Rudolf Bultmann was the best known German theologian of the 20th century. In this article we are going to summarize his thinking in eight points.
1. Bultmann did not trust the biblical accounts.
Bultmann questioned the literal historicity of the gospels. As of his first published work of his, History of the synoptic tradition (1921), Bultmann wanted to get at the oral traditions on which the New Testament Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) had based their Gospel narratives. Instead of accepting the Bible as divinely inspired by God, Bultmann, following in the vein of Günkel (1862-1932), Dibelius (1883-1947), and Schmidt (1891-1956), embraced the “history of forms” method. . He was convinced that the Christ mentioned in the gospels was an invention of the early church, which had nothing to do with the Jesus of history.
2. Bultmann denied the importance of literal history.
Since theology could not have access to the Jesus of history, Bultmann stressed that the Christ of faith is what really matters in theological work. Therefore, the historical accounts about Jesus do not have to interest us, but the meaning of those events. For example, Bultmann did not believe in the literal resurrection of the corpse of Jesus. The resurrection is simply mythical language that helps us understand the transcendental importance of the Christ for his disciples. According to Xabier Pikaza’s analysis, “What is worth and saves us is not his story, but his eternal Easter message, the myth of God’s presence and/or action in our lives.”
3. Bultmann inaugurated demythologization.
Bultmann’s theological methodology is clearly explained in his most famous lecture, “The New Testament and Mythology” (1941). In it, the theologian highlights the need to demystify the message of the Bible. What does demythologization mean? It is the idea that the New Testament writers were culturally conditioned by the mythical worldview of the first century. So instead of appealing to empirical science as a way to explain the state of the world, the biblical authors referred to pre-modern concepts such as angels, demons, miracles, etc., and believed that the universe was divided into three parts: heaven, earth, and hell.
Such a way of thinking, the German reasoned, is no longer useful in modern times because man has come of age (Kant). What is needed is a demythologization, that is, removing all the mythological clothing from the New Testament to leave the central message: the kerygma. The demythologization process, then, was yet another example of Bultmann’s skepticism towards the supernatural elements recorded in the biblical text.
4. Bultmann offered an existentialist interpretation of Christianity.
The process of demythologization was only one part of Bultmann’s hermeneutical project. In addition to removing the primitive mythological language from the Scriptures, the theologian reinterpreted the myths for his own generation according to a certain philosophical school.
The system that Bultmann chose—thanks, in part, to the influence of Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)—was existentialism. Existentialism served Bultmann’s theological purpose, because the German did not believe in the importance of literal history and wanted to focus his attention on the subjective aspect of faith. In Bultmann, then, all theological categories become existentialists. Sin, for example, is no longer about breaking divine law but about not living authentically. Living in an inauthentic way, according to Bultmann, is when one wants to live for oneself with one’s own strength and not open up to God.
5. Bultmann emphasized the kerygma from the cross.
By demythologizing and reinterpreting the Christian message for the modern age, the preacher can proclaim the kerygma from the cross. Bultmann, as a good Lutheran, believed that the human being meets the crucified Christ through the preached Word. In fact, he devoted himself to the task of preaching throughout his distinguished academic career.
Bultmann criticized the liberal tradition in which he had been versed for giving more emphasis to social work instead of the proclamation of the Word of the cross. Bultmann considered that the liberals had removed from Christianity the scandal of the cross. He proclaimed: “The object of theology is God, and the reproach we level against liberal theology is this: it has not dealt with God, but with the human being. God means the radical negation and overcoming of the human being. For this reason, theology, whose object is God, cannot have any other content than the Logos from the cross. well, this Logos It is a scandal for the human being. That is why the reproach against liberal theology is that it has wanted to avoid or soften this scandal.
6. Bultmann presented a realized eschatology.
In Bultmann, eschatology has nothing to do with the literal future. The eschatological moment —as his neo-orthodox colleague (1886-1968) said— is now, only now. Eternal life is experienced in the here and now when the human being responds in faith to the announcement of the kerygma. This eternal life is authentic existence in which man decides to live in radical dependence on God.
For Bultmann, history “is absorbed by eschatology.” In his tome on History and Eschatology (1958), he commented: “In your own present lies the meaning of history, and you cannot contemplate it as a spectator, but only in your responsible decisions. In each instant the possibility of being the eschatological instant dozes. You have to wake him up.” The future does not matter; what counts is the eschatological moment now.
7. Bultmann produced an anthropocentric faith.
Despite the fact that Bultmann reproached his liberal teachers for dealing with man and not with God, his existentialist approach led him to fall into the same anthropocentric trap. According to Barth, Bultmann had returned to liberalism because in the German’s thought faith is a kind of human response through which man comes to self-understanding. Actually, all the kerygma Bultmannianism and its eschatology revolve around the authentic existence of the human being. Bultmann believed that only an anthropocentric theology could be useful to modern man since he constantly questions the meaning of his existence in this world.
Since Bultmann did not believe in the “meaning” of literal history, the only true meaning occurs within the individual. Therefore, theology has nothing to do with society, politics, or creation; solely with the individual believer. In short, it is a theology purely centered on the human being.
8. Bultmann discredited apologetics.
If he kerygma of God reaches the human being through his inner personal encounter with the kerygma, apologetics becomes impossible. Why? Because theological claims cannot be demonstrated outside of the subjective sphere. There is no objective criteria to defend the gospel. “Outside of revelation there is nothing.” So you can’t reason with an unbeliever. All the Christian can do is preach to the unbeliever.
Writes Bernard Ramm: “According to Bultmann, there can be no apologetics. The only probative statements are factual statements of all kinds and theological statements that are not of this order. They are rather declarations of possibility and before them the only thing we can do is decide. Theology’s statements are unprovable. One simply hears the call of God in the kerygma or you don’t hear it. If he hears it, he enters into a new understanding of himself. Presumably, this new self-understanding is its own verification.
Towards an evangelical evaluation
The conservative evangelical faith appreciates Bultmann’s great desire to reach modern man with the timeless message of the gospel. Furthermore, he shares his passion for the preaching of the crucified and risen Christ, and his emphasis on the need to encounter God on a personal level.
However, evangelicals have severely criticized Bultmann for his radical skepticism towards the historical veracity of the New Testament accounts, especially regarding the resurrection of Christ. As Gresham Machen noted: “The great weapon with which the disciples of Jesus went out to conquer the world was not a simple understanding of timeless principles; it was a historical message, an account of something that happened; it was the message: ‘he is risen’”. The doctrine cannot be separated from the historical events on which it is based.
The anthropocentrism of the Bultmannian system has been criticized in the name of theocentrism of Scripture. And, finally, it has been questioned whether Bultmann understood the real reason why modern man does not want to accept the kerygma. In the words of Harvie Conn: “Bultmann’s premise that the relevance of the gospel will be seen clearly by modern man forgets the depravity of the human heart. It is not ‘demythologization’ but the Holy Spirit that can dispel the darkness of disbelief and cause the sinner to see the gospel. In spite of all the efforts that are made to apply the gospel to him (whether good or bad), the ‘natural man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God because they are foolishness to him’ (1 Corinthians 2:14)”.
PIKAZA, Xabier, ‘Prologue’ in BULTMANN, Rudolf, History of the synoptic tradition (Follow me: Salamanca, 2000), p. 27. BULTMANN, Rudolf, History of the synoptic tradition (Follow me: Salamanca, 2000), p.36. Cited in MOLTMANN, Jurgen, the coming of god (Follow me: Salamanca, 2004), p. 44. Ibid., p. 44. BULTMANN, Rudolf, believe and understand (STVDIVM Editions: Salamanca, 1974), p. 125. RAMM, Bernard. Dictionary of contemporary theology (Casa Bautista: El Paso, 1984), pp. 11-12. GRESHAM MACHEN, J. Christianity and Liberalism (Victory Press: London, 1923), pp. 28-29. Image: .