Hermeneutics as an Ecumenical Method in the Theology of Gerhard Ebeling 9519047166, 9789519047164

Citation preview

PUBLICATIONS OF LUTHER-AGRICOLA SOCIETY B 13

MIIKKA RUOKANEN

HERMENEUTICS AS AN ECUMENICAL METHOD in the Theology of Gerhard Ebeling

PUBLICATIONS OF LUTHER-AGRICOLA SOCIETY Series A: 1. T. Heckel: Luthe:rs Kleiner Katechismus und die Wirklichkeit, 2. Auflage 1941. 2. J. Gummerus: Michael Agricola, der Reformator Finnlands, sein Leben und sein Werk, 1941.

3. M. Luther: Vi1erzeoo Tröstung,e n für Mühselige und Beladenie. Überset~t und eingelei;t et von T. Heckel, 1941. (V'e rgriffien.) 4. Zur Theologie Luthers. Aus der Arbeit der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft in Finnland CL. Fendt: Die Heiligung bei Luther; R. Bring: Gesetz und Evangelium und der dritte Gebrauch des Gesetzes in der lutherischen Theologie; L. Pinomaa: Die Anfechtung als Hintergrund des Evangehums in der Theologie Luthern1), 1943. (V ergriffen.) 5. T. Heckel: Wahrheit .t m Johannesevangelium uind bei Luther. Betrachtungen und Texte, 1943. (Vergriiffen.) 6. 0. Tarvainen: Paa:vo Ruotsalainen als lutherischer Chrisit, 1943. (Vergriffen.) 6A. 0. Tarvainen: Paavo Ruotsalainen luterilaisen kristillisyyden edustajana, 1944. (Vergriffen.) 7. E. Sonnunen : Finnland und Deutschland. Der Einfluss Deutschlands auf die finnische Kultur. Aufsatzsammlung mit 24 Abbildungen, 1944. (Vergriffen.) 8. G. Sentzke: Die Theologie Johann Tobias Becks und ihr Einfluss in Ftnnlanid. Baind I. Die Theologi1e J. T . . Becks, 1949. (Vergriffon.) 9. G. Sentzke: Die Theologie Johann Tobias Becks und ihr Einfluss in finnraind. Band II . J. T. Beck1s Eii nfiusis in Finnland, 1957. (Vergriffen.) 10. 0. Lähteenmäki: Sexus und Ehe bei Luther, 1955 . (Vergriffen.) 11. A. Siirala: Gottes Gebot bei Martin Luther, 1956. (Vergriffen.) 12. Y. Salakka: Person und Offenbarung in der Theologie Emil Brunners während der Jahre 1914-1937, 1960. 13. M. Schloenbach: Heiligung als Fortschreiten und Wachstum des Glaubens in Luthers Theologie, 1'9.6,3. (Vergriffen.) 14. 0. Tarvainen: Glaube und Liebe bei Ignatius von Antiochien, 1967. 15. J. Aarts: Die Lehre Martin Luthers über das Amt in der Kirche. Eine genetisch-systematische Untersuchung seiner Schriften von 1512 bis 1525, 1972. 16. L. Pinomaa : Die Heiligen bei Luther, 1977 . 17. J. Pihkala: Mysterium Christi. Kirche bei Hans Asmussen seit 1945, 1978. 18. Taufe Und~ H~iliger Geist. Vorträge auf der 14. Baltischen Theologen~o~ferenz in Järvenpää, Finnland, Juni 1975, 1979. 19. 'S. Heininen: Die finnischen Studenten in Witt.e nberg 1531-1552, 1980. 20. L. HaJkola: Usus legis, 1981. 1

Orders: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft Neitsytpolku 1 b SF-00140 Helsinki 14

PUBLICATIONS OF LUTHER-AGRICOLA SOCIETY Series B: 1. Athanasius av Alexandria: Fern palmsöndagshomilier. översatta och försedda med inledning av Henric Nordberg, 1962. 2. G. Sentzke: Di·e Kkche F,inirnlandls, 1963. (Sold out.) 3. G. Sentzke: FiTI!Laind. Hs ChUJrch and Its Peop~e, 1963. 4. J. Vikström: Religion och kultur. Grundproblemet i G. G. Rosenqvists religiösa tänkande, 1966. 5. P. Lempiäinen: Liturgista kehitystä Suomessa uskonpuhdistuksen ja puhdaisoppLsuuden 1aikaina valais1evia lähteitä, 19'67. (Sold out.) 6. A. Nygren: Tro och vetande. Religionsfilosofiska och teologiska essayer, 1970. 7. S. Löytty: The Ovambo Sermon. A Study of the Preaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Ovambo-Kavango Church in South West Africa, 1971. 8. A. Alhonsaari: Prayer. An Analysi'S of Theological Termiruology, 1973. 9. Ecclesia-Leiturgia-Ministerium. Studia in honorem Toivo Harjunpää, 1977. 10. P . Ruotsalainen: The Inward Knowledg·e of ChrLsit. Lettern and Writinigis. Irntroduation and .transliation by Walter J. Kukkon1en, 1977. 11. H. Kirjavainen: Certainty, Assent and Belief. An Introduction to the Logical and Semantical Analysis of Same Epistemic and Doxastic Nations Especially in the Light of Jaakko Hintikka's Epistemic Logic and Cardinal John Henry Newman's Discussion on Certitude, 1978. 12. P. Annala: Troosparenicy of Time. The Struoture o.f Time-Consiciousnes1si in the Theology of Paul Tillich, 1982. 13. M. Ruokanen: Heirmeneutics a1s an Ecumenical Method in the Theology of Gerhard Ebeling, 1982. Orders : Luther-Agricola Society Neitsytpolku 1 b SF-00140 Helsinki 14

HERMENEUTICS AS AN ECUMENICAL METHOD The 1960's and 1970's saw the rise of hermeneutical theoJogy in Central Euriope. Hermeneutics is regarded as a common area of theoilogical methodology which criosses confessional boundaries. Miikka Ruokanen's study is an analysis of the th1nking of Gerhard Ebeling, the most prominent systematic thinker in existential hermeneutical theology. The work shows how Ebeling implemented a hermeneutical method of theology which makes poss:Lble an interpreta:ti on of the indivisible and inalienabl€ essence of the Christian faifü that is common to all Christi.ans and all churches. 1

HERMENEUTICS AS AN ECUMENICAL METIIOD

in the Theology of GerharJ ELdiug

PUBLICATIONS OF LUTHER-AGRICOLA SOCIETY B 13

MIIKKA R UOKANEN

IIERMENEUTICS AS AN ECUMENICAL METHOD in the Theology of Gerhard Ebeling

To my son Juho Miikka Matias

ISBN 9ßl-!I047-10-0 Vammala 1982, Vammalan K.irjapaino Oy

Copyright

© 1982 by Mid1klrn Ruokanen

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

7

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Ecumenical Method - an Urgent Problem in Ecumenism . . 1.2. The Significance of Hermeneutics for Ecumenical Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Ebeling as a Representative of Hermeneutical Theology . . . . 1.4. Alm, Method and 8ourccs o! thc Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9

2. Ecumenlcal Prugrurrunc und Iis Basic Problem in the Thcology of Ebeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Display of the Essence of the Christian Fai:th by means of Hermeneutioal Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Problems of Actualistic Consensus ................. : . . . . . . 2.3. The Incompatibility of the Externa1 and the Interna! Clarity of the Consensus on the Essence of ·the Christian Faith . . . . 3. The Basis of Ebeling's Hermeneutical Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1. The Basis of the Conception of Reality: the Relational and Linguistic Nature of Being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1. The Relation of Existence to the Two Dimensions of Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2. The Linguisticity of the Relation between Existence and Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.3. The Relation of Existence to Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2. Linguistic Experience 'as a Method in the Human 8ciences . . 3.2.1. The Existential Nature of the Knowledge Concerning Man................................................ 3.2.2. The Subjecti!vity of Historical Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3. The Hermeneutical Method of Theology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1. Bringing about an Experience of the Self-effective Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2. The Circularity of Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Hermeneutical Interpretation of the Word of God . . . . . . . . 1.1. The Hermeneutical Interpretation of thC' RihlP . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. The Breakdown of Historical Interpretation . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. The Unity .of Intcrprdation anrl t.hP Unity of the Word of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2. The Original Event of the Word of God: thc Hü;torical Jesui 4.2.1. Jesus - the F.xample of Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2. The I'erSIOn of J•csus und füc Unity of the Salvation Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 30 34

44 44 49 52 72 72 72 83 91 100 100 115 123 123 135 141 141 141 155 162 162 180

6

4.3. The Ev,enrt Oharacter of the Word of God and the Uni1ty of the Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1. The Effectiveness of the Word and the Unity of Its Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2. The Effect of the Word upon Man's Existential Reality 5. The Word of God and Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1. Faith and the Event of Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1. The Ontological Constitution of the Person through Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2. The fiducia Character of Faith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2. The Exfa::tentiaI Verif.ication of Faith and the Unlty of Farl.th 5.2.1. CC'rtain Cornscicnce - ,tbJe Sign of Ju:stifying Fa1th . . 5.2.2. The InexplicabiHty of Faith and the Unity of Its Esisence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Word of God, Traclition a'tlld füe Doctrine of the Church . . 6.1. ThP. Uni>ty of Doctrine in the Wond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1.1. The Re~a:t1on between rlihe Esisiencc and thc E~pHcation of .fö,P. Chdsitian Faith in föe He:rmimeurt:ical Irnterpret'oution of Traidttion ........................... , , . 6.1.2. The Hermeneuitical Interpretation of Cornfession and Doc1trine .......................................... 6.1.3. »Das :ßakti;sche consentire» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Ohurch, Mintsitry and Sacraiments as Functtorns of the Word of Gorl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1. One W,ord - One Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2. The Unity of Ministry ,:mcl thf' Slacramenrlis in ithie Word

189 189 199 210 210 210 221 228 228 240 249 249 250 259 271 28,5 285 2'96

7. Conclusion

307

Abbreviations

314

Sources and Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

316

Personal Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

354

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my sinccrc nnd profound sense of gratitude to a number of people who have in various ways contributed to making the present work a reality. Prof. Seppo A. Teinonen encouraged and suppo11ted mein so many ways. Prof. Tuomo Mannerniaa was my supervi,sor, whose H:i:urough-going und sonnd ::irlvicfl on the subject revealed thc depth of the theological and philosophical p:mblems involved iin the study. Dr Eeva Martikainen was a pleasant and intelligent companion, discussion wi:th whom clarified many of the fundamental questions. My wife Katariina Ruokanen made many indi:spensable and profound remarks and helped me under8tand :J;heology in the wider context of life. Prof. Sima Knuuttila, Assoc. Prof. Martti Lindqvist, Dr Eero Huovinen and Dr Heikki Kirjavainen read füe manuscript and gave highly valuable advice for the improvement of tthe woTk. Bishop Kalevi Toiviainen helped in a si:gnificant way in 1the early sitages of my study. Dr Lorenz Grönvik prrovided me with essential information and support with regard to my contacts abroad. WiJth great genemsity, Prof. Gerhard Ebeling himself opened his doors to me and on 1several occa:sions gave me his invaluable time to discuss various aspects of his theology. The Zürcher theologians Prof. Hans Geisser, Dr Walter Mostert and Dr Peter Bühler kindly and pa:tiently discussed a:t length questions involved in my work. The illustrative discu:ssiions with Prof. Jürgen Moltmann, Prof. AlbrP.cht PeterR, Prof. Gerhard Müller, Prof. Friedrich Beisser and Dr Lukas Vischer furnished me w~th insights in:to the larger context of the problems concerned. I should also Hke to express my thanks to Mr Peter Jones, who corrected my English, and to Miss Leena Hirvinen and Mrs Soile Halsti, who helped with the proof-reading.

8

I have been financiaHy supported by the World Council of Churches, the Finnish Cultural Foundat1on, the Emil Aaltonen Foundaition and the Research Institute of the Lutheran Church in Finland. The Luther-Agricola Society has accepted the thesis for publication in its series. Helsinki, February 1982 Miikka Ruokanen

t.

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Ecumenical Method -

an Urgent Problem in Ecumenism

Ecumenioal endeavour assumes several forms and takes place on various levels. The common task is the promotion of unity between the churches and Christians representing different confessions and denominations. Such efforts have found their most important manifestaitlon in 1the ecume1üsm of the churches, which seek for unity either through ecumenical organisaJt.ions or bilateral negotiations. Theological research which crosses the confessional borders constitutes another significant form of ecumenism. The latest ecumenical developments show 1that in church ecumenism the debate on fundamental theologicail problems is ailso becoming increasingly important at the expense of the traditional ecclesiologically oriented discussion. The ohurches ·and 1the 1theolog1ans ask: what is the basic and inalienable core of the Christian faith that is common to all Chris1tians •and all churches? One of the original aims of the so-called ecumenical movement was the search for a means to promote communion among the churches both ,in föeory and in priactice; the final goal is total unity. The earliest ecumenical method used in the modern ecumenical movemenit was that of comparative ecclesiology. lt was a method of doctrinal discussion in which ithe divisive and the unifying points of the doctrine were observed. Doctrinal discussd:ons in the ecumenical movement have also accelerated bilateral negotiations beJtween individual! churches as a result of which several churches have either become united or have formed a union of some kind.1 1 On. the oomparait1ve ·ecc1esiological method, see W egener-Fueter 197:9, 6(}--63, Döring 1969, 29-5-300, and Pathil 1981, 247-2:94. Döring, 19·69, represerits in dctail the history of the striving for ecclesiological unity in the ecumenical movement. The present study will discuss the main lines

10

At the Faith and Order meeting of Lund (1952), the quanti:taitive method of comparative ecclesiology was replaced by a new christological method, according to which the unity of the church is based on the indivisibility of Christ himself. The task of the churches is to make this unity visible. 2 The general assembly of the World Council of Ohurches in Evanston (1954) amended the christological melhod by emphasizing eschartology: the uniLy given in Christ manifests ~tself gradual:ly as the churches become reconci:I.ed with their christological essence on the way towards the esohatological uniiy of all in Christ.3 Thc thcological conccptions of unity appcared in a morc concrcite form at the general assembly of New Delhi (1961). A new ecumeniof ecumenical methodology developed in the ecumenical movement during the past three decades. Any method which arises from the ecumenical movement is by its nature a multilateral one. The method novmally used in bilateral consulta1ions is the traditional method of doctvinal discus,sion on those loci of Christian doctrine which separate the churches. On bilateral methods during 1959-1974, see Ehrenström & Gassmann 1975, and in the following period, Survey of the Church Union Negotiations 1977-1979. 2 A new nl'ethodological Gijpproax:h 1to ,1Jhe ·iJheo}ogioal basils of uni1ty wa1s inttiated at Lund: »The old comparartiv·e approach had led to a cul-de-sac. Ouit of thi1s stuiltifyilng 1experienice, F1adith a111d Order was co1mpeUed ito take a new look at what it was doing and how it was doing it. Lund was, therefore, both an end and a beg!inning.» Evanston to New Delhi 1961, 37. The Lund conference proclaimed: »As members of his body we are made one wilth Hirn fall the felfowsihi!P of His H'fie, dea1th al!1d ves:trnrectiion, of H~s suffering and His Glory. For what concerns Christ concerns His Body also. - - Frnm the uniity of Christ we 1seek to undevsitand 1:be unilty of the Church on earth; and from the unity of Christ and His Body we seek a means of realizing that unity - -» Lund 1952, 18 (The Report to the Churches). At Lund the goal of unity was defined in the following way: »In ,s1.nnmary, the na1tu11e of ·the un:i:ty towairds which we are .stri1vmg ils thait of a visible fellowship in which all members., acknowledging Jesus Christ ais 1iving I.Jord al!lJd Saivi1our, 1shall ,recogn!ize eaich orther as be1ongiing fulily to His Body, to the end that the world may believe.» Ibid„ 37 (The Report to tllle Churches). · 3 »- - the unity of the Church even now is a foretaste of the fullness that is to be becaiuse it ai1reaidy iJs; theverfore, •th:e Church can wor!k ,tire1essily and wait patiently and expectantly for the day when God shall sum up aU Hüni,ps in Chri;st.» Evanston l!J.54, 84 (Thc Ropo:d of 8'cc1tion I, § 4). »It is certain that the perfect unity of the Church will not be totally achieved W]fü God sums up UJll thiirugs ill1 Chris1t. B UJL 11Jhc New Test::umel1Jt affrrmis that this unity is already being realized within the present historical order. - - In the upheavail1s of the pa:iesent hour, Jesus Chris1t ils gathering His people in a true community of faith and obedience without respect for existtrng di~isioTIJs.» Ibid„ 88-89 (The Report .of Section I, § 19}. On the e'S'chatology of Evanston, see aJso Wegener-Fueter 1979, 73-80.

11

cal method, a model of organic unity, was created. According to this method, the goal of ecumenism is fuU and visible unity in the apostoilic failth, proclamation, sacraments, worship and service. Un~ty is the »one fully committed fellowship» of all Christians »in each place».4 The general assembly of Uppsala (1968) extended the model of organic unity with the addition of the concept of caitholicity. The purpu::;e uI Lhis wa::; Lu slr•e::;s the global view uI unily. CaVho1icity is the task given to 1the churches. According to this, the churches should represent Christ who brings »people of all times, of all races, of all places, of all conditions, i:nto an organic and living unity in Christ». 5 The concept of catholicity also meant the beginning of a new kind of ecumenioal approach: the realiz·ation of cathohcity is not only an internal task of 1Jhe churches - but it also reacihes out to the worM, aiming at TI!oithing Iess than the unity of all mankind. 6 Ever since, trends have been found in the WCC that 4 »We belLeve thait the. unity which i•s both God's wfü and hiis gifrt to his Church is beiing made visible as all in each place who are baptized into Jesus Chri1s1t ,a[1d confoss hi!m ClJS Lur'd ClJild Sarviour are bruught by .t;he Holy Spirit into one fully committed fellowship, holding the one apostolic faith, preachiing rthe O[]Je Gospe1l, brea1king the one bread, joining i!n comrmon prayer, and having a corporate life reaching out in witness amd service to all and who at füe 1same time are unliited with ·the whole Ohdsrtiiain fellowship in all places and all ages - - » New Delhi 1961, 116 (Reports of Sections: Unity, § 2). 5 »The purpose of Chris1t iis to bri!ng people of aill titmes, of all races, of all places, of all conditi.ons, into an organic and living unity in Christ by rthe Holy Spi!rit undier the unive11sa11 falthierhood of God. TMs unHy is not solely external; it has a deeper, irrternal dimension, which is also expressed by the term 'catholiciity'.» Uppsala 1916.ß, 13 (Report of S'Cation I, § 6). »The New Delhi Assembly emphasized wtth good effect the need to ma:ni!fest •the unity of 'aill Ch>rlisti1an:s ini each p1ace'. - - we would now a:dd a fresh undersfanding of the unity of all Christians in all places.» Ibid., 17 (Report of SeaHon I, § 17-18). »The Ohurch is co[]Jstainrhly on the wa·y to becoming ca1tholic. Catholicity is a task yet to be fulfilled - - » Uppsala to Nairobi 1975, 78. The ri!se of ·the concept of caitholidity may be seen as a positive rea1eti!on ito ithe second VaJtiica:n Councfil. For the hisitory of the concept of cat.holiiciit.y in rthe WOC, see F'uerth 1973. 6 »The churchos noed a new openness to the world in its aspirations, tts achi!eviement, ilts refltlefls1111ess .a1nrl alfls de1s1paik. - - lflechno1l1ogy ii:: drawing mcn into a singlc sccular culturc, a fact which undcrlincs thc essential truth of human naiturc as onc blood, ,iJn cqua l riigbit 1and digni1ty th11ough ev·ery diversity of raoe a:nd kind. This unity of man is grounded for the Christian nort Olllly in Ms cxeaition by thie one God iin hi!s own imaige, but in Jesus Christ - -» Uppsala 1968, 17-18 (Report of Section I, § 20-21). »CathoJ.iciJty becomes1 maJ!lJifest when thie Church aicts a1s a fer1men:t to oveDCome 1

1

1

12

claim 1that the churches find unity only in a solidarity wiith all those forces that struggle for a juster world. 7 The method of organic unity, promoted by the concept of catholicity, acquired a more precise ,and more ambitious formulation at the F&O meetings of Louvain (1971) and Sailamanca (1973). The new method was referred to as ,the model of conciliar felilowship. According to this model, each »truly untted» local church, which is an expression o.f organic unity attained on the local level, pos~ sesses in conciliar fellowship with other organic.a~1y unifa~cl locHl churches »the fullness of catholicity» and »the fullness of truth and love». Thus united, each local church pa11ticipates in the full concfüar~ty of the Chrisüan church. The fin,aJl gioal of conciliar fellowship is to piiepare the way for a »genui:nely ecumenical Council» which would represent rand serve all Christians and all churches.8 the power of sin and injustice in alienarting people from one another.» Uppsala to Nairobi 1975, 78. Later the Accra meeting stressied the church's role as a sign of the unity of mankind. Accra 1974, 93 (Statement of the Conference, § 12). For th:e liirsrtory 01' 1the ooncept of rthe unirty of ma:nkind iin the WCC, see Müller-Fahrenholz 1978. 7 The Uµpisaila meetiing commen1ted on these .trends: »- - we are confronted with the fact that the basis of our endeavour for unity is being widely quesitiJcmed. lt seems ~o many, inisdde and outside the Church, thart the struggle for Christian unity in its present form is irrelevant to the immediate cri1sri1s of our tirmes. The Ohurch, they s1ay, should 1seek its uni.ty through solidairity with those forces in modern life, such as the struggle ror racial equailirty, which a1re drawing men morP r,ln,~·Ply itogPrther, and should give up Hs concern with paitching up its own internal disputes.» Uppsala 1968, 12 (Report of Section I, § 3). Since Uppsala some ha ve spoken of »Secular ecumenism» meaning that the emphasis of the un.ity is no longer iJn tJhe church, bwt in 1the wol'ld. Jakob 1975, 3;93-394. 8 Conciliarity was the main topic of discussion at Louvain: »By condliartty we meain the comilng togeroher of ChrilstiaJIJJS - locailtly, riegiQITTrC!Hy or globally - for common prayer, counsel and decision., in the belief that the Holy Spiri1t cain use such meetiJngs fo.r hils own purpose of reconciling, renewing and refomning the Church by guiding it towards the fullness of truth and love.» Louvain 19'7,1, 22,6 (Report of Commliittee IV). The relation between the models of organic unity and conciliar fellowship becomes clear in ihe folliowin1g istaltement: »The one Chuirch :i!s to be erwisioned as a conciliar followship of local churches which are themselves truly united. In this conciliar fo11owshtp, each Local church poss1esses, m corrumunion with the others, the fullness of catholicity, witnesses to the same apostolic faith, and, therefore, rieoognizes the others ais belonging to the saime church of Christ and guided by the same Spirit.» Salamanca 1!)73, 293 (Part A, III). »The conci1Har feHowshiip requires org.a[]Jtc union.» lbid., 295 (Part A, IV). The Uppsala assembly had firnt caHed the churches to »work towards the time 1

13

The model of conciliar fellowship can also be seen as a broadening of an over-demanding method of organic unity. The emphasis shifted from concrete clhialllienge on:to a mocre formal 11~'vieil. The F&O meeting of Accra (1974) interpreted conciliar fielliowship as a complementary model of 011ganic unity, because it .tolcrates a legitimate variety of expresstons of the Christtan faith on the level of the local churches within the catholicity of the one church, which will be vi:sibly represented by the future council. 9 The g-eneral assembly of Nairobi (1975) adopted the principle of conciliar fellowship. At the sa:me time ~t was stresscd that L'ong-tenn doctrinal negotiations on the sacraments and the ministry should be continued alongside the new methods. The final goal is Eucharistie conciliar fellowshi:p.10 In thc lattcr half of 1thc 1970's, the interpretation of the Christian faith in the context of different cultures has become increasingly common in the WCC. Third world theologi:ans and churches in particu]ar have spoken out for the liberaition of the Christian faith from the Western dominance of its cu~tural adaptation. The inalienable essence of the Christian faith must be interpreted within the cultural when a gernumeJy univeirsatl ooundl may oruce morc speak for atll Chrits1tiarns and lead the way into the future». Uppsaia 1968, 17 (Report of Section I, § la1xon ·study of religious language. See Grabner-Heider 1973, Sauter 1973 b, Stock 1975., Peukert 1976 and Pannenberg 19'13 b, 344, 424. 'l'he so-called narrative theology represents a return to a factual and straightforward interpretaition of the texts, see Weinrich 1973, Metz 1973, Jüngel 1974, Ritschl & Jones 1976, Wacher 1977 and Navone 1977. The extreme of thie ainti-idcaili!stic trcnd of hermeneutics is the »marteria[~stic» interpretation of the Bible, see Casalis 1978. One of the specialities of modern theologiicail hermeneutics i!s poilHicall hermeneutics, see Metz 1968, 99-131, Moitmann 1968, 128-146, Metz & Moitmann & Oelmüller 1970 and Metz 1977.

Although theological hermeneutics originated in Protestant soil, it is al!so becoming increasi1t1Jgly i!mpoirtant in Cai1iholic theology. So Ommen 1975, 104. The basic cha-racteristic of Catholic hermeneutics is concentria:tiion on t:he tn1terpre1taition of dogma and .the magisterium. The aim is to avoid dogmatism by leaning on the principle of scriptura11 initerplt"citaition. Sec GcioocT 19-66, 200-202. E.g. Semnielroth and Rahner r·egard the Bible as the norm over tradition. Semmelroth 1962, 106. Rahner 1962, 77-79. For Catholic hermeneutics based on exegetics, see Vögtle 19o68 and Schnackenburg 1969. E.g. Schmebeeckx repreiseIJJts Catholk hermeneutias which opposes. fue dogma1tic understanding of revelation and demands a historical interpretation of the dogma and a distinction between doctrine, the word of God ;md historicail theology. In this sens·e, he is closc to ProtcS>tant new hermeneutias. See Schmebeeckx 1969, 9-48, and 1971. See also Biser 1970 and Die hermeneutische Frage in der Theoiogie 1968. For ('rttka1l Ca1tholic reac1Uon:;;1 fo, lrllew hermenoutic~, ucc Lohmann 1068, Scheffczyk 1973 and Stobbe 1981. Lonergan is dos·e to the latest Protestant developmerrts in hermeneutics. He aims at creaiting a

29 method of theology which overcomes the discrepancy between the historkail facts aind theiir meainrng. »Rea:li!st1c» hevmeneUJtics »IDcludes every vaHd conclusion of 'empirical human science». Lonergan 1958, 594. See aillso Lonergan 1973. On the rise of the Caitholic hermeneutics, see also McKenzie 1958, Exegese und Dogmatik 1962, Marle 19'63, 103~136, Mussner 1966, Simons 1967, Stachel 196H, 60-83, Die Bibel und unsere Sprache 1970, Leon-Dufour 1971, Beiträge zur Hermeneutik 197'1 and Stobbe 1981, 149~1,56. On th!e orilgin of hevmeneuticail problems as ai ,resuJrt; of hi1smorica1 critical r,esearch of the NT, see Kümmel 1970, 129-143 and Terry 1977, 711~738. On hilblir.;:i1l hP.nmP.rn1A111ti.~R1 h:oi1flf>d on 1E>XPCesi•s, sc,c Stuhlmacher 1971, 19'1!> and l!J'l!i, Funk l!Jö4 and l!iöö. On a practicail adaiptaitilon rof biblical he:rimeneutics, see Frör 1967, Beiträge zur hermeneutischen Diskussion 1'968 and Kosak 1970. On thc hcrmeneuticail imeripretaiti!on of the OT, rsee Probleme alttestamentlicher Hermeneutik 1960, Rendtorff 1960, Möller 1963, Seebass 1974 and Gunneweg 1977 a and 1977 b. On liruguilsti!as applied to ,the herimeneuticaJ inl.erpretation of the B1ble, see »Linguistische» Theologie ll:l'l!:l and Güttgemanns 197'5. On the bfülLcail hermeneutics of Pireti1sm, see Stroh 1977. Theological hermeneutics have been applied not only to exegetias or sytstematics but ailiso e.g. to the pedaigogy of r,eligi.Jon, see Existentiale Hermeneutik 1969 and Langer 1966. For a bibliography of hermcncutical lirterature, see Henrichs 1960. Fundamental theology is an old branch of Catholic theology, u:;ually re!ernfü to as apologetics. Thus, Williams 1!1'14, 11, anct Schmitz 1969, 199. The aim of new Catholic fundamental iheology is to move a1waiy foom arpo1og,etilas m the diirectiroru of hermeneutics. E.g. Biser represents modern fundamental theology which deals with the probiems of langua1ge and epilsitemology. See Biser 1975. Knauer, 1978, aims at creating new ecumenical fundamental theology by applying the existential theo1ogical method of hermeneutics .to the interp11etation of dogimaitios. On tJhe ProtestanL 1s.h:1e, the 1wob1'em1:1 of fundaimentail. :theologiy aire gaining more grotmd, a:rJJd thLs i'l:i CO[lneated with the rise of the hermeneutical and philosophical problems of the methodoJogy of theology. On P:rioteSJtairut fundalmenital: rtheology, see EbeHng, ZThK 1970, 479-5'24, Joest 1974, Petri 1979 and Wagner 1981, 109-124. 'I1he problems of fumk1micnta1l 1theofogy arui hermeneutics are so closely interwoven with each other both in modern Catholic and ProifleLSrbo.nt rtihoolo,gy tha1t ,~hey muy bc [1cga11ded as two me,thods which partly overlap and partly complete one anoiher. Fundamental theology emphiasdzes ,1Jhe ·enoounrter of theo1ogy m:id realilty by using ontological and cpts1tcmological anulysfa. The aim of hermeneutics irs to interpret the OhriisttLan fatth 1so that fai.th iiEl undcm;1tanrdubk urud relevant to present human rca:lity. The emphas,is of fundamental

30 theoLogy ts on the analysis of humalil. rnaLtty aitJJd theo.Lo~ical conceptions, while the emphasis of hermeneutics lies in interpretartion and applicaitton. In thie1s here the sau.ne ais i:s expressed by the German word »evangelisch» meaning general Protestant. Ebeling himself uses the adj.ectives "reformatori:sch» and »evangelisch>> synonymously. 30 Marle 19-62, 5-6. Another CafüoJ:ic theologiooi, Raske caHs Ebeling »one of the most productive and srtimulaiting theologians of our time». Raske 1973, 21. 31 Macquarrie 1971, 380. Likewise Kantzenbach, 1978, 271, calls Ebeling the most impOTtanJt representatilve of hermeneutkail theofogy:

32

meneutics.3 2 The importance of Ebeling's theology is likely to be even further enhanced by the recent publication of his magnum opus Dogmatik des christlichen Glaubens I-III in 1979. The Catholic Stirnimann compares the erudition of Ebeling's Dogmatik w1th that of Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas.33 The problems of ecumenical methodology occupy a distinguished place in Ebeling's hermeneutical theology. He has written one monograph and 14 articles which deal direotly with ecumenic1al problems, for ·the most part the differences between the theologies of the Reformation and the Catholic church.34 In his main work Ebeling has satd that one of the principa1' objectives of his entire theological output ~s to demonstrate the unity of the essence of the Christian faith and, therefore, to »strive for a theological consensus and help it to get an expression».35 Thus, according to Ebeling, all genuine theological work is ecumenical by definition, because the task of theology is 1to indicate 1the inalienable and indivisible essence of the Christian faith. Consistent with this line of föought, an ecumenical method is not a •special method but is identical with 1any authentic and responsible method of theology. This, the principal objective of Ebeling's theological endeavour can be found in al11. his works. The most important connecHon of Ebeling with ecumenism is his 32 Robinson 1964, 40, 63. According to Lindbeck, 1981, 309, Ebeling »is widely regairded in his home1and as the most distinguished living nonCatholic theologian». 33 Strinimann 1979, 588. Ebeilitng's wook is .an example of »1syistema,tic theulogy based on the Scriptures». Ibid., 11811. Daecke, 1980, 229, says abuuL Ebeliing's Dogmatik 1thaJt tt .ils impossib1e to locaite »1tMs i1n every resipect univen,;al wurk» in any schuol uf Lheulugy. Fur the evaluaiLion of U1aL work, see ailso Amberg 1980, Christoffersen 1980, Grass 1980, Jehle 1980, Link 1980, Marle 1980., Pikaza 19'80, Ruokanen 1980, Selvatico 1980, Betz 1981, Hirschler 1981, Krötke 1981, Lindbeck 19811, Miessen 19i81 and Priebe 1981. ~4 The mo:rJJog'I1aph i1s Die Geschichtiich1wit der Kirche und ihrer Verkündigung als theologisches Problem (1954). The articles are: the 12 airticles cofü!eated in WGT (1964), Die kirchentrennende Bedeutung von Lehrdifferenzen in WG I, 161-191 (1956) and Verstehen und Verständigung in der Begegnung der Konfessionen in WG III, 468-483 (1967). 35 »Dogmatik hat sich um einen theologischen Konsens zu bemühen und ihm :?J\lffi Ausdruck zu v•erhel:fien.» DCG I, 23. Ebel1tng deiscvibes the method of dogmatics as »die Konzentration auf ein Einziges» and as »die systemaiti!RJChP. AU1sri!cb1tunir aruf diais EmP. und Ganze des chr-iisrtHchen GJ:aubens». DCG I, 3, 20. See also DCG III, 60, and ThLZ 1980, 725-726. AcC()['tlfn!r to Miessen, 1981, Ebelini'1s Dogmati.k co[]tai1ns a g.reait ecumenical chance as it speaks for the internal coherence of the Christian faith.

33 theo~ogical research into the fundamental problems of unity. In addition to itMs, he has also ta~en an active part in two kinds of ecumonicaJ. negotiation. Firstly, he was present at the doctrinal discussion of the German Evangelical churches in 1956-1957. In these negotiations he gave his celebrated lecture Die kirchentrennende Bedeutung von Lehrdifferenzen, which was, in a sense, his programme for ecumenical methodology. 36 This discussion in the latter half oif the 1950's in Germany has been seen as constiJtuting the foundation for the negotiat~ons which started in 1967 and which led to the Concord of Leuenberg in 1973. lt has been argued that the ecumenical programrne rep1·esented by Ebeling hnd an important influence on tlhe genesis of ,the actualistic-hermeneutical ecumenical method which was used a:t the CL. 37 Secondly, Ebeling was a member of the European Section of the Theological Commission on Tradition and Traditions in 1952-1963 which prepaved 1the F&O meeting of Montiieal (1963). 38 For the work of this Commission Ebeling wrote an article on the principles of 'the Reformatory intepretation of the Bible, »SoLa scriptura» und das Problem der Tradition.3 9 Both Ebeling's article and the results of the Oommi:ssion represented the christocentric model of the irrterpretation of tthe fühle and tradition which was adopted in Mont36 Ebeling gave the lecture in the presence of the theo1ogical committee of the EKU on 7. 1. 1956 in Berlin and during the consultation of the the-0logicail. commiltltees of the EKU arnd the VELKD on 17. 10. 1957 in Loccum. The lecture is published in WG I, 161-rnl. 37 Mannermaa, 1975, 441-446, ha1s made a dLstinction between two kinds of actualism which have been used in German ecumenical negotiations. On the one hand, there is the abuve-mentioned conception of »thc centre of the gospel» which relies on the understanding of the word of God a1s a supra:hiisrt:ioricail. evenJt. Tlili; L-om:epUon ~s dependem on Bffi'lthirn1 theology, says Mannermaa. On the other hand hand, there is the existential method whi!ch hais a 1tcnJdency to ba1s1e unlity on a 00D1Cept of falLth that hais been underistood as a .suprahistorical and non-factual experience. According to Mannermaa, 1078, 80, 174-175, the ccmcept ,of un1ity baised on the exi:srt:iential and hermeneutical interpretaition of faith, introduced by Ebeling in his above-monit1onod leoture, ~alte:r exe11ted a oruciail ioouence on the merthod which Lohff developed for the CL. Lohff adopted the actuaUsm of Ebeling and p11omoted it by means of ,the ildea of the tpr;ore,ptii.c ooll'.llSensus: the doctrinal ex:plication will slowly follow the declaration of unity on the basis of the aotuailly ex:per1enced fides iustificans. 38 The documentaition of the work of the Commission can be found in the uniprin1ted martieriai~ preserv,ed Lrn 11Jhe WCC ,airchivel!I iin Gencva. Sc'e TT-Documents in: the bibliography. au The article is prtillted in WGT, 91-143.

3

34

real. lit is reasonable to assume that Ebeling contributed in no small measure to the final result.40

1.4. Aim, Method and Sources of the Study The aim of the presen:t study is to analyse the ecumenical method of Ebeling. Because Ebeling himself, as described above, combines the ecumenica1 mcthod wi!th the :theological method pl'oper, his ecumenical method can be analysed on1y by a study of how he implements the principle of unity in his hermeneuticaif. methodology. In the present work the ecumenical method is taken to mean such a theological procedure which can show on wha:t grounds the unirty of understanding of :the Christian faiith can be attained or on what grounds such unity fails to materialize. The task of the ecumenical mcthod is to create the neces.sary qu:allilcaliuns for interpreting thP. inalienable essence of the Christian fai!th in revelati:on, fai!th and doctrine. lt is assumed föat the föeo1ogicaili unity of understanding the core of the Christian faith is both a presupposition and a chance to attain ecclesiastical unity. 41 lt is also possible to study the ecu40 In his book Die Geschichtlichkeit der Kirche und ihrer Verkündigung Ebelilng had, as earJ.y ais 1954, saiid thait aicoovdi:ng to chr1sitoJ.ogicail corrucentration, Jesus Christ should be regarded as the normative Tradition to all other tradiltkms. GKV, 67. At the meeti:ng of rthe Oommilssio111,0111 1. 8.1955 EbEili.in:g stated that the true Tradition is »the unique event of J1esus Christ in history, veceiving a:nd paissing ~t on». The T,radditilcm doos nJOt halve a structure of law but of the living gospel. TT-Documents 1955, 6. El>tJllug',s v 1tJw CHlll be seen in thc fmail repo1rt of the Uommilssion, wxltlten by Skydsgaard and Leuba. TT-Report 1'916,3. »Ervery hie et nunc in Christian lrallHiuu ac4uil'l:!i; Hi; mean1ng and .s1gn1ficance from its relart10n to a quite distinct illic et tune, namely from its relation to J1esus Chri!st - -» Skudsgaard. J!l.63 a, 47. See a>Doch di•flsP. Cha1nce droht verpa1sis1t zu werden, wenn die notwendige Einkehr in das Grundchristliche sich nicht als unerbittliches Ringen um dessen reines Verständnis vollzieht.» WG III, 483. »Auf jeden Fall erheben die Konfessionen den Anspruch, dass sie durch das, was sie trennt, nämlich das Verständnis des Christlichen--ihren Gegensatz betreffenden Rechenschaft begriffen sind. Sie sind nur dann bei ihrer 8ache, wenn sie ganz der einen Sache hingegeben sind - - das Eine ist, wovon als dem schlechterdings Notwendigen jede Konfession in ihrer Weise lebt und zeugt.» WG III, 478. »Und hier liegt nun der .eigentliche konfess ionelle Gcgcn::mtz: vor jeder Differenz in einzelnen Gloubensinhalten in dem verRchiedenen Glaubensbegriff selbst.» WGT, 87. »'Konsensbildend' hiesse doch: Die Beainnung uuf du:; grundlegend Gemeinsame wird gefördert - - dem über die Wahrheit des chdstlichen Glaubens so redlich und ursprünglich wie mllglich ReehemchaU gegel.Je11 wird--» TliL:l 1980, 725. Demanding a return to the question of the Christian truth Ebeling in J'act recalls the tradiLiunal Luthera11 ecumenical approach which was evident e.g. at Evian 1970, see above p. 14 n. 13. Ebeling is in agreement with the 1

47 criterion of a'.11 doctrinal statements i:s tha:t they recall the »basic plain» truth of the Christian faith.8 A consequent result of the main perspective of Ebeling's ecumenical pmgramme is 1thait the division of the churches is not legitimated on :the basis of divergency in 'tradition. The division is legitima:te only if it can be shown that the dif:ferenrt; doctrines are based on diverse ways of understanding the essence of the Christian faith, i.e. of »what makes the church church». 9 2. According to Ebeling, the prob1em of unity is essentially connected wtth the problem of credibility and verification of the Christian faith in the modern age. The inalienable esisence of the failth must be verified as the living fätth of the church, ais the faith which is imperative to the human existential siituaition in the present. Thc uuHy uf the Chrfi::tlan fai:th is not an abstraction - its unity can be proved only in connection wiJth human reality. The unity of the Christian truth must be examined on the basis of »the unity of llife». 10 In Ebeling's ecumenical programme, verification of the essence of 1the Chris1tian failth, in refercnce to its existen:tiail relevancy, signifies a chance to resolve con:troversial positions between different confessions: controversia~ problems must be actualized as »existenpresent main problEllll of ecuimenism which is the dilemma between the question of the essential and the non-essential in the Christian faith. See a:bove p. l,6·. 8 »Schliesslich hat auch die unernchöpf1iche Vielfalt der Glaubensaussagen nicht den Charakter eines blossen Aggregats von einzelnem. Sie hat daran ihr hermeneutisches Kriterium, dass sie auf den einen Grund des Glaubens rückführbar sein muss und als die unendlich reiche Ausstrahlung eines Grundeinfachen verstanden ,sein will.» DCG I, 4. See also DCG I, 50-51. 9 »Eine Kirchentrennung lässt sich nun freilich nicht recthfertigen durch die Verschiedenheit der VerhäLtnisse und menschlichen Traditionen. Sie kann nur in einer fundamentalen Lehrdifferenz gründen.» WGT, 61. »Nicht alle Lehrdifferenzen haben kirchentrennende Bedeutung.» WG I, 161. »Nur eine Lehrdifferenz, die sich auf das erstreckt, was Kirche zur Kirche macht, kann kircherrtrennende Bedeutung haben.» WG I, 190. Similarly DCG III, :172. 10 »Verstehen und Verständigung in der Begegnung der Konfessionen hat dies als Kriterium, dass es zu hilfreicher Begegnung mit den Aufgaben des Verstehens und der Verständigung unter den Menschen überhaupt kommt.» WG TTT, 482-483. »So tendiert der Lebensbezug des Glaubens auf die Einheit des Lebens - -» DCG I, 4.

48

tially necessary questions». 11 The evaluation of controversies must not be rigidly governed by tradfüonal concepts; the criterion of the evaluation is »the factual use» of the confessions, i.e. how the churches foctually believe and teach today. 12 According to Ebeling, any divergency in doctrine can be di:visiv,e only if it is an ,explication of divergency in the living, true fai:th of the churches. On 1this basis, each church should see its own confession in a new, self-critical lighit. 13 3. Furthermore, EbelJ.ing demands that the historical critical method s:hould be appllied to the problems of confessional controversy in order to diispel the fallaciious self-evident in the validity of the confessions. TradiJtional formu~ations mus't be criticized by adhering to the htstorica'I. »centre of 1the Bible». The historical critical interpretation oI Lhe Bible and tradition is the method used in the search for the historical centre of the Christian faith. 14 According to Ebeling, the basic problem in the critical interpretation of confessions iJs the relationship of a confession to history: Christian revelation cannot be secured by closed formulaitions, it must be actualized in the present histol'ical moment and s1tuation.15 11 »Kontroverstheologische Fragen müssen allS existenznotwendige Fragen interpretierbar sein und interpretiert werden.» WGT, 198. 12 »Das Entscheidende ist nicht da1s formelle Bestehen der Bekenntnisbindung, sondern deren faktischer Gebrauch.» WGT, 167. »Es geht um eine Ganzheitserfassung der einzelnen Konfessionskirchen, nicht bloss um Darstellung und Vergleichung verschiedener konfessioneller Lehrsysteme.» WGT, 33. See also GKV, 86-87. 13 »Das heisst aber für die tradierte kirchentrennende Lehrdifferenzen, dass sie nur dann von kirc1hentrermender Bedeutung sind, wenn sie gegenwärtig als solche explizierbar sind.» WG I, 164-165. »Gewiss repräsentiert die Augustana einen tradierten Konsens und kann gar nicht als unmittelbarer Ausdruck gegenwärtigen Bekenntnisses gelten.» LM 1980, 400. 14 »Der Grundzug historischen Forschens: die Emanzipation von der ungeprüft selbstverständlichen Geltung der Tradition, die kritische Distanznahme gegenüber der Überlieferung bringt erst die Macht der Tradition zum Bewusstsein und lässt auf die Rolle historisch bedingter Traditionen in der Gc::ichichtc um so ai.1fmcDksrim1:ir werden.» WGT, 9!1. The result from the adaptation of the historical critical method into the confessional problems irl: »Die Theologie wird kri1t.iRr.he Theologie. - - Vielmehr setzt die Kritik vom Zentrum der Schrift her und wird zunächst vorwiegend Traditionskritik.» WG I, 22. See also WGT, 98, and WG III, 478. 15 »Die Wesensbestimmung der Konfessionen ist nun eben eine ungemein ,schwierig'e Aufgabe g,eschi'chtli:cher I'.tllterpretait~on.» WG III, 476. Ebeling says that the most difficult problem in the confessional dispute

49

The presenta:ti:on of Ebeling's ecumenical programme shows how he assumes that a correct method of theo1ogy, in this case the hermeneutical method in the sense Ebeling uses it, will inevitably verify and demonstrate the unity of the Christian faith. The dependency of the display of the unity of the subject matter in question on rthe method applied to its investigation is one of the dominant charaateristics of Ebelli.ng's hermeneutical me:thodology. This will become evident in thc course of the present study.

2.2. Problems of Actualistic Consensus Ebeling's basic solution to the ecumenical dilemma presented in his own ecumenical progra:mme is contai:ned in his lecture Die kirchentrennende Redeutung von LehrrLif.(erenzen, which he gave during the consulta:tions between the EKU and the VELKD in the 1950's. 16 Ebeling',s aim is to show how the unity of the church may be achieved by reaching a oommon understanding of what is the inalienable essence of the Christian faith whioh is both the core of the factual present faith of the church and the original historical Christian message. Qualitatively, Ebeling demands unity in the most important issue. Quantita:tively, he presents a minimum solutiJon: consensus must be limi:ted only in order to explicate the unanimous understanding of wha:t is the essence of the faith common to all Christian churches. Ebelmg says: »Consensus must cover, but also be limited to, what makes the church church.» 17 So he speaks for a minimum consensus in terms of consensus statutus: it is the question about the relation between history and the confession of a church: »Sodann ist die Auffassung zu erheben, die die betreffende Konfession von der geschichtlichen Einmaligkeit der Offenbarung hat, und durch welche geschichtliche Normen sie diese Geschichtlichkeit der Offenbarung gesichert sieht. - - Als Zentralproblem jeder Konfession steht sich dann aber die Frage nach der Auffassung von der jeweiligen Vergegenwärtigung der einmaligen geschichtlichen Offenbarung.» WGT, 37. See a1so GKV, 5. 16 WG I, 161-191. 17 »>Der consensus muss sich auf das erstrecken, aber auch darauf beschränken, was Kirche zur Kirche macht. - - An ein Bekenntnis als Bezeugung kirchlicher Lehre ist die Anforderung zu stellen, dass es nichts anderes will, als das Eine und Grundlegende aus,zusagen, nämlich das zu proklamieren, was Kirche zur Kirche macht.» WG I, 190. 4

50

is necess1ary to sfate the oommon understanding of the core of the Christian faäh. Ebeling, however, seems to oontradict hi:s own principle of the minimum consensus. In 1the same lecture in which he defines this principl:e he speaks for a principle of consensus in actu. Referring to the CA, Ebeling says that true consensus neither presupposes nor even permits any doctrinal explication of the consensus. Interpreting CA 7, Ebeling says that the actual fact of consentire, »1the factual consentire» (das faktische oonserrtire) is a sufficient bas~s for unity in the essence of the Christtan failth: »Even the exisrtence of a unified conies::üonal s'LaLemenL does not belang essentially ad veram unitatem ecclesiae, nor indeed even the explicit recognition of an existing consensus de doctrina evangelii et de admin1straitione sacramentorum. On the corntrary, sufficient for the rtrue unity of the church is the factual consentire, even without goi:ng to expound the consentire_„18 Ebeling carries out a deliberate actualistic reinterpreta:tion of the principle of unity in CA 7. CA 7 defines the conditions for consensus as a common understanding of the doctrine of the gospel and the administration of the isacraments. 19 Ebcling, howcver, reganls Uüs ueiiaitiuu uI CUHSt!HSUS iu lerms uI lhe conlents uI uodl'ine as a casual tactical solution due to the historical situation in which the CA was created. This was not in accordance with the deepest intention of Rcformaitory theology. Eheling himself rewrites thc .fonnula of unity in CA 7 leavi.J.1g out the idea of c011semms il1 term11 of contcnts; ))Et ad vcram unitatcm ecclcsiae sa:tis cst cvungclium 18 »Auch das Vorhandensein einer einheitlichen Bekenntnisformulierung gehört nicht notwendig ad veraim unitatem eccles:iae, ja nicht einmal die ausdrückliche Fest stellung des bestehenden consensus de doctrina evangelii et de administratione sacramentorum. Vielmehr genügt zur wahrer Einheit der Kirche das faktische consentire, auch ohne dass es zur Explikation des consentire kommt.» WG I, 183. 19 The formula of unity in CA 7 is as follows: ))Et ad veram unitatem 1

PrrlPRi:iP R:itiR PRt. rnnRPntirP rlP rlndrin:i Pv:rngPlii Pt. rlA :irlministratione

sacramentorum.» BSLK, 61, 2. The German text of CA 7 underlines even more explicitly the contcnts of conscnsus: ,,Dann dies ist gnug zu wuhrcr Einigkeit. der christlichen Kirchen, dass da einträchtiglich nach reinem Verstand das Evangelium gepredigt und die Sakrament dem gottlichcn Wort gemäss gereicht werden.» BSLK, 61, 8~12.

51

pure doceri et recte administrari sacramenta.» 20 The aotual fact that the gospe~ is puvely prociJ!aimed and the acrtual fact that the sacraments are correctly administered i.s a sufficient basis for un~ty. Ebeling's »factual consentire» is based on the idea of the sovereignrty of the essence of the Christian faith: the gospel verifies itself as the true and pure gospel by iits own efficiency. As such, the gospel implic~tly contains unanimous understanding of the Chrisrtian faith. Ebeling says: »For where the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel, then of course tha:t is done at all simply because i:t is done pure et recte, in the unanim1ty of a factual consentire.» 21 According to Ebeling, different doctrinal and theological expressions of the Christian faith are peripheral (non necesse est) fl"om the point of view of attaining unity in the essence of the Christian faith (necesse est) and, tJherefore, in the act of »the factual consentire» they may remain unaltered as different »witnesses» of the one giospe~l. 22 'Dhe essence of the faith perimits a »legitime p1urality» of expreSiSions in the v:arious contexts of hfe.23 There seems to be a contradiction between the different ways in which Ebeling speaks of consensus. On rthe one ha:nd, he a:ssumes that churches should, in 'terms of minimum consensus, reach an explica:ted consensus (consensus statutus) on the understanding of the essence of the Christian faith, i.e. on »wha:t makes the church church». On the other hand, Ebeling represents the idea of »the 20 He polemioally goes. on: »Es steht aber nicht da: ad veram unitatem ecclesiae necesse est consensum statutum esse de doctrina evangelii et de administratione sacramentorum.» WG 1, 183. 21 »Denn wo das Evangelium rein ,gepredigt und die heiligen Sakramente laut des Evangeliums gereicht werden, du geschieht dies ja eben darum, weil es pure et recte geschieht, einträchtiglich in einem faktischen consentire.» WG 1, 183. 22 »Das Ziel ist nicht, die Verschiedenheiten kirchlicher Lehre zu nivellieren und bagatellisieren, um sich statt dessen vermeintlich auf df\S blosse Wort Gottes zu einigen; sondern die kirchliche Lehre in ihrer konfessionellen Strittigkeit so tief zu bedenken, dass sie als Bezeugen von Gottes Wor,t verantwortet wird.» WGT, 156. See also WG 1, 189, and DCG III, 373. 23 The relationship between the one truth and its legitimate variety of expressions becomes problematic only when »life is sick» and, therefore, a threat to the authenticity of faith. ThLZ 1980, 726.

52

faotual consentire», according to which consensus occurs in the act of procillamat1on of ithe gospeil and the administration of the sacrameruts. Oonsequentlty, this consensus in actu neither requires nor produces any sfa:tement or expression of untty. Consensus on the essence of the Christian faith is imrplied in the act of the proclamation i t:self. Although Ebeling explicitly denies any formU'lation or statement of consensus, he seems to suppose that churches should attain a common undcmtanding of thc corc of thc Christian faith to rthe extent that they could unanimously declare, in terms of »the factual conserutire», that the act of proclamation of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments, implying an unanimous understanding of 1the Christian faith, is a saüsfactory foundation for unity. In 'this case, »the faotual consentire» would be a modificaition of consensus statutus: a declaration that consensus in actu brings about unity. Oo11sequen:tly, Ebeli11g's i11ten1tion to establish a purely actualistic model of consensus would oome to a dead end. Although he wishes to exclude the co11te11ts of consensus, it is evident, as his own argument shows, that it is 1ogically impossible to spea!k about conscnsus without a minimum of 'Statement. Hence, 1there are two modeils of consensus in Ebe]ing's ecumenical programme: consensus in actu which Ebeling speaiks for, and a minimum of consensus statutus, which is a logical necessilty even in the understanding of Ebeling's own actualistic principle of »the factual consentire».

2.3. Incompatibility of the External and the Internal Clarity of the Consensus on the Essence of the Christian Faith The dilemma of Ebeling':s ecumenical programme is essentially connected with and caused by his hermeneutica'l programme of theological interpretation. The main aim of his theological method is to inrterpret the Rcforma:tory undcr31bmding .of 'Uhc Chris1t~nn foith for modern man. As an adherent of the Re:l)ormation Ebeling sees theological hermeneu tics as a method, the main objective of which is fo serve »the

53

exclustvity of the word and faith». 24 The word and faith closely correlate with each other: the gospel happens as the word which awakens faith in the hearer of the word; s~multaneously the gospel is »the word which is a mere expression of faith». 25 In order to demonstrate tlhe Reformaitory principle of the word and faith Ebeling wishes to a!V'oid any kind of objectffication of them. He argues against all 1kinds of »signifioative hermeneutics» which imply a metaphysical, objecbve understanding of the Christian faith. 26 According to him, any theological method which 1striV'es for objective criteria or sy:stems of rules pvomotes a »positivism» that is totally alien to the Reformatory ooncepti:on of the Christian failth. 27 Ebeling sees it as hiis own miss~on .m theology to overcome »rationalism», »inte1lectualism», »meta:physics» and »the positivism of revelation» in the intenpretation of Christiantty. 2 8 According ito Ebeling, Chri.istian revelation does not mean that some »object» of reve'1a1tion, towards w'hich one should direct one's activity, would appear on man's horizon. 29 The gospel is the word which wil'l bec'Ome effeotive in the a:c.t of proclamation as »the word of God prociLaimed and received here and now». This word cannot be controlled by any rational means. Undersfanding the gospel as an objecti.f1ed written or doctrinal word would, according to Ebeling, mean th:at the essence of the Christian faith would be perverted into »law» or »Christian ideology», because in that ca:se man would be chaillenged by a demand rto adapt some o.f the objects of fai:th.30 In Ebeling's opinion it would be »absurd» to understand the word of God as a mediator of objective knowledge: we should 24

WG III, 521.

DCG II, 214.

Ebeling has quite purposefully chosen

Wort und Glaube for thie t1i1tle of bil•s füree collecti1orns of

a1r~Lcl1;·~.

ETS, 247. DCG III, 250-251. WG'r, 136, 220. KR, 102-103. DCG 1, 153-154. WGT, 85. »Offonbarunig hdR'Rt ja1 nidht, dass irgen:dwelche neuen Gegens1ände zusülzlid1 in meinen Hori:wnt treten und nun Gegenstand meiner Aktivität werden.» WG 1, 368. 30 »Ein Geactz wird geschrieben und gelehrt, das Evangelium aber wird als mündliche Botschaft ausgerufen und verkündigt.» WG III, 517-518. » - - Wort Gottes im strengen Sinn nicht Schrifä, sondern mündliches Wort, viva vox, also jetzt und hier verkündigtes und verantwortetes Wort Gottes ist.» WGT, 165. See also DCG II, 97, WG I, 345, and WGT, 142. 25 26 27 28 29

54 nort investigate the contents of 'the word but its existential effectiveness.31 In accordance wirth his conception of the word, Ebeling ernphasizes that faith, in the sense of the Reforrnatton, is »pure faith». Following W. Herrmann and Bultmann Ebeling rejects aH »1egalistic» demands to believe in sorne »object» of faith.3 2 He prograrnmatically rejec'ts 1a:H lkinds üf »cultic, mythical or juridical» objectifications of the Christian faith, because this would pervert Chri:stianity iinto a fides historica. 33 According to Ebeling, believing in an object of faith makes faith a human »performance». Fa.ilth itself must be strictly distinguished from its doctrinal expfücations, otherwise it will have »a ·structure of pious righteousness by deeds».34 The Reformatory princip1'e of justi:ficaüon by faith, on the other hand, means, in Ebetling's opinion, »faith as such» without any explicated conc.ept or docrtrirn.! delillling the contents of faith: »The justifying fai'th is not the faäh which would be accomplished or limited by either the contients of the doctrine of justificaition or its basic ideas bU!t it is the fai:th as such when it is truly understood.»3 5 In rejecti:ng am objectifying apprehensions of faith, Ebeling cstablishes an existenrtial interpretation of it: »Faith has t:o do wiith what gives existence ~ts subsistence, and that is thus a que:stion of

31 »Das Wesen des Wortes erreicht man deshalb nicht mit der Frage, wai; dus Wort enthält, sondern mit der Frage, was das Wort wirkt--» Wesen, 250. »Bleibt man dagegen in dem landläufigen Verständnis von Wort als Wissensmitteilung befangen, so gibt man damit nur den Vorstellungen Nahrung, die den Begriff des Wortes Gottes absurd erscheinen lassen.» Wesen, 109. See also TV, 97. 32 »Aber was dabei u=ittelbar zur Erfahrung kommt, ist nicht die Wahrheit des Glaubens selbst. - - Sondern hier gilt reiner Glaube - Was geglaubt wird., da1s kann, eben weil ·es geglaubt wird, nicht Objekt der Erfahrung werden.» Wesen, 2'2,3-224. »Was muss ich glauben? - das hies.se den Glauben der Vernunfä zum Gesetz zu mache11- - » WG I, 112. See also Wesen, 136, 199, WG III, 230, and WG I, 316. W. Herrmann, 1923, 292, says that trusting in the contents of faith makes faith »a human deed». Similarly, Bultmann rejects every kind of object1ve understanding of faith. Bultmann 19154, 1578; 1960, 121. 33 DCG II, 152. WG III, 366. WG II, 52-53. 34 WG III, 282 283. 35 »Der rechtfertigende Glaube ist nicht der Glaube, der inhaltlich auf die Rechtfertigungslehre oder zumindest auf ihre Grundgedanken ausgerichtet und beschränkt ist, sondern der Glaube als solcher in seinem wahren Verständnis.» DCG III, 218. See also WG III, 234-235.

55

to be or noit to be.»3 6 Due to the existential character of the Christian faith, the hermeneu:tical criterion for the interpretation of the Reformatory principle of the word and faith, according to Ebeling, i's not any »fo11mal instance» but personal experience of the interpreter. 3 7 The word and faith are a unity whioh is eo ipso out of any rational objectification or control. This unity expresses itself through its existentith, Ebeling demands that the word of God should be radically distinguished from doctrine. According to him, this is a necessity, in order to implement the Reformaltory principle of »the exclusivity of the word and fait'h». The reformens were, in Ebeling's opinion, bound to the concrete situation of confessing and to the prevailling conceptions of Scholastic theology to the extent that they were not yet able fo draw all the necessary concllusions from the principle of exclusivity. Today, on föe baisis of a modern understanding of history, the word and faith must be dearly distinguished from their doctrinal expressfons. 39 Ebeling says: »But now, what separates us today both from the age of the Reformation and from the age of Orthodoxy is, that we must go much further than they diid in distinguishing between the word of God, the Holy Scriptures, proclamation, doctrine and theology. That is not merely a ques1tion of temlino1ogy, but d1mply affocts the Vfüy csscncc of the maitter.»40 The motive behind Ebeling's inte11pretation of Refol'IDatory theo'l.ogy is his desire to develop the sola principle to its ex1treme and to do it in such a way tha t it would be undersiandable and acccptable to modern man. EbeJiing wishes to separate 1füe word and faith from the ·structure of »self-righteousness», represented by objective fides historica and securitas. He intends to ·establish the interpretation of 1the Christian faith on the baisis of »t!he pure word» and »pure faith», solo verbo and sola fide. A clear distinction between the essence of ithe Christian faith (necesse est) and its secondary expressions (non necesse est) is 1

39 »Die Verfasser der CA haben selbstverständlich nicht auf die Unterscheidungen reflektiert, die wir hier machen müssen. Dazu gab ihnen die konkrete Bekenntnissituation das Recht. Denn ein Bekenntnis ist kein dogmatischer Traktat. Zudem hatten sie das Phänomen einer Konfessionskilrche Augisburg.ilschen Bekenntni1sses überihaiupt ni:cht ilm B[ick. Und endlich und vor allem sahen sie, gebunden an die allgemeinen Denkformen ihrer Zeit, nicht die Probleme, die aus einem geschichtlichen Denken notwendig entstehen. Wir dagegen sehen diese Problf~me unsl, es fragt nach ihm selbst, es fordert ihn selbst.» WG I, 443. Heidegger calls the cry of existence a »dark and va,gue» cry before which conscience is dumb. Therefore: »Das Dasein ruft im Gewissen sich selbst.» Heidegger 1949, 275 »Das Gewissen offenbart sich als Ruf der Sorge: der Ru:lier 1st das Daise!n, 1s:ich ä1ngstigend in d"r Geworf1enheit - -» Ibid., 277, 275, 277. Ebeling's conception of the passive linguisticity of existence is surpris!ngly close to the ideas conrtained in the m2in werk of Heidegger's later period. I.Janguage is »the house of being»; man is not the subject of language, but language speaks from itself: »Das Sprechen ist von sich aus ein Hören. Es ist das Hören auf die Sprache, die wir sprechen. So ist rlf~nn das Sprechen nicht zugleich, sondP.rn zuvor ein HörP.n. - - Wir sprechen nicht nur die Sprache, wir sprechen aus ihr. Dies vermögen wir Pim:ig dadurch, dass wir ja schon auf diP. SprachP. gP.hört hahPn. Wm:; hörPn wir da? Wir hören das Sprechen der Sprache.» Heidegger 1979, 254. See also ibid„ 241-245. The difference between Ebeling and Heidegger is resolved in the view that, according to Heidegger, language does not mediate anything other than itself. According to Ebeling, language has a transcendental depth dimensfon.

86

anguish. Therefore, the positive realization of human existence points to a deeper unders1tanding of füe phenomenon of language. This deeper apprehension means understanding language as a medium of the diialogue between persons a:s a result of which man's existence can be established. This sphere of language which brings about existen1tial certainlty !s characterized in Ebeling's te11minology by »the word» (das Wort). The word is central to Ebeling's true interest, because it represents the principle of the »gospel» in his rela!Honal on:tology. According to Ebeling, authentic human existence is »a word event» in which the other per.son is present .to the observing subject. Man's ow:n inner being may encoun:ter »the inwardness» of the other through the word. Ebeling sees the person and füe word so closely cionnecicd with cach oVher that, as he says: »- - they are two aspects of the same subject matter.»89 39 »Im Wort is,t er anwesend und im Wort wird ihm anderes anwesend. Desgleiche ist er als Person anwesend und er wird ihm als Person anderes anwesend. Wort und Person gehören so eng zusammen, dass sie zwei Aspekte desselben Sachverhalts sind.» DCG II, 70-71. »Die Äusscrungen der Person s;ollen ihr s;elbst zi.1 Hilfe kommen, 1.1m da11 Innere, ai.ui dem SiQ entspringen, wenigstens äusserlich zul'echtbringen. Deshalb zielen die Werke auf Worte. Denn die Person selbst kann nicht unmittelbares Objekt des Wirkens sein. Sie ist jedoch für Worte emp:tängltch, ihrer bedürftig als des eigentHchen Lebensmittels: Worte, die den Menschen aufrichten, ermuntern, antreiben, beruhigen, befriedigen, trösten, versöhnen.» DCG II, 73. »Eben dazu soll das Wort dienen, dass sich der Mensch als Mensch herausstellt. - - Uml uarum lst tlas Wurl tlem Me11sche11 als Me11sche11 schlechthin notwendig. Denn seinen Bestimmung ist, als Antwort zu exlstleren. - - Selue ExlsLe11:i: lsL, recht versta11ue11, Wurtge:;chehe11 - - » WG I, 343. On Ebeling's interpretation of the verbal communication, see also ETS, 57, 147, 201, Vom Gebet, 116-117, WG II, 27, and Psalmenmeditationen, 24-25. Of Ebeldng researchers, Selvatico, 1977, 78-86, has noticed the d1st1nctton between »Sprache» and »Wort» in Ebeling's system. According to Gadamer, language is the »mirror» of being from which ex1st1ng things reflect themselves. The world and reality introduce themselves in language. Gadamer 1965, 381-382, 419-420, 441-442. For Ebeling, as for Gadamer, man does not encounter in language only things or facts but the other person, »You»: »Die hermeneutische Erfahrung hat P.S mit rlP.r tiberliefemng zu tun. ~HP. ist P.s, diP. zur Erfahrung kommen soll. Überlieferung ist aber nicht einfach ein Geschehen, das man durch Erfa hr1mg P.rk,P.nnt unrl bP.hP.rrsr.hP.n lP.rnt, sondP.rn siP. ist Sprache, d.h. sie spricht von sich aus so Wiie ein Du. Ein Du ist nicht Gegenstand, sondern verhält sich zu einem.» Ibid., 340. Heidegger has also emphasized the P.xi,stP.ntial communicative charac.ter of language: »Das Mitsein wird in der Rede 'ausdrücklich' geteilt, das heisst es ist schon, nur ungeteilt als nicht ergriffenes und zugeeignetes.» Heidegger 1949, 162.

87

In Ebeling's ontology the word is untransparent. lt does not communicate any content or signification of information but func"' tions as a phenomenon which realizes itself in action by creating a room where the presence and the inner being of two persons meet in an existenfürl dialogue. The . word communicates participation in thE) presence of the other on the basis of which the observing subject may achieve a true understanding of his own existence. 40 Thus, in Ebeling's thinking, the word acts as a function of the encounter between persons. Ebeling's relational ontology ,of the word is a construction by which he dcsires to dcmonstratc how human ex1stence is ultimately established. 41 In his existential ambivalence man may direct himself towards the word extra hominen. This is »the permanent wo11d» which creates hope and li:lie.42 As Ebeling rejecl>.s,ecret» of human existence. Language brings »the hidden» to the full light of day. 26 Like Ebeling's relational ontology his epistemology, too, is designed to serve his theological method: in existential knowing language is the same as »the word» which is an eXipr·ession of the ultimate permanenoe of rea:lity, i.e. an 'eXipilication of »the secret of reaility». The one and inditive behiind Luther's biblical interpretation is not dootrine, not evcn 'lhe uudriue uI j ustification, but Jesus Christ and the actualization of God's redemptive activity th110ugh Christ in humarn reality. 30 Hence, the starting point of interpretation is the siluaiiou of man in statu corruptionis. The radicality of the spiritus principle in biblical hermeneutics is most evident in the manner in which i:t actualizes the understanding of human existence coram Deo in distinction to the »law» or littera which concerns man coram mundo.a 1 According fo Ebeling, the dynarmii::m M Luther's theology is baaed un thc pro nobis character of 28 Abo Braatcn, 1060, 12, and Patriquin, l!J73, 50-51, say that Ebeling h1rn not. inv11lirl11t.P!rl B7tUmann's duulism in the historical interpretation of the Bible but Ebeling's· interpretation divcrgcs from the facts. Huber, 1974, i1Hß-ilfl1!!, criticizcs Ebcling for developing a method which is not compatible with the historical facts; the distinction between historical and existential interpretation disappears. 29 On the four methods of exposition, see LS I, 53, and EE, 409-452. Ebeling commEmt.s on Luther's spiritual interpretation: »Es gibt keinen mehrfachen Schriftsinn. Der buchstäbliche ist der geistliche, der geistliche ist dF~r buchstäbliche Sinn. Das geistliche Verstehen ist nicht Produkt einer Auslegungsmethode, sondern ist· Wirkung des heiligen Geistes durch den Glauben.» EE, 311. Origen had already developed the twofold method, littera occidens - spiritus vivificans, on the baisis of 2 Cor 3: 6 but he had ullcgorizcd the spiritual interpretation. LS I, 4, l~. Augustine could not free his inlerprelation from allegorism, although he estabUshed u distinction between signum and res. RGG III, 248-249. lt w;is L11,ther who, influenced by v. Slwup'ii;.;; am.l \!he mystici1s~n of Dernard, re·atlized slpi:r:Ltual inrteirpl1et:a.tion withiol\llt ailllegorism. IIJJ EbelinJg's orpinioil1J, Luther's 1spilrii1;1Ua[ miethod is realistic. LS 1, 17, 208-20\1. .b:.b:, 4bl-452. RGG II, 1291. 30 EE, 271. ~1 EE, 376-382. »Die hermeneutische Frage ist genau 80 gelagert wie die ethische Frage.» EE, 409.

151

his bihlica:l interpretation. For htm hermeneutics is an »existentiell» problem; he was »absolutely uninterested in the probl'em of formal hermeneutics».32 Ebe1ing wishes fo demonstrate how Luther's spiritus principle of biblical interpretation is realized through »sacramental» interpretation. According to Ebeling, Luther understands that the Scriptul'es are ultimately concerned with the word event which addresses man in the concea1ment of his existence. 33 lt is not the inspiration of the letter of the Bible but its incarnation in human rea'lity which is the crucia1 moment of correct understanding. The word becomes »incarnate» through a proccss of intcrprotation as it reveals the true structure of human existence. Interpretation aims at the »inverbation» of the truth so th;:it. t.he es~c;en~e of t.he Chri.sti;:in faith, whkh the Scripture bear witness to, addresses man and enlightens his existent1al situation as iinaliun of christological and existential interpretation in Luther's theology is possiible through exemplary inLerprelaLlun: »Die ernte Psalmernvorleisung Jsit Vüll von Beispielen dieser existentialen Interpretation theologischer Aus sagen. Das ist für Luther tropologische Auslegung. Gottes Handeln und das Selbstverständnis der Existenz stehen in unzerreissbarer Korre1ation. - - So verklammert die tropologische Exegese Christus und die Existenz: Justitia dei - - Tropologice est fides Christi. Das isrt die Grundformel von Luthers Rechtfertigungs-lehre in der ersten Psalmenvorlesung. Und darum ist für Luther der sensus tropologicus ultimatus et principaliter intentus in scriptura.» LS I, 67-68. Luther, WA 3; 3135, 21-22,; 466, 26. See also Luther, H4, RGG IV, 5ü0, arnd RGG III, 25'1. The pioneer in recreating Luther's tropological exegesis is Holl. According to him, Luther developed this moral method of expos:ition into an existential one: » - - so bevorzugt er - - den tropologischen oder moralischen, d.h. denjenigen Sinn, der das Schriftwort auf das eigene Lebeu und die eigene Pflicht anwendet.» IIoll 1948, 5,it6. 8 In his dissertation on Luther Ebelin.e; emphasizes that, according to Luther, a mere exemplary model of interpretation is not yet God's word, but exemplary eX1position illustrates the historical facts of the salvation history. It is s1acramental interpretation that changes the »pictures» of the Bible into »a history of Jesus Christ» which awakens faith. EE, 440-444. H. Bornkamm, 1975, 159, gives Luther's exemplary christology 1

1

1

166

proceeds fUJrther and adopts the exemplary model for the interpretatton of christo1'ogy in the NT. 'I1he inconsistency of Ebeling's thinking, i.e. his difficulty in combining the hisforical :facts and definitions of content with their actual existential meaning, characteristic of the whole structure of his hermeneutica~ methodology, is also present in his chris1tology. Ebeling aims at discovering the authentic hist'orica:l Jesus without any strict hisltorical analysis of the NT texts. He sa;ys, for instance, that a historical proximity of a text to the person of Jesus does not necessarily correla:te with the text transmitting a genuine understanding of the historical Jesus. 9 The criterion of authenticity is qualified by thc capadty of a text to be an effecitive symbol of the relationship between the person of Jesus and the existential situation of the interprdter. Ebeling's emphasis on the his1torical Jesus doe,s not mean adhering Lu Lhe s~ricL hi::;Lurical (histurisch) research o:I' the NT but rather to a certain kind of »historicity»: the humanity of Jesus. Jesus is a historical phenomenon, because he was vere homo. According to Ebeling, the emphiasiJS of 1the humani.ty of Jesus was a true radical discovery of Reformaiiory christology. 10 a clearly limited iposition: »Man kann nicht vom Exem:ipel anfangen und zum Sakrament vordringPn. Sonrlern umgekehrt: Nur wer Christus, nls Sakrament, d.h. als Offenbarung der Vergebung glaubt, kann ihm wahrhaft nachfolgen.» E. Seeberg says that the young Luther understood Christ as im »Urbild» on thP. hflRiR of the trnpnlneirRl exeee~is whkh he 'h!1d Rr'lnpted from Augustine and mysticism. This fact ,exerci:sed a crucial influence on hls inlerprelallon of the doctrinf' of justific.;it.10n m the sense that a believer goes thvough the same experience of the cross as Jesus did: »Und das bedeutet in der tropofogischen Exegese, dass wir zuerst erniedrigt werden müssen, um dann erhöht zu werden.» E. Seeberg 19'3'7, 7-11, 14. Similarly R. Hermann 19'67, 69, and Pannenberg 1976, 3'7-3'8. On Luther's tropological method as a means of actualization of the subject matter of the Christian faith, see also Brandenburg rn6o, H3. In his later years Luther placed more emphasis on the idea of the forgiveness of sins and the sacrificial and redemplive nature of Christ's death. E. Seeberg 1969, 394-395, 406-408. Peters, 1968, 268-269, says that even for the young Luther sacrifice and forgiveness were important. 9 See above p. 157. If Ebeling argued for the importance of the historical ,Tf'SUR nn the grn11nrls nf exegPR.is hc wnuld proh;ihly h!" rnmpeller'l to underline the centml rolc of rcdaction criticism und thc invcs1tigation of the different snurr.f's of thf' (j,ospf'l texts R11t he does nnt RPrimrnly c.onsir'lf'r in his work the problem of thc stratification of thc NT data. 10 »Für duu ChriuLuü Vernlündniß der Rcfurmutlon iut dictJ üympLu matisch: Mit dem Menschs,ein .Tesu ist hif'r so f'rnst gf'ma:cht, dass darin Anfechtung uud Gl~rnue ~mm enLudwidenden Themu werden.» WG III, 202. Following Bonhoeffer, Ebeling says that any kind of metaphysical speaking

167

As a result of the concenitra,tion on the humaniity of Jesus, the essence of the Christian faith can be interpreted correctly only insofar as it touches the foundaHon of human existence. The task of Ebeling's hermeneutical interpretation of christology is to clarify what is thc significance of the »surrender» of Jesus to human history and reality. Hence, it is not possible to speak of Jesus by means of »mythical» or »!supranatural» concepts; christology must rather have a direc1t correla1tion with human existence and life.11 In this way »the real humanity of Jesus and our real humanity can come to expression in ohristol!ogy». 12 Christo1ogy based on the his,toricity and humanity of the pe,rson of Jesus is, according to Ebeling, the Reformatory theology of the cross par excellence. 13 Ebeling's exemplary method of christology and its implicit conLenL, i.e. Lhe person of the ihistorical Jesus, arc cmicntinlly bound together. The uniquenes:s of .Josus as a human being is based on his authority by which he proclaimed the nearness of God's sovreignity.14 Hi!s procLamation brought God's presence so close to men of God is alien to the Christian faith. WG II, 97. It is the authentic humanity of Jesus that makes it possible to speak simultaneously of God, the world and man, taking into considPr:'ltion thP requirements of modern critical thought. DCG I, 75. Selvatico, 1977, 73-74, poin1s out that Ebeling's tmdcrstandinp; of ,TrRns's hiRtoricity :'IS his humanity is decisively a result of adopting Bonhoeffer's theology. Like Ebeling Gogarten, 1967, 32-33, also stressed that the starting point of Luther's christology is Jesus as a human being. Other Luther researchers understand Luther's speech of Chriost's humanity as' a part of the theology of the cross. For instance, lwand, UJ74, l~l, says: »Luther meint miit dieser humanitas Chrii;Li nicht etwa die Geschiohtlichkeit, sondern er meint mit der humanitas die Offenbarungsfo!'m Gottes.» 11 Elbeling is of the opinion that the mythical and the supranatural have had a justifiable role as explicants of christology but modern thinking maikes a critical distinction between image and reality. WG III, 2816-287. See also Vom Gebet, 35. 12 »Auch hier besteht eine Korrespondenz: dass nur miteinander das wi:r;kliche Menschsein in der Christologie zur Sprache kommen kann.» WG I, 207. 13 EE, 276, 361. For a closer examination of Ebeling's theology of the oross, 1see below p. 204-205. 14 Elbeling says that all christology mtrnt hP based »tmplicitly» on the person of the historical Jesus. Otherwise christology replaces the historical origin and foundation of Ohris;fümity with fl fiction. Implicit christology must be in keeping with Jesus' mission as a »witness» of faith. DCG II, 47. The characteristic of implicit christology is the »authority» which Jesus acquired as a result of his unique, close relation to God. DCG II, 475. See also TV, 80-81, 96, DCG II, 451, and Wesen, 59-60. For criticism of Ebeling's view of Jesus' »authority», see Pannenberg 1973 b, 285.

168

that they were encoura:ged to turn to their Creator and fo utter the word »God». In this way the person of Jesus was »a provocation to faith», an awakening of failth.1 5 The life of Jesus was »a call to faith» as he offered men an opportunity to participate in his »way» and, as a result "Of this, to experience his freedom, joy and courage by being »c>lose by God».16 The appearance of Jesus in human history, his person, proclamation and deeds ar.e an e:immp1e {Viorbil:d) of a total trust in God. Jesus was the true »beginner and perfecter of faith», because he demonstrated extraordinary certainty and trust in relation to God.17 According to Ebcling, the mystery of the person of Jesus was bis existential certainty which was a result of his close relationship with God. 18 In Ebeling's christology, the life, proclamation and deeds of Jesus \;Onstitute a unilty in Jesus' mission us 11 witncss of foith among men. The task of thc witncss culminated in »the event of the cross»: 15 »Jesus ist in Person Provokation zum Glauben. Darum bilden hier Wort und Verhalten eine Einheit. Er ist der 'Anfänger und Vollender des Glaubens' - -» WG III, W5. See also WG III, 305, and DCG 1, 82. 16 »Alles, worauf die Botschaft Jesu abzi·elt: die Nähe der Gottesherrschaft, die Klurheil 1.lel! Willen Cuttcg und die Einfult der Nuchfulgc und damit: Freude, Freiheit und Nichtsorgen - all das isrt ja nur Interpretation eines einzigen, nämlich des Rufs zum Glauben. Aber nun sehen wir das alles im Zusammenhang mit jener eigentümlicher Vollmacht der Person Jesu. Wenn Nachfolge heisst: an Jesu Weg teilhaben, dann heisst ja Verstehen seiner Predigt vom Willen Gottes: teilhaben an seiner Freiheit, und Verstehen seiner Botuchuft von der Cottcshcrrschuft: teilhaben un seiner Freude, an seinem Gehorsam, an seinem Mut zur Nähe Gottes.» Wesen, 64. See also DCG II, 157, 1•50. Bultmann blumcs both Fuch3 und Ebeling for a psychological understanding of chris•tology: »Aber bedeutet der Rekurs auf Jesu eigenen Glauben nicht dP.n Rücikfal·l in diP. historischpsychologische Interpretation?» Bultmann 1967, 461. Ebe1ing refutes Bultmann's accusation by saying that the distinction betwP.P.n fides quae and fides qua does not help much in christology. lt is more fruitful to analyse the question of Jesus' authority in which aU aspects of christology converge. TV, 122-124. 17 WG III, 295. See above p. 164 n. 6. 18 ''Die Gewissheit Jesu ist nicht ein Teilaspekt seiner Erscheinung und auch nicht bloss auf Partielles bezogen, R·ondern sein Personsein selbst. Das ist da·s Geheimnis seiner Person - - Die Gewissheit Jesu ist gerade darum volle Gewissheit, weil sie im Heute gehalten int durch das Ja zur umgreifenden unverfügbaren, aber nur so glaubwürdigen, gewissmachenden Näh0 des Vaters zum Sohn.» TV, 89-90. Sec ulso WG I, 245, und WG III, 244.

169

through his death Jesus »fulfilled his task as the witness of faith». 19 On the cross Jesus experienced tota1 weaikness as a human being and, paradoxicaHy, in that state he found absolute certainty in a total dependence on the Crea:tor of alJl people as his existence was committed into thc hands of his Father. Jesus demonsfoated how man can exist in a relation of ctotal trust in God when all. the false piUars of existence a:re broken down. On the cross Jesus demonstrated visibly what fai:th, i.e. what ufümate depenJdence on God is. 20 At the very moment when Jesus seemed to faH in:to non-existence (NicMsein) he received the basis of his existence as true being (Sein) in a relationship to God. In the event of the cross Jesus revealed how »föe undiJsturbed being 'together of God and man» is possible under the conditions of a faHen humanity. 21 The existential relevance of the event of the cross is verified by the result i:t achieves: »to the place of uncertainty and doubt came certainty».22 1

The exemplary faith of the human Jesus is the means by which Ebeling desires to create a bridge over the gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith. The function of the pernon of Jesus a:s an example and provoker of farth iJs the »content» (das Was, das Wie) of chriJsto1ogy which, acco rding to Ebeling, ifl absent from Bultmann's christology. Tn F.beling's exemplary christology the person of Jesus uniites 1the historicaJ facts and the theological subjeot matter concerning the aprpearance of Jesus.23 1

All that has been said of Jesus as an example and a witness of faith belongs in Ebeling's theology to »implicit christology» which 19 WG III, 244. Ebeling says that the cross is the fulfilment of Jesus' proclamation. DCG II, 3,33, 20 WG III, :!63. 'l'V, Y7. 21 »Im Kreuzesgeschehen geht es darum, dass und wie das unzerstörte Zusammensein von Gott und Mensch in Jesus unter den Bedingungen der sündigen Menschheit offenbar wird und allen zugute kommt.» DCG II, 167. 22 DCG II, 157. 23 With exemplary christology Ebeling tries to create a bridge between the fact~ irnn Rignifü~:mce üf ohriRt:ology. WG TTT, 290. Ry concentrating on Jesus as vere homo Ebeling believes he can overcome the hermeneutical teni'\ion between föe historirHl lind dogm65, 472, turns polemically against Ebeling in saying that, according to Luther, Satan is not ·only »the mask of God's absence» but: » - - der 'Stock.meister', dc:r Gefängnisaufseher des Gotteszornes.» 6

7

1

212

Faithful 1to his hermeneutical method, Ebeling bases his concept of sin on his view of the onto}ogical theology of the creation. Because the evil in human hfe is a disturbance in the being together of God and man, original sin i:s the same as the laok of trust in God. Because man is n01t »with God», he is in »a contradiction with himself».11 In this way Ebeling understands s1in as the laok of the rela:tionship w1th ifüe quali!ty which is the bearer of all life; sin is essentially privatio boni. Hcncc, sin cannot bc dcfincd in substanüal terms. The problem of Ebeling's concept of sin is 1that if sin is interJJrelec.l iu Le11111s oI Lhe onLological Lheology of ihe creai1ou as thl:! lack of a rela:ti'on with »the souroe of Jife», the state of sin should end as man ar.quires authentic existenc.e in relation to his Creator. 12 As it is hardly Ebeling's intcntion to argue thrut sin can disappcar from human life, it mus1t be concluded that Ebeling's aoncept of sin, like his relational ontology, is more a symbolic than a realistic model of understanding reality.13 Wilth his concept of sin Ebeling a:ttempts to interpr,et »concretely» the Refomiatory principle of justification of the sinner, under,standable and releV1ant to modern man. He emphasizes 1that the crucial elemerrt in Luther's doctrine of justification is its connection with the concept of 1the ;perison. By concentrating on 1the situat1on of human existenoe and the person and not on the qua1ities of the 1

1

11 EbeHng bases his interpretation of sin on his relational ontology: »Die Sünde ist die Zerstörung c-Jps wbove p. 99-100. Amu~'r!J, 1980, 915, cdLici:t.~ El>lo!liHg. foL· u11ul;!rsLamU11g man too exclusively as a sinner. 1

213

human soul, Luther was, according to Ebeling, able to dismiss the moral ·and raitional character of the dootrine of griace. 14 Leaning on hi's Luther interipreta:tion, Ebeling wishes to understand justification even more radicaUy in relation to human existenoe. 15 The way in which the individual is constituted in relation ito the one indivisible and unobjectifiable foundation and secret of reali'ty, is, according to Ebeling, the basis for understanding the realiis1tichi!S'torical a:nd existentially relevant nature of 1the Reformatory doctrine of justifica:tion. Ebeling 1says thai the concept of jusbificiation must conf:riont ithe question of the meaning of lif.e. The task of the theologian is to understand how man thirough justifica:tion (Reolttfertigung) beoomes a true human being {rechter Mensch).16 Ebeling's solut1on to this requirement of interpreting the central t.l.uutrine ur the Refut'ImlJiion is based on h1s relational On!tology and the hermeneu'tics derived frmn tihi.s. Man, wiho i::; ·a mPr•P Pxh;;!f:pnre without any substance, is totally passive and becames an object of the Crea:tor's activity, which produces authentic existence in a re'lationship wil1fö the sole substance of füe total rea:lilty.17 In the event of juS:tification man is transferred from the 1state of nonexistcncc i(Nichtsein) ito 'the staJte of 1auithentic exi•stence (Sein). Man Mmself is in no way changed - •thrat would not even be possible, because he 1s not a subsliance. Wha't happens in justificati:on is »a fundaimenital change of thP •Situation» in WhiCTh thf' CrPator (':al1ls man into heing, from thP dead1y state of non-existence to authentic existence. 18 Man, who has so far »turned his back» on his Creator 14 Luther, 175-176. For Ebeling's criticism of the substantial understanrding of grace in Scholastic theology, see Luther, 9·6, 172~177, ZThK 1975, 316-319, DCG 1, 412-414., and WGT, 101. On Ebeling'1s interpreta.tion of Thomist anthropology, see LS II/1, 174-178. Raske, 1973, 2n7-208, attempts to harmonize Ebeling's conception of faith wLth the Catholic doctrine of grace. Raske misinteDprets Ebeling's view of faith as ·existing in the category of love and not in that of exist,ential ceclainty. 15 On Ebeling's programme for demythologizing the doctrine of justificatron, see above p. 56-57. 16 DCG III, 195, 200. 17 Acoo11dinig 'to Ebeling, God is the only ;;UJbsfa111ce. See above p. 208. 18 »- Gott - - ins Dasein ruft und Tote lebendig macht.» PJ 10/1957, 11. » - - nicht etwas am Menschen durch die Gnade verändert ist, sondern die Situation des Mens:chen und somit der Mensch selbst in dem, was er vor Gott gilt, als was er von Gott her angesehen wird.» Luther, 175, »Heil ist das, was nur von Gott zu erwarten ist, weil es den Menschen

214

and, as a result, lived in 'a sitate of anxiety and uncertainty, now »turns his face» towards God and 1Jhus acquires füe foundation of his existence from his Creator in 1a relaiUonship with him. In the event of »justi:liication» man is presented wi:th the possibility of participating in God's omnipotence, i.e. his substance which is the bearer of all reality, 1through faith and trust in him. Human existence is »God's material» from which he creates awthentic p.ernon:s.19 According to Ebeling, God's grace can never become a permanent quaHty in man. Justificaition is a continuous event, based on man's activ1e trust in his Crea1Jor, as a result of whie1h man receives the permanence of his existence from God. 20 In Ebeling's concept of justification gracie is emphasized by '1Jhe fact 'IJha:t the event of justificart1on can be described only in 'terms of place and relation bu1t not in tcrm::; of c'ontcnt. Ju::;tificution t::; o.n cvcnt in which man, determined by his existence coram mundo, becomes aware of God's approach and, turning towards God, receives his existence and life from his Creator coram Deo.21 in seiner Grundsituation als den betrifft, der seiner selbst nicht mächtig ist.» WG III, 315.9. See also DCG I, 84, 167, 251, 253, WG II, and 394-395. 19 Ebeling interprets Luther on the basis of relational ontology: »Aber an die Stelle dessen, was sons1t Substanz der menschlichen Existenz ist, tritt der Gl:::tubc. Dmi bt eine völlig undcrc Subatunz, nämlich substantia dei. - Denn in Luthers Denken ist subs.tantia dei und substantia fidei ein und dasselbe.» LS I, 25. Ebeling refers to Luther: »- - fides autem facit personam.» Luther, W A 39, l; 28:2, 16. DCG III, 225. See also Luther, 228, DCG I, 168, and PJ 10/1957, 12. Fides iustificans is faith that »fulfils the existence of man». WG III, 29•3. This is based on the fact that man participates in divine omnipotence: »Vielmehr ist der Glaube selbst unüberbietbare Gewissheit - - und darum ein Partizipieren - - an der Allmacht Gottes.» WG III, 234. 20 »- - das Handeln Gottes, das den Menschen im Geschehen der Rechtfertigung vom Menschen selbst unterscheidet und den Menschen dieses Lebens die Materie für das Leben seiner Zukunftigkeit sein lässt, definiert den Menschen; nicht in einem Lehrsatz, sondern in einem Geschehen, welches währt, solange dieses Leben und solange deshalb das Geschehen der Rechtfertigung des Sünders währt.» Luther, 276. See also Luther, 182,._183, ZThK 197•5, 33'0, and Die zehn Gebote, 208. 21 »Allerdine.s steht 7l1'1" F.ntsrhP:ir'hrne, oh der MPnsr:'h sirh rnnim m1mrln oder coram Deo versteht, und das heisst: woher er sfoh selbst empfängt.» WG I, 425. The birth of faifü means a change in the forum situation: man »flees from God to God», from the hidden Majesty to God who reveals himself in Jesus. LS I, 305-306. See also LS I, 26, WG II, 284, and WE, 49. For criticism of the existential interpretation of justificaition, see Kreck 1969, 290-291.

215

As a resuLt of the relational character of justification, füe medium of justifica:tion is the word. In the state of the questionableness of his existence, the helpless man i:s a passive hearer who experiences the approach of th!e Creator through ithe word. The word functions as a medium of communicaJtion between the Crea:tor 1and füe created; it urges man to throw himself into 1a rela:tionship of total dependence on the Oreator through tfüimaite trust in God. By the verbality of justification Ebeling wishes 1to emphasize :that justifica:tion takes place extra hominem thI1ough grace: man is a passive object of God's creati:ve word which encounters him 1through proclamation encouraging him to put his trust in God. 22 According to Elbeling, fides iustificans is essentially of a verbal nature: »Faith adheres essenrtlaUy rto the word. For God does not a~ocio:tc himsclif wi:th man otherwise 1fuan rthmug'h the word of promiS1Sion - -». 23 Faith iiis based on the word event, because faith consists of the encounter of the persons, God and man. On the part of God, man hears God's cal1 into being; for his own par:t, man can respond by his trust in the calling of God. The ex:pression of this trusrt is prayer, thankfulness 1and hoimology. 2 4 In his concept of justification Ebeling solves the problem of existence in r·elation to the foundation of being and to time. Firstly, 22 Following Luther, Ebeling says: »Weil über das Menschsein des Menschen das Wort entscheidet, er also letztlich nicht Täter, sondern Hörer ist, sein Heil eine Frage nicht der Vervollkommnung, sondern der Gewissheit und seine wahre iuslHia niemals in seipso, sondern stets extra se 1iegrt - -» LS I, 284. See also Luther, 132. »- - das Geschehen der Offenbarung heissl, tlai;s wir im Glauben unsere Existenz etra nos empfangen, indem Gott durch sein Wort durch Jesus Christus in nobis Wohnung nimmt.» GKV, 64-6'5. SiJmilarly WG III, 38'5. »Aber es liegt im Wesen von Heilslehre, dass ein - - Zusammenhang zwischen Sprache und Heil behauptet ist, wie ja auch zwischen Srprachlossein und Hemossein eine Beziehung besteht.» WG I, 431. 23 »Der Glaube haftet wesenhaft am Wort. Denn Gott verkehrt mit den Menschen nicht anders als durch das Wort der Verheissung - -» LS I,

299. 24 »Nun gebührt aber Glaube, recht verstanden, nicht Dinghaftem, sondern nur Personhaftem. Deshalb korrespondiert der Glaube dem Wort, und zwar dem schlechthin Zukunft eröffnenden und darum Glauben erwecfuenden Wort.» WG III, 2,33. »Denn das Wesen personaler Begegnung liegt im Wortgeschehen - - Glaube kann sich nur auf diejenige Person ri:chte11, welche Glauben erweckt.„ WG I, 212. On thc human rcsponse to the word which awakens faith, see WG I, 370, Luther, 257, and WG III, 420. 011 the re~pon~ivity of the person in Luther's thcology, uoc ulso Joest

1967, 280--2198. ,

216

in the ev;ent of justification the word functions in 'accordance with Ebeling's concept of rbhe theofogy of the creaition, as it »cr,eates» man by obtaining for him »the ultima:te hold» and »the ultimate certainty» in a relationship with the Crea:tor. 25 Secondly, since God's word ena:bles man to participate in God's substance, it at once offers him h:ope under 1the pressure of 1time; this hope is expressed as strong inner ce:dain:ty. Fides iustificans is the correla:te of God's promissio whicfü enables man's participation in God's »mastery of time».26 1

Ebeling's ccmcept of jus1tifica:tion is close'ly connected with his christ1ology. The witness of füe historical Jesus of true authentic faith in God and the wHness of Jesus' exemplary faith through proclama:tion 1s the subject matter of föe wiord which creates justifying faith. In the ,event of justification the faith of Jesus is prcscn:tcd 1to ma11 so ,1Jhat ['l;e can ',throw him::;eH iuLu a rela~ionship of total trustt and dependence on God. According 'Lu ELeli.ug, lhe cross of Jesus is fue cen:tre of justifica:tion, bec ause it reminds man of his 1own basic situa>tion, i.e. of whiat ultimaitely determines life. 27 Hence, the subject matter of the event of justifica:tion is the birth of the relationship with the Creator. The fulfilment of justification is to bre »:a true human be1ing» by »being 'together with Christ» and thus, »being tog,ether w1th God». 28 1

25 Ebeling sums up the doctrine oJ: justificalion: »Aufs Schlichteste zurückgeführt, sagt diese Botschaft von der Rechtfertigung: Suche das, was dir letzten Halt und letzte Gewissheit giUL - - » Die zehn Gebote, 188. 26 DCG III, 421, 4311. »Das rechtfertigende Wort ist reine promissio, ein Kommen.lassen desse11, was dem Menschen tlurch GuLLes Gnade zukommt. Allein dieses Wort und eben deshalb, weil es reines Wort ist, versetzt darum in die Situation des rechtfertigenden Glaubens.» DCG III, 224. 27 »Die Rechtfertigungsaussage will gar nichts anderes sein als die äusserste Präzisierung des Wortes, das Jesus in Person ist. - - Aber das Bewegende und Ergreifende an der Person Jesu ist offenbar dies, dass hier dus Heilige grm1dme11schlich Legeg11eL, 11ichL in Gestalt eines übermenschen, sondern a1s rechter Mensch, nicht in der Ausnahmesituation des vom Glück Begünstigten, sondern in der menschheitlichen Gesamtsituation, die von Unrecht, Leiden und Tod gezeichnet ist und sich im Kreuz Jesu verdichtet. So verweist die Rechtfe:ctigungsaussage auf ein Gegen.über, das den Menschen., wenn er wirklich hinhört, an seine eigene Grundsituation erinnert und in sie hineinruft.» DCG III, 214-215. Ebeling combines Luther's tropological method of biblical Interpretation with bis doctrine of justification. LS I, 68. On the tropo1ogical method, see above p. 164-166. 28 DCG III, 389-3'90. DCG II, 12'2. WE, 19c5. »Durch Jesus Christus ist das Zus1ammensein von Gott und Mensch schlechterdings als, Gnade bestimmt.» DCG II, U2. »- - wird der versöhnte Mensch allein von dem

217

Ebeling's irrterpretation of thre doctrine of justification is in keeping w]th his iil!ten:tion to Il!a:turalize and to modernize the contenit of the Ohl"istian fali!th on the basis of the demythologization and unobjedtification of it, in accordance wi1Jh the in'terest of exisiteil!tial theo:Logy in füe crea:tion. Ebeling replaces questions of guiLt, judgemen:t, the forgiveness of sins or 1the imputaftion of Christ's righteousil!ess for the sinner with problems of the ambiguity of existence an!d i:ts ba:s'ic re;1aitions. ~he absence of traditional formulati:ons of the doctrine of justification is explained by Ebeling's definition of sin 1and by his repudia:tion of the law as a source of God's revelaition. There is no »juridical» ,guilt or »metaphysical» judgemen:t.?.9 Hence, there is no need for the non-fanputa1tion of sin, the forgiveness of sins (on the whole Ebeling uses very marginally the vocabu'lary ,of the :fiOTgiveness of sins in his work) or the imputation of C:hni~t's 'rigiMeousness for the s1inner. Jesus does not present man wi~h his righteousness but his cePtainty of faith: 1the »righteousness» which »justifies» man is his own faith which the example of J esu;s h:as awakened in him. 1

In EbeHng's existen'tial-hermeneutical interrpretation of justifying faith, justifica:tion does not take place in foro coeli but in the hidden depth of human existence, noit outside man but in the inne:rimost centre of his own being. Therefore, Ebeling's conciept of jus'tification ca:nnot be in any sense a juridical one; it is raJther 1an existentialeffective event which creates authen'tic human existence. This effective concept of justification demonstrates once again how Ebeling's emphasils of füe subjeclively experienced inner clarilty of a subject matte,r causes the dissolution of the dialectfoal simul tension between the internal and the external: 1as a resu~t of ontological justification man beoomes a being whose existence is essentiaUy determined by his relation to God, because he has been given 1throug1h tMs relation existenJtial certainty which removes the ambiguity he p11eviosuly exrperienced. Hence, according to Ebeling's Zusammensein mit Gott her verstanden.» DCG II, 253. »Denn Lehre von Gott 1mrl T1ehre vom Heil ~1inrl identisch.» WG I, 4,30. 29 »Man missverstünde den Tenor der Rechtfertigungsterminologie, wenn mun ihn nuch unseren Begriffen als juridis1ch bezeich11ete.>1 DCG III, 198. .

218

onto'1ogical view of justification, in the sta:te of authentic existence man is more iustus '.than peccator. 30 On the other hand, Ebeling emphasizes thait justificaition is an endless proceSiS which is not accomplish:ed during the lifetime of man. 31 The contradiction in Ebeling's theology results from the tension between what expressis verbis he wishes to represent and wha:t are the unavoidable consequences of his hermeneutioal inltevpretation of rthe essence of the Christian faith. In keeping wilth his hormcneutioal actuaHsm, Ebeling intends to unobjectify the contents of the Christian faith but, in so doing, he cannot avoid crea:ting a new kind of content. Ebeling's verbal relational ontological concept oI j usiiücation is an expression of how :liar he has gone in his reinterpretation and modernization of Reformatory theofögy. Luther was still restricted by the »mythical» und »juridical» images of justification.32 30 Ebeling says that God's word instantly fulfils whait it promises: »Es erfüllt, was es verspricht.» Wesen, 107. Accordingly, faith is the fulfilment of what is believed: »Der Glaube ist nicht eine zu leistende Vorbedingung, sondern ist selbst das Ei11trele11 der Erfüllm1g.» WG III, 234. A !>tudcnt of Ebeling, zur Mühlen, 1972, 93, says that Luther, during the development of his thought, understood existence coram Deo and coram mundo increasingly as two possibilities of existence and not as two parts of human nature. Cf. Bultmann's, 19'512, 74-75, existential interpretation of justification with Ebeling's conception. E.g. Elert, 1956, 468-470, represents the more traditional Lutheran understanding of justification, according to which justification i1s the »execution» of man. Elert polemicizes the existential view of justification as a display of the subjective innocence of man. Joest, 196'/, 343., also criticizes the existential interpretation: »Das 'Je und je' der Glaubensgewissheit ist also für Luther keineswegs die ontologische Kategorie eines Heils und einer Lebenserfüllung, die als svlc:he eben nur 'je und je' wirklich wä·re.» Wendebourg, 1967, 131, remavks that Ebeling is closer to the Catholic (gratia perificit naturam) than to Luther'·s view of justification. 31 See above p. 214 n. 20. 32 Here Peters its Ebeling's most severe critic: »Luther jedoch fragt nicht primär nach den Grundmöglichkeiten menschlicher Existenz, sondern nach der Grundgestalt des Gotteshandlung - - D1e Wendung 'coram Deo' bezeichnet nicht primä,r eine Struktur unseres Menschseins; sie bezeugt: Alles, was Menschenantlitz trägt, lebt schon jetzt, ob wir dies anerkennen oder nicht, vor der einen Wirklichkeit aller Wirklichkeiten, die am Jüngsten Tage unwiderstehbar hervorbrechen wird. - - In Ebelings Einführung 'in Luthers Deillken' tritt dieser zentrale Blickpunkt aller Aussagen Luthers zurück, damit verliert auch die tathafte Errettung durch Christus ihre Leuchtkraft.» Peters 19i65, 471. On Luther's understanding of iudici.um, see a1so Brunee 'Ml>U auuve lJ. 2.58·. 67 Ebeling says categoricailly: » - - dieses Reden vom Worte Gottes in stvengster BeZJogenheit auf sein Korre1at, die fldes, erfolg,en mus1s, u111d das heisst: auf die fides als, fides iustificans; denn man muss es sich strikte uruternagen, den Begriff des Glaubens andevs zu v.erw1enden a~s so, da·ss er fides iustificans ist.» WG I, 171. See also DCG II, 373. 68 »Elchte Autorität gründet 1in Erfahrung und ist tmmer neu dem Kriterium der Erfahrung auszusetzen.» DCG II, 311. 611 »Es ist ausserordenH1ch wichltig, das Verständndis von AutorLLäL vcigt, durn:i der Wortlaut - und d;;1.s heis.t nun einmal, ·streng v·erstanden, auch der Inhalt der Syimboie und Bekenntnisschriften ·- in bcGtimmtcr Hinsicht traditio ecclesiastica ist und al.~ solche nicht schlechthin verbindlich sein kann.» WG I, 179-180.

271

»Christian ideology». 71 Ebeling's demand for the ex1stential-actualistic reinterpr:etation 1of dootrine covevs all the 1symbols and ,creeds of the Christian church including the old trinitarian and christological dogmas. 72 An existentially authentic experience of certainty, Le. fides iustificans in Ebeling's sense, is ithe chief concept which determines all the :expressions of fides dogmatica. In Ebeling's hermeneutics the vole of dootrine is reduced to describing the human siituation in need of salvat1on. Doctrine is a symbol of the existentially experienccd csscnce of the Christian faith, but in no way funetions as a norm for either proclama:tion or the experience of fai!th. Thus Ebeling has separated the experience of faith, i.e. its internal clarity, foum 'Lhe ral1unally eXlplicated ·expression of fatth, i.e. its external clartty, a:nd ba:sed his own hermeneutical inter:preta:tion of doctrine on the former. In addition to the negation of external clarity, Ebeling's hermeneutics makes the quest1on of common ecclesias.tical doctrine a problema:tic one: what :kind of consensus of the essence of the Christian faith is at all possible on the basis of Ebeling's hermeneutics?

a.1.s.

»Dus faktische consentire»

According to Ebeling, only such confessional or doctrimd expressions of churches which, as faciually used and taught at present as the incarnation of God's word and which ::irP th111eiu, uen cui1scheide11.den Differenzpunkt anzuvisieren, der vielleicht gar nicht im Bannkreis der tr.ndLtioncllcn lulihcri::mh-.11cformierteI1 Lehrul'lJtersclüeue aufau!irnlen ist--» WG I, 167-168. Similarly WG I, 189. Likewise Lohff 1968, 2, 8., :.md Licnhard 10718, GO Gl. LC'Uba, 196,9, 179-18'0, describes cu11seusus with the word »werden» and truth with »ist»: »Der Konsens is·t mit einem Wort der Ausdruck der Wahrheit im Lauf.e der Geschichte - -» 77 WG I, 1813 (f10[' :the quotat1cm, 1see aboive p. 50 n. 18). »Hi1er erfo1gt vielmehr d~c K'on;;;cntmt:iion auf ·ein Einziges, das qualitativ durch das Stichwort Evangelium g,ekenn;;;eichnet ist.» DCG I, 30. The Duden ddctionary traIJJslate1s the word »faktisch»: »den Tatsachen entsprechend, in Wirklichkeit, tatsächlich, wirklich». D'Uden 1976, 700, 78 WG I, 183. See aLso above p. 5ü'--51. Accovding 1to Diem.• 1951, 26'8, in CA 7 dodrine cannot be explicated as the contents of the liOSpel, which wi11 be reali;;;ed in the act of prodamation. The aduaHstic interpreta:tiion of the unity förmula of CA 7 is also represented by Schiink, 1961, 22, 106, arud ihe writer of the Concord üf Leuenberg, Lohff, 19 and a ~'Tituali!s:m» in whioh God's 11cvclati:on is art:so understood »metaphysically» and »positivistica1ly» on the ba1sis of »old» subsitantiail ontology. 97 As :the result of a substanUal a:nd sacramental concept1on of reality, there is no clea:r distinction between human and divine tra:di:tion. Hence, Ebeling can only lament over »the deep difference» between Protestant and Orthodox theologies. The Eastern church is » TV, 103. »'Priester' sind alle ausnahmslos, die an Jesus Christus g1auben.» Wesen, 18"/. 49 »A!ber gerade darUJm isit das kirchliche Amt im ·evangelischen Versfändnis: nichts anderes als dte öffentlich geordnete Proklamation des Priestertums Chrtsti und damistry cannot be theologically based on the original documents of Christiianity and, therefo1re, ministry :may fägiti:mately take diverse fol!'IIlls depending on füe oontext. Ebeling 1says that, for iinstance, the pastoraite is n1ot a normative im:stiitution for the proclamatton of :the gioispeJ.52 The criterion for diiferen1t fol'ms nf ministry i:s thait they basically represerrt the one ministry of Jesus which takes va1ri1oil11s form1s of expTession. In accordanoe with his individualistic verificati:on of rthe word and faith, Ebeling emphasfzes that for the minis try of witnessing to the essence of rtJhe Christian faith the vocation of the church iis not conBtitutive; thc miniiBtcr ,EJtundEJ ulonc in the ·Bight of God. 53 Al1

50 »Wie dauert das Priestertum Christi fort, so da1s1s wir daran Anteil haben? Dadurch, dass g·eschieht, wa1s notwendig zum Geschehen des Glaubens gehört. Das ist einmal die Mitteilung des Glaubens - - Diese Mitteilung des Glaubens geschieht durch die Pl'ediigt deis Glaubens1 - -» WGT, 194. See also TV, 103. 51 »Damus ergeben 1sich für das Amt in der Kiirche folgende konstitutive Bestimmungen: Es gibt der Vollmacht Jesu Christi Raum. - - Und als Zeugedienst ist es W0Dtdiens1t - -» WG III, 523. Cf. Sehlink 1961, 110. 52 »Ebenso fals•ch wäre es, das geschichtlich gewachs·ene Pfarramt als cfile nun ;e1nmal geg1ebene Institution für unbedingt norma:tiv zu halten.» DCG IU, 367. The plurality of minis:try is also repres·ented by e.g. Käsemann 1and Diem, 1see Kühn 1970. On the other hand, e.g. P. Brunner, 1962, 306-308, stands for the unity of the apostolic pastornl ministry. Aarts, HJ72, 31!J~3.20, 1says of Luther'>s rtheoiogy of ministry: »-- - die Gläubigen predigen privat und aus eigener Initiative, die Amtsträger für die Kirche irm Niumcn dcT Kirche.» 53 »Wenn mm aber die kirchliche vocatio nicht der Grund der gei1stliche!1. Vollmacht des Amtes is:t - - darf aus der Rückführung auf das allg·emeine Priiesterturm der Glaubenden ~etnesweg1s drie ~olgerung geZJogen werden, dass der Inhaber des Amtes nur den Auftrag der Gemeinde aus.zuführen und .sich n:ach dem WilLen dieses Auf.trag1gebens zu richten habe. Der in das Amt Reruff'ne ;;fa>ht einzig unn allein in dem Auftrag Christi und insofern in einem notwend~gen t.regenuber zur Gemeinde, sowel:t es um die Verantwortung des Christuswortes geht.» DCG III, 368.

299

though Ebeling establishes his concept of the ministry of proclamation on common ministry, this is not based on 'the historical continui1ty of the church. Ministry is not based on external clarity but on the exis tentia1 internal clarity of the subject matter. Therefore it is not so much a ministry of the church, ·each preacher being caUed by hi:s own experience of faith on the basis of which he i·s a wi'tn:ess. The continuilty of ministry is based on the succession of faith actualiz,ed in wi1tne:ssing fo exis:tentially relevant faith. 1

When dealing with the sro-caUed sacraments, 114 EbeHng says very little in his wor:kis abuU!L bapLism or the Eucharist rseparately; he spealks more of the concept of sacrament in generaJ. Ebeling gives the folföwing definfüon: cha:racteristirc of the sacramcnt is that »it effecrts what iit says». 55 This definition corresponc'lis with F.hPling's basfö conception of God's ward as a sacramental verbal reality in man's Unguistic 1e xistential siituati:on. According fo F.hPline's relational ontology, posi'tively understood, sacraments are not a substantialJy effectiv1e entity but an exist.entially eff.ecitive event. 1

Ebeling •emphasizes that the word as such is sacramental: »The sacrament is only a special form of appearance of the ward event; the word itself accomplishes its task in a sacramental way.» 56 Because, according to Ebeline;, rt.he word is the »sacrament» proper, the task of the vis1ble material :sacramerrts is to »witness to the gospel», i.e. to emphasize 'that the word affecting man in his existential rcality is ·tihe true sacrament.57 Thc ::mcrumcnts function in s1e rvice to the word everrt by »underlining the 'Sacramental character of the word».58 Accordmg to Ebeling, the word does not necessarily need the sacrament because it is in rtself a full a:nd comp1ete addressing 54

WG III, 549.

55 »Das Saknim1Pnt: is.t. im Pv;ine;elischen V·ers1tändni10" nichts neben dem Wort 1mrl rl:is Wort nir:hfa neben dem Sakrament. Sondern d;:u:; Wort iEt alo so'lches 1sakraanental, WPn;n m:in 11ntPr 1 flHkramenta~ das vevsitieht, da1s;s es wirkt, w;.wi f'S i=me;t. Und das• Sakrament ist Unters~reichung dieBeB sakramenta1en Oharaikter des Wortes.» WGT, 195. 56 Ebeling ~nterpl'ets Luther: »Da1s Sa'krament is~ nur eine besondere Erscheinungsw;eLse des Wortgeschehens; dais Wort srelbs1t wirkrt sakramental.» RGG IV, 504. See also WGT, 217. Agreeing with Ebeling, Fuchs, 1960, 427, says that ille ;;acrc.menl ls a »language event». 57 Ebeling says of the sacraments: »Denn sie bez·eugen das Evangelduni..» DCG III, 300. 58 WGT, 195.

300

of God rto man; but the sacrament, on the other hand, cannot exist without the word. lt is not the sacrament but the orally proclaimed word which is »strictly speaking the gospel». 59 With hiis new defi:ni:tion of the sacramental Ebeling wishes lto demythofögiz,e a:rrd non...,substantialize 'sacramerrtology. He says that the external form 1of the sacramen:ts :beJiongs to the sphere of »the ce:vemonial law» compa:rable with the cor.:vesponding rites of any veligion. According •to Ebeling, 1the true Christian understanding of thc sacrronerrts irs viofated if they are not liberated from their religi!ous cu1itic form. 60 Ebeling's programme for demythologizing the sacraments i1s based on his interpretation of the sacra:mental as a verbal existentially effective ev·ent. His concept of the sacramerrtal does not include any »metaphysica1» doctrine of the real presence of God's grace. Because Ebeling's relaHonal onto1ogy excludes föe concep:t of ;substanc•e, the sacrament cannot be substantial but is rather a symbolic media:tor of grace. Furthermore, Elbeling's reinterpr.etation is based on his view 1of rfue •exclusively V'erbal revelati64, 147-163. Di.1.they, Wi.1.hP.f,m 19fö3 Gesammelte Schriften 5. DiP. gei:sitige Weilt. Einle1tung in die Philosophie des Lebens. ErSJter Hlll.l'Le: Auhandlun:gen zur Grundlegung der GeiSJteswis1senschaften. Stuttgart & Göttingen. Vinkler, Erich

1964

1'060

Biblical Hermeneutics and its Signifkancc for the Ecumenical Movemcnt. SuggcEttionfJ for an Ecuwe1ücal Study T'mgrRmmr.. Minutes of the Meeiting of the F&O Comrniilsision and Wm:king Oui1111rll1tLee hc1d at tihc UniV'ersity of Aa:rhus 15.-?.'7. 8, HHi4. (F&O Paper 44.) Geneva 1965. P. 6'1-619. Die Olrumen1sche Bewegi.mg i.md die HPnm.enPutik. - ThLZ 1969, 481-490.

Doolchorn, Klaus

1973

Lurthers Glaubenisbegriff und die Rhetorik. Zu Gerhard Ebelings Buch »Eiruführung in theo1ogische Sprachlehre». Linguistka Biblica 19173, 19-3•9.

Doctrine and Change

1972

Doctrine and Change. Report of the Oonsultation on »Doctrine and Ohang,e» 19.-214. 6. 1972. The Ecumenical Institute of Bossey. Celigny. Dodd, C. H. 19fü7 The A:poSJtolic Preaching and its Deve1opments. Three Lectures with an Arppendix on l!:schatology arnd H~stüry. London. Doing Theology Today

1976

Doing Theology Today. Ed. by Choan-Seng Song. Madras.

Dombois, Hans

1963

Konfessionelle Auseinandersetzung als hermeneutisches Problem. - ZThK 1963, 1122-131.

Dressel, Heinz

1966

Kriise und Neuansa1tz der Christologie. Bern.

331 Droysen, Johann G. 119604 Historik. Vorlesungen über Enzyklopädie und Methodologie der

Geschichte. Hg.v. R. Hübner. München. Duchrow, Ulrich 11980 Konflikt um die Ökumene. Christusbe1kenntnis1 -

in welcher Gestalt

der ökumeni1schen Bewegung? München. Duden

197'6

Das gvosse Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache in sechs Bänden 2. Mannheim & Wien & Zürich.

Duensing, Friedrich 196 4 Fragen zu Ebelings Glaubens- und Gottesbegriff. -

EvTh 1964, 34-45. Dyson, A. 0. 1'972 Dogrrmtic or Oontextual Theology? Study Encourrter 3/1972, 1-8. Döring, Heinrich 1969 Kirchen - unterwegs zur Einheit. D::i1s RingPn rnn die sichtba1re Einheit der Kirchen in den Dokumenten der Weltkirchenkonferenzen. Eline phänomenologisch-theologische Betrachtung. (Abhandlung·en zur Philosophie, Psychologie, Soziologie der Religion und Ökumenik 1'7-20.) München & Paderborn & Wien. Ecumenical Methodology 1978 Ecumenical Methodology. Documentati'on and Report. The Lutheran World Fedevation. Ed. by P. H0jen. Geneva. Ecumenical Relations 1'977 Ecumenical Relations of the Lutheran Wor1d Federaition. Report of füe working group on the interrela·tions between the various bilateral dialogues. Received by the Executive Committee, Divonne, February 1977. Geneva. Ehrenström, Nils & Gassman, Günther 19753 Oornfess:ions in Diaio"'uP.. A Sll'rvPy of RHateral Comrersiation~ among World Oonfes1sional Families 195'9~1'974 ..Third, revisied and enlarged edition by N. EhvenstrÖlm. (F&O Baper 74.) Geneva. Eichholz, Georg 19 62 Die Gvenze der exis1tentialP.n TntP.rprPt:it.inn litkrili1ty of God '•md F,a,Lth in Gerhard Ebc1ing. - Luthemn Quamterly 1971, 289-298. Heitsch, Ernst 1956 Die Aporie des histüdsichen Jesus als Problem theologischer Hermeneutik. - ZThK 19>5·6·, IH2-210. Hempel„ .Tnhannes 19177, Zeugnis u:nd Dienst im Europa der Gege~warit. - Zeugnis und Dienst 1!}77, 3,9_53, Henrichs, Norbert 19.Ci8 BH,1Hoi;:-ruphi~ iflin TTl"1"!11eneutik uutl ihrer Anwendungsbereiche seit Schleierimacher. (KLeine philosophische Bfüliographien 1.) Düss1eldorf. H srmann, RudoZf 19