¹ The Neo-orthodox theologian, Karl Barth, is perhaps the best representative of this approach. His earlier theology is founded upon the belief that there remains an ultimate gulf between God and humanity, one which only God can cross as the revealer of what is totally beyond and inaccessible to human reason. See his Epistle to the Romans (London: Oxford University Press, 1968).Google Scholar It should be noted that Barth later acknowledged that his earlier approach had been one-sided and needed to develop further to take seriously the Jesus event as representing the “togetherness” and “belonging” of God to mankind. He discusses this in The Humanity of God, tr. Thomas, John and Wieser, Thomas (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1964), pp. 37–52.Google Scholar

² Within this approach we can place a philosopher such as Dewey, John, A Common Faith (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978);Google Scholar and also a theologian such as Wieman, Henry Nelson, Seeking a Faith for a New Age (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1975).Google Scholar A contemporary theologian would be Kaufman, Gordon D., The Theological Imagination (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981).Google Scholar

³ Robinson, John A. T., Honest to God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), pp. 64–70.Google Scholar See also Robinson's, The Human Race of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), pp. 36–66.Google Scholar In this latter book, the discussion is explicitly about the humanity of Jesus. There is also a treatment of the metaphorical nature of Incarnation talk by Hick, John in God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), pp. 19, 58, 74.Google Scholar

⁴ There is a most comprehensive treatment of the variety of terms and symbols used in reference to Jesus in Schillebeeckx, Edward, Jesus, tr. Hoskins, Hubert (New York: Seabury, 1979).Google Scholar In particular I would call attention to Section One of Part Three which is entitled: “The Gospels as General Hermeneusis of the Risen Jesus,” pp. 401-515.

⁵ Paul Tillich has dealt with this aspect of symbols as both necessary and yet ambiguous. For him they represent the paradox at work in all religious language. See his What Is Religion (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 70–85.Google Scholar See also Soelle, Dorothee, The Strength of the Weak, tr. Robert, and Kember, Rita (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), p. 113.Google Scholar

⁶ Particularly helpful is Crossan, John Dominic, In Parables (New York: Harper & Row, 1973).Google Scholar

⁷ Mt 20:1-16. At the end of the parable we find the reversal of the first-last, a theme central to Jesus' message. See Mt 19:30; Lk 13:30.

⁸ Dewey, John, Art as Experience (New York: Capricorn, 1958).Google Scholar For an interpretation of the artistic experience as one which transcends the merely subjective perspective, see Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1982).Google Scholar

⁹ Lk 10:29-37.

¹⁰ Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time, tr. Macquarrie, John and Robinson, Edward (New York: Harper & Row, 1962)Google Scholar, esp. the treatment of “Falling” on pp. 210-24.

¹¹ Nishitani, Keiji, Religion and Nothingness, tr. Van Bragt, Jan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

¹² There is a very significant interpretation of eschatological talk as the creation of this kind of crisis for the world in its present time. Thus, talk of the end times is not necessarily talk of some temporal future, but a way of breaking through into the deeper moment of the present (e.g., God's present). John Dominic Crossan sees the parables doing this. See his Raid on the Articulate (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), pp. 145–56.Google Scholar Also, fora discussion of this aspect of eschatological and apocalyptic language: Minear, Paul S., New Testament Apocalyptic (Nashville, TN: Parthenon, 1981);Google Scholar and Bultmann, Rudolf, History and Eschatology (New York: Harper & Row, 1955).Google Scholar

¹³ I am referring to the Sermon on the Mount: Mt 5:1-10; LK 6:20-23.

¹⁴ This is found in several versions in the New Testament. For its simplest forms see Lk 17:33; Jn 12:25. For developed versions, Lk 9:23-24; Mk 8:34-35; Mt 10:39; 16:24-25.

¹⁵ See Nishitani, p. 10. Also, Suzuki, D. T., What Is Zen? (New York: Harper & Row, 1972), p. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Mary Daly treats this very important aspect of the ambiguity of humility in her discussion of how it can and has been used against women. See her Beyond God the Father (Boston: Beacon, 1973).Google Scholar It is crucial for the authentic meaning of humility to be clearly separated from the abuses of such historic manipulations.

¹⁷ Tzu, Lao, Tao Te Ching, tr. Lau, D. C. (New York: Penguin, 1978).Google Scholar

¹⁸ For examples of this secular and humanistic interpretation of Jesus, see Van Buren, Paul, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (New York: Macmillan, 1963Google Scholar); and Robinson, The Human Face of God.

¹⁹ Mt 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13.

²⁰ Dostoievski, Fyodor, The Grand Inquisitor, tr. Matlaw, Ralph E. (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1960).Google Scholar

²¹ This interpretation might follow from a literal understanding of Jesus' statement that his kingdom was not of this world. More contemporary interpretations understand this as referring not to a separate world but rather to a kingdom founded upon God's power as one which is different from what has held sway over the world thus far. The point of reference is that the world itself and its future belong “not to this world” but to God. For examples and discussions of this interpretation, see the following: Fierro, Alfredo, The Militant Gospel, tr. Drury, John (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1977);Google ScholarSobrino, Jon, Christology at the Crossroads, tr. Drury, John (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979);Google ScholarGutierrez, Gustavo, A Theology of Liberation, tr. Inda, Caridad and Eagleson, John (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1973).Google Scholar

²² I take this to be Crossan's interpretation of the significance of the parables which make use of the metaphor of growth (e.g., seeds, yeast). They suggest the surprising potential for development which lies hidden though at work in the world. See his In Parables.

²³ This seems to be the primary interpretation of the resurrection by Rahner, Karl, Foundations of Christian Faith, tr. Dych, William V. (New York: Seabury, 1978), pp. 266–85.Google Scholar Rahner agrees that the death and resurrection are to be seen as a unity; and also sees the resurrection as primarily future-oriented. Yet, he still interprets it in primary terms such as the vindication and validation of Jesus, as his becoming victorious. Hans Küng interprets the resurrection in a similar manner in On Being a Christian, tr. Quinn, Edward (New York: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 343–84.Google Scholar For Küng, the resurrection represents Jesus' dying and assumption into the eternal life of God where Jesus' person is now affirmed, justified, and declared in the right by God so that he (Jesus) can act as a norm for others. See esp. pp. 381-84.

²⁴ This emphasis on the symbolic nature of the resurrection as a sign for the universal resurrection which will take place at the end—thus as promise for future fulfillment which all are to hope for—seems the primary approach of Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Jesus—God and Man, tr. Wilkins, Lewis and Priebe, Duane (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), pp. 66–88.Google Scholar

²⁵ Altizer, Thomas deals with this issue as the central focus in his Descent Into Hell (New York: Seabury, 1979).Google Scholar

²⁶ The interpretation I am offering here is not quite the same as Marxsen, Willi, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, tr. Kohl, Margaret (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970)Google Scholar, where he states the resurrection as representing and occurring in the faith of Jesus' followers that his work must go on. I understand the criticism of this view by such thinkers as Pannenberg, , Jesus—God and Man, p. 96;Google Scholar and Küng, , On Being a Christian, pp. 370–81.Google Scholar Küng emphasizes the resurrection as involving a new experience for Jesus' followers after his death. Pannenberg notes that the resurrection is not a mere reaction on the part of the disciples, but their awareness of a new and ultimately fulfilling relationship of Jesus to God. As I interpret it, there is the event of Jesus' faithfulness to and passing into the enduring quality of the “larger Self” or spirit of meaning to which he bears witness and which he believes sustains all.

²⁷ Metz, John Baptist, Faith in History and Society, tr. Smith, David (New York: Seabury, 1980), esp. pp. 100–18.Google Scholar See also Lamb, Matthew, Solidarity with Victims (New York: Crossroad, 1982).Google Scholar Lamb emphasizes the relationship of faith with praxis in moving to transform the world in the face of those victimized by injustice.

²⁸ As examples of this theology of liberation: Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation; Jon Sobrino, Christology at the Crossroads; Ellacuria, Ignacio, Freedom Made Flesh, tr. Drury, John (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1976);Google ScholarBoff, Leonardo, Jesus Christ Liberator, tr. Hughes, Patrick (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1978).Google Scholar

²⁹ For an interesting discussion or difference of opinion over this issue, compare McCann, Dennis, Christian Realism and Liberation Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983)Google Scholarand the response by Lamb, Matthew: “A Distorted Interpretation of Latin American Liberation Theology,” Horizons 8/2 (Fall 1981), 352–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar As I understand the issue, the way around this debate is to appreciate the truly transcendent moment in an authentic humanistic interpretation of existence.

³⁰ Pannenberg, , Jesus—God and Man, p. 69;Google ScholarKüng, , On Being a Christian, p. 392.Google Scholar

³¹ Moltmann, Jürgen, The Crucified God, tr. Wilson, R. A. and Bowden, John (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 169.Google Scholar

³² This interpretation is one of the recurring themes in Nishitani's Religion and Nothingness. For a discussion of how this relates to Christian thought, see Waldenfels, Hans, Absolute Nothingness, tr. Heisig, J. W. (New York: Paulist, 1980).Google Scholar

³³ Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Bethge, Eberhard, tr. Fuller, Reginald (London: SCM Press, 1956).Google Scholar