Jana

Vlach, Robert; Miroslav, Hanuš

doi:10.2307/40118968

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonsupersessionism views Israel, as a nation, as maintaining a "unique identity and role in the plan of God that is in some way distinct from the church," and envisions Israel's future restoration which includes a "literal, physical possession of Israel's promised land and a special place of service for Israel among the nations." 102 But according to Pannenberg, "We cannot say this of the Christian church," because the "spiritual people of God" is "in contrast to the 'carnal' fellowship of the Jewish people." Therefore, "[i]t is only as the body of Christ, seen at celebration of the Lord's Supper, that the church is a provisional sign of the eschatological fellowship of a renewed humanity in the kingdom of God."…”

Section: Strategic Particularismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A postcolonial Pannenberg? Mimicry, the law, and the cross of love

Yang

2023

Dialog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper employs the postcolonial concepts of mimicry and hybridity to interpret Wolfhart Pannenberg's understanding of the violence done to Jesus on the cross and the subversive reconciliatory love that it engenders. According to Pannenberg, although the man Jesus was crucified as blasphemer of the Jewish law, the resurrection vindicated Jesus so that the ones accusing Jesus were retroactively deemed to be the actual blasphemers. As a result, Jesus ended up dying not for his own alleged breaking of the law, but as an inclusive substitute for all blasphemers of God (through amour propre) deserving death. Thus, the resurrection confirmed Jesus’ divine identity and his earthly teaching that love supersedes and transforms the law. Applying the concept of mimicry to Pannenberg, on the cross the symbolic and semiotic are held together in tension for in mimicry the “not‐quite sameness” menaces the colonizer. The cross, ostensibly a symbolic sign of abjection, is mimicked by the suffering of Jesus and subverted through a practice of inclusive semiotic love which recapitulates sinful human life toward a life of transformed autonomy. Pannenberg displays a pseudo postcolonial understanding of subverting oppressive law into love. However, on account of his futurist ontology, the eschatological totality is underscored relative to formative experiences, leaving him vulnerable to postcolonial critiques of essentialism, which can reinscribe colonialism. I contend that Pannenberg employs a strategy of “strategic particularism” in which concepts such as mimicry and hybridity are helpful as hermeneutical tools but ultimately provisional and temporary relative to the whole.

show abstract

Section: Strategic Particularismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A postcolonial Pannenberg? Mimicry, the law, and the cross of love

Yang

2023

Dialog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Jana

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

A postcolonial Pannenberg? Mimicry, the law, and the cross of love

A postcolonial Pannenberg? Mimicry, the law, and the cross of love

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About