| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
As seen earlier, Bultmann's problem statement and the solutions proposed by his disciples did not align. This difference stems from the fact that Bultmann attempted to address the issue from an existentialist standpoint of "historical facts do not give faith," while the Bultmann school adopted a historicist stance of "historical facts do give faith".
Käsemann and others believed that the apostles' faith was derived from Jesus, and that clarifying the content of Jesus' ministry would lead to an understanding of apostolic faith. On the other hand, Bultmann emphasized the fact that the Apostles, despite having Jesus constantly in their presence, never attained firm faith. For Bultmann, "historical facts do not give faith" means "Jesus did not give Apostolic faith".
The issue of the "discontinuity between the two teachings" was a contemporary issue for the disciples of the first century, and from our modern perspective, it arises against the backdrop of the issue of historical Jesus fact, that is, Jesus' "pastness", has been resolved. Therefore, this is a problem that cannot be solved by solving historical facts, and it is a problem that must be solved only from Bultmann's perspective, who understands this point.
However, Jesus' teachings and the apostles' kerygma remained in a state of discontinuity. Under the influence of his colleague Heidegger's philosophy, Bultmann sought to find the connection between Jesus' teachings and the apostles' ministry in the existentialist subjective decisions of the apostles. Because this subjective decision involved a kind of "leap", it became acceptable for the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic kerygma to remain disconnected.
As a result, Bultmann, through his examination of apostolic faith, arrived at a unique view of faith. For him, this faith would bridge the gap between Jesus' teachings and the apostolic ministry, and that faith was as follows:
"Faith is nothing more than a response to kerygma, and kerygma is nothing less than the spoken word of God, the questioning, the promise, the judgment, and the bestowal of grace ... the propositions of the kerygma are only comprehensible to those who can understand the kerygma as a statement addressed to their own situation—for the time being, as a question, as a demand."
"The word of the kerygma is not something to which we can pose a question of cognition; rather, it is the word of God that poses to us the question of whether we want to believe it or not."
"Jesus' words teach us the paradoxical unity between thorough law and thorough grace, and between sharpened demands and the boundless acceptance of sinful humanity. It also teaches a 'contrapuntal structure' between human openness towards one's neighbor and human complete dependence on God."
"Faith, therefore, is the overcoming of stumbling blocks."
The kerygma is the apostle's question that demands faith from us, and it rejects our understanding through the paradox of "thorough law and thorough grace", but faith arises from overcoming this stumbling block. Here, Bultmann’s conception of the structure of faith is clear.
For Bultmann, faith is "faith in the word of the kerygma", and it is perfected in two things: "kerygma" and "existentialist subjective decision". The absence of a role for Jesus is a consequence of this two-part faith structure, and Bultmann's "No Need to Recognize Jesus", as introduced in Chapter 2 - Easy Study 3, is a natural consequence of this view of faith.
――The apostolic kerygma is a declaration of Christological faith that the human Jesus is the Christ of God. Mission is an attempt to transmit faith by presenting this paradox to people. Faith is established within us when we hear this kerygma, overcome its paradoxical nature and contradiction, and make our own subjective decisions.――
To view evangelism, which is a call from God to humanity, as a "paradox" and a "contradiction" — that is, an impossible task for humankind — is in line with Kant's idea of "separation of phenomena and things-in-themselves", and in this respect, it is already clear that Bultmann's understanding of faith has moved away from conservatism.
The inadequacy of Bultmann’s understanding of faith, seen here, appears to stem from his understanding of the kerygma. For in this case he views the apostles' kerygma as "teaching", and after Jesus' death, the apostles who took Jesus' place delivered a second, new "teaching" to the audience. As a result he contrasts the apostles' kerygma with Jesus' teaching.
However, is the kerygma, as Bultmann suggests, a paradoxical Christology? Should it even be considered a "teaching" in the first place? In the issue of "the discontinuity between Jesus' teachings and kerygma," I have doubts about this initial part of the problem statement.
If we accept the problem of "discontinuity between the teachings of Jesus and the kerygma of the apostles" in the sense that Bultmann describes, that is, if we accept it in the sense that "there are two different teachings", then the solution would certainly be limited to seeking continuity between the two, as was done in "The Second Quest for the Historical Jesus". If both are meant to fall under the same framework of “teaching,” it makes no sense for there to be such a significant difference between teacher and disciple. They must be recognized as interconnected.
However, despite the continuity being confirmed by Bultmann's students, the validity of Bultmann's counter-argument, "What, exactly, would have been achieved by it?", remains undeniable.Bultmann's assertion that the sanctity of kerygma cannot be revealed through historical research should be partially accepted from the perspective of the universality of faith. Furthermore, if the teachings of Jesus and the apostles were consistent, it would be difficult to explain why his doctrines did not quickly give rise to kerygmatic faith among the apostles during his lifetime.
Therefore, if there is no solution along these lines, we must consider the possibility that the initial formulation of the problem was flawed — namely, that the apostles' kerygma may not have been "teaching". The problem itself — the discontinuity between the teachings of Jesus and the kerygma of the apostles — must be acknowledged. However, isn't the discontinuity there not a discontinuity between "two teachings", but a discontinuity between "Jesus' teachings" and "something other than teachings" that the apostles brought?
Therefore, let's re-examine what the kerygma preached by the apostles actually was. What did Peter say in the Book of Acts? Was it a "teaching"? Let's take a look.