =esus and of the early >hristian community was not fulfilled. Thesame world still e+ists and history continues. The course of history has refuted

mythology. For the conception !6ingdom of #od! is mythological, as is the conception

of the eschatological drama. =ust as mythological are the presuppositions of the

e+pectation of the 6ingdom of #od, namely, the theory that the world, although createdby #od, is ruled by the devil, 2atan, and that his army, the demons, is the cause of all

evil, sin and disease. The whole conception of the world which is presupposed in the

preaching of =esus as in the New Testament generally is mythologicalC i.e., the conception

of the world as being structured in three stories, heaven, earth and hellC the conception ofthe intervention of supernatural powers in the course of eventsC and the conception of

miracles, especially the conception of the intervention of supernatural powers in the innerlife of the soul, the conception that men can be tempted and corrupted by the devil and

possessed by evil spirits. This conception of the world we call mythological because it is

different from the conception of the world which has been formed and developed byscience since its inception in ancient #reece and which has been accepted by all modern

men. (n this modern conception of the world the cause"and"effect ne+us is fundamental.

Although modern physical theories tae account of chance in the chain of cause and

effect in subatomic phenomena, our daily living, purposes and actions are not affected. (nany case, modern science does not believe that the course of nature can be interrupted or,

so to spea, perforated, by supernatural powers.

The same is true of the modern study of history, which does not tae into accountany intervention of #od or of the devil or of demons in the course of history. (nstead, the

course of history is considered to be an unbroen whole, complete in itself, though

differing from the course of nature because there are in history spiritual powers whichinfluence the will of persons. #ranted that not all historical events are determined by

physical necessity and that persons are responsible for their actions, nevertheless nothing

happens without rational motivation. @therwise, responsibility would be dissolved. @f

course, there are still many superstitions among modern men, but they are e+ceptions oreven anomalies. odern men tae it for granted that the course of nature and of history,

lie their own inner life and their practical life, is nowhere interrupted by the intervention

of supernatural powers.Then the ;uestion inevitably arises is it possible that =esus' preaching of the

6ingdom of #od still has any importance for modern men and the preaching of the New

Testament as a whole is still important for modern menH The preaching of the NewTestament proclaims =esus >hrist, not only his preaching of the 6ingdom of #od but first

of all his person, which was mythologied from the very beginnings of earliest

>hristianity. New Testament scholars are at variance as to whether =esus himself claimed

to be the essiah, the 6ing of the time of blessedness, whether he believed himself to be


5/34


6/34

by attributing them to supernatural causes, to gods or to demons. 2o it is in part, for

e+ample, when it attributes phenomena lie eclipses of the sun or of the moon to such

causesC but there is more than this in mythology. yths spea about gods and demons aspowers on which man nows himself to be dependent, powers whose favor he needs,

powers whose wrath he fears. yths e+press the nowledge that man is not master of the

world and of his life, that the world within which he lives is full of riddles and mysteriesand that human life also is full of riddles and mysteries.

ythology e+presses a certain understanding of human e+istence. (t believes that

the world and human life have their ground and their limits in a power which is beyondall that we can calculate or control. ythology speas about this power inade;uately and

insufficiently because it speas about it as if it were a worldly power. (t speas of gods

who represent the power beyond the visible, comprehensible world. (t speas of gods as

if they were men and of their actions as human actions, although it conceives of the godsas endowed with superhuman power and of their actions as incalculable, as capable of

breaing the normal, ordinary order of events. (t may be said that myths give to the

transcendent reality an immanent, this"worldly obGectivity. yths give worldly

obGectivity to that which is unworldly. D(n #erman one would say, !-er ythosobGetiviert das =enseitige um -iesseitigen.!E

All this holds true also of the mythological conceptions found in the Bible.According to mythological thining, #od has his domicile in heaven. /hat is the

meaning of this statementH The meaning is ;uite clear. (n a crude manner it e+presses the

idea that #od is beyond the world, that e is transcendent. The thining which is not yetcapable of forming the abstract idea of transcendence e+presses its intention in the

category of spaceC the transcendent #od is imagined as being at an immense spatial

distance, far above the world for above this world is the world of the stars, of the light

which enlightens and maes glad the life of men. /hen mythological thining forms theconception of hell, it e+presses the idea of the transcendence of evil as the tremendous

power which again and again afflicts manind. The location of hell and of men whom

hell has seied is below the earth in darness, because darness is tremendous andterrible to men.

These mythological conceptions of heaven and hell are no longer acceptable for

modern men since for scientific thining to spea of !above! and !below! in the universehas lost all meaning, but the idea of the transcendence of #od and of evil is still

significant.

Another e+ample is the conception of 2atan and the evil spirits into whose power

men are delivered. This conception rests upon the e+perience, ;uite apart from theine+plicable evils arising outside ourselves to which we are e+posed, that our own actions

are often so pulingC men are often carried away by their passions and are no longer

master of themselves, with the result that inconceivable wicedness breas forth fromthem. Again, the conception of 2atan as ruler over the world e+presses a deep insight,

namely, the insight that evil is not only to be found here and there in the world, but that

all particular evils mae up one single power which in the last analysis grows from thevery actions of men, which form an atmosphere, a spiritual tradition, which overwhelms

every man. The conse;uences and effects of our sins become a power dominating us, and

we cannot free ourselves from them. 8articularly in our day and generation, although we

no longer thin mythologically, we often spea of demonic powers which rule history,


7/34

corrupting political and social life. 2uch language is metaphorical, a figure of speech, but

in it is e+pressed the nowledge, the insight, that the evil for which every man is

responsible individually has nevertheless become a power which mysteriously enslavesevery member of the human race.

Now the ;uestion arises is it possible to de"mythologie the message of =esus and

the preaching of the early >hristian communityH 2ince this preaching was shaped by theeschatological belief, the first ;uestion is this $at "s t$e mean"n# of es&$atolo#y "n

#ene!al

II

The Inter!retation of

Mythological "schatology

1

(n the language of traditional theology eschatology is the doctrine of the lastthings, and !last! means last in the course of time, that is, the end of the world which is

imminent as the future is to our present. But in the actual preaching of the prophets and of

=esus this !last! has a further meaning. As in the conception of heaven the transcendenceof #od is imagined by means of the category of space, so in the conception of the end of

the world, the idea of the transcendence of #od is imagined by means of the category of

time. owever, it is not simply the idea of transcendence as such, but of the importanceof the transcendence of #od, of #od who is never present as a familiar phenomenon but

who is always the coming #od, who is veiled by the unnown future. 0schatological

preaching views the present time in the light of the future and it says to men that thispresent world, the world of nature and history, the world in which we live our lives andmae our plans is not the only worldC that this world is temporal and transitory, yes,

ultimately empty and unreal in the face of eternity.

This understanding is not peculiar to mythical eschatology. (t is the nowledge towhich 2haespeare gives grand e+pression

The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,The solemn temples, the great globe itself,Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,

And like this insubstantial pageant faded,Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff

As dreams are made on and our little life!s rounded with a sleep. . .

Tempest IV, 1

(t is the same understanding which was current among the #rees who did not

share the eschatology which was common to the prophets and to =esus. 8ermit me to

;uote from a hymn of 8indar


8/34

"reatures of a da#, what is an#one$ what is he not$%an is but a dream of a shadow.

Pythian Odes 8, 95-96

and from 2ophocles

Alas& we living mortals, what are weut phantoms all or unsubstantial shades$

Ajax 125-126

The perception of the boundary of human life warns men against !presumption!

and calls to !thoughtfulness! and !awe! !Nothing too much!

, !of strength do not boast! are sayings of #ree wisdom.#ree tragedy shows the truth of such proverbs in its representations of human destiny.

From the soldiers slain in the Battle of 8lataeae we should learn, as Aeschylus says, that

%ortal man needs must not vaunt him overmuch. . .

(eus, of a truth, is a chastiser of overweening prideAnd corrects with heav# hand.

Persians 820-828

And again in thea: of 2ophocles Athene says of the mad AGa+,

Warned b# these sights, )d#sseus, see that thou*tter no boastful word against the gods,+or swell with pride if hapl# might of armalt thee o'er th# fellows, or vast wealth.

A da# can prostrate and a da# upraiseAll that is mortal but the gods approveobriet# and frowardness abhor.

/01-/22

2

(f it is true that the general human understanding of the insecurity of the present in

the face of the future has found e+pression in eschatological thought, then we must as,

'$at "s t$e d"ffe!en&e bet'een t$e 4!eek and t$e B"bl"&al unde!stand"n# The #reesfound the immanent power of the beyond, of the gods compared with whom all human

affairs are empty, in !destiny.! They do not share the mythological conception of

eschatology as a cosmic event at the end of timeC and it may well be said that #ree

thought is more similar to that of modern man than to the Biblical conception, since formodern man mythological eschatology has passed away. (t is possible that the Biblical

eschatology may rise again. (t will not rise in its old mythological form but from the

terrifying vision that modern technology, especially atomic science, may bring about thedestruction of our earth through the abuse of human science and technology. /hen we

ponder this possibility, we can feel the terror and the an+iety which were evoed by the

eschatological preaching of the imminent end of the world. To be sure, that preachingwas developed in conceptions which are no longer intelligible today, but they do e+press


9/34

the nowledge of the finiteness of the world, and of the end which is imminent to us all

because we all are beings of this finite world. This is the insight to which as a rule we

turn a blind eye, but which may be brought to light by modern technology. (t is preciselythe intensity of this insight which e+plains why =esus, lie the @ld Testament prophets,

e+pected the end of the world to occur in the immediate future. The maGesty of #od and

the inescapability of is Gudgment, and over against these the emptiness of the world andof men were felt with such an intensity that it seemed that the world was at an end, and

that the hour of crisis was present. =esus proclaims the will of #od and the responsibility

of man, pointing towards the eschatological events, but it is not because he is aneschatologist that he proclaims the will of #od. @n the contrary, he is an eschatologist

because he proclaims the will of #od.

The difference between the Biblical and the #ree understanding of the human

situation regarding the unnown future can now be seen in a clearer light. (t consists inthe fact that in the thining of the prophets and of =esus the nature of #od involves more

than simply is omnipotence and is Gudgment touches not only the man who offends

im by presumption and boasting. For the prophets and for =esus #od is the oly @ne,

who demands right and righteousness, who demands love of neighbour and who thereforeis the Gudge of all human thoughts and actions. The world is empty not only because it is

transitory, but because men have turned it into a place in which evil spreads and sin rules.The end of the world, therefore, is the Gudgment of #odC that is, the eschatological

preaching not only brings to consciousness the emptiness of the human situation and calls

men, as was the case among the #rees, to moderation, humility and resignationC it callsmen first and foremost to responsibility toward #od and to repentance. (t calls them to

perform the will of #od. Thus, the characteristic difference between the eschatological

preaching of =esus and that of the =ewish apocalypses becomes evident. All the pictures

of future happiness in which apocalypticism e+cels are lacing in the preaching of =esus.Though in this connection we do not e+amine other differences between Biblical

and #ree thought, as, for instance, the personality of the one holy #od, the personal

relationship between #od and man, and the Biblical belief that #od is the creator of theworld, we must consider one more important point. The eschatological preaching

proclaims the imminent end of the world, not only as the final Gudgment, but also as the

beginning of the time of salvation and of eternal bliss. The end of the world has not onlya negative but also a positive meaning. To use nonmythological terms, the finiteness of

the world and of man over against the transcendent power of #od contains not only

warning, but also consolation. ?et us as whether the ancient #rees also spea in this

way about the emptiness of the world and of this"worldly affairs. ( thin that we can hearsuch a voice in 0uripides' ;uestion,

Who knows if to live is reall# to die,

and if to die is to live$Fr! 6"8 #ed! $a%&'(

At the end of his speech to his Gudges, 2ocrates says,

ut now the time has come to go awa#. ! go to dieand #ou to live but which of us goes to the betterlot, is known to none but 3od.

Ap)*! +2a


10/34

(n a similar vein the 8latonic 2ocrates says,

!f the soul is immortal, we must care for it, notonl# in respect to this time, which we call life,but in respect to all time.

Phaed! 10&!

Above all, we should thin of this famous saying,

practice d#ingPhaed! 6e

This, according to 8lato, is the characteristic feature of the life of the philosopher. -eathis the separation of the soul from the body. As long as man lives, the soul is bound to the

body and to its needs. The philosopher lives his life detaching his soul as much as

possible from communion with the body, for the body disturbs the soul and hinders it

from attaining the truth. The philosopher loos for cleansing, that is, for release from thebody, and so he !gives heed to dying.!

(f we may call the 8latonic hope in life after death an eschatology, then the>hristian eschatology agrees with the 8latonic eschatology in so far as each e+pects bliss

after death and also in so far as bliss may be calledf!eedom. This freedom is for 8lato the

freedom of the spirit from the body, the freedom of the spirit which can perceive the truthwhich is the very reality of beingC and for #ree thining, of course, the realm of reality

is also the realm of beauty. According to 8lato, this transcendent bliss can be described

not only in negative and abstract, but also in positive terms. 2ince the transcendent realm

is the realm of truth and truth is to be found in discussion, that is, in dialogue, 8lato canpicture the transcendent realm positively as a sphere of dialogue. 2ocrates says that it

would be best if he could spend his life in the beyond in e+amining and e+ploring as he

did on this side. !To converse and associate with them and e+amine them would beimmeasurable happiness! ;%ol. &$cE.

(n >hristian thining freedom is not the freedom of a spirit who is satisfied with

perceiving the truthC it is the freedom of man to be himself. Freedom is freedom from sin,from wicedness, or as 2t. 8aul says, from the flesh, from the old self, because #od is

oly. Thus, obtaining bliss means obtaining grace and righteousness by #od's Gudgment.

oreover, it is impossible to depict the ineffable blessedness of those who are Gustified,

save in symbolic pictures such as a splendid ban;uet, or in such pictures as theRevelation of =ohn paints. According to 8aul, !the ingdom of #od does not mean food

and drin but righteousness, and peace, and Goy in the oly 2pirit! DRom. $&$4E. And

=esus said, !when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage,but are lie angels in heaven! Dar $**E. The physical body is replaced by the

spiritual body. To be sure, our imperfect nowledge will then become perfect, and then

we shall see face to face, as 8aul says D( >or. $5)"$*E. But that is by no meansnowledge of truth in the #ree sense, but an untroubled relationship with #od, as =esus

promised that the pure in heart shall see #od Datt. %E.

(f we can say anything more, it is that the action of #od reaches its fulfilment in

the glory of #od. Thus the >hurch of #od in the present has no other purpose than to


11/34

praise and glorify #od by its conduct D8hil. $$$E and by its thansgiving D(( >or. $*9C

&$C Rom. $:f.E. Therefore, the future >hurch in the state of perfection cannot be

thought of otherwise than as a worshiping community which sings hymns of praise andthansgiving. /e can see e+amples of this in the Revelation of =ohn.

2urely both conceptions of transcendent bliss are mythological, the 8latonic

conception of bliss as philosophical dialogue as well as the >hristian conception ofblessedness as worship. 0ach conception intends to spea about the transcendent world as

a world where man reaches the perfection of his true, real essence. This essence can be

realied only imperfectly in this world, but nevertheless it determines life in this world asa life of seeing, and longing and yearning.

The difference between the two conceptions is due to different theories of human

nature. 8lato conceives the realm of spirit as a realm without time and without history

because he conceives human nature as not subGect to time and history. The >hristianconception of the human being is that man is essentially a temporal being, which means

that he is an historical being who has a past which shapes his character and who has a

future which always brings forth new encounters. Therefore the future after death and

beyond this world is a future of the totally new. This is the total"te! al"te!.Then there willbe !a new heaven and a new earth! DRev. *$$, (( 8eter 5$5E. The seer of the future

=erusalem hears a voice, !Behold, ( mae all things new! DRev. *$E. 8aul and =ohnanticipate this newness. 8aul says, !(f any one is in >hrist, he is a new creationC the old

has passed away, behold, the new has come! D(( >or. $4E, and =ohn says, !( am writing

you a new commandment, which is true in him and in you, because the darness ispassing away and the true light is already shining! D( =ohn *%E. But that newness is not a

visible one, for our new life !is hid with >hrist in #od! D>ol. 55E, !it does not yet appear

what we shall be! D( =ohn 5*E. (n a certain manner this unnown future is present in the

holiness and love which characterie the believers in the oly 2pirit which inspired them,and in the worship of the >hurch. (t cannot be described e+cept in symbolic pictures !for

in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what

he seesH But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience! DRom. %*&"E. Therefore, this hope or this faith may be called readiness for the unnown future that

#od will give. (n brief, it means to be open to #od's future in the face of death and

darness.This, then, is the deeper meaning of the mythological preaching of =esus "" to be

open to #od's future which is really imminent for every one of usC to be prepared for this

future which can come as a thief in the night when we do not e+pect itC to be prepared,

because this future will be a Gudgment on all men who have bound themselves to thisworld and are not free, not open to #od's future.

The eschatological preaching of =esus was retained and continued by the early>hristian community in its mythological form. But very soon the process of de"

mythologiing began, partially with 8aul, and radically with =ohn. The decisive step was

taen when 8aul declared that the turning point from the old world to the new was not a

matter of the future but did tae place in the coming of =esus >hrist. !But when the time


12/34

had fully come, #od sent forth his 2on! D#al. &&E. To be sure, 8aul still e+pected the end

of the world as a cosmic drama, the%a!ous"a of >hrist on the clouds of heaven, the

resurrection from the dead, the final Gudgment, but with the resurrection of >hrist thedecisive event has already happened. The >hurch is the eschatological community of the

elect, of the saints who are already Gustified and are alive because they are in >hrist, in

>hrist who as the second Adam abolished death and brought life and immortality to lightthrough the gospel DRom. $*"$&C (( Tim. $$9E. !-eath is swallowed up in victory! D(

>or. $&E. Therefore, 8aul can say that the e+pectations and promises of the ancient

prophets are fulfilled when the gospel is proclaimed !Behold, now is the acceptable timeIabout which (saiah spoeJC behold, now is the day of salvation! D(( >or. :*E. The oly

2pirit who was e+pected as the gift of the time of blessedness has already been given. (n

this manner the future is anticipated.

This de"mythologiing may be observed in a particular instance. (n the =ewishapocalyptic e+pectations, the e+pectation of the essianic ingdom played a role. The

essianic ingdom is, so to spea, an "nte!!e#numbetween the old world time

and the new age . 8aul e+plains this apocalyptic, mythological

idea of the essianic "nte!!e#num6 at the end of which >hrist will deliver the 6ingdom to#od the Father, as the present time between the resurrection of >hrist and his coming

%a!ous"a D( >or. $*&EC that means, the present time of preaching the gospel is really theformerly e+pected time of the 6ingdom of the essiah. =esus is now the essiah, the

?ord.

After 8aul, =ohn de"mythologied the eschatology in a radical manner. For =ohnthe coming and departing of =esus is the eschatological event. !And this is the Gudgment,

that the light has come into the world, and men loved darness rather than light, because

their deeds were evil! D=ohn 5$)E. !Now is the Gudgment of this world, now shall theruler of this world be cast out! D$*5$E. For =ohn the resurrection of =esus, 8entecost and

the%a!ous"a of =esus are one and the same event, and those who believe have already

eternal life. !e who believes in him is not condemnedC he who does not believe iscondemned already! D5$%E. !e who believes in the 2on has eternal lifeC he who does notobey the 2on shall not see life, but the wrath of #od rests upon him! D55:E. !Truly, truly,

( say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the 2on

of #od, and those who hear will live! D*E. !( am the resurrection and the lifeC he whobelieves in me, though he die, yet shall he liveC and whoever lives and believes in me

shall never die! D$$*f.E.

As in 8aul, so in =ohn de"mythologiing may be further observed in a particularinstance. (n =ewish eschatological e+pectations we find that the figure of the anti">hrist is

a thoroughly mythological figure as it is described, for e+ample, in (( Thessalonians D*4"

$*E. (n =ohn false teachers play the role of this mythological figure. ythology has been

transposed into history. These e+amples show, it seems to me, that de"mythologiing hasits beginning in the New Testament itself, and therefore our tas of de"mythologiing

today is Gustified.

III

The Christian Message


13/34

and the Modern #orld$%ie&

1

An obGection often heard against the attempt to de"mythologie is that it taes themodern world"view as the criterion of the interpretation of the 2cripture and the >hristian

message and that 2cripture and >hristian message are not allowed to say anything that is

in contradiction with the modern world"view.(t is, of course, true that de"mythologiing taes the modern world"view as a

criterion. To de"mythologie is to reGect not 2cripture or the >hristian message as a

whole, but the world"view of 2cripture, which is the world"view of a past epoch, whichall too often is retained in >hristian dogmatics and in the preaching of the >hurch. To de"

mythologie is to deny that the message of 2cripture and of the >hurch is bound to an

ancient world"view which is obsolete.

The attempt to de"mythologie begins with this important insight >hristian

preaching, in so far as it is preaching of the /ord of #od by #od's command and in isname, does not offer a doctrine which can be accepted either by reason or by a

sa&!"f"&"um "ntelle&tus. >hristian preaching is ke!y#ma6 that is, a proclamation addressednot to the theoretical reason, but to the hearer as a self. (n this manner 8aul commends

himself to every man's conscience in the sight of #od D(( >or. &*E. -e"mythologiing

will mae clear this function of preaching as a personal message, and in doing so it willeliminate a false stumbling"bloc and bring into sharp focus the real stumbling"bloc, the

word of the cross.

For the world"view of the 2cripture is mythological and is therefore unacceptable

to modern man whose thining has been shaped by science and is therefore no longermythological. odern man always maes use of technical means which are the result of

science. (n case of illness modern man has recourse to physicians, to medical science. (ncase of economic and political affairs, he maes use of the results of psychological,social, economic and political sciences, and so on. Nobody recons with direct

intervention by transcendent powers.

@f course, there are today some survivals and revivals of primitive thining andsuperstition. But the preaching of the >hurch would mae a disastrous mistae if it

looed to such revivals and conformed to them. The nature of man is to be seen in

modern literature, as, for instance, in the novels of Thomas ann, 0rnst =Knger, Thornton/ilder, 0rnest emingway, /illiam Faulner, #raham #reene and Albert >amus, or in

the plays of =ean"8aul 2artre, =ean Anouilh, =ean #iraudou+, etc. @r let us thin simply of

the newspapers. ave you read anywhere in them that political or social or economic

events are performed by supernatural powers such as #od, angels or demonsH 2uchevents are always ascribed to natural powers, or to good or bad will on the part of men, or

to human wisdom or stupidity.

The science of today is no longer the same as it was in the nineteenth century, andto be sure, all the results of science are relative, and no world"view of yesterday or today

or tomorrow is definitive. The main point, however, is not the concrete results of

scientific research and the contents of a world"view, but the method of thining fromwhich world"views follow. For e+ample, it maes no difference in principle whether the


14/34


15/34

and destinies which man cannot master. e cannot secure endurance for his wors. is

life is fleeting and its end is death. istory goes on and pulls down all the towers of Babel

again and again. There is no real, definitive security, and it is precisely this illusion towhich men are prone to succumb in their yearning for security.

/hat is the underlying reason for this yearningH (t is the sorrow, the secret

an+iety which moves in the depths of the soul at the very moment when man thins thathe must obtain security for himself.

(t is the word of #od which calls man away from his selfishness and from the

illusory security which he has built up for himself. (t calls him to #od, who is beyond theworld and beyond scientific thining. At the same time, it calls man to his true self. For

the self of man, his inner life, his personal e+istence is also beyond the visible world and

beyond rational thining. The /ord of #od addresses man in his personal e+istence and

thereby it gives him freedom from the world and from the sorrow and an+iety whichoverwhelm him when he forgets the beyond. By means of science men try to tae

possession of the world, but in fact the world gets possession of men. /e can see in our

times to what degree men are dependent on technology, and to what degree technology

brings with it terrible conse;uences. To believe in the /ord of #od means to abandon allmerely human security and thus to overcome the despair which arises from the attempt to

find security, an attempt which is always vain.Faith in this sense is both the demand of and the gift offered by preaching. Faith is

the answer to the message. Faith is the abandonment of man's own security and the

readiness to find security only in the unseen beyond, in #od. This means that faith issecurity where no security can be seenC it is, as ?uther said, the readiness to enter

confidently into the darness of the future. Faith in #od who has power over time and

eternity, and who calls me and who has acted and now is acting on me "" this faith can

become real only in its !nevertheless! against the world. For in the world nothing of #odand of is action is visible or can be visible to men who see security in the world. /e

may say that the /ord of #od addresses man in his insecurity and calls him into freedom,

for man loses his freedom in his very yearning for security. This formulation may soundparado+ical, but it becomes clear when we consider the meaning of freedom.

#enuine freedom is not subGective arbitrariness. (t is freedom in obedience. The

freedom of subGective arbitrariness is a delusion, for it delivers man up to his drives, to doin any moment what lust and passion dictate. This hollow freedom is in reality

dependence on the lust and passion of the moment. #enuine freedom is freedom from the

motivation of the momentC it is freedom which withstands the clamor and pressure of

momentary motivations. (t is possible only when conduct is determined by a motivewhich transcends the present moment, that is, by law. Freedom is obedience to a law of

which the validity is recognied and accepted, which man recognies as the law of his

own being. This can only be a law which has its origin and reason in the beyond. /e maycall it the law of spirit or, in >hristian language, the law of #od.

This idea of freedom, constituted by law, this free obedience or obedient freedom

was well nown both to ancient #ree philosophy and to >hristianity. (n modern times,however, this conception vanished and was replaced by the illusory idea of freedom as

subGective arbitrariness which does not acnowledge a norm, a law from beyond. There

ensues a relativism which does not acnowledge absolute ethical demands and absolute

truths. The end of this development is nihilism.


16/34

There are several reasons for this development. The first is the development of

science and technology which procures the illusion that man is master over the world and

his life. Then there is the historical relativism which grew out of the Romanticovement. (t contends that our reason does not perceive eternal or absolute truths but is

subGect to historical development, that every truth has only a relative validity for a given

time, race or culture, and thus, in the end, the search for truth becomes meaningless.There is still another reason for the change from genuine freedom to the freedom

of subGectivism. This deepest reason is an+iety in the face of real freedom, the yearning

for security. #enuine freedom, it is true, is freedom within laws, but it is not freedom insecurity, because it is always freedom gained in responsibility and decision, and therefore

it is freedom in insecurity. Freedom of subGective arbitrariness believes itself to be secure

precisely because it is not responsible to a transcendent power, because it believes itself

to be master of the world through science and technology. 2ubGective freedom grows outof the desire for securityC it is in fact an+iety in the face of genuine freedom.

Now it is the /ord of #od which calls man into genuine freedom, into free

obedience, and the tas of de"mythologiing has no other purpose but to mae clear the

call of the /ord of #od. (t will interpret the 2cripture, asing for the deeper meaning ofmythological conceptions and freeing the /ord of #od from a by"gone world"view.

Thus it follows that the obGection is raised by a mistae, namely, the obGection that

de"mythologiing means rationaliing the >hristian message, that de"mythologiing

dissolves the message into a product of human rational thining, and that the mystery of

#od is destroyed by de"mythologiing. Not at allL @n the contrary, de"mythologiingmaes clear the true meaning of #od's mystery. The incomprehensibility of #od lies not

in the sphere of theoretical thought but in the sphere of personal e+istence. Not what #od

is in imself, but how he acts with men, is the mystery in which faith is interested. Thisis a mystery not to theoretical thought, but to the natural wills and desires of men. #od's

/ord is not a mystery to my understanding. @n the contrary, ( cannot truly believe in the

/ord without understanding it. But to understand does not mean to e+plain rationally. (can understand, for e+ample, what friendship, love and faithfulness mean, and precisely

by genuinely understanding ( now that the friendship, love and faithfulness which (

personally enGoy are a mystery which ( cannot but thanfully receive. For ( perceive them

neither by my rational thining, nor by psychological, nor by anthropological analysis butonly in open readiness to personal encounters. (n this readiness ( can understand them in

a certain way already before ( am given them because my personal e+istence needs them.

Then ( understand them in searching for them, in asing for them. Nevertheless, the factitself that my yearning is fulfilled, that a friend comes to me, remains a mystery.

(n the same manner ( can understand what #od's grace means, asing for it as

long as it does not come to me, accepting it thanfully when it does come to me. The factthat it comes to me, that the gracious #od is my #od, remains forever a mystery, not

because #od performs in an irrational manner something that interrupts the natural course

of events, but because it is inconceivable that e should encounter me in is /ord as the

gracious #od.


17/34

I%

Modern Biblical Inter!retation

and "'istentialist Philoso!hy

1

@ver and over again ( hear the obGection that de"mythologiing transforms

>hristian faith into philosophy. This obGection arises from the fact that ( call de"mythologiing an interpretation, an e+istentialist interpretation, and that ( mae use of

conceptions developed especially by artin eidegger in e+istentialist philosophy.

/e can understand the problem best when we remember that de-myt$olo#"7"n# "s

an $e!meneut"& met$od6 that is, a method of interpretation, of e+egesis. !ermeneutics!

means the art of e+egesis.Reflection on the art of hermeneutics has been increasingly neglected, at least in

#erman theology, since 2chleiermacher, who himself was interested in it and wroteimportant treatises on it. @nly since the first /orld /ar has the interest in hermeneutics

revived, when the wor of the great #erman philosopher /ilhelm -ilthey became

effective.M

M As an e+ample ( may call attention to the great wor of =oachim /ach,hristian artlich and /alter 2achs,yt$osbe#!"ffes "n de! mode!nen B"bel'"ssens&$aft DTKbingen, $)*E is especially important for our

problem.

Reflection on hermeneutics Dthe method of interpretationE maes it clear that

interpretation, that is, e+egesis, is always based on principles and conceptions which

guide e+egesis as presuppositions, although interpreters are often not aware of this fact.To illustrate the point we may tae as an e+ample the understanding of the New

Testament conception of !spirit! . -uring the nineteenth century the philosophies

of 6ant and egel profoundly influenced theologians and shaped their anthropologicaland ethical conceptions. Therefore, !spirit! in the New Testament was understood to

mean spirit in the idealistic sense, based on the tradition of humanistic thining which

goes bac to #ree idealistic philosophy. !2pirit! was thus understood to be the power of

reason , in the inclusive sense as the power which wors not only in rational

thining, in logic, but also in ethics, in moral Gudgments and behaviour and in the field of

art and of poetry. !2pirit! was thought of as dwelling in the soul of men. (n a certainsense spirit was thought to be a power from beyond, from beyond the individual subGect.

The spirit within the soul was a part of the divine spirit which was cosmic reason.

Therefore the spirit was for the individual subGect the guide to living a truly human life.an had to realie by education the possibilities given him by the spirit. This conception

was generally dominant in philosophy as well as in theology during the nineteenth

century.


18/34

The conception of !spirit! in the New Testament, especially in the 8auline

epistles, was understood in this sense that spirit is the power of moral Gudgment and

behaviourC and the attribute !holy! was understood in the sense of moral purity. Further,spirit was understood as the power of nowledge from which creedal and dogmatic

statements grow. @f course, the spirit was thought to be the gift of #od, but it was

understood in the idealistic sense. Then ermann #unel, in his little boohrist. (n this

respect /ilhelm Bousset'sy!"os ($!"stos ;$st ed. $)$5E was a landmar in NewTestament research.

( need not continue this review. (t will be clear that eve!y "nte!%!ete! b!"n#s '"t$

$"m &e!ta"n &on&e%t"ons6 %e!$a%s "deal"st"& o! %sy&$olo#"&al6 as %!esu%%os"t"ons of $"se:e#es"s6 in most cases unconsciously. But then the ;uestion arises, which conceptions

are right and ade;uateH /hich presuppositions are right and ade;uateH @r is it perhaps

impossible to give an answer to these ;uestionsH

( may illustrate the embarrassment by a further e+ample. According to

8aul, the believer who has received baptism is free from sinC he can no longer commit

sin. !/e now that our old self was crucified with him Ii.e., by baptismJ so that the sinfulbody might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For he who has died

is freed from sin! DRom. ::"4E. ow must we then understand the warnings and

admonitions against sin contained in 8aul's e+hortationsH ow can the imperative !you

shall not sin! be reconciled with the indicative !you are freed from sin!H 8aul /ernle'sboo


19/34

be without presuppositions with regard to the results of our e+egesis. /e cannot now in

advance what the te+t will sayC on the contrary, we must learn from it. An e+egesis which,

for e+ample, maes the presupposition that its results must agree with some dogmaticstatement is not a real and fair e+egesis. There is, however, a difference in principle

between presuppositions in respect of results and presuppositions in respect of method. (t

can be said that method is nothing other than a ind of ;uestioning, a way of putting;uestions. This means that ( cannot understand a given te+t without asing certain

;uestions of it. The ;uestions may differ very widely. (f you are interested in psychology,

you will read the Bible "" or any other literature "" asing ;uestions about psychologicalphenomena. ou may read te+ts to gain nowledge of individual or of social psychology,

or of the psychology of poetry, of religion, of technology, etc.

(n this case you have certain conceptions by which you understand psychological

life and by which you interpret the te+ts. /hence do you obtain these conceptionsH This;uestion calls attention to another important fact, to another presupposition of

interpretation. ou obtain the conceptions from your own psychical life. The resulting or

corresponding presupposition of e+egesis is that you do have a relation to the subGect"

matter ;)a&$eA "" in this case to the psychical life "" about which you interrogate a givente+t. ( call this relation the !life"relation.! (n this relation you have a certain

understanding of the matter in ;uestion, and from this understanding grow theconceptions of e+egesis. From reading the te+ts you will learn, and your understanding

will be enriched and corrected. /ithout such a relation and such previous understanding

;=o!ve!stndn"sA it is impossible to understand any te+t.(t is easy to see that you cannot understand any te+t of which the theme is music

unless you are musical. ou cannot understand a paper or a boo on mathematics unless

you can thin mathematically, or a boo on philosophy unless you can thin

philosophically. ou cannot understand an historical te+t unless you yourself livehistorically and can therefore understand the life of history, that is, the powers and

motives which give content and motion to history as the will to power, the state, laws,

etc. ou cannot understand a novel unless you now from your own life what love orfriendship, hate or Gealousy, etc., are.

This is, then, the basic presupposition for every form of e+egesis that your own

relation to the subGect"matter prompts the ;uestion you bring to the te+t and elicits theanswers you obtain from the te+t.

( have tried to analye the situation of the interpreter by using the e+ample of

psychological interpretation. ou can read and interpret a te+t with other interests, for

e+ample, with aesthetical or with historical interest, with the interest in political orcultural history of states, etc. /ith regard to historical interpretation there are two

possibilities. First, your interest may be to give a picture of a past time, to reconstruct the

pastC second, your interest may be to learn from historical documents what you need foryour present practical life. For e+ample, you can interpret 8lato as an interesting figure of

the culture of fifth"century Athenian #reece, but you can also interpret 8lato to learn

through him the truth about human life. (n the latter case your interpretation is notmotivated by interest in a past epoch of history, but by your search for the truth.

Now, when we interpret the Bible, what is our interestH >ertainly the Bible is an

historical document and we must interpret the Bible by the methods of historical research.

/e must study the language of the Bible, the historical situation of the biblical authors,


20/34

etc. But what is our true and real interestH Are we to read the Bible only as an historical

document in order to reconstruct an epoch of past history for which the Bible serves as a

!source!H @r is it more than a sourceH ( thin our interest is really to hear what the Biblehas to say for our actual present, to hear what is the truth about our life and about our

soul.

2

Now the ;uestion arises as to which is the ade;uate method, which are the

ade;uate conceptionsH And also, which is the relation, the !life"relation,! which we have

in advance, to the theme ;)a&$eA of the Bible from which our ;uestions and our

conceptions ariseH ust we say that we do not have such relation in advance, since thetheme of the Bible is the revelation of #od, and we can gain a relation to #od only by is

revelation and not in advance of itH

(ndeed, there are theologians who have argued in this manner, but it seems to me

that they are in error. an does have in advance a relation to #od which has found itsclassical e+pression in the words of Augustine Tu nos fecisti ad te, et cor nostrum

in;uietum est, donec re;uiescat in te! DThou hast made us for Thyself, and our heart isrestless, until it rests in TheeE. an has a nowledge of #od in advance, though not of the

revelation of #od, that is, of is action in >hrist. e has a relation to #od in his search

for #od, conscious or unconscious. an's life is moved by the search for #od because itis always moved, consciously or unconsciously, by the ;uestion about his own personal

e+istence. The ;uestion of #od and the ;uestion of myself are identical.

Now we have found the ade;uate way to put the ;uestion when we interpret the

Bible. This ;uestion is, $o' "s man*s e:"sten&e unde!stood "n t$e B"ble ( approach theBiblical te+ts with this ;uestion for the same reason which supplies the deepest motive

for all historical research and for all interpretation of historical documents. (t is that by

understanding history ( can gain an understanding of the possibilities of human life andthereby of the possibilities of my own life. The ultimate reason for studying history is to

become conscious of the possibilities of human e+istence.

The interpretation of the Biblical scriptures, however, has a special motive. Thetradition and the preaching of the >hurch tells us that we are to hear in the Bible

authoritative words about our e+istence. /hat distinguishes the Bible from other

literature is that in the Bible a certain possibility of e+istence is shown to me not as

something which ( am free to choose or to refuse. Rather, the Bible becomes for me aword addressed personally to me, which not only informs me about e+istence in general,

but gives me real e+istence. This, however, is a possibility on which ( cannot count in

advance. (t is not a methodological presupposition by means of which ( can understandthe Bible. For this possibility can become a reality only when ( understand the word.

@ur tas, therefore, is to discover the hermeneutical principle by which we can

understand what is said in the Bible. (t is not permissible to evade this ;uestion, since inprinciple every historical document raises it, namely, what possibility of understanding

human e+istence is shown and offered in each document of the BibleH (n critical study of

the Bible ( can do no more than search for an answer to this ;uestion. (t is beyond the

competence of critical study that ( should hear the word of the Bible as a word addressed


21/34

personally to me and that ( should believe in it. This personal understanding, in

traditional terminology, is imparted by the oly 2pirit, who is not at my disposal. @n the

other hand, we can discover the ade;uate hermeneutical principle, the right way to asthe right ;uestions, only by obGective, critical reflection. (f it is true that the right

;uestions are concerned with the possibilities of understanding human e+istence, then it

is necessary to discover the ade;uate conceptions by which such understanding is to bee+pressed. To discover these conceptions is the tas of philosophy.

But now the obGection is brought forward that e+egesis falls under the control of

philosophy. This is the case indeed, but we must as in what sense it is so. (t is an illusionto hold that any e+egesis can be independent of secular conceptions. 0very interpreter is

inescapably dependent on conceptions which he has inherited from a tradition,

consciously or unconsciously, and every tradition is dependent on some philosophy or

other. (n this way, for e+ample, much of the e+egesis of the nineteenth century wasdependent on idealistic philosophy and on its conceptions, on its understanding of human

e+istence. 2uch idealistic conceptions still influence many interpreters today. (t follows,

then, that historical and e+egetical study should not be practiced without reflection and

without giving an account of the conceptions which guide the e+egesis. (n other words,the ;uestion of the !right! philosophy arises.

At this point we must realie that there will never be a right philosophy in the

sense of an absolutely perfect system, a philosophy which could give answers to all

;uestions and clear up all riddles of human e+istence. @ur ;uestion is simply which

philosophy today offers the most ade;uate perspective and conceptions for understandinghuman e+istence. ere it seems to me that we should learn from e+istentialist philosophy,

because in this philosophical school human e+istence is directly the obGect of attention.

/e would learn little if e+istential philosophy, as many people suppose, attemptedto offer an ideal pattern of human e+istence. The concept of !truth of e+istence!

;E"#entl"&$ke"tA does not furnish such a pattern. 0+istentialist philosophy does not say to

me !in such and such a way you must e+ist!C it says only !you must e+ist!C or, since eventhis claim may be too large, it shows me what it means to e+ist. 0+istentialist philosophy

tries to show what it means to e+ist by distinguishing between man's being as !e+istence!

and the being of all worldly beings which are not !e+isting! but only !e+tant!

;vo!$andenA. DThis technical use of the word !e+istence! goes bac to 6ieregaard.E @nlymen can have an e+istence, because they are historical beings. That is to say, every man

has his own history. Always his present comes out of his past and leads into his future. e

realies his e+istence if he is aware that each !now! is the moment of free decision /hatelement in his past is to retain valueH /hat is his responsibility toward his future, since

no one can tae the place of anotherH No one can tae another's place, since every man

must die his own death. (n his loneliness every man realies his e+istence.@f course, ( cannot here carry out the e+istentialist analysis in detail. (t may be

enough to say that e+istentialist philosophy shows human e+istence to be true only in the

act of e+isting. 0+istentialist philosophy is far from pretending that it secures for man a

self"understanding of his own personal e+istence. For this self"understanding of my very


22/34

personal e+istence can only be realied in the concrete moments of my !here! and !now.!

0+istentialist philosophy, while it gives no answer to the ;uestion of my personal

e+istence, maes personal e+istence my own personal responsibility, and by doing so ithelps to mae me open to the word of the Bible. (t is clear, of course, that e+istentialist

philosophy has its origin in the personal"e+istential ;uestion about e+istence and its

possibilities. For how could it now about e+istence e+cept from its own e+istentialawareness, provided that e+istentialist philosophy is not identified with traditional

anthropologyH Thus it follows that e+istentialist philosophy can offer ade;uate

conceptions for the interpretation of the Bible, since the interpretation of the Bible isconcerned with the understanding of e+istence.

@nce again we as, does the e+istentialist understanding of e+istence and the

e+istentialist analysis of that understanding already include a decision in favor of a

particular understandingH >ertainly such a decision is included, but what decisionH8recisely the decision of which ( have already spoen !ou must e+ist.! /ithout this

decision, without the readiness to be a human being, a person who in responsibility taes

it upon himself to be, no one can understand a single word of the Bible as speaing to his

own personal e+istence. /hile this decision does not re;uire philosophical nowledge,scientific interpretation of the Bible does re;uire the e+istentialist conceptions in order to

e+plain the Biblical understanding of human e+istence. Thus only does it become clearthat the hearing of the word of the Bible can tae place only in personal decision.

That e+istentialist philosophy does not furnish a pattern of ideal e+istence may be

illustrated by an e+ample. 0+istentialist analysis describes particular phenomena ofe+istence, for e+ample, the phenomenon of love. (t would be a misunderstanding to thin

that the e+istentialist analysis of love can lead me to understand how ( must love here and

now. The e+istentialist analysis can do nothing more than mae it clear to me that ( can

understand love only by loving. No analysis can tae the place of my duty to understandmy love as an encounter in my own personal e+istence.

To be sure, philosophical analysis presupposes the Gudgment that it is possible to

analye human e+istence without reflection on the relation between man and #od. But tounderstand human e+istence in its relation to #od can only mean to understand my

personal e+istence, and philosophical analysis does not claim to instruct me about my

personal self"understanding. The purely formal analysis of e+istence does not tae intoaccount the relation between man and #od, because it does not tae into account the

concrete events of the personal life, the concrete encounters which constitute personal

e+istence. (f it is true that the revelation of #od is realied only in the concrete events of

life here and now, and that the analysis of e+istence is confined to man's temporal lifewith its series of here and now, then this analysis unveils a sphere which faith alone can

understand as the sphere of the relation between man and #od.

The Gudgment that man's e+istence can be analyed without taing into accounthis relation with #od may be called an e+istential decision, but the elimination is not a

matter of subGective preferenceC it is grounded in the e+istential insight that the idea of

#od is not at our disposal when we construct a theory of man's e+istence. oreover, theGudgment points to the idea of absolute freedom, whether this idea be accepted as true or

reGected as absurd. /e can also put it this way that the elimination of man's relation with

#od is the e+pression of my personal nowledge of myself, the acnowledgment that (

cannot find #od by looing at or into myself. Thus, this elimination itself gives to the


23/34

analysis of e+istence its neutrality. (n the fact that e+istentialist philosophy does not tae

into account the relation between man and #od, the confession is implied that ( cannot

spea of #od as my #od by looing into myself. y personal relation with #od can bemade real by #od only, by the acting #od who meets me in is /ord.

%

The Meaning of (od as )cting

1

(t is often said that it is impossible to carry through de"mythologiing

consistently, since, if the message of the New Testament is to be retained at all, we are

bound to spea of #od as acting. (n such speech there remains a mythological residue.

For is it not mythological to spea of #od as actingH This obGection may also tae theform that, since de"mythologiing as such is not consistent with speaing of #od as

acting, >hristian preaching must always remain mythological as was the preaching of theNew Testament in general. But are such arguments validH /e must as whether we are

really speaing mythologically when we spea of #od as acting. /e must as in what

case and under what conditions is such speaing mythological. ?et us consider how#od's action is understood in mythological thining.

(n mythological thining the action of #od, whether in nature, history, human

fortune, or the inner life of the soul, is understood as an action which intervenes between

the natural, or historical, or psychological course of eventsC it breas and lins them at thesame time. The divine causality is inserted as a lin in the chain of the events which

follow one another according to the causal ne+us. This is meant by the popular notion

that a miraculous event cannot be understood e+cept as a miracle, that is, as the effect of asupernatural cause. (n such thining the action of #od is indeed conceived in the same

way as secular actions or events are conceived, for the divine power which effects

miracles is considered as a natural power. (n fact, however, a miracle in the sense of anaction of #od cannot be thought of as an event which happens on the level of secular

DworldlyE events. (t is not visible, not capable of obGective, scientific proof which is

possible only within an obGective view of the world. To the scientific, obGective observer

#od's action is a mystery.The thought of the action of #od as an unworldly and transcendent action can be

protected from misunderstanding only if it is not thought of as an action which happens

between the worldly actions or events, but as happening within them. The closeconnection between natural and historical events remains intact as it presents itself to the

observer. The action of #od is hidden from every eye e+cept the eye of faith. @nly the so"

called natural, secular DworldlyE events are visible to every man and capable of proof. (t is'"t$"n them that #od's hidden action is taing place.

(f someone now insists that to spea in this sense of #od as acting is to spea

mythologically, ( have no obGection, since in this case myth is something very different

from what it is as the obGect of de"mythologiing. /hen we spea of #od as acting, we


24/34

do not spea mythologically in the obGectifying sense.

2

Now another ;uestion arises (f faith maintains that #od's hidden action is at worwithin the chain of secular events, faith may be suspected of being pantheistic piety. As

we reflect on this problem, we can further clarify the sense in which we must understand

#od's action. Faith insists not on the direct identity of #od's action with worldly events,but, if ( may be permitted to put it so, on the parado+ical identity which can be believed

only here and now against the appearance of non"identity. (n faith ( can understand an

accident with which ( meet as a gracious gift of #od or as is punishment, or as is

chastisement. @n the other hand, ( can understand the same accident as a lin in the chainof the natural course of events. (f, for e+ample, my child has recovered from a dangerous

illness, ( give thans to #od because e has saved my child. By faith ( can accept a

thought or a resolution as a divine inspiration without removing the thought or the

resolution from its connection with psychological motivation. (t is possible, for e+ample,that a decision which seemed insignificant when ( made it, is seen later on to have

mared a decisive and fruitful !turning point! in my life. Then ( give thans to #od whoinspired the decision. The creedal belief in #od as creator is not a guarantee given in

advance by means of which ( am permitted to understand any event as wrought by #od.

The understanding of #od as creator is genuine only when ( understand myself here andnow as the creature of #od. This e+istential understanding does not need to e+press itself

in my consciousness as e+plicit nowledge. (n any case the belief in the almighty #od is

not the conviction given in advance that there e+ists an almighty Being who is able to do

all things. Belief in the almighty #od is genuine only when it actually taes place in myvery e+istence, as ( surrender myself to the power of #od who overwhelms me here and

now. @nce more this does not mean that the belief must e+press itself in my

consciousness as e+plicit nowledgeC it does mean, however, that the statements of beliefare not general statements. For e+ample, ?uther's statement te!!a ub"Cue dom"n" is not

genuine as a dogmatic statement but only here and now when spoen in the decision of

my very e+istence. This distinction, ( thin, can be best understood today by one forwhom the dogmatic statement has become doubtful, that is, in the misery of

imprisonment in Russia.

/e may conclude that pantheism is indeed a conviction given in advance, a

general world"view ;eltans&$auun#A6 which affirms that every event in the world is thewor of #od because #od is immanent in the world. >hristian faith, by contrast, holds

that #od acts on me, speas to me, here and now. The >hristian believes this because he

nows that he is addressed by the grace of #od which meets him in the /ord of #od, in=esus >hrist. #od's grace opens his eyes to see that !in everything #od wors for good

with those who love him! DRom. %*%E. This faith is not a nowledge possessed once for

allC it is not a general world"view. (t can be realied only here and now. (t can be a livingfaith only when the believer is always asing what #od is telling him here and now.

#od's action generally, in nature and history, is hidden from the believer Gust as much as

from the non"believer. But in so far as he sees what comes upon him here and now in the

light of the divine word, he can and must tae it as #od's action. 8antheism can say !there


25/34

divinity is woring! with regard to any event, whatever it may be, without taing into

account the importance of what happens for my personal e+istence. >hristian faith can

only say, !( trust that #od is woring here and there, but is action is hidden, for it is notdirectly identical with the visible event. /hat it is that e is doing ( do not yet now, and

perhaps ( never shall now it, but faithfully ( trust that it is important for my personal

e+istence, and ( must as what it is that #od says to me. 8erhaps it may be only that (must endure and be silent.!

/hat follows from all thisH (n faith ( deny the closed connection of the worldly

events, the chain of cause and effect as it presents itself to the neutral observer. ( deny theinterconnection of the worldly events not as mythology does, which by breaing the

connection places supernatural events into the chain of natural eventsC ( deny the worldly

connection as a whole when ( spea of #od. ( deny the worldly connection of events

when ( spea of myself, for in this connection of worldly events, my self, my personale+istence, my own personal life, is no more visible and capable of proof than is #od as

acting.

(n faith ( realie that the scientific world"view does not comprehend the whole

reality of the world and of human life, but faith does not offer another general world"viewwhich corrects science in its statements on its own level. Rather faith acnowledges that

the world"view given by science is a necessary means for doing our wor within theworld. (ndeed, ( need to see the worldly events as lined by cause and effect not only as a

scientific observer, but also in my daily living. (n doing so there remains no room for

#od's woring. This is the parado+ of faith, that faith !nevertheless! understands as #od'saction here and now an event which is completely intelligible in the natural or historical

connection of events. This !nevertheless! is inseparable from faith. This !nevertheless!

Dthe #erman denno&$ of 8s. 45*5C and 8aul Tillich's"n s%"te ofA is inseparable from faith.

@nly this is real faith in miracle. e who thins that it is possible to spea of miracles asof demonstrable events capable of proof offends against the thought of #od as acting in

hidden ways. e subGects #od's action to the control of obGective observation. e delivers

up the faith in miracles to the criticism of science and in so doing validates suchcriticism.

ere another ;uestion arises. (f #od's action must be thought of as hidden, how is

it possible to spea of it e+cept in purely negative statementsH (s the conception oftranscendence an e+clusively negative conceptionH (t would be if to spea of #od did not

also mean to spea of our personal e+istence. (f we spea of #od as acting in general,

transcendence would indeed be a purely negative conception, since every positivedescription of transcendence transposes it into this world. (t is wrong to spea of #od as

acting in general statements, in terms of the formal analysis of man's e+istence. (t is

precisely the formal, e+istentialist analysis of human e+istence which shows that it isindeed impossible to spea of our personal e+istence in general statements. ( can spea of

my personal e+istence only here and now in the concrete situation of my life. To be sure,

( can e+plicate in general statements the meaning, the sense of the conception of #od and

of #od's action in so far as ( can say that #od is the power which bestows upon me life


26/34

and e+istence, and in so far as ( can describe these actions as the encounter which

demands my own personal decision. By doing so ( acnowledge that ( cannot spea of

#od's action in general statementsC ( can spea only of what e does here and now withme, of what e speas here and now to me. 0ven if we do not spea of #od in general

terms but rather of is action here and now on us, we must spea in terms of general

conceptions, for all of our language employs conceptions, but it does not follow that theissue in hand is a general one.

*

Now we may as once more whether it is possible to spea of #od as acting

without falling into mythological speech. (t is often asserted that the language of the>hristian faith must of necessity be mythological language. This assertion must be

e+amined carefully. First, even if we concede that the language of faith is really the

language of myth, we must as how this fact affects the program of de"mythologiing.

This concession is by no means a valid argument against de"mythologiing, for thelanguage of myth, when it serves as the language of faith, loses its mythological sense. To

spea, for e+ample, of #od as creator, no longer involves speaing of is creatorship inthe sense of the old myth. ythological conceptions can be used as symbols or images

which are perhaps necessary to the language of religion and therefore also of the

>hristian faith. Thus it becomes evident that the use of mythological language, far frombeing an obGection to de"mythologiing, positively demands it.

2econd, the assertion that the language of faith needs the language of myth can be

validated only if a further ;ualification is taen into account. (f it is true that mythological

conceptions are necessary as symbols or images, we must as what it is that is nowe+pressed by such symbols or images. 2urely it is impossible that their meaning within

the language of faith should be e+pressed in terms of mythological conceptions. Their

meaning can and must be stated without recourse to mythological terms.Third, to spea of #od as acting does not necessarily mean to spea in symbols or

images. 2uch speech must be able to convey its full, direct meaning. ow, then, must we

spea of #od as acting if our speech is not to be understood as mythological speechH #odas acting does not refer to an event which can be perceived by me without myself being

drawn into the event as into #od's action, without myself taing part in it as being acted

upon. (n other words, to spea of #od as acting involves the events of personal e+istence.

The encounter with #od can be an event for man only here and now, since man liveswithin the limits of space and time. /hen we spea of #od as acting, we mean that we

are confronted with #od, addressed, ased, Gudged, or blessed by #od. Therefore, to

spea in this manner is not to spea in symbols or images, but to spea analogically. Forwhen we spea in this manner of #od as acting, we conceive #od's action as an analogue

to the actions taing place between men. oreover, we conceive the communion between

#od and man as an analogue to the communion between man and man.M (t is in thisanalogical sense that we spea of #od's love and care for men, of is demands and of

is wrath, of is promise and grace, and it is in this analogical sense that we call im

Father. /e are not only Gustified in speaing thus, but we must do so, since now we are

not speaing of an idea about #od, but of #od imself. Thus, #od's love and care, etc.,


27/34

are not images or symbolsC these conceptions mean real e+periences of #od as acting

here and now. 0specially in the conception of #od as Father the mythological sense

vanished long ago. /e can understand the meaning of the term Father as applied to #odby considering what it means when we spea to our fathers or when our children spea to

us as their fathers. As applied to #od the physical import of the term father has

disappeared completelyC it e+presses a purely personal relationship. (t is in this analogicalsense that we spea of #od as Father.

M 2ee the discussion of analogy by the late 0rich Fran in his+$"loso%$"&al ,nde!stand"n# and Rel"#"ous

!ut$ DNew or. $)&E.

From this view of the situation some important conclusions follow. First, onlysuch statements about #od are legitimate as e+press the e+istential relation between #od

and man. 2tatements which spea of #od's actions as cosmic events are illegitimate. The

affirmation that #od is creator cannot be a theoretical statement about #od as &!eato!

mund" in a general sense. The affirmation can only be a personal confession that (

understand myself to be a creature which owes its e+istence to #od. (t cannot be made as

a neutral statement, but only as thansgiving and surrender. oreover, statements whichdescribe #od's action as cultic action, for e+ample, that e offered is 2on as asacrificial victim, are not legitimate, unless they are understood in a purely symbolic

sense. 2econd, the so"called images which describe #od as acting are legitimate only if

they mean that #od is a personal being acting on persons. Therefore, political andGuridical conceptions are not permissible, unless they are understood purely as symbols.

+

At this point a really important obGection arises. (f what we have said is correct,

does it not follow that #od's action is deprived of obGective reality, that it is reduced to apurely subGective, psychological e+perience ;E!lebn"sAD that #od e+ists only as an inner

event in the soul, whereas faith has real meaning only if #od e+ists outside the believerH

2uch obGections are brought forward again and again, and the shades of 2chleiermacherand Feuerbach are conGured up in this controversy.E!lebn"s Dpsychological e+perienceE

was indeed a popular catchword in #erman theology before the first /orld /ar. Faith

was often described asE!lebn"s. (t was on this catch"word that 6arl Barth and the so"called dialectical theologians made an all"out attac. /hen we say that to spea of #od

means to spea of our own personal e+istence, the meaning is a totally different one. The

obGection which ( have Gust summaried suffers from a psychological misunderstandingof the life of the soul. From the statement that to spea of #od is to spea of myself, it by

no means follows that #od is not outside the believer. DThis would be the case only iffaith is interpreted as a purely psychological event.E /hen man is understood in the

genuine sense as an historical being which has its reality in concrete situations anddecisions, in the very encounters of life,M it is clear, on the one hand, that faith, speaing

of #od as acting, cannot defend itself against the charge of being an illusion, and, on the

other hand, that faith does not mean a psychologically subGective event.

M an is an historical being not only in so far as he is enmeshed in the course of the world"history, but


28/34

particularly in so far as he has a personal history of his own.

(s it enough to say that faith grows out of the encounter with the oly 2criptures

as the /ord of #od, that faith is nothing but simple hearingH The answer is yes. But this

answer is valid only if the 2criptures are understood neither as a manual of doctrine noras a record of witnesses to a faith which ( interpret by sympathy and empathy. @n the

contrary, to hear the 2criptures as the /ord of #od means to hear them as a word which

is addressed to me, as ke!y#ma6 as a proclamation. Then my understanding is not a

neutral one, but rather my response to a call. The fact that the word of the 2criptures is#od's /ord cannot be demonstrated obGectivelyC it is an event which happens here and

now. #od's /ord is hidden in the 2criptures as each action of #od is hidden everywhere.

( have said that faith grows out of the encounters which are the substance of ourpersonal lives as historical lives. (ts meaning is readily understood when we reflect upon

the simple phenomena of our personal lives. The love of my friend, my wife, my

children, meets me genuinely only here and now as an event. 2uch love cannot beobserved by obGective methods but only by personal e+perience and response. From the

outside, for e+ample, by psychological observation, it cannot be perceived as love, but

only as an interesting detail of psychological processes which are open to differentinterpretations. Thus, the fact that #od cannot be seen or apprehended apart from faith

does not mean that e does not e+ist apart from faith.

/e must remember, however, that the affirmations of faith in its relation to its

obGect, to #od, cannot be proved obGectively. This is not a weaness of faithC it is its truestrength, as my teacher /ilhelm errmann insisted. For if the relation between faith and

#od could be proved as the relation between subGect and obGect in worldly situations can

be proved, then e would be placed on the same level as the world, within which thedemand for proof is legitimate.

ay we then say that #od has !proved! imself by the !facts of redemption!

;?e"lstatsa&$enA By no means. For what we call facts of redemption are themselvesobGects of faith and are apprehended as such only by the eye of faith. They cannot be

perceived apart from faith, as if faith could be based on data in the same way as the

natural sciences are based on data which are open to empirical observation. To be sure,

the facts of redemption constitute the grounds of faith, but only as perceived by faithitself. The principle is the same in our personal relationship as persons with persons.

Trust in a friend can rest solely on the personality of my friend which ( can perceive only

when ( trust him. There cannot be any trust or love without ris. (t is true, as /ilhelmerrmann taught us, that the ground and the obGect of faith are identical. They are one

and the same thing, because we cannot spea of what #od is in imself but only of what

e is doing to us and with us.

,

Now another ;uestion can be answered. (f we hold that #od's action is not visible,

not capable of proofC that the events of redemption cannot be demonstrated, that the spirit

with which the believers are endowed is not an obGect visible to obGective observationC ifwe hold that we can spea of all such matters only when we are concerned with our

personal e+istence, then it can be said that faith is a new understanding of personal


29/34

e+istence. (n other words, #od's action bestows upon us a new understanding of

ourselves.

The obGection may be raised that in this case the event of #od's revelation isnothing but the occasion which gives us understanding of ourselves and that the occasion

is not recognied as an action which occurs in our actual lives and transforms them. (n

short, revelation is not recognied as a wonder. Then, the obGection goes on, nothinghappens but understanding or consciousness of the selfC the content of the self"

understanding is a timeless truthC once perceived it remains valid without regard to the

occasion, namely, revelation, which has given rise to it.This obGection is based on a confusion to which ( have referred above Dp. ::E, i.e.,

self"understanding of personal e+istence is confused with the philosophical analysis of

man. The e+istential understanding ;das E:"stent"elleA is confused with the e+istentialist

understanding ;das E:"stent"alA. @f philosophical analysis it may well be said that itsstatements are statements of timeless truth, not answers to the ;uestions of the actual

moment. But it is precisely this philosophical analysis of man, the e:"stent"al"st

understanding, which shows that the self"understanding "" the e+istential understanding ""

becomes realied only here and now as

Documents

Bultmann, Rudolf - Jesus Christ and Mythology