| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
Chapter 3 Establishment of the Apostolic Faith (6)
Proposition 1－Argument Proposition 1: ResurrectionPrinciple of the establishment of the Apostles' Faith:― "Restoration of Known Truth" Type
The following is the kerygma passage indicated by M. Dibelius and C.H. Dodd, contemporary New Testament scholars of Bultmann:
(Dibelius) Acts 2:23－, 3:13－, 10:37－, 13:23－
(Dodd) Acts 2:14－36, 2:38－39, 3:12－26, 4:8－12, 10:34－43
As Käsemann points out, kerygma is diverse and can be found scattered throughout the Epistles (1 Cor. 15:1-5, Phil. 2:6, etc.),
In contrast, the kerygma mentioned above is something that Peter and Paul (Paul only in chapter 13) spoke of when they were preaching to unbelievers (though they were Jews). Since Bultmann's emphasis is on the establishment of faith through a subjective decision, it can be understood that the kerygma as a mission to non-Christians was the subject of his consideration.
So, what is said in this "Apostle Kerygma"? Looking at the beginning, Acts 2:14-36, we can see that it mainly consists of two contents.
2:14－21 Pentecost as the fulfillment of the prophecy of the prophet Joel
2:22－24 Testimonies about the actions and resurrection of Jesus
2:25－31 The resurrection of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Psalms of the prophet David
2:32－33 The testimony of Jesus' resurrection and the explanation of Pentecost based on it
2:34－35 Explanation of the resurrection according to David's prophecy
2:36－37 Appeal to non-believers
This kerygma alternates between prophecy and testimony, repeating the pattern of Old Testament prophecy — Testimony about Jesus — Old Testament prophecy — Testimony about Jesus — Old Testament prophecy. In fact, the kerygma consists of these two elements: "the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy" and "the testimony about Jesus," and this is the same for the kerygmas of other apostles.
3:12－17 Testimonies and claims about Jesus
3:18－26 Fulfillment of prophecies by Moses, Samuel, and the Holy Prophets
10:34－42 Testimonies and claims about Jesus
10:43 Testimony by the prophets
While it is already well known that all kerygmas share structural similarities,
While the content of the Old Testament prophecy fulfillment sections varies depending on the context of the sermon, the testimony about Jesus remains fixed. In other words, while the author attempts to prove Jesus’ divinity through numerous Old Testament prophecies, conversely, this means that these various Old Testament passages are being selectively and interchangeably used as proof that Jesus was sent by the God of the Old Testament.
Namely, in the Apostolic Kerygma, the emphasis is not on the fulfillment of individual Old Testament prophecies, but rather on the testimony concerning Jesus, with references to Old Testament prophecies being secondary. In fact, the kerygma in Acts 10:34–43 contains only one verse of Old Testament prophecy.
Therefore, it can be said that the core of the kerygma is the section that refers to Jesus, but what exactly is the apostle trying to say there?
I would like to point out that there is one notable feature common to all kerygmas. To confirm this, I will quote the entire central section below.
2:22－24（By Peter）
Men Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. (But) God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
3:13－15（By Peter）
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, (but) God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
4:10（By Peter）
then know this, you and everyone else in Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified (but) whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you completely healed.
10:37－41（By Peter）
You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, (but) God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen — by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
13:27－31（By Paul）
The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people.
When we examine these references to Jesus, we can see that the same fractal (self-similar) structure that we observed when we previously considered the kerygma as a whole, exists within it.
Namely, there are various descriptions of Jesus' actions during his lifetime and after his resurrection, and even the claim that the apostles themselves were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection, which seems to be of great importance, is mentioned inconsistently; for example, it is placed away (verse 32) from the middle of topic in chapter 2 and is omitted in the short kerygma of chapter 4.
Therefore, extending the above idea, it can be said that these actions of Jesus during his lifetime and after his resurrection are parts that can be replaced with various other words. In contrast, the following section is the only part that is consistently stated throughout the above.
"You killed Jesus." But "God raised Jesus."
Moreover, in Peter's kerygma, these two phrases are always closely related and are stated consecutively without any pause. In Paul's kerygma, other words are inserted between them, but the connection between the two is emphasized by the word "But (δε)" transcending those other words.
From this, we can see that the core of the apostolic kerygma is, "You killed Jesus. This Jesus God raised up." The consistent use of fixed language in missionary work, even when presented in different settings, suggests that this was the central and indispensable point of the mission.
Moreover, this is not derived from arbitrary interpretation or special "reading" of the kerygma, but rather, as seen above, it is considered mechanically from the form of the kerygma, leaving no room for any other judgment. The fact that this particular section is preserved in exactly the same form in all kerygmas — which is remarkable in itself — is evidence that this was precisely where the most striking feature of the kerygma lay.
So, what exactly were the apostles, especially Peter, trying to convey through this?
"You killed Jesus, but God raised Jesus up."
Beyond this point, this is a matter of interpretation, but the meaning of this statement is clear and does not require any special interpretation.
This statement, of course, does not assert the paradox that Bultmann claims. That is, it is clear that the main aim is not to present a paradoxical claim about Jesus' life and death, such as "Jesus died, but he is still alive," or a paradoxical Christology of the humanity and divinity in Jesus, such as "Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ of God."
Here, two states of Jesus are not being contrasted, but rather two judgments that were passed upon him. And the meaning of the difference in those judgments is being conveyed home to the people.
"You deemed Jesus deserving of execution, but God regarded him as worthy of being resurrected."
This is what Peter wanted to tell the people.
――You did not believe in Jesus, and I, too, lacked conviction about Jesus while he was still alive, so I let him be crucified. I approved the crowd's sentence of crucifixion. But that was wrong. Because he was resurrected. I am a witness to that. Is there any other way to understand Jesus' resurrection than that God deemed him worthy of being resurrected?――
This is roughly what Peter must have said. Why did Peter say this?
It was because he was given confidence in Jesus by this. Peter believed in Jesus through this understanding of the resurrection, and he thought that by explaining to others the reasons for his belief in Jesus, they too could come to believe in Jesus. Therefore, kerygma reveals the reasons for the establishment of the apostles' faith, and is not a "teaching" but a "testimony".
This is not the place to explain orthodox doctrine, but the above interpretation of kerygma is the very essence of the doctrine of resurrection. It is one of the things that has been understood to be the "meaning of resurrection" and it is a doctrine that should be given priority over interpretations of the resurrection as "conquering death" (Rom. 8:11), "the first fruits of the resurrection in the end times" (1 Cor. 15:20), or "the new birth of sinners" (1 Pet. 1:3).
Therefore, this interpretation of the kerygma reaffirms the orthodox doctrine of the resurrection and contains nothing new. However, it is important that it does not go beyond the realm of orthodox doctrine. It is something that many people, including Bultmann, have already done to go beyond the realm of orthodoxy to resolve the issue of "historical facts and faith".
Now, what does this understanding of kerygma, derived from the facts of the biblical text, lead to regarding the issue of "historical facts and faith"? Let's summarize below.
Firstly, it provides a complete answer to the historical fact and faith problem that Bultmann raised and the Bultmann school attempted to answer: namely, the problem of discontinuity and continuity between the historical Jesus and the apostle kerygma.
Bultmann questioned why the Bible contained two different teachings, because he viewed the apostle's ministry as a "teaching" on par with Jesus' preaching. However, the apostle kerygma was not presented as a “teaching,” that is, not as something to “believe and accept,” but rather as a disclosure of the basis for accepting what Jesus said as true. Therefore, it means that the teachings of the New Testament are essentially limited to the single teaching of Jesus, and the apostle kerygma presents as a testimony, from the perspective of those who accepted them, of how they came to believe in Jesus’ teachings.
It can be said that for the disciples, the more lofty teachings Jesus preached — or the more he spoke of things that were difficult to grasp at first — the higher the barrier to believing in him became. This is because it requires them to believe in Jesus not merely as a teacher or prophet, but as something more. The scene in which Peter "rebukes" Jesus (Mk. 8:32) takes place against the backdrop of this confusion.
Furthermore, the fact that kerygma is not a "teaching" reveals the secret behind the reversal of Jesus' position. Namely, since the reason for believing in Jesus was explained, Jesus became "the one who is proclaimed".
When a “testimony” is being shared, this is only natural; in a “testimony,” the main focus is on how one came to believe, while the object of that belief is secondary. The reason Jesus appears to shift from being the "proclaimer" to the "one proclaimed" in the apostole kerygma is that the kerygma is a "testimony", and therefore its focus is not on Jesus himself but on "the reasons for believing in Jesus". That does not overturn the position of "Jesus the Missionary".
Secondly, the above understanding of kerygma also provides the answer to the question of the origin of the "absoluteness of faith"—or, in other words, "certainty of faith"—that Bultmann sought to preserve. Furthermore, the correctness of the belief that faith does not arise merely from historical facts, a belief that has been sought after since M. Köhler, as discussed in Chapter 2-Easy Study 3, is also guaranteed by the above understanding of kerygma. It may be a bit lengthy, but what follows is a reflection on the formation of “conviction” within the Christian faith.
While Peter's resurrection kerygma is first mentioned at Pentecost (Acts 2), it would be inaccurate to understand that he received this Christological kerygma through the "Descent of the Holy Spirit" on the day of Pentecost. The account in Acts chapter 2 gives the impression that Peter and the other apostles were already fully prepared and confident in Jesus on the day of Pentecost.
This is because, as confirmed in the examination of the kerygma, this initial kerygma at Pentecost is logically coherent and, moreover, has the same structure as the kerygmas that are repeated later. This suggests that some time had passed since the apostles acquired the content of the kerygma, and that during that time their understanding of the kerygma had become more organized. The appearance of the clarity of this apostle kerygma is the complete opposite of the confusion caused by the speaking in "tongues" resulting from Pentecost, as described in the same passage.
Therefore, it is appropriate to understand the Christological kerygma that Peter became convinced of not as a mystical revelation brought about by the Holy Spirit, but as a normal, rational understanding of a proposition. So, what forces were at work in Peter's mind when he arrived at the interpretation of the resurrection as a Christological kerygma? Why did Peter consider this interpretation correct, and why did it become the firm conviction of his faith?
The resurrection of Jesus can be considered to have had two primary effects on his disciples. One was the joy that people experienced from Jesus' resurrection, similar to what people experienced with the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11). However, it can be thought that another process unfolded within them over time. It is a "logical-psychological" process, rather than an "emotional-psychological" one like in the case of Lazarus.
Fig. 1 Two Psychological Indicators of the Disciples Before and After Jesus' Resurrection
|
The first indicator is the emotional-psychological indicator, which is shown in the diagram as High, Medium, and Low levels of "Expectation". The nuance is that disciples rejoice when expectations are "high" and grieve when they are "low". Expectations are high during events such as Jesus' appearance and resurrection.
The second indicator is the logical-psychological indicator, which is shown as Stable or Unstable.This indicates the state of consistency of the disciples' worldview, and "Unstable" refers to a state where that consistency is broken. The "Stable" of belief held by the disciples is disrupted each time in the expectations of the Messiah when Jesus appears, his death, and his resurrection.
Combining these two indicators shows that, at the time of Jesus' ministry, their beliefs were in a state of "instability" but with "high expectations"; immediately after his death on the cross, they were in a state of "instability" with "low expectations"; and once they had accepted Jesus' death, they were in a state of "stability" with "low expectations".
Here, among the patterns of emotional transitions among the disciples, the transition from a state of disrupted coherence to restoration, that is, the "Unstable → Stable" transition pattern, is important. This transition was realized in a state of "High expectation" through the discovery of the "Resurrection Proposition", and this formed the apostles' new faith. |
Peter's impression of Jesus during his lifetime was one of strong divine presence. His death on the cross negated that impression, but his resurrection restored it.
However, the psychological recovery brought about by the mere fact of Jesus resurrection remained emotional and did not possess the power to completely transform him. In fact, it appears that after Jesus' resurrection, Peter and the other disciples returned to Galilee and intended to resume their former professional lives.（Jn. 21:3）
For the apostle to reach a firm conviction of faith, understanding the resurrection was more important than the fact itself. When Peter cognized the "Resurrection Proposition", that is, "the Jesus we served was killed by men, but God called him to resurrection, and now God testifies that Jesus is the Christ", he became convinced that ――Jesus was indeed right and our impression of him was not wrong――, and his former belief was restored.
Even during Jesus' lifetime, Peter had already formed a correct impression of Jesus through his confession of Christ (Mark 8:29). For Peter, the truth that “Jesus is the Christ” had been established in the past, but it was shattered by Jesus’ death on the cross, leaving his mind in a state of anxiety and doubt. However, the understanding of the resurrection as "God's approval of Jesus" restored the old truth.
In other words, the lost truth is restored, and faith is formed at the moment of that restoration.Here, the power by which truth seeks to reclaim itself is the force that establishes faith. The coherence of the beliefs gained through this restoration provides certainty regarding the correctness of that understanding, and this forms the universality of faith.
While the emotional joy brought about by Jesus' resurrection actually affects only those who have a positive relationship with Jesus, the attainment of consistency in faith also affects those who have a negative relationship with him――as it is written that when the people heard the apostles' preaching, "they were cut to the heart" (Acts 2:37)――and thus became a force that prompted them to repent.
Therefore, the understanding of the resurrection found in the apostles' kerygma gave the disciples confidence in their faith. This confidence in their faith is their faith, and it is the "Apostolic Faith" that has been handed down to us.
In this part of conviction, we can see the robustness of a faith that can be called "universal" and not derived from an object of faith. This is the true meaning of "historical facts do not give faith". Namely, Jesus gives faith, but it is basically a "spontaneous faith" that is based on the principle that "historical facts give faith". However, the faith that exceeds the faith given by the historical facts of Jesus, comes from the confidence in Jesus brought about by the resurrection proposition.
On the other hand, among those who view Jesus as an enemy, a state of "spontaneous faith", arising from a favorable view of Jesus or from his influence, naturally does not exist. For this reason, the conversion of Saul (later Paul), as recorded in Acts 9, is characterized as a dramatic reversal from disbelief to conviction.
Therefore, it should be understood that there are generally few examples of conversion that do not go through a "spontaneous faith" process, that is, conversions that are based on a negative relationship with Jesus, but even today, many believers tend to testify to their own conversion as a dramatic event. However, this was modeled after the conversion of the adversary, Saul, and this kind of misinterpretation can also be seen in Bultmann's and others' understanding of the origin of faith, which will be discussed below.
Bultmann's framing of the apostles' changing faith as a mystery was extremely important. However, it can be described both Bultmann and the Bultmannian school misinterpreted the kerygma and also misjudged the changes in faith.
This was because, under the influence of Kantian philosophy, they denied the divine events surrounding Jesus during his lifetime.生前のイエスは神的であるはずがなく、したがってイエスの回りではそれに見合った信仰が抱かれていたにすぎなかったが、後に突如、使徒の間に神的信仰が広まったとみることから、そのように「史実以上の信仰」が生じたことが非常に大きなこととして見えたのである。その結果彼らは、見えるところによって発生する信仰から見えないものを信じる信仰への変化ということを、使徒の信仰の変化とみたのである。
しかし一般に、信仰というのは、その当初から目に見える以上のことを信じるのが普通であることを考えれば、イエスの回りにいた人々が、福音書の描写通りにイエスを神的な存在として捉えていたことに不自然さはない。そうすると問題は、福音書時代において使徒たちがすでに神的信仰を抱いていたとすると、その後の信仰の変化とは何であったかということである。そして上に見てきたように、その変化とは「目に見える以上の信仰にさらに確信が加わったこと」だったのであり、これが解かれるべき謎として設定されなければならなかったのである。
この点でブルトマンとブルトマン学派は使徒の変化の内容を捉え損なっていた。それぞれが与えようとした解決の点で、ブルトマンはケリュグマを「イエスの教えを意義あるものとして受けとるための問い」とすることでイエスの教説とケリュグマの断絶を保持し、ブルトマン学派は「イエスが教える生き方をケリュグマが受け継いだもの」とすることでそれらに連続性を与えるという違いがあるが、いずれも「実際のイエス以上の信仰が生じたのはなぜか」ということをケリュグマ問題の出発点としている点で同じ見誤りに立っているのである。
図2 史実と信仰の隔たり
|
※ブルトマンとブルトマン学派は解かれるべき謎として、使徒的信仰形成の本来の謎②の代わりに、謎①を誤って設定した。彼らは謎①の「神的使徒信仰」を「奇跡を行わなかったイエスの史実から自然に帰結する信仰以上の信仰」とみるが、当論考では謎②の「確信を獲得した使徒的信仰」を「奇跡を行ったイエスの史実から自然に帰結する信仰以上の信仰」とみる。 ※現代主流派神学では上図の「神的使徒信仰」の位置に「パウロ神学」が置かれ、謎①を「神の国を教えた教師イエスから贖いの十字架神学が生じたのはなぜか」として論じるものが多いが、問題設定の構造は上図を引き継いでいる。この場合、その答えは自然と、パウロ自身の回心に求められることになり、使徒9章に伝えられているパウロが遭遇した劇的な出来事が、彼の旧約聖書の再解釈とイエス評価の逆転を引き起こしたという結論を得ることとなる。確かに迫害者パウロの信仰成立の理解はそのようなものでよいのだが、それは解かれるべき初代教会の謎ではない。解かれるべきはパウロの信仰成立ではなくペテロの信仰成立である。そしてその答えは信念の逆転ではなく信念の回復である。 ※上図の「構成主義的史的イエス」「実在論的史的イエス」については次章参照（Chapter 4-Consideration 3） |
当節の終わりに「イエスの復活が使徒たちに新たな信仰を生じさせた」とする誤った理解について触れておく。
この理解を「誤っている」とするのは現時点では言いすぎであることは確かだが――というのも私が知る限りすべての教会がこのように教えているからであるが――厳密を期していえばそれはやはり誤りである。それは次の一点を考えれば明らかである。
すなわち、もしイエスの復活という奇跡が使徒の信仰を新たにしたというのであれば、その新たな信仰というのは、福音書時代の奇跡によって彼らがイエスに抱いていた信仰と同質であり、かつ、その信仰の延長にあることになる。それらはいずれも奇跡による信仰だからである。
するとこの場合、福音書時代に彼らがしっかりとした信仰をもてなかったのは、ただ生前のイエスにおいては奇跡の偉大さが足りていなかったためということにもなる。イエスが生前に行っていた奇跡ではもの足らなかったので使徒たちは確たる信仰に至れなかったが、復活というこの上なく大きな奇跡を見せられた以上は鈍感な彼らといえども信じないわけにはいかなくなったということで、これは使徒たちの信仰を不遜なものとしてしまうだろう。
死んで見せ、復活して見せて初めて持てる信仰というのであればそれはいわゆる「業の信仰」というべきものなのである。そしてそれ以上に重大なこととして、この見方は、生前のイエスの奇跡の意義を正しく評価していないという問題を抱えることにもなるだろう。
したがって使徒たちが新たな信仰を得たのはイエスの復活によってではなく、イエスの復活について彼らが得た解釈によってであるとするのが正確なのである。彼らがイエスのよみがえりを喜んだことが新たな信仰の契機となったのではなく、自分たちをある意味、悩ませ苦しませたイエスという突出した存在に対する理解を獲得したことが、彼への新たな信仰の契機となった。
また、「三度のイエス否認という挫折を経たことがペテロを新たにさせ使徒宣教に至らせた」という、やはり教会で教えられる誤った理解についても触れておきたい。これも「誤っている」とするのは明らかに言いすぎで、それは誤っているのではなく、理解が不足しているのである。
この理解は使徒行伝後のペテロの変貌について、ある意味では最も良質な解釈を与えている。確かにそれは文学的でもあり人々に訴える力を持つ。
しかし使徒の変化のすべてを心情的なものとして了解しようとすることには問題がある。それは聖書を文学に解消することとなり、キリスト教を別のものとして理解する道を開くことになると私は思う。
というのは、おそらくペテロの変化を純粋に心理的なものとして受け取ろうとするとき、いいかえれば新約聖書を純文学のように理解しようとするとき、人はイエスの復活というできごとを何か余分なことのように感じるはずと思うからである。
チェーホフの『大学生』に語られたペテロ、イエスの処刑時にさえ「寝穢く（いぎたなく）」
文学的な感覚からいえば、再生者の決意というのは悲劇に支えられたものである方が好ましくみえるものである。しかし新約聖書の実際の記事は、イエスはよみがえり、弟子たちは喜び、ペテロは三度の否認を帳消しにする三度の信仰告白の機会を与えられたことを伝えている。
そこで、イエス昇天後に人前に姿を見せた彼らは、悲壮な決意に立つ人々というのではなく、自信に満ち、まるでかつての弱々しさなどなかったかのような、過去の自分を否定した図々しさとも見える風貌をもつ一団として登場するのである。
つまり新約聖書の記事は文学的な物語の型と噛み合っていない。キリスト教は文学ではなく、文学的感覚からは興醒めさせる側面を持っている。ペテロの変化にはそのような文学的枠組には収まりきらないものがあり、チェーホフの小説のような優れた文学作品をもたらしうる側面を持ちながらも、しかし彼らの信仰回復の源はそこにあったのではないということが見て取られなければならないのである。
それゆえ使徒の信仰の変化は［感情的－心理的］なものだけでなく、そこに［論理的－心理的］な変化、すなわちイエスに対する信念の整合性の獲得ということが加わったものなのである。