Abstract
In this five-part work, originally given as his 2004 Gunning Lectures, Michael Welker sets out to prove that ‘God revealed himself in Jesus Christ’ by arguing that Christology must offer credible arguments for the historical certainty, and contemporaneous relevance of the thought, that God is known in Jesus Christ. After an introduction in which Welker lays out the concerns of contemporary Christology, he proceeds in Part One to survey the three ‘quests’ for the Historical Jesus and concludes by offering his ‘fourth quest’, i.e., a combination of pre- and post-Easter witness to substantiate the past and present historicity of Jesus. The second part shows Welker arguing against understanding the resurrection of Jesus as revivification and instead contending that his resurrection is a discontinuous reality in, and with the continuity of, the crucified body of Jesus. In Part Three, Welker argues for a more robust understanding of the crucifixion of Jesus as the ‘suffering of God’ by drawing upon the likes of Luther, Hegel, Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, and Jüngel. In Part Four, he attempts to overcome the binary opposition inherent in most traditional construals of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and advent of the kingdom of God by drawing upon postmodern, pluralistic, and interdisciplinary sources. The work concludes in Part Five with Welker proposing a more ‘realized’ eschatology in which one can have a more significant experience of the eschaton in liturgical acts, especially baptism and Holy Communion.
This work’s main strength is its breadth, as evidenced in Welker’s engaging various Christological issues and then positing his unique criticisms and constructive proposals as possible ways through the many impasses in the study of Christology. From his ‘fourth quest’ for the historical Jesus to his radical arguments for the resurrection as a totally unique event, and even positing that God truly suffered in the crucifixion of Jesus, Welker provides theologians of all traditions with much to discuss about exactly how ‘God revealed himself in Jesus Christ’ and about its relevance for the contemporary Church and world. Our main concern is with Welker’s inability, or even unwillingness, to argue for or against the Filioque regarding his ‘Spirit Christology’. We would prefer Welker to declare whether the Filioque is a necessary doctrine in constructing a pneumatological Christology or not.