Monday, February 05, 2007

Pannenberg on Christology

   Jesus possesses significance “for us” only to the extent that this significance is inherent in himself, in his history, in his person constituted by this history. Only when this can be shown may we be sure that we are not merely attaching our questions, wishes, and thoughts to this figure.
   Therefore, Christology, the question about Jesus himself, … must remain prior to all questions about his significance, to all soteriology. Soteriology must follow from Christology, not vice versa. Otherwise, faith in salvation itself loses any real foundation.

- Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus: God and Man (London: SCM, 1968 [1964]), 48.

I'm preparing a sermon this Sunday on the two natures of Christ as part of a short theological series on the creed (mainly Apostles, though with reference to Nicene as well). I'd love to hear any questions or comments or quotes or insights people have (particularly since I'm feeling especially tired this week). What do you think are the important things to say? My passages are John 1.1-18 and Hebrews 1.1-4, 2.5-18.


peter j said...

that's cool. we're doing the Apostles' Creed over this semester at BAD.

first up this week - I believe in God the Father, Maker of Heaven and Earth...

Anonymous said...

Would it be appropriate to paraphrase Herr Pannenberg by saying that the Gospel is about a particular person and his relationship with God before it is about anything else?

As for your sermon I think it would be worthwhile letting the John passage sit in the back seat and allow the salvation historical context of the term "Son of God," i.e. the promised Davidic saviour of Israel/God's people take the lead.

byron smith said...

Cyberpastor: Yes, I think that's what he's saying, or rather than unless it starts there, then it is not about anything else.

As for your suggestion, I'm curious - do you have something against the John passage? Also, do you think that the Son language in Hebrews (which is just 'Son' in 1.1-4 and then 'Son of Man' in 2.5-14; only 'Son of God' by implication in both cases) is (Davidic)Messianic? What about the Son language at the end of the John passage?