I thought since my last discussion about Bonheoffer was so productive, and possibly a bit confusing, I would ask permission from one of my University professors to quote him in my blog.
This works out, because not only am I hit for blogging time, but this professor’s comments are very well articulated. I have a high degree of respect for this man. He has given me permission to quote his comments, but he will not be responding to comments made here on the blog Please know that. This post is in regards to Bonhoeffer’s view on the resurrection of Christ—which, to the Faith shapes every other facet.
I will begin by quoting my email to him, then his response to me.
Prof. Lloyd,
I was wondering if you could offer some thoughts on ontology. I am reading Bonhoeffer, “The Cost of Discipleship,” and in chapter 28, “Baptism.” Here, Bonhoeffer says, “[Jesus] is the incarnate, crucified, risen and glorified Christ, and he meets us in his word. The difference between the terminology of the Synoptists and the witness of St. Paul does not involve any break in the unity of the scriptural testimony” (230). His footnotes on this state: “The direct testimony of the scriptures is frequently confounded with ontological propositions. . . . The truth that Jesus Christ is risen and present to us is then taken as an independent statement with an ontological significance which can be applied critically to other ontological statements, and it is thus exalted into a theological principle. This procedure is analogous to the fanatical doctrine of perfectionism, which arises from a similar ontological misunderstanding of the scriptural utterances on the subject of sanctification. . . . The assertion that Christ is risen and present is, when taken strictly as a testimony given in the scriptures, true only as a word of the scriptures. This word is the object of our faith.”
If ontology is the study of “being,” then I am a bit confused as to what Bonhoeffer is attempting to convey. Is he therefore saying that Christ’s state of being is only that of the Scripture “word,” or that since the scripture “word” proclaims it, it is therefore true? Perhaps Bonhoeffer is simply talking in terms that Jesus can only be met through the “word” and any ontological propositions would be found in the word itself, not in a Christ with a physical state of being, other than the “word” as the physical state of being of Christ? Perhaps I am not even on the right path of interpreting Bonhoeffer? Do you have any insight on this?
I think Bonhoeffer is a little off on some of his theology, but has many good things to discuss. I am a little stumped on what he means here.
Any help would be appreciated.
Jonathan.
And here is professor’s reply:
Jonathan,
We must always remember two things about Bonhoeffer’s theology: 1) He was influenced early in life by the famous German liberal theologian, Adolf Von Harnack, and 2) he was later influenced by German neo-orthodox theology, particularly the theology of Karl Barth. Though Barth’s influence caused Bonhoeffer to question some of Harnack’s liberalism, the spectre of old German liberalism was never fully vanquished from Bonhoeffer’s theological outlook.
When Bonhoeffer uses the phrase “ontological propositions,” he is talking about propositions that purport to describe reality, or an actual state of affairs (an actual state of “being” as it were). Thus, if I meant for the proposition “Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and is alive today” to have a real, ontological status, then I would mean that I believe the proposition describes an actual state of affairs—namely that Jesus Christ, in space-time history, rose from the dead and is actually alive today (albeit in a state of existence different from his physical, earthly incarnation).
Thus, Bonhoeffer is saying that we should not try to take the scriptural testimony of the risen Jesus as making any kind of ontological statement about the existence of Jesus. That’s a view of Jesus’ resurrection that is quite consistent with both of Bonhoeffer’s aforementioned theological mentors. Bonhoeffer would say, “Did Jesus really rise from the dead? Unlikely. But it doesn’t matter. What matters is the transformative power (read: existential significance) of those words in the life of a believer. What impact does the testimony have in the life of the one who allows himself to be transformed by the power of these words?” Notice he is very careful in the passage you’ve quoted to say that this testimony is true “only as a word of the scriptures.” Not at all literally true, in any ontological sense. Instead it conveys a kind of truth similar to myth or legend.
The idea that what matters is not the historical event but rather its existential import in the life of the believer is a classic neo-orthodox move. Bonhoeffer, like many good theological existentialists, would say that the resurrection of Jesus is not something that literally happened to Jesus, but rather it is something that happens to us, his disciples. “Jesus Christ has been raised in our hearts” and that “resurrection” gives significance to our existence.
In the latter half of the twentieth century, many evangelical Christians fell in love with Bonhoeffer’s writings, because they found a deep personal piety contained therein that they found attractive. They also appreciated his courage and willingness to die for his convictions. But once again, this shows how uncritical evangelicals have become. While we might find many statements from Bonhoeffer on such subjects as personal piety and personal ethics that we might agree with and even appreciate, those statements come packaged in a theology that should be troubling to those who take the biblical narrative seriously. I myself do in fact believe that the proposition “Jesus Christ is risen from the dead” is an ontologically true statement. In fact, if it were not so, I would concur with the apostle Paul that “our faith is futile.” What genuine transformative power is that proposition supposed to have if it is not ontologically true?
Feel free to respond, but please understand there will be no response from this professor—unless, of course, he happens to read this and decides to respond himself. But do not expect it.
-Jonathan J.
 300x250.jpg)
Theology is hard. Hard because we have millions of Christians who have come of age one way or another. Each of us (individuals of the millions) have "a" theology, just 99% haven't thought about it and put it on paper or blog. Only one has had a theology that was true, Jesus the man, Our problem is that we ALL have fallen short. If we are short our theologies are short. So where does that leave us-brothers and sisters saved by the grace of God. At least I pray that is where we are. Different but saved. Your blog was great. I read you for the first time today. I will continue to read. Van
You are right when you say we do not have 100% correct theology. I do believe, though, we have the ability to learn much about God through His word. I think we cut ourselves short at times in what we can know and learn about our savior.
Thanks for stopping by!
Jonathan, you are about two feet over my head, but I love you dude!
Thank you brother – for the "I love you dude" part… lol
My professor is about 10 feet above mine!!!
I inte[ret Bonhoeffer in a slightly different way:
Thought experiment:
Suppose someone showed you a video tape of Jesus rising from the dead – that was proven to be factual. Would it change the way you live?
I believe Bonhoeffer is saying: “I don’t need the video tape – because I believe in the Resurrection.”
This agrees with the entire theology of the Gospel story of Thomas. The whole point of that story is that believers don’t need the video tape. In Jesus words ” “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
The great part is – this is “true” from any angle.
Bonhoeffer I believe would go farther and agree with Paul. If you need a video tape – you really didn’t believe because true belief will always result in a change of the way you live. Not because it is a test, but because it is always a result.
20(AH) Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age?(AI) Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22For(AJ) Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ(AK) crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ(AL) the power of God and(AM) the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Thanks for stopping by, Michael.
I don’t think I this blog post is actually speaking about needing a “video tape” account of Christ’s resurrection. Of course we are blessed to believe without seeing, and this I certainly do! but if you notice, Bonhoeffer states that the object of our faith is the Word of the Scriptures, and not the actual, ontological Christ Himself. My faith isn’t in Scripture alone, but in the Christ of the Scriptures, in the God who made the Scriptures come about. Since He has done such a thing and has revealed His word in the Scriptures, then my faith is also in the Scriptures, but it is necessarily contingent upon the very real, incarnate, risen God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Don’t get me wrong, I think Bonhoeffer was far braver than many Christians today. I’m not sure if I would have gone the distance he did. There is a difference, however, that lies in the object of faith. Bonheffer did not believe in the actual resurrection of Christ, and that Christ is not seated at the right hand of God. This was the whole point of my professor’s response, that if we are to believe in a Gospel that has only personal, existential benefit, but has no ontological truth to it, then what ultimate good is it anyway?
For that matter we could concoct any theory that fancies our minds and emotions. Bonhoeffer died for what he believed in, but what he believed in (as expressed in “The Cost of Discipleship”) was not the faith the Scriptures speak of.
Michael,
I must first say that I am deeply impressed by how highly you hold the words of the Decalogue, “You will not bear false witness,” for you have grasped onto the true meaning inherent in this negative prohibition. You’re trying to construe Bonhoeffer in the best possible light. Such an attitude of love is wonderful! It is most appropriate for a Christian.
Sadly, however, on this point I cannot share your concern for vindicating Bonhoeffer from the charge that he denied the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I wish that I could indeed! But “he who increases knowledge only increases sorrow,” and nowhere is this more true than in theology.
Now I myself am a Lutheran, as was Bonhoeffer. He was of course not a member of my own Lutheran denomination as I am an American, and he was a German, though he did visit America on occasion. I’m concerned about the adored status that Bonhoeffer seems to have in my own synod. Some have even lamented that his name wasn’t included for a commemoration of martyrdom when our newest hymnal was produced. I’m afraid that one day he might be.
It may sound harsh to say such a thing, but I’m firm about what I just said. Bonhoeffer was not just some Christian guy – he was a pastor, a teacher of the Church. James the brother of our Lord wrote in his epistle that teachers will receive stricter judgment. The Apostle Paul wrote that prophets (a.k.a. teachers) are subject to prophets. We must make a distinction between a Christian whom the Holy Spirit has called and placed into the Teaching Office. A public teacher of the Christian faith is not the same as the Christian who listens to his teaching. By no means do I mean that a pastor or teacher is spiritually superior nor more preferred. If anything, it is the other way around.
A teacher in the Church is always ‘in the hotseat,’ as the saying goes. A layman is not held accountable for his theology, or at least not to the Church. He may believe whatever and privately discuss whatever. If he begins to instruct others in some error that could be a different scenario. So if Bonhoeffer were a regular guy who was Christian, for instance Tim Tebow, this would be a totally different question, and your desire to paint the best picture would be all that needs said.
Suppose Tebow happened to mention in an interview that he wasn’t sure if the Resurrection actually happened, but he wasn’t overly concerned because being a Christian helps him be a better person. I don’t think he would say that, but let’s just suppose this strange thing happened. Who is Tim Tebow? What is his vocation? (vocation means the job God has called you to) Tebow’s vocation is a professional athlete. God has given the gift of athleticism. He is an athlete who is a Christian. So he is neither a pastor nor a teacher of the Christian faith. What he says does not represent teaching by the God’s Church. It is the expression of one who is taught rather than of one who teaches.
Bonhoeffer is the opposite. What was his vocation? He was a pastor. The Holy Spirit ordained Bonhoeffer to teach the Christian faith. This is a very different situation. Luke the Beloved Physician admonishes us in the Book of Acts to be like the Bereans “who were of a more noble character” and “searched the Scriptures to see if these things were true.” We weigh what is taught to us against the Scriptures, wherein is stored a treasury of wisdom and knowledge.
Now then, before we return to Bonhoeffer’s footnote, let’s look at a statement he made elsewhere. “Vita Jesu scribi non potest.” Yes, I know that’s Latin. And why is it Latin? That would be a good question. Bonhoeffer was German. According to an old Lutheran tradition, Latin was almost always learned by those studying to be pastors. Very important theological statements are often made in Latin. I know a certain professor who quips about this tradition, “If you want to sound like you’re saying something important, you have to pretend to know Latin.” This is what Bonhoeffer has done.
“Vita Jesu scribi non potest” means “It is not possible to pen a biography of Jesus.” You can see the word “scribi” which should resemble our words “scribe” or “inscribe” to your eyes. Also the word “potest” may bring to your mind the word “potent.” Now the word “vita” itself simply means “life,” and it shows up in some of our English words, for example vitamin and vital. But it can also have a technical meaning when one discusses recording the acts or life of an important person, especially a notable saint of the Christian Church. Many “Vita Sancti x” (Life of Saint x) have been written in the history of the Christian Church. The “Vita Sancti” tradition is modeled after the Four Gospels and the Book of Acts. That is why I translated it as “biography of Jesus.” Really however, what it means is Gospel. That is what the Four Gospels are. They are biographies of Jesus, inspired by non other than God the Spirit. Bonhoeffer’s statement, “vita Jesu scribi non potest,” was meant as a concise statement of his view on the Gospels, so I’m not just making a random comparison to the Four Evangelists. He said that the Gospels were totally unhistorical and so mythologized that it was impossible to know any real facts about the life of Jesus. For him, however, this didn’t matter. The words of Scripture were true. They were true not because they express real events but because they define your reality. Jesus obviously did not rise from the grave, not bodily, historically, factually. Instead, your belief in the myth of the Resurrection creates the Resurrection of Jesus in your heart, in your mind, and in your own soul. That was what Bonhoeffer believed. Jesus didn’t literally rise from the grave 2,000 years ago, but he will live inside you today by the story, the tale, the legend and myth. In other words, Star Wars obviously isn’t history and clearly never happened, but Yoda can be your teacher if you believe the movie, if you make it true in your own life. There is no such thing as the Force, but you can become a Jedi by becoming Yoda’s disciple. And of course there is a Cost of Discipleship.
So then, let’s return to his footnote from The Cost of Discipleship. Go ahead and scroll up and reread it. Hopefully it makes more sense now. When he talks about the “testimony” and “the word of Scripture,” he means the same as my previous example about Star Wars. The “testimony” and “word of Scripture,” in his statement, means approximately the same thing as watching Star Wars. When he says “ontological reality” that is just technical language for reality which is physically and actually true whether you believe it or not. In day to day conversation we call this reality. But in a technical sense something can be real to one person but not to others because you perception can influence how you understand reality.
If I were to paraphrase his statement, I might say, “The direct testimony of the scriptures is frequently confounded with ontological propositions = Sometimes people think the Bible describes reality.” Next, “The truth that Jesus Christ is risen and present to us is then taken as an independent statement with an ontological significance which can be applied critically to other ontological statements, and it is thus exalted into a theological principle = They think the scene where Jesus comes back to life is the defining factor of Christianity.” Moving on, “This procedure is analogous to the fanatical doctrine of perfectionism, which arises from a similar ontological misunderstanding of the scriptural utterances on the subject of sanctification = These people are basically crazy Methodists.” (Methodist is essentially a swear word in Lutheran vocabulary. If Lutheranism were a movie, insulting someone with the title Methodist would require a PG-13 rating. When he mentions perfectionism in the subject of sanctification, he says Methodism without actually saying it. It’s basically a Lutheran ‘inside joke.’ I know this because I’m a Lutheran whose parents are Lutheran and their parents, etc.) Ok, finishing this paraphrase up, “The assertion that Christ is risen and present is, when taken strictly as a testimony given in the scriptures, true only as a word of the scriptures. This word is the object of our faith. = The bodily Resurrection and Ascension are part of the story, scenes in the movie. It’s not history. It didn’t actually happen. Our faith makes the movie come to life.”
Jonathan was right when he said Bonhoeffer wasn’t saying we shouldn’t need a recording of the resurrection. Bonhoeffer was saying that if there had been video surveillance of Jesus’ Tomb from Good Friday into Easter Monday, there wouldn’t be a video tape of the resurrection. It didn’t literally happen. It’s not history. That’s what Bonhoeffer was saying. He wrote that footnote because he had just written a very pointed statement about the truth and reliability of the Scriptures. He was afraid that people would think he meant that we should actually suppose the Bible tells us about some real historical events. It would be like if I wrote an article about how to be a Jedi, and I insisted that we must accept the truth and reliability of the Empire Strikes Back. I would probably be compelled to include a disclaimer where I affirmed my knowledge that Star Wars was fiction. I would also add that I don’t care if it’s fiction because belief in fiction gives my life meaning. That’s basically what Bonhoeffer is saying here.
I’m sorry, but this does make him a heretic. As we established earlier, teachers are evaluated based on what they publicly teach, which is not true for most Christians. Bonhoeffer however was a teacher. He taught a fundamental heresy. It’s such an important topic that the Apostle Paul dedicated the entire 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians to refuting the very thing Bonhoeffer wants you to learn. “If Christ is not raised, the your faith is in vain. You are dead in your sins. We are the most pitiable men on earth.” Paul was clearly talking about an actually bodily, real, resurrection, seen by 500 people. The Holy Spirit says that Jesus’ Resurrection is an actual fact, and that fact defines our Christian faith. Bonhoeffer says the opposite thing. So he disagrees with the Spirit of God on the most basic element of Christianity. If Christ is not actually alive and really present, then we’re idiots who suck the most – to paraphrase Paul. In other words, if Bonhoeffer is right, Paul is wrong. The Apostle’s Creed is wrong. The Nicene Creed is wrong. Oh, every one of the Four Gospels is wrong. Yes, the Holy Spirit is then a liar. Or just a character in a movie – one of the two.
I’m quite content with the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I don’t know about you, but if it’s good enough for God it’s good enough for me. I like having all my sins forgiven. I like being adopted as God’s son. I like being confident of my own physical resurrection when Jesus returns. I don’t mind if he wants to give me a real eternal Life Together with Him, with His resurrected flesh that bears the marks on His hands, side, and feet. If God was willing to suffer and die, it seems like the least I could do to thank Him and rejoice in His new life, rather than trying to teach His brothers that He’s dead. The thought of standing before Him in His transfigured body and having to explain why I taught His bride that her husband was just a lovely dream seems to be a rather unpleasant experience. May God forgive Bonhoeffer! He knew not what he did.
Also, and lastly, we need to stop perpetuating the idea that Bonhoeffer was a martyr. He was put in jail for smuggling Jews out of Germany. That was a very good deed. But he was sentenced to death for attempting to murder a man. I know that man was Hitler, and I sympathize with Bonhoeffer. God only know whether I myself could have resisted the temptation. But “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” Bonhoeffer was justly executed. Assassination isn’t Christian, ever. “Put your sword back into its place, for my kingdom is not of this world.” Bonhoeffer committed a crime. Concerning Christian suffering and martyrdom, the Apostle Peter wrote, “If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you…but let none of you suffer as a murderer.”
Instead of admiring Bonhoeffer for suffering as a murderer, we should admire the Lord Jesus Christ in whom was found no guilt, yet He suffered the death of a murderer, the righteous for the unrighteous. Let us praise His name! For by His death He made atonement for Bonhoeffer’s attempted manslaughter, and that sin is covered by the blood of the Lamb. Let us praise the One who did not return wrong for wrong but gives goodness to those who are evil, even to us. For He suffered our punishment and took our sins upon Himself, and He bore them on His body. He took them to the grave. They were buried and stayed buried. But the Lord of Life rose again to a new life eternal. He will never die again, and He will raise us and all believers into His eternal life of glory.
P.S. I’ll take a “doubter” like Bonhoeffer who “believes” in the Resurrection so much that he stakes his life on it OVER a “true believer” who “knows” the Resurrection is “true” who would not even murmur in the face of a Nazi.
May we all be such “doubters”.