Christ and Time by Oscar Cullmann
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
Christ and Time by Oscar Cullmann[1]
In his work Christ and Time, Cullmann sought to identify what was central to the early Christian faith (xi). Cullmann believed that many scholars of his day had failed to approach the New Testament (NT) inductively; as a result, the concerns of the apostles were being overlooked in favor of modern interests (xi-xii). In response, Cullmann set about to fulfill “the one great task of New Testament scholarship, and perhaps of all Christian theology” by seeking to identify the “central element” of the Christian message (xi). And, for Cullmann, that central element was the claim that Christ’s death and resurrection was the mid-point of redemptive history.
Cullmann structured Christ and Time in four major parts. In part 1, Cullmann sought to demonstrate that the authors of the NT affirmed the existence of a single, continuous line of redemptive history.[2] This redemptive-historical line stretched from creation until the arrival of the new heavens and the new earth. While Jewish contemporaries of Jesus also affirmed the existence of such a line, the Christian perspective was distinct in that it confessed Christ to be the mid-point of redemptive history. In other words, Christ’s death and resurrection was the decisive moment in salvation history because it gave meaning and significance to every other point on the redemptive-historical timeline.[3]
Cullmann began his argument by analyzing the common temporal terms employed by the NT authors. He concluded that “the terminology of the New Testament teaches us that, according to the Primitive Christian conception, time in its unending extension as well as in its individual periods and moments is given by God and ruled by him. Therefore all his acting is so inevitably bound up with time that time is not felt to be a problem” (49). Then, after comparing the Christian view of linear time with Hellenistic conceptions of time and eternity, Cullmann described the NT’s view of God’s relationship to time. According to Cullmann, the NT portrays God as Lord over time by declaring his preexistence, his predestination, and his foreknowledge (70). And, as “the bearer of God’s Lordship over time,” Christ already accomplished the salvation of God’s people through his death and resurrection even as the full experience of God’s salvific blessings will only be attained at the time of Christ’s future return (71–72). Moreover, the coming of Christ has resulted in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the one who is “nothing else than the anticipation of the end in the present” (72). Thus, those who are in Christ experience the gifts of the eschaton in the present even as they continue to long for the coming fulfillment of all God’s saving promises (92).
The second part of Christ and Time is dedicated to describing each unique epoch within redemptive history. Though the Christ event was the decisive moment in redemptive history, it did not render meaningless all that came before it or all that would come after. On the contrary, “every point of time and every period of time, as far as it belongs to this line, has its own decisive value for the redemptive history” (121).
Turning first to the past, Cullmann maintains that the events recorded in the Old Testament (OT) had a preparatory role in paving the way for the mid-point (134–35).[4] As such, the OT bears witness to Christ precisely through its prophetic testimony regarding the time-bound events it narrates. Therefore, the OT cannot be viewed as a repository of timeless propositions that are unearthed through allegorical interpretation; instead, the OT’s witness to Christ is recognized by learning “how to understand the past events of redemptive history as preparation for the incarnation and the cross” (135).
Unlike their Jewish contemporaries, early Christians did not believe that the decisive moment in salvation history was one that was yet to come; instead, they believed that “the ‘end’ as the meaning of redemptive history … is Jesus Christ, who has already appeared” (140). However, the arrival of the mid-point did not render the future meaningless. On the contrary, the future has a unique significance which is rooted in the mid-point because the salvation already achieved by Christ will only be experienced in its fullness at the arrival of the eschaton (141). Nevertheless, the end of the age will bring something genuinely new into redemptive history; namely, it is only at the eschaton that the Holy Spirit will take complete hold of all creation and will make all things new (141–42).
With respect to the present age, Cullmann observes that the arrival of the mid-point has brought about a tension that characterizes the time between the Christ event and the eschaton: “it is already the time of the end, and yet it is not the end” (145; italics original). Cullmann argues that this tension lies at the heart of the theology of the NT. As he states, “To anyone who does not take clear account of this tension, the entire New Testament is a book with seven seals, for this tension is the silent presupposition that lies behind all that it says” (145–46). Furthermore, Cullmann views the task of gospel proclamation as a unique feature of this age that is also “a preliminary sign of the end” (157). In fact, “this missionary proclamation of the Church, its preaching of the gospel, gives to the period between Christ’s resurrection and Parousia its meaning for redemptive history” (157).
In part three, Cullmann directs his attention towards the relationship between redemptive history and “the general course of world events” (175). Cullmann makes the argument that the two intersect because salvation history ultimately moves towards the redemption of all creation. Through the principles of election and representation, Christ’s death and resurrection have salvific relevance for all peoples and all creation (178–79). Furthermore, as the risen Lord, Christ has been granted authority over all things in an already and not yet fashion. Thus, because the mid-point has now been reached, “the world process is drawn into the redemptive history in a decisive manner” (185). Even now, Christ rules over the world such that unbelievers (189–90) and spiritual forces (192) can be used by him as instruments of his redemptive purposes. Nevertheless, rebellious angelic powers at work through the state serve as proof that, although Christ already reigns, the Kingdom of God has not yet arrived (198–200, 208; cf. 1 Cor 15:28). And because this tension between the already and the not yet continues, Christians cannot adopt a simplistic attitude towards the world.[5]
Finally, in part four, Cullmann draws his study to a close by addressing the relationship of redemptive history to the individual. He argues that it is faith that ties the individual to the mid-point of history, thereby allowing a person to be connected to the redemptive work of Christ (219–20). Moreover, through God’s pre-creation acts of election and predestination, “the life of every individual believer is given its place in the Christ-line” (220). Next, Cullmann argues that individual believers share in the tension that is characteristic of the present age (222). This tension then shapes the NT approach to ethics as the apostles ground a person’s obligations towards God in their God-given identity. As Cullmann says, “All ‘Ought’ rests upon an ‘Is.’ The imperative is firmly anchored in the indicative” (224). Finally, though a believer has already shared in Christ’s resurrection through faith, it is only in the future that he or she will experience the resurrection of the body (234–35). Thus, the believer’s hope of future resurrection stands upon the firm foundation of Christ’s resurrection in the past (235).
Cullmann’s work Christ and Time has made a substantial contribution to the field of biblical theology (BT).[6] The work has played a pivotal role in championing the importance of salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) as a fundamental concern of the biblical authors.[7] Moreover, many important ideas that have become staples within evangelical NT theology find an early and effective advocate in Cullmann. Concepts such as the tension between the already and the not yet, the Spirit as the gift of the eschatological age, the present age as an age defined by the missionary proclamation of the gospel, the revelatory nature of God’s acts in history, Christ’s death and resurrection as the center of redemptive history—all these concepts and more are clearly and carefully articulated in Christ and Time.[8] Thus, it is probably not an exaggeration to say that modern evangelical scholars who affirm the importance of God’s revelatory acts in history have been influenced to some degree, either directly or indirectly, by Christ and Time.[9]
At the time of its publication, Christ and Time advocated for a way of doing NT theology that served as a corrective to the scholarship of the era.[10] Though much has changed between now and the early twentieth century, I would argue that evangelicals today still have much they can learn from the approach taken in Christ and Time.[11] Cullmann warned against the dangers of imposing external theological or philosophical frameworks upon the NT and he maintained that the NT ought to be explored inductively.[12] Cullmann also valued the distinction between BT and systematic theology (ST); in his view, the investigations of ST could legitimately go beyond the boundaries of Scripture while those BT could not (xxvii–xxviii).[13] And while Cullmann believed that the two disciplines should be engaged in “active conversation,” he also suggested that BT should serve as the basis for faithful ST (xxviii).[14] Thus, Cullmann seemed to view BT as an intermediate discipline or a “bridge” between exegesis and ST. Though some evangelicals have criticized this approach to the relationship between the two disciplines, I remain persuaded that the model is useful and should not be abandoned.[15]
Though I believe Christ and Time should continue to be received warmly by evangelicals, aspects of the book are certainly worthy of criticism. For instance, Cullmann fails to take into account the significance of the biblical covenants; as such, his description of the redemptive timeline departs in certain respects from that of the biblical authors.[16] In addition, his description of Christ’s conquest over angelic powers is idiosyncratic and unconvincing.[17] A third problem in Christ and Time is that Cullmann may go too far in minimizing the importance of ontological statements regarding God and Christ in the NT (xvi, 129). While he is right to place the emphasis on their work of salvation, he seems to adopt an either-or approach when a both-and approach would be more suitable. Finally, Cullmann articulated a view of the Scriptures that seems to fall short of affirming its complete truthfulness and reliability (29–30).[18]
These are real shortcomings that should not be dismissed by those seeking to understand and submit to the Bible’s teaching. Nevertheless, evangelicals still have much they can learn from Christ and Time, and we can be grateful for the ways in which Cullmann advanced BT past the dead ends of existentialist hermeneutics and dialectical theology.
Richard M. Blaylock
Western Seminary (August 2025)
TL;DR
In Christ and Time, Cullmann argues that Christ is the midpoint (i.e., the decisive point) in salvation history; as such, all other events in salvation history find their meaning and significance only in connection with Christ’s death and resurrection.
Though early Christians agreed with Judaism regarding the existence of a salvation-historical timeline, they believed that the arrival of Jesus introduced a newness into the temporal scheme: rather than the midpoint remaining a future event (à la Judaism), the midpoint of salvation history arrived with the Christ event.
According to Cullmann, the OT bears witness to events in salvation history that prepared the way for the arrival of Christ; as such, it should not be read as a repository of universal principles through the application of an allegorical method.
Cullmann maintains that the end of the age will introduce something genuinely new into salvation history: only at that time will Christ consummate the kingdom and will the Holy Spirit renew all things.
Cullmann viewed the present time as one characterized by the tension between the already and the not yet; moreover, he views the task of gospel preaching as the unique feature of this age.
Christ and Time models an approach to NT theology that champions the central importance of salvation history; despite some missteps, Evangelicals can appreciate many of Cullmann’s observations about the message of the NT along with his inductive approach to the texts.
[1] Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History, 3rd ed., trans. Floyd V. Filson (London: SCM Press, 1962).
[2] As he states, “The New Testament writings for the first time give to all revelation an essential anchorage in time; here for the first time the time line is consistently carried through in its central significance for salvation and faith” (38). Moreover, contrary to some of his contemporaries, Cullmann maintained that redemptive history was “not a merely formal framework of which the Primitive Christian preaching can be stripped, but really belong[ed] to its innermost nature” (115).
[3] As Baird rightly states, “According to Cullmann, Christ, the mid-point is the key to understanding the whole line of salvation history: the time before creation, the creation, the election of Israel, the founding of the church, and the future consummation.” See William Baird, History of New Testament Research, Vol. 3: From C. H. Dodd to Hans Dieter Betz (Fortress, 2013), 478.
[4] It is important to note that Cullmann believed that the OT and the Christ-event were mutually illuminating: even as the OT sheds light on the person and work of Christ, so also does the person and work of Christ shed light on the OT. At the same time, Cullmann seems to argue that the Christ-event is the starting point for truly understanding the OT. As he says, “The Christ-event at the mid-point … is on its part illuminated by the Old Testament preparation, after this preparation has first received its light from that very mid-point” (137).
[5] As Cullmann states, “The believer lives in a world concerning which he knows that it will pass away, but he knows that it still has its divinely willed place in the framework of redemptive history and is ruled by Christ. In so far as he knows that it will pass away, he denies it; in so far as he knows that it is the divinely willed framework of the present stage of redemptive history, he affirms it” (213).
[6] Interestingly, it seems that the impact of Cullmann’s work was not felt immediately in the world of biblical scholarship; instead, most European and American scholars were more attracted to Bultmann’s and Barth’s approaches to NT theology. For comments to this effect, see John Reumann, “Afterword: Putting the Promise into Practice,” in The Promise and Practice of Biblical Theology (Fortress, 1991), 188; Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Eerdmans, 2018), 25; Theodore Martin Dorman, The Hermeneutics of Oscar Cullmann (Mellen Research University Press, 1991), viii; R. W. Yarbrough, The Salvation-Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology (Deo, 2004), 213–14. Nevertheless, evangelicals would eventually be exposed to many of Cullmann’s insights through the work of George Eldon Ladd. While Yarbrough is surely correct to say that “Ladd was not solely dependent on Cullmann for his salvation historical outlook,” he seems to go too far in his attempt to minimize Cullmann’s influence. See The Salvation-Historical Fallacy?, 337n409.
[7] Baker describes him as one of the most important advocates of the salvation-historical approach in the twentieth century; Yarbrough calls him “[a] leading proponent of a salvation historical synthesis in the second half of the 20th century.” See David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship between the Old and New Testaments, 3rd ed. (IVP, 2010), 156; Yarbrough, The Salvation-Historical Fallacy?, 213.
[8] In saying this, I am not claiming that these ideas were necessarily original to Cullmann. However, Cullmann played an important role in refining and disseminating these concepts to Christians in the modern era.
[9] Cullmann’s writing was not the only way in which he influenced evangelicalism. Cullmann served as the doctoral supervisor for Daniel P. Fuller who would then play a major role in the theological formation of John Piper. Other evangelical students of Cullmann include Robert P. Meye and Calvin R. Schoonhoven.
[10] So for instance, Terrien referred to Cullmann’s work as a “powerful corrective” to Bultmann’s existentialist approach to Scripture. See Samuel Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (Harper & Row, 1978), 38–39. Meanwhile, Dorman writes that “during the 1960’s and 1970’s Cullmann was seen as the European ‘theologian of choice,’ so to speak, among many North American evangelicals who sought a world-renowned biblical scholar who articulated a credible alternative to Barth and Bultmann.” See Dorman, Hermeneutics of Oscar Cullmann, viii.
[11] In particular, I would argue that Cullmann’s three major works (Christ and Time, The Christology of the New Testament, and Salvation in History) still serve as an important critique of some of the excesses of the “Theological Interpretation of Scripture” movement and the retrieval movement. I sympathize with the sentiments of Dorman when he says, “I would like to see more conservative biblical scholars adopt the stance Cullmann takes when he refuses to allow the biblical texts to become mere ‘proof-texts’ for traditional orthodox theological formulas. The task of allowing the biblical writers to speak for themselves presents a challenge … to many ‘conservatives’ who, while professing belief in the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, nevertheless use the Scriptures as a buttress for their confessional theologies, as opposed to building-blocks for biblical theology” (italics original). See Dorman, Hermeneutics of Oscar Cullmann, viii.
[12] As he states, “the frame within which the writers of the New Testament worked ought to be the same limits which New Testament scholars accept for their work” (xxvi–xxvii).
[13] At the same time, Cullmann also notes that the systematic theologian may not “distort the substance of the Biblical message” (xxvii).
[14] As he states, “The task of the dogmatic theologian is far more difficult than that of the New Testament scholar, insofar as the latter is required to show only what the New Testament teaches. … But it is his bounden duty to keep within the limits of his work, for which the dogmatic theologian is thankful because only in this way can he rely on the results of the exegete’s labour” (xxviii).
[15] See my discussion in Richard M. Blaylock, Vessels of Wrath, Vol. 1: The Witness of the Old Testament to Divine Reprobating Activity (Pickwick, 2023), 17–22.
[16] For instance, Cullmann claims that the Old Covenant proceeds in a movement “from the many to the One” while the New Covenant advances “from the One to the many” (117). However, it is not entirely clear what Cullmann means by “the Old Covenant” since he does not describe the various covenants that structure the Old Testament. Moreover, as a schema for the Old Testament, a movement “from the many to the One” does not adequately capture the progression of salvation history through the various covenants, nor does it do justice to the role of covenant mediators within each covenant.
[17] Cullman posits that Christ redeemed wicked angels from their evil dispositions, though these are still able to rebel against God until Christ returns (196–99). I would argue that the NT’s witness regarding demonic forces is better understood in light of the concept that Cullmann so artfully describes: the already and the not yet. In other words, through the cross and resurrection, Christ has already overcome the devil and his minions such that these are no longer able to deceive all nations and accuse believers; however, these spiritual powers have not yet been subjected to eschatological judgment and they will remain active in the world until Christ’s second coming.
[18] Dorman notes an inconsistency in Cullmann’s view of Scripture and revelation. On the one hand, Cullmann affirmed that both the events in saving history and their interpretations by the biblical authors constitute revelation, but, on the other hand, he also cast a measure of doubt on the reliability of the interpretation provided in the texts of Scripture. See Dorman, Hermeneutics of Oscar Cullmann, 166–71.
