| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
In the previous section, we saw that Peter's interpretation of the resurrection established the faith of the apostles and gave rise to the kerygma. It is appropriate to term that which functions to establish faith in this way the "principle of the establishment of faith." Furthermore, I shall adopt the term "Christianity Proposition" as the general designation for the statements — in the previous section, I referred to it as the "resurrection proposition" — that articulate the interpretation of Jesus’s resurrection. For example, it is used as follows: "The apostolic kerygma which includes the 'Resurrection proposition' is the 'principle of faith establishment' and the 'Christianity proposition'."
When we consider whether this apostolic kerygma serves as a principle of faith establishment for us today, we must conclude that — since it presupposes knowledge of the Old Testament and Jewish faith — it cannot function as such a principle for those who have no connection to that background. In addition, if we affirm that apostolic faith continues to exist today, it follows that the apostolic kerygma is not the sole principle of Christian faith establishment ; there must be other Christianity propositions capable of generating faith.
This is corroborated by the fact that Paul, when he undertook his mission to Athens bearing the message of the Resurrection, failed to make headway among the Greeks — who had no connection to the Old Testament — and also by our own contemporary experience, in which we scarcely know anyone who was led to faith by the resurrection proposition, as the people in Acts chapter 2 were.
Moreover, although Paul was converted through an encounter with a "vision" of the risen Jesus (Acts 9), the doctrine he taught most extensively in his epistles was that of the Cross rather than the Resurrection. As evidenced by the "Pauline kerygma" found in Acts chapter 13 — cited in the previous section — it is believed that Paul, who undertook three missionary journeys during his lifetime, made the resurrection of Jesus his central message up to the point of Athens, a stop on his second journey. Acts 17 records Paul's sermon on the resurrection in Athens, but it was likely the failure he experienced there that caused him to change the content of his preaching.
He began by citing the altars found throughout Athens, and his argument proceeded smoothly as he explained that the Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in altars made by human hands. However, just as he reached the crucial part — that God had raised a man from the dead — he was met with snickers from the audience, and the sermon ended in failure when they said, "We'll listen to that some other time." Like someone who has had harsh words hurled at them by a loved one, Paul left the scene in despair and headed for the neighboring city of Corinth.
In "1 Corinthians", written later, he wrote about himself at that time: "when I came to you, ... I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling." (1 Cor. 2:1–3 NKJV). He also wrote, "... I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:2 NKJ).
We are often taught that the shift in preaching Paul describes here—moving from "persuasive words of wisdom" to the "foolish message of the cross"—represents a transition from the argumentative sermon he delivered in Athens to a spiritual one; however, I do not view it that way. There is a more dramatic change here.
For Paul, the "word of wisdom" is linked to the proclamation of Jesus' resurrection. As seen in the previous section, Paul's kerygma at Antioch, recorded in Acts 13, is — like Peter's kerygma — a Jewish "argument" that connects Old Testament prophecy with the resurrection of Jesus. Acts 17, which records the evangelism in Thessalonica that preceded the work in Corinth and Athens, states the following.
"As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. 'This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Messiah,' he said." (Acts 17:2－3 NIV).
Therefore, when it is said that Paul preached to the Corinthians using "the message of the cross — which appears foolish — rather than a message of wisdom," this is understood to imply not that he merely abandoned argumentative preaching characterized by intellectualism, but that he ceased delivering the kind of message centered on the resurrection of Jesus that he had proclaimed in Antioch and Athens.
"When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor. 2:1-2 RSV).
――When I came to you, I did not preach the testimony of God using Old Testament prophecy. For I had resolved to know nothing except Jesus and his cross.――
Thus, the Christian doctrine of the Cross emerged as the second principle of faith establishment, following the Resurrection.
However, according to F. F. Bruce, a leading conservative biblical scholar, the view that Paul changed his approach because of his failure in his sermon in Athens is a "common myth"; it is held that Paul maintained a consistent missionary approach both before and after his time in Athens.
First, I would like to draw attention to the emphasis placed on the fact that he "decided to know nothing." In other words, the shift in his preaching at Corinth meant that, although he did know something, he chose to act as if he did not know it. What did Paul know in the first place? One thing, of course, was — as stated — "Jesus Christ and him crucified". He said that he had passed on to you what he knew about this.
On the other hand, what was it that Paul chose to treat as unknown? What was it that he actually knew but decided to act as if he did not?
Given that the passage immediately preceding states, "I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom", the most natural interpretation is that the phrase "decided to know nothing" refers to this. However, this statement can be read either as "I proclaimed the testimony of God, but not with eloquent words or wisdom" or as "I did not proclaim a testimony of God characterized by eloquent words or wisdom". Which interpretation should be adopted?
1 Corinthians is a letter written for the purpose of addressing factions within the church; it was not intended to set forth the content of Paul's missionary message. Therefore, one should not expect to derive reliable information regarding the evolution of Paul's missionary work from this epistle. However, historical truth can also be discerned from aspects that were not the primary objective of the source material. Based on the following considerations, I adopt the latter interpretation — namely, that Paul knew of the "testimony of God" but did not proclaim it, choosing instead to proclaim "Jesus Christ and him crucified".
In Acts 2:22, there is a phrase about the miracles that Jesus performed: "Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested (αποδεδειγμενον) by God to yo (that he is the Messiah)".
In the RSV passage cited above, the word translated as "and" in the phrase "Jesus Christ and him crucified" corresponds to the Greek word και in the original text. Since such fundamental terms are polysemous and versatile, they can be translated not only as the standard "and" but also as "that is to say". It also appears possible to translate them as "moreover" or similar terms that emphasize the restatement of the preceding clause.
Versions such as the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and Living Bible translate it in a way that preserves its basic meaning as "and". The "Classical Japanese Version" translation clearly renders it as meaning "and".
CJV "Jesus Christ, and His being nailed to the cross"
The Living Bible, which aims for a free translation, interprets the phrase "him crucified" — an "object + past participle" construction that other translations render as a literal translation of the original text — as a "subject + predicate" relationship, an approach that is common in grammatical interpretation. As a result, it translates this as "Jesus Christ and his death on the cross".
A literal translation would be “Jesus Christ and his death on the cross,” but there is a subject-predicate relationship between "him" and "his death on the cross"; if this relationship is made explicit, the phrase becomes "Jesus Christ and the fact that he died on the cross", which is identical to the Japanese classical translation.
As in standard English translations, this passage in the original text is a concise five-word sentence: "'Ιησουν Χριστον και τουτον εσταυρωμενον." Since there are no known variations among the manuscripts, it is quite possible that both the Classical Japanese translation and the Living Bible translation capture the nuances preserved in the original text.
Therefore, if what Paul included among the things he knew was "the life of Jesus Christ and his execution", then what he chose to regard as unknown must have been what happened to Jesus afterward. In other words, he chose at that time to regard the fact that Jesus was later raised from the dead as something he did not know.
Of the three letters written prior to the Athens sermon (Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Thessalonians), two contain a reference to the resurrection of Jesus in their opening greetings. However, in 1 Corinthians 1 — written after the mission to Athens — the word "resurrection" is nowhere to be found; instead, the statement "we preach Christ crucified" serves as the representative reference to Jesus (verse 23). In that passage, terms related to the "cross" are used four times. The overall "tone" of Chapter 1 — in which Paul's greeting makes no mention of the resurrection — also supports the view that the phrase "I decided to know nothing except…" at the beginning of Chapter 2, which follows immediately, refers to "the resurrection of Jesus".
The view that dismisses the interpretation — which holds that Paul underwent a change after his mission in Athens — as a "popular myth" is likely based on the fact that, if interpreted that way, Paul's teachings would appear to have abandoned "the resurrection of Jesus", even if only temporarily. In addition, this is because viewing this shift as being dictated by the outcome of his mission in Athens — where his ministry was not an absolute failure, given that the text records a few converts — was likely deemed inappropriate as a perspective on the Apostle Paul.
However, such concerns are merely based on an understanding that conflates "Gospel" and "mission." Even if Paul did not speak of "the resurrection of Jesus as God's testimony" — as seen in Acts 13 — during his mission in Corinth, that certainly does not mean that "the resurrection of Jesus" was excluded from Paul's Gospel.
This is because 1 Corinthians 15 also records an early form of the gospel kerygma — which is utilized in the liturgy of the contemporary church's Communion service and includes an account of Jesus' resurrection — and Paul refers to this as "the gospel which I preached to you" (15:1 NKJV).
Namely, there was no change in the "Gospel" being proclaimed to the people before and after the Sermon at Athens — which, of course, includes Jesus' resurrection — but rather, it was simply the methods of "mission" that changed.
Such a shift is not unusual — indeed, it is characteristic of Paul — as evidenced by the change in his preaching approach: whereas his message in the Jewish synagogue in Acts 13 combined "Old Testament prophecy" with "the resurrection of Jesus as the principle of faith establishment", his message at the Areopagus in Acts 17 shifted to combining "Gentile religious sentiment" with "the resurrection of Jesus as the principle of faith establishment".
In Athens, the first part of the sermon went well, as he shifted from the arguments based on the Old Testament — previously used for Jewish audiences — to arguments tailored for Gentiles. However, the latter part, which appealed to the resurrection of Jesus as the principle of faith establishment (a concept previously understood by Jews), failed to resonate. Consequently, in Corinth, the focus of this latter section regarding the principle of faith establishment was shifted from the resurrection to the cross.
And the content of the "Gospel" proclaimed to the Gentiles at this time remains the same as it was before Athens. They are told the "Gospel" as something to believe in. On that basis, Paul made it his task to present that "Gospel" to the Gentiles in a way that would make it credible, and thus he began to proclaim the message of the Cross anew.
When the Jewish people were the target of evangelism, the "resurrection aspect of the Gospel" served as a valid Christianity proposition; however, for Gentiles, the "aspect of the Gospel concerning the death on the Cross" was adopted as the new Christianity proposition.
In fact, Paul's subsequent epistles — exemplified by the Epistle to the Romans — come to be filled with teachings centered on the Cross rather than the Resurrection. In this differentiation between "Gospel" and "mission" found in Paul, one can discern the prototypes of modern Christian theology: "Dogmatics", which establishes the content to be believed with orthodoxy, and the "Theology of Faith", which explores how that content can be believed.
In the early church, Peter was primarily the apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13, Gal. 2:7-9). Accordingly, it is reasonable to understand that Peter's interpretation of the resurrection is a Christianity proposition for Jews, and that Paul's doctrine of the cross is a Christianity proposition for Gentiles.
This is because while the resurrection proposition is based on the Old Testament's understanding of God, the cross proposition is based on a belief that can be expected to be shared more widely than Judaism, namely the idea of human sin, that "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin." (Rom. 3:9).
It remains a matter requiring further examination whether the position Paul occupied — that of a missionary to the Gentiles — necessitated the "Cross proposition" as a principle of faith establishment that was distinct from, and more effective than, the "Resurrection proposition". However, if his mission was directed at people who knew nothing of Jesus, and if communicating with others requires a shared understanding, it is not difficult to imagine that — when preaching among Gentiles — speaking of Jesus's death was more appropriate than speaking of his resurrection.
Nevertheless, it can be considered that this dramatic shift in proclamation — initiated by Paul — from the resurrection proposition to the cross proposition led to the disappearance of Peter's resurrection proposition from the church after the second century. Surprising as it may seem, the early church’s interpretation of the resurrection, as discussed in the previous section, was not carried forward in any of the ancient creeds.
In these texts, the Cross is articulated as a matter of doctrine, whereas the Resurrection is merely confessed as a fact; there are no creeds or confessions of faith that convey an interpretation of the Resurrection such as the one Peter articulated. The Heidelberg Catechism of the protestant reformation era also describes the resurrection of Jesus merely as the "new birth of sinners" (1 Pet. 1:3) and the "firstfruits of the eschatological resurrection" (1 Cor. 15:20).
This points to two possibilities. The first is that the interpretation of the Peter Kerygma presented in the preceding section of this study is mistaken; consequently, the so-called "resurrection proposition" never existed in the first place, and it is therefore only natural that the resurrection of Jesus was not recorded in later articles of faith as a principle of faith establishment.
The second possibility is that, as we have seen here, the resurrection proposition was lost as a result of the changes that occurred in Paul's missionary work following his mission in Athens. (The circumstances surrounding the loss of the "resurrection proposition" are scheduled to be examined in "Supplement 3." Feb. 2021 → Apr. 2025: "Supplement 3" added.)
I am not exactly held in which era the interpretation of the Resurrection as “God’s affirmation of Jesus” was reaffirmed. Or perhaps we may have to come down to what K. Barth stated in "The Father's Verdict"
Furthermore, I believe that it was in this essay (Proposition 1 in the previous section) that it was discovered that the understanding of the resurrection, which was given only as a theological interpretation in Barth, was preserved in its original form by Luke as the kerygma of the early church.
Even if this were the case, this situation is not surprising when we remember that the 16th century man, M. Luther, restored the other greatest principle of Christian faith, "Justification by the cross". Even regarding the doctrine of the cross, its true import has long been lost to the church. If that is the case, it is not an especially radical view to consider that the doctrine of the resurrection — whose effects are more limited in scope than those of the cross — was lost as the mission to the Gentiles expanded from Juda into the Greek and Roman worlds.
Until they were rediscovered, the doctrines of the resurrection and the cross dominated the church in their degraded versions. In the doctrine of the resurrection, a repetition of the psychological joy of Easter due to the resurrection of Jesus, and in the doctrine of the cross, the idea of salvation through monastic training replaced the original faith, and "Mappou no Yo", that is, a world lost true doctrine continued for many centuries.