Hope and Community 9780802868572, 0802868576

Citation preview

CO NTR S T RUC UC T I VEE TIV NS AACO CH RI ST IAN T HEO E OLO L OGY GY N TH TIA RIS CH FOR T HE E R TH FO PLURALISTIC W ORL R LDD URALISTIC WO PL

Hope Hope and and Community C o m m u n it y

INEEN V E L I - MATTI A RRK K KKA AIN -M AT TI KKA

A CONSTRUCTIVE C o n s t r u c t i v e CHRISTIAN C h r i s t i a n THEOLOGY Theology FOR f or THE t h e PLURALISTIC P l u r a l i s t i c WORLD W or l d

VOLUME volume 11

Christ and Reconciliation VOLUME VOLUME 22

Trinity and Revelation volume 3 VOLUME

Creation and Humanity volume 4 VOLUME4

Spirit and Salvation volume VOLUME

5

Hope and Community

HOPE AND COMMUNITY COM MUNITY

Veli-Matti Karkkainen

WILLIAM W illia m

B. EERDMANS E erd m a ns PUBLISHING P u blish in g COMPANY C ompany

GRAND G rand RAPIDS, R a p id s , MICHIGAN M ic h ig a n

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2140 Oak Industrial Drive NE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 www.eerdmans.com

Kiirkkiiinen © © 2017 Veli-Matti Karkkainen

Ail All rights reserved Published 2017 Printed in the United States of America 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 26 25 isbn ISBN

22 3 44 55 66 778899 10 11 11

978-0-8028-6857-2

Data Library of of Congress Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Cataloging-in-Publication D ata Library Names: Kiirkkiiinen, Karkkainen, Veli-Matti, author. Karkkainen. Title: Hope and community // Veli-Matti Kiirkkiiinen.

A constructive Christian Description: Grand Rapids : Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2017. I| Series: A theology for the pluralistic world ; Volume 5 I| Includes bibliographical references and index. paper) (pbk.:: alk. paper) Identifiers: LCCN 2017008129 I| ISBN 9780802868572 (pbk. Religious aspects-Christianity. Hope—Religious aspects—Christianity. I| Eschatology. I| CommunitiesCommunities— Subjects: LCSH: HopeReligious aspects-Christianity. aspects—Christianity. I| Christianity and other religions. BV4638 2347.25—dc23 4638 .K37 2017 I| DDC 234/.25-dc23 Classification: LCC BV /lccn.loc.gov/2017008129 LC record available at https:/ https://lccn.l0c.g0v/2017008129

Contents

Abbreviations Preface P~ce

Introduction: In Search of a New Methodological Vision for Constructive Theology

x xvi ~i

11

PARTi: PART I: HOPE 1. 1.

2. 2.

Introduction: On the Possibility and Conditions of a lntroduction: Constructive Christian Eschatology

77

The ((Omni)Presence Omni) Presence of Eschatology On the Conditions and Requirements o f a Comprehensive Eschatology of Orientation to Part 11

22 22

The "End" “End” of the Cosmos and Life in Natural Sciences' Sciences’ Conjectures

24

The Origins of o f the Universe in Light of Contemporary Science Big Bang Cosmologies Scientific Predictions about the "Future" “Future'*of the Universe Sciences and Theology in Critical Mutual Dialogue about "Eschatology" “Eschatology”

77 14

24 25 26 34 34 v

CONTENTS 3. Eschatological Visions and Symbols among Religions

On the Propriety and Conditions oj ojf Religions' of Speaking o "Eschatologies" “Eschatologies” Jewish Eschatology Islamic Eschatology "End-Time" “End-Time” Visions and Symbols in Hindu Traditions Buddhist Visions oj of End and "Release" “Release” A Trinitarian Theology of Hope 4. A

For Orientation: Creation, Providence, Fina[ Providence, and Final of the Triune God Consummation as the Joint Work oj God o f Hope Godef~e The ojf Hope 77ze Resurrection oj of the Son as the Basis o The Perfecting Work oj of the Spirit

40 40

41 41 5522 64 64 70 70

7755 75 76

81 81 88

5. The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation

90

of Anticipation Introduction: The Power oj Time-Space and Eternity The Transition from Time to Eternity: The Dynamic of oj Continuity and Discontinuity Judgment, Purification, andReconciliation Judgment, Puri.fication, Reconciliation

90

6. Resurrection as the Destiny of the Cosmos and Humanity

Significance oj o f Jesus The Cosmic Signi.ficance Jesus' Resurrection Death -— the "Last Enemy" “Last Enemy” Resurrection as Human Destiny of the Afterlife Competing Views oj

7. The Flourishing of Nature and Humanity in the Perspective of New Creation

92 99 103 103 110 110

110 110 1112 12 119 119 13 1 131

145 145

Liberating Eschatology

145

The Flourishing oj of Nature and Eschatological Hope

150 150

8. Overcoming Evil and Defeating Violence

Theodicy in Christian Theology: A Need for Revision and Reassessment Overcoming Evil as the Ultimate Eschatological Hope vi

40

159 159

159 159 167 167

Contents Evil and Suffering among Religions: 1he The Challenge to Abrahamic Traditions

171 17 1

Defeating Violence and Establishing Peace in the Eschaton

179 179

9. AAChristian ChristianTheology Theologyof ofReligious ReligiousEnds Endsin inthe thePluralistic PluralisticWorld World

The Traditional Theology of o f Two Destinies and Its Rebuttals 1he The Appeal and Problems of o f Universalisms 1he 10. The Consummation: "New Earth" “New Heavens and New Earth”

"1he Nigh": 1he off the “7he End Is Nigh”: The Ambivalence and Dynamic o Imminent Return of Christ 1he The Critical and Inspiring Role of o f the Millennium as the Earthly Hope Penultimate Barthly A 1heological Theological Rediscovery of o f "Heaven" “Heaven”

183 183

183 183 192 192 205 205 214 214 220

PART II: COMMUNITY C O M M U N ITY 11. 11.

Introduction: The Christian Church and Ecclesiology in the Matrix of Secularism(s) and Religious Pluralism(s)

How to Do Ecclesiology in the Beginning of 1hird Millennium o f the Third 1he The Many Facets of the "Globalization" “Globalization” of the Christian Church Continuing Transformations and Changes in Ecclesial Life Lije and Structures in the Global Church Religious Pluralism(s) and Secularism(s) as Ecclesiological Challenges B rief Orientation to Part 22 Brief 12. Visions of Community among Religions

Synagogue -— the Jewish Community Islamic Community Ummah -— the lslamic Life and Community Hindu Spiritual Lije The Buddhist Sangha and Spiritual Pursuit 1he 13. Community after the Trinity

1he The Trinitarian "Foundation" “Foundation” oj o f the Church 1he The Church as the Image of the Trinity 1he The Church of the Triune God as an Eschatological Anticipation of the Kingdom

233 233 236

240 245 248 251 252 258 265 270 278 278 284 291 vii

CONTENTS 14. The Ecclesiality of the Church: An Ecumenical Proposal and Appeal

What Is at Stake in the Discussion oj o f Ecclesiality? Toward a Mutual Recognition oj oj the Church: o f the Ecclesiality of A Constructive Proposal The Four Marks oj o f the Church in Action 15. Church as Communion of Communions

Trinitarian Communion as the Source ofEcclesial oj Ecclesial Communion The Rich and Multidimensional Nature oj o f Koinonia The Communion oj o f Communions The Wider Context oj ojf Saints' Saints" in Relation o f the "Communion “Communion o to the Deceased and Ancestors Identity, Identity; Alienation, and Belonging: Communion Ecclesiology as "Contextual “Contextual Theology"jor Theology"for the Postmodern World 16. The Church as Mission

295 295 295 300 307 3 17 317 3 17 317 318 318

322 3328 28

332 336

Mission in the New Context(s)

336

The Missional Nature oj o f the Church Multidimensional Mission in the Service of oj the Coming oj of Gods Kingdom Goďs

341

17. Missional Existence as the Sacramental and Liturgical Celebration

344 344 359 359

Liturgy and Worship at the Heart of oj the Churchs Church's Missional Existence The Sacramenta/ Sacramental Lije Life oj of the Missional Communion in a Theological Outlook Baptism Eucharist

389

18. Missional Existence as the Charismatic-Diaconal Ministry

400

o f God as the Missional Minister The People oj The Charismatic Structure oj of the Church The Missional Organization oj of the Community Structures Ordained Ministers in the Service oj o f the Community

400

viii

359 359 368 370

406

410 4 12 412

Contents 19. Missional Existence as the Pursuit of the Diversified and Plural Unity of the Church

421 421

1he The Task and Landscape in the Search for the Unity oj of the Church o f Churches Toward Mutual Recognition oj Further New Resources and Fresh Perspectives on the Way toward Recognition and Unity

433 433

20. Missional Existence as Hospitable Dialogue: The Church among Religious Communities and Secularisms

443 443

421 421 428 428

A Methodological Orientation: Christian Theology as Comparative Theology

443 443

Religious Pluralisms in a 1heological Theological Assessment

448 448

A Trinitarian Theology oj o f Interfaith Hospitality oj of Witness and Dialogue

451 451

The Church and andthe theSynagogue Synagogue 1he Ummah Church and Ummah 1he The Church and andHindus Hindus 1he Church and Buddhists The and Buddhists Christian Church and Ecclesiology in the "Secular “Secular City" City”

476 476

Epilogue: In the End -— the Beginning

484 484

1he The Trinitarian Unfolding oj of Divine Economy of a Proper Confidence Rather 1han Than In Search oj Indubitable Certainty

484 484 486 486

Bibliography

490 490

Index oj o f Authors

561 561

o f Subjects Index oj

5564 64

455 462 469 472

ix IX

Abbreviations

AG

Aquinas, ST

Barth, CD

BC

BCSC

BEM

CA

CCCIT X

Ad off the Church A d Gentes: Decree on the Mission Activity o (Vatican II). http:/ /www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils /ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207 /ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_i965i207 _ad-gentes_en.html The Summa Theologica ooff St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd and rev. ed. 1920. Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online edition. Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Knight. Knight, http:/lwww.newadvent.org/summa/ http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. & T. Clark, 1956-1975. Online edition by Edinburgh: T. & Alexander Street Press, 1975 The Book of o f Concord. The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959 The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity. Ed­ Edited by J. B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett. Malden, Mass., and Oxford: Blackwell, 2012 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Faith and Order, 1982 BEMB= BEM -B = Baptism section BEME= BEM -E = Eucharist section BEM-M BEM -M = = Ministry section Confessio Augustana ((== Augsburg Confession) The Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic lslamic Theology.

Abbreviations

Edited by Tim Winter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Online edition

CC-LCE

The Church as Communion: Lutheran Contributions to Ecclesiology. Edited by Heinrich Holze. Geneva: Lutheran World Federation, 1997

CTCV

The Church: Towards a Common Vision. Faith and Order Paper no. 214. 2013

CWMRW

DAR DIRW

Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World: Recommen­ Recommendations for Conduct. World Council of Churches, Pontifi­ Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, World Evangelical Alliance, 2011 o f World Religions. Edited Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of by Hiroshi Obayashi. London: Praeger, 1992

Death and Immortality in the Religions of o f the World. Edited by Paul Badham and Linda Badham. New York: Paragon House, 1987

EPCW

ER

EWEG

Evangelization, Proselytism, and Common Witness: The Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical 1990-1997. http://www Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1990-1997..prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/doc/i_pe-rc_pento4 prounione. urbe.it/ dia-int/pe-rc/ doc/i_pe-rc_pento4 .html Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Lindsay Jones. 15 vols. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA/Gale, Cengage Learning, 2005

The End of the World and the Ends of o f God: Science and Theology on Eschatology. Edited by John Polkinghorne and Michael Welker. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2000

FFU FEU

GDT

Haight, CCH

The Far-Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective. Edited by George F. R. Ellis. Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002 Global Dictionary ofTheology. o f Theology. Edited by Veli-Matti Karkkainen and William Dyrness. Assistant editors, Simon Chan and Juan Martinez. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008 Roger Haight, SJ. Christian Community in History. Vol. 1, Historical Ecclesiology. Vol. 2, Comparative Ecclesiology. Vol. 3, Ecclesial Existence. New York and London: ContinContin­ uum, 2004, 2005, 2008 xi

ABBREVIATIONS

JB C JBC

JW F JWF

Kasper,HTF Kasper, HTF

LDWR LG

LW

NMC

NPNF1 NPNF 1

NPNF NPNF22

OBTMR OHE OHGR OHM

xii

Jesus beyond Christianity: The Classic Texts. Edited by Gregory A. Barker and Stephen E. Gregg. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010 Jesus in the Worlds Faiths: Leading Thinkers from Five Religions Reflect on His Meaning. Edited by Gregory A. Barker. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2008 AsCardinal Walter Kasper. Harvesting the Fruits: Basic As­ pects oj o f Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue. London and New York: Continuum, 2009 Lije Life after Death in World Religions. Edited by Harold Coward. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1997 Lumen Gentium: The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964 (Vatican II). http://www.Vatican http:/ /www.vatican 21,1964 ..va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents va/ archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ documents /vat-ii_const_i964ii2i_lumen-gentium_en.html /vat-ii_ const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html Luthers Works. American ed. (Libronix Digital Library). Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman. 55 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002 The Nature and Mission of o f the Church: A Stage on the Way to a Common Statement. Faith and Order Paper no. 198. 2005 A Select Library oj of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers oj of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff. 1st ser. 14 vols. Edinburgh, 1886. Public domain; available at www .ccel.org oj A Select Library oj of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. 2nd ser. 14 vols. Edinburgh, 1890. Public domain; available at www.ccel.org One Baptism: Towards Mutual Recognition; A Study Text. Faith and Order Paper no. 210. 2011 Oxford Handbook oj of Eschatology. Edited by Jerry L. Walls. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Online edition The Oxford Handbook oojf Global Religions. Edited by Mark Juergensmeyer. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006 The Oxford Handbook oojf Millennialism. Edited by Cather­ Catherine Wessinger. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Online edition

Abbreviations

OHRD Pannenberg, ST

PC

PE

Pelikan, CT

PIR

QCLN

RCCC

RTSA

SBE

Schleiermacher, CF

SPDA

The Oxford Handbook of oj Religious Diversity. Edited by Chad Meister. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010 Wolfhart Pannenberg. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991,1994,1998 1991, 1994, 1998 Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Scienti.fic Perspectives on the Prob­ Problem oj of Natural Evil. Edited by Nancey Murphy, Robert 1. Vatican City John Russell, William R. Stoeger, SJ. Vol. 1. and Berkeley, Calif.: Vatican Observatory and Center for Theological and the Natural Sciences, 2007 The Problem oj of Evil. Edited by M. M. Adams and R. M. Adams. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 Jaroslav Pelikan. The Christian Tradition: A History of oj o f Doctrine. Vol. 1, of the the Development oj 1, The Emergence oj Catholic Tradition (100-600). Vol. 2, 2, The Spirit of oj Eastern Christendom (600-1700). Vol. 3, The Growth of oj Medieval Theology (600-1300). Vol. 4, Reformation oj o f Church and Dogma (1300-1700). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971,1974,1978, 1984 i 97i> 1974,1978,1984 Personal Identity and Resurrection: How Do We Survive Our Death? Edited by Georg Gasser. Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2010 Quantum Cosmology and the Laws oj Scienti.fic of Nature: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action. Edited by Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, and C. J. Isham. Vatican City: Vatican Observatory Publications, 1993 Routledge Companion to the Christian Church. Edited by Gerard Mannion and Lewis S. Mudge. New York: Routledge, 2012 Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Scienti.fic Assessments. Edited by T. Peters, R. J. Russell, and M. Welker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002 o f the East. Translated by Max Muller. 50 Sacred Books oj vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1879-1910. Also available at www.sacred-texts.com Friedrich Schleiermacher. The Christian Faith. Edited by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S. Stewart. London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 1999 Scienti.fic oj Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action: Twenty Years of X lll xiii

ABBREVIATIONS

Challenge and Progress. Edited by Robert John Russell,

TCW

Tillich, ST

TTL

Nancey Murphy, and William R. Stoeger, SJ. Vatican City and Berkeley, Calif.: Vatican Observatory and Center for Theological and the Natural Sciences, 2008 A Call Cali to Adopt Responsible "Towards “Towards Common Witness: A Relationships in Mission and to Renounce Proselytism.” Proselytism:' W CC and the Vatican, 1997 WCC Paul Tillich. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Chicago: Univer­ Univer1951,1957,1963 sity of Chicago Press, 1951, 1957, 1963

Together towards Lije: ChangLife: Mission and Evangelism in Chang­ ing Landscapes. Commission on World Mission and Evangelism/WCC, 2012

UR WA WCC wcc

Unitatis Redintegratio: Decree on Ecumenism (Vatican II) ofLuther's Weimarer Ausgabe (the Weimar edition of Luther s works) World Council of Churches

Bible references, unless otherwise indicated, are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 (2nd ed. 1971) by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United Ali rights reserved. States of America. Used by permission. All Unless otherwise indicated, all citations from patristic writers come from the standard series listed above. http:/ /www Josephus's Josephuss writings are from the Sacred Texts Web site: http://www .sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm. Unless otherwise indicated, contemporary Roman Catholic documents, documents ofVatican of Vatican II, papal encyclicals, and similar works are quoted from the offi.cial doc­ official Vatican Web site: www.vatican.va. This includes also dialogue documents with Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, Methodists, and Pentecostals. Contemporary World Council of Churches documents are quoted from their offi.cial official Web site, http://www.oikoumene.org/, unless otherwise indicated. The sources used for postbiblical Jewish literature are as follows: Midrashic commentary literature is from Midrash Rabbah. TransTrans­ lated and edited by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. 10 vols. 3rd imprint. London: Soncino Press, 1961 (1939). Available at https://archive.org/details /RabbaGenesis. /Rabba Genesis. Talmud references are from The Ihe Babylonian Talmud. Translated and edited by I. Epstein. 35 vols. London: Soncino Press, 1952. Available at http:// www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html. xiv

Abbreviations

Mishnah texts are from eMishnah.com (2008) at http:/ /www.emishnah http://www.emishnah .com/Yoma.html. Ali others, unless otherwise noted, are from http://www.earlyjewishwrit http:/ /www.earlyjewishwrit All ings.com/ (e.g., Philo of Alexandria). The Qur'anic Quranic references, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Quran: A New English Translation oj of Its Meanings © 2008 Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan. This version of the Qur'an Quran is also available online at http://altafsir.com. Hadith texts are from the Hadith Collection Web site: http://www.hadith http:/ /www.hadith collection.com/ (2009-). Buddhist texts, unless otherwise indicated, are from "Tipitaka: “Tipitaka: The Pali Insight, May 10, 2011. Available at Canon:' Canon.” Edited by John T. Bullitt. Access to Insight, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html. http:/ /www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html. Bhagavad-Gita texts are from the translation by Ramanand Prasad. EAWC Anthology, 1988. Ali All other Hindu texts, unless otherwise indicated, are from the Sacred Texts Web site: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm.

xv XV

Preface

This book is one of the five volumes in the series titled CoNSTRUCTIVE C onstructive CHRISC hris­ TIAN WORLD. tian THEOLOGY T heology FOR for THE the PLURALISTIC Pluralistic W orld. The goal of the series is to present a novel, dynamic constructive Christian theology for the pluralistic world shaped by cultural, ethnic, sociopolitical, economic, and religious didi­ versity, as well as the unprecedented influence of the sciences. While robustly bibChristian in its convictions, building on the deep and wide tradition of bib­ lical, historical, philosophical, and contemporary systematic traditions, this project seeks to engage our present cultural and religious diversity in a way Christian theology has not done in the past. Although part of a larger series, each volume can still stand on its own feet, so to speak, and can be read as an individua! individual work. The current book is the fifth and last one in the series, following Christ and Reconciliation (2013), Trinity and Revelation (2014), Creation and Hu­ Humanity (2015), and Spirit and Salvation (2016). Along with traditional topics, constructive theological argumentation in this series also engages a number of topics, perspectives, and issues that systematic theologies are missing, such as race, environment, ethnicity, inclusivity, violence, and colonialism. A A con­ consistent engagement with religious and interfaith studies is a distinctive feature of this series. The current volume, similarly to the third one, majors also in a deep and wide dialogue with natural sciences, including cosmology, physics, quantum theory, and neurosciences. The introductory chapter gives a brief orientation to overall methodolmethodol­ ogy; this is more extensively discussed in the lengthy introduction to volume 11 and, thereafter, more briefly in each succeeding vol ume. Furthermore, at the volume. xvi

Preface

beginning of each major topic, the honing and clarification of methodological issues continue, in this case with regard to eschatology and ecclesiology. The off theolog­ theologproject is funded by the conviction that the material presentation o ical themes itself helps shape and clarify the method — - and of course, vice versa. I fully agree with the American Reformed theologian David Kelsey's Kelseys observation that in the real sense of the word, the clarification of methodology is "largely intel“largely retrospective;' retrospective,” if not for other reasons, then because "[t]he “ [t]he intel­ lectual and imaginative challenges peculiar to different theological topics are so diverse that any set of methodological rules purporting to cover them all would have to be so general as to be useless:' useless.” 11 Although I hesitate to go as far as Moltmann, who confessed that the methodological "road “road emerged only as I walked it;' it,”22 neither am I following Pannenberg, who devoted decades to a most detailed clarification of all kinds of methodological issues before venturing into a tightly presented summa. Having now finished the whole five-volume series of constructive theol­ theology, totaling close to three thousand pages, I am more convinced than ever of the admission I made earlier ((quoting quoting the noted American Lutheran sciencetheology expert Philip Hefner): that I have "mixed “mixed different types of thinking ... work;' . . . without justifying the mixture or clarifying how the recipe would work,” and that "age ten“age has simply intensified what were once distracting youthful ten­ dencies:'3 dencies.”3 I fear that in my case this "mixing" “mixing” is even worse because not only do I lack the breadth and width of the knowledge of the masters, but my project is, if possible, even more hybrid and ambitious in its goal. On the other hand, humbly -— and boldlyboldly — stated, I believe that something like what is attempted in this project will be the "normal" “normal” mode of systematic/constructive Christian intheology in the near future, that is, interconfessional, interdisciplinary, and in­ terreligious. Or to put it more modestly, something like this project might well be a major direction for constructive theology to come. In any case, theology should break out from its self-made limitations and become truly interdisinterdis­ ciplinary and also interfaith sensitive. Broadly speaking, it seems to me that whereas the European systematic theological work (often (often named "dogmatics") “dogmatics”) is still content with endless clarification of questions of the past, the American tradifascination with everything new and novel too often fails to appreciate tradi­ tion. Theologians in the Global South, almost exclusively trained in and under the Euro-American academia, oscillate between the two. The way forward is Kelsey, Eccentric Existencey Existence, 1:12. 1:12. Theologyt p. xv. Moltmann, Experiences in Theology, 3. Hefner, Ihe The Human Factor, p. xiii. 1. 1.

2. 2.

XVII xvii

PREFACE

to hold tightly to the best of tradition in order to critique and transcend it. That is what happened with Saint Athanasius, Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Calvin and Luther, Schleiermacher and Barth, as well as, say, Eliza­ Elizabeth Johnson and Gustavo Gutiérrez. Gutierrez. For them what is now called systematic theology was not merely the preservation of the past; they were standing on the legacy of tradition and seeking new ways of renewing it. 4 The writing of this volume, similarly to the others in this series, has series,4 cataken place in the midst of a full, indeed, consistently overloaded, teaching ca­ reer at Fuller Theological Seminary and my annual intensive docent-teaching trips at the University of Helsinki. lt It has given me an opportunity over the master's and doctoral students coming years to test these materials both with master’s from all Christian churches and all continents; I have also taught many parts of the project as a guest professor in Australia, Africa, and Europe. Fullers Fuller's genergener­ ous sabbatical program made it possible for me to finish the project according to its (overly) ambitious timetable, one volume per year. More than a decade ofhigh-level Seminary's School of of high-level editorial assistance from Fuller Theological Seminary’s Theology faculty publications editor, Susan Carlson Wood, has meant more to my publishing career than I am able to express in words. Finally, I could not survive without the competent and dedicated research assistants, doctoral students funded by the Center for Advanced Theological Studies, who collabcollab­ vol ume, Dan Brockway, orated in all aspects of the research process. For this volume, innuChristopher O'Brian, O’Brian, Jongsoeck Shin, and Joseph Muthalali worked for innu­ merable hours helping find resources. Jongsoeck also went to the extreme work of checking all references against the original sources, not a small task for a project that encompasses several disciplines, many religions, and numerous languages, ancient and contemporary. The index was compiled by Viktor Toth. My most heartfelt thanks go to my wife and life companion of thirtysix years, AnnePiiivi, with whom I have lived on three continents, traveled Anne-Paivi, all over the globe, learned new languages, and enjoyed life beyond measure. Every morning we begin with a cup of coffee and devotional in bed; the rest of the day, whether teaching or writing, is but the continuation of the blessing and happiness of life shared in koinonia.

4. Except Except for vol. for 3, for received a partiala partial stipendstipend for onefor semester from the vol.which 3, for Iwhich I received one semester from th Lilly Foundation, matched by my own institution, and a partial fellowship from the Center for Christian Theology at Biola University, during my regular sabbatical.

xviii

Introduction: In Search of o f a New Methodological M ethodological Vision for Constructive Theology

As orientation to the current volume, this introduction briefly outlines the volmethodological vision of the project, presented and defended in earlier vol­ umes. umes.11*The vision for doing constructive theology in a religiously pluralistic and culturally diverse "post-world" postdiverse4 post-world” -— postmodern, postfoundationalist, post­ structuralist, postcolonial, postmetaphysical, postpropositional, postliberal, postconservative, postsecular, post-Christian -— can be sketched like this: Systematic/constructive theology is an integrative discipline that continu­ continuously searches for a coherent, balanced understanding of Christian truth historka!) and in the and faith in light of Christian tradition (biblical and historical) context of the historical and contemporary thought, cultures, and living faiths. lt It aims at a coherent, inclusive, dialogical, and hospitable vision. The nomenclature "systematic" “systematic” is most unfortunate since the ultimate goal of constructive theology is not a "system''! “system” ! Rather, constructive theology seeks a coherent and balanced understanding. Regarding the theory of truth, comit follows coherence theory. One current way of speaking of coherence com­ work) that underwrites postfoundationalist rather pares it to a web or a net( net(work) than foundationalist epistemology. That metaphor is fi.tting, fitting, as it speaks of an 1. simii. This section repeats the materials from vol. 3, Creation and Humanity, which simi­ larly engages robustly not only other faith traditions but also the natural sciences. Since the discussion in vol. 1, i, Christ and Reconciliation, Reconciliation contains detailed bibliographic references, they are not repeated here, except for direct citations.

1

INTRODUCTION

attempt to relate every statement to other relevant statements and ultimately to the "whole:' “whole.” Coherence has not only to do with inner-textual coherence but also with the "fit" “fit” of theological statements with "realitY:' “reality”22 With classical tradition (and say, Pannenberg, among contemporary theologians), in a qualified sense, we can still speak of systematic theology 3 as the "science as it presupposes the existence of truth apart from “science of God;' God,”3 human beings and human beings beings' social construction thereof.4 thereof. 4 That said — of late modern/postmodern episte­ without subscribing to any particular form oflate epistemology -— we hasten to add that we humans never have a direct, uncontested access to the infinitely incomprehensible God.5 God. 5 Rather, human grasp of truth 6 is only provisional. argumenprovisional.6 Rather than on firm "foundations;' “foundations,” theological argumen­ tation builds on a postfoundationalist epistemology because oofi "the “ the contested 1 nature oj o f theological truth claims:' claims ”7 A postfoundationalist approach or episteepiste­ mology seeks "to “to engage in interdisciplinary dialogue within our postmodern culture while both maintaining a commitment to intersubjective, transcommunal theological argumentation for the truth of Christian faith, and recognizing the provisionality provisionally of our historically embedded understandings and culturally conditioned explanations of the Christian tradition and religious experience:' experience.”88 Constructive theology's theology s nature as an "integrative" “integrative” discipline is its most distinctive feature. To practice well constructive theology, one has to utilize the results, insights, and materials of all other theological disciplines, that is, biblical studies, church history and historical theology, philosophical theology, as well as ministerial studies. Closely related fields of religious studies, ethics, and missiology also belong to the texture of systematic work. That alone is a tall order. But since theology operates in a particular context and religiously livpluralistic world, the insights from cultural studies as well as the study of liv­ ing faiths (in this project, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism) are also invoked. FinallyFinally — alas! -— even more resources are needed for the discussion of certain theological topics such as creation, anthropology, and eschatology -— namely, the natural sciences, whether cosmology, physics, quantum theory, 2. 2. Murphy, Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism, pp. 98-108. ia.1.7. 3. Aquinas, ST 1a.1.7. 4. Pannenberg, ST 1:50. 5. Pannenberg, ST 1:4-6; for a full discussion, see his Theology and the Philosophy oj of Science, pp. 297-326 particularly. Science, 6. See further Pannenberg, "What “What !s Is Truth?" Truth?” pp. 1-27; Vainio, Beyond Fideism, p. 132. 7. Clayton, Adventures in the Spirit, p. 28, emphasis in original (commenting on Pan­ Pannenberg's nenberg s theology). 8. Shults, 1he The Post Foundationalist Task of o f 1heology, Theology, p. 18, emphasis in original.

2

In Search of a New Methodological Vision for Constructive Theology or brain study. The use of all these materials and insights, however, is guided by the principie principle according to which the systematician must listen carefully to related disciplines but also go beyond their input, domains, and questions. From the beginning to the end, this project is a theological enterprise. A methodological approach that "celebrates “celebrates diversity, pluralism, and contextuality, while at the same time pursuing shared resources of o f human 1 rationality and interdisciplinary conversationt conversation,”9 is particularly appropriate in an investigation undertaken in the matrix of theology, religious studies, and the sciences. This kind of interdisciplinary discourse, "a “a complex, multileveled transversal process,” process:' 10 10 breaks through the limitations of any specific discipline with standard borders. lt It seeks mutual learning, interaction, and engagement in its quest for a coherent vision. The term "transversal" “transversal” indicates "a “a sense of 11 extending over, lying across, and intersecting with one another:' another.” 11 That principie, principle, however, does not float freely in the air, as it were; it is not a smorgasbord where one can pick and choose as one wishes, to use another metaphor. Rather, it acknowledges the theory-laden nature of each inquiry but also the rootedness of such an inquiry in a particular tradition. For the theologian, the guiding tradition is the biblical-historical and contemporary theological wisdom, the deposit of faith. That tradition, however, is neither a straitjacket that limits creative pursuit of knowledge nor a basis for mere repetition and defense. Rather, remaining "tied “tied to specific communities of 12 faith without being trapped by these communities:• communities,” 12 the investigation honors contextuality and builds on a shared identity of the wider community of faith. Appreciation and critique of tradition are part of the task.13 task. 13 Following Alasdair Maclntyre, MacIntyre, it can be said that "the “the idea that there can be a kind of reason that is supra-cultural and that would enable us to view all the culturally conditioned traditions of rationality from a standpoint above them all is one of the illusions All rationality is socially embodied, developed of our contemporary culture. Ali in human tradition and using some human language.” language:• 14 14 Particularly with regard to the comparative-theology facet of this invesinves­ tigation -— namely, engaging Jewish, Islamic, Flindu, Hindu, and Buddhist beliefs of World? p. 5. 9. Van Huyssteen, Alone in the Warld? 10. Van Huyssteen, Alone World? p. 9. 10. Alane in the Warld? 11. Van Huyssteen, Alone in the Warld? World? p. 20. See further Schrag, "Transversal “ Transversal Rationality:' Rationality.” 12. Alane in the Warld? 12. Van Huyssteen, Alone World? p. 12. 12. 13. See further Van Huyssteen, Alane Alone in the Warld? World? p. 45 and passim. 14. As paraphrased by Newbigin, "Religious Pluralism;' p. 50; so also p. 52; the reference “Religious Pluralism,” Justice, Which Ratianality? is to Maclntyre, MacIntyre, Whase Whose Justice Rationality?

,

3

INTRODUCTION

eschatology and ecclesiology -— one has to be careful in following the transversality principie. principle. The reasons are many and obvious. First of all, systematic theologians are not experts in religions — - and even if we were, it would take a lifetime to learn even one tradition in any deep way. Therefore, we must do everything to avoid making "the “the systematic theologian into an amateur collector of religious curiosities:' curiosities.” 15 15 The systematician should let the authorauthor­ itative and representative voices of each tradition formulate their respective views. Second, granted the systematician knows enough to be able to dialogue meaningfully, integrating the contributions of religions in an already wide menu substantially complicates the task. Understandable is the temptation by modernistically driven theologians to give up the distinctive testimonies and "ground “ground beliefs" beliefs” of each tradition and in the name of the common core of religions try to make them speak (orat (or at least mean) about the same. That “first-generation theological pluralism,” 16 however, is neither interesting nor "first-generation pluralism;' 16 useful. It also deviates from the principle principie of hospitality as it denies the right of the other to be other. As argued with some detail in the methodological intro­ introduction to Christ and Reconciliation (vol. 1), not only is theology confessional (rightly understood), but so also is comparative theology. It is not confessional in terms of o f violence and oppression but rather in a way that makes room for distinctive identities, differing testimonies -— and passionate search for a common understanding even in the midst of our deepest and most deeply held differences. Confessionalism is not a denial of the pluralistic nature of theology as a discipline. The beginning of both parts 11 and 22 will provide a detailed orientation to the topics and tlow flow of argumentation in the following chapters.

15. K. Ward, Religion and Revelation, p. 37. 16. See further my Trinity and Revelation, chap. 14.

4

I. HOPE H O PE

1. i.

Introduction: On the Possibility and Conditions of of a Constructive Christian Eschatology

The (Omni)Presence of Eschatology

1he The Visions oj o f "End" “End” in Culture and Society Unlike those of ancient times, contemporary cultures do not typically enterenter­ tain the "myth “myth of the eternal return;' return,” 11 yet all living religions have a vision of the future and "end:' “end.” Hence we can speak of"eschatology" of “eschatology” as a pan-religious is not limited exclusively to the religious sphere. idea. Eschatology, however, Just think of the growing concern, at times anxiety, in secular culture over the impending "end" life. 2 In contempo­ contempo“end” -— either of our planet or ofhuman of human life.2 rary sciences we have lately heard expressions such as "physical “physical eschatology;' eschatology,”33 which investigates the future of the cosmos and life, whether in the near or far future; similarly, questions are being raised among scientists about "evolu“evolu­ tionary eschatology;' eschatology,” that is, whether evolutionary process is to be considered goal. 4 progressive and if it ever culminates in a final goal.4 Indeed, even more widely, it seems obvious that "[e]very “ [e]very culture has an eschatology; it is part of o f our inescapable human attempt to make sense of the world:' world.” 55 Although these secular visions are not distinctively religious, they tend to feature structural similarities with religions, as is evident in the As has been famously argued by Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return. See Kortner, The End of the World, World, pp. 1-22. 1-22. 3. A groundbreak.ing Universe:• groundbreaking essay was Rees's Reess "Collapse “Collapse of the Universe.” “From Evolution to Eschatology;' Eschatology,” pp. 71-79. 4. Schloss, "Frorn 5. Gillrnan, Death, p. 21. Gillman, The Death of ofDeatK 21. 1. 1.

2. 2.

HOPE

Marxist tripartite outline of the worlďs world s history: "A “A primal state of innocence, followed by a period of social tension, which is, in turn, supplanted by a new 6 era ofharmony, Interestingly, it has also of harmony, the communist society of the future:' future.”6 been argued recently that Friedrich Nietzsche, the most unlikely supporter of eschatology in either secular or religious forms, might have subscribed to a form of it. Could it be that this atheisťs vis ion of the rescue of "the atheist s vision “the use and abuse of history" history” -— or as he also put it, the "disease “disease ofhistory" of history”77 — may be a eschatology"? 8 What if ifJoachim's concealed form of a "secularized “secularized Joachimite eschatology”?8 Joachims three ages -— that of the Father, Son, and Spirit — - are paralleled by Nietzsches Nietzsche's scheme ofhistory of history in three stages: premoral, moral, and ultramoral ages?9 ages?9 Some kind of eschatological outlook can even be found in most recent ture of human civilization in sociopolitical thought. How predictions of the fu future else to think of the (in)famous proposal ooff Francis Fukuyama at the time of the collapse of o f Soviet Communism, ominously titled The End oj o f History and the Last Man? Man? With a neoconservative confidence in the final victory of free-market capitalism and its version of democracy over other political ide­ ideologies, Fukuyama took it as the most developed and final stage of evolution, 10 finally leading into peace as democracy's supremacy is discerned by all. all.10 Not tosurprisingly, this "right-wing" “right-wing” vision of the inevitable progress of history to­ ward freedom was harshly contested by the ideological left. In the neo-Marxist Empíre, freedom is defeated manifesto of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, by the empíre, empire, which replaces nation-states and even national conflicts with a new transnational global order, indeed an absolute and violent one. The new combined world rulers are international agencies and organizations from the UN to the World Bank and the alliance ooff rich nations, along with the "su“su­ 9/n, titled perpower" perpower” (USA). The sequel by the same authors, written after 9/11, Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age oj Empíre (2004), further diagnoses o f Empire 11 reasons for the failure of the dream of progress. In sum: whatever one thinks progress.11 of these various scenarios for the future, it appears that "eschatology" “eschatology” dies hard even in the secular realm.

6. Gillman, The Death oj o f Death, Deaths p. 21, 21, attributing the idea to Herberg, Judaism and Man, pp. 230-31. Modern Man, 7. Nietzsche, Use and Abuse of History, p. 71. 8. Ausmus, "Nietzsche “Nietzsche and Eschatology;' Eschatology,” p. 347. 9. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, p. 46, cited in Ausmus, "Nietzsche Eschatol“Nietzsche and Eschatol­ ogy;' ogy,” p. 351. 35i. 10. 10. Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man. u. Hardt and Negri, Empire Empíre and Multitude. 11.

8

On the Possibility and Conditions of a Constructive Christian Eschatology 1he The Eclipse of o f Eschatology in Christian Tradition

In distinctively Christian forms of eschatology, marked shifts have taken place in history. For the earliest followers of Christ, the intense expectation of the imminent return of their Lord was just that — - intense; early) patristic intense; the ((early) 12 church continued this focus. focus.12 Apocalyptic enthusiasm flourished in diverse forms. Even such intellectually oriented writers as the apologists of the second century employed urgent eschatological warnings and visions in their defense of the faith before the unbelieving world.13 world. 13 Although the eschatological hope waned some after the establishment of Christendom and its amillennialism, in no way 11 “a modified A-theory of time with tense as relational.” 17 Its main idea is that oj events "tenses “tenses are better treated as relations between events than as properties of and that these relationships carry an ontology in addition to the ontology of the events themselves:' themselves.” 18 18 In analogy to what is the standard separation of two basic conceptions of space (to be discussed below), Russell distinguishes the relarelational concept of time that "does “does not exist without events and their rela­ time;' the latter of which means that time tions" tions” and "receptacle “receptacle theories of time,” exists independently of events. Russell's Russell’s proposal is supported theologically by the relationality of the triune God, including God’s Goďs relationship to the world as 13. For a hasíc oj the Physical World, p. 68. basic description, see Eddington, The Nature of 14. W. Friedman, About Time, Time, p. 92; see also Craig, Time and Eternity, p. 272; Heller,

"Time “ Time ofthe of the Universe;' Universe,” 53-55 and passim. Trinity, pp. 159-63. 15. See Peters, God as Trinity, 16. Although there are some who claim that even block time may be able to account for indeterminacy, I have a hard time seeing how. 17. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, pp. 129-45 particularly. 18. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 134, emphasis in original.

94

The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation Goďs Gods

creation. For Russell, "temporal “temporal relations between events carry some of the ontological factors normally attributed to the individual events themselves, factors typically seen as properties of the event:' Toe crux ofhis event” The of his proposal, then, is that "[i)nstead “ [i]nstead of viewing tenses such as past, present, or future as properties of events ... . . . [let us think of) of] a tense as relational A-theory of time, where the tenses 'past' past' and 'future' ‘future are relations between events and an event taken as present:' present.” 19 19 For the purposes of this discussion, there is no need to delve into further details of this complex conception of time; let it suffice to present it as a viable recent suggestion that has the potential of meeting the scientific and philosophical objections to flowing time.

Eternity as the "Boundless “Boundless Temporality oj of the Trinitarian God" God” Although not without merit, tradition's traditions desire to place God "outside;' “outside,” with its appeal to the timelessness of God ((which which ironically has some resemblance with block-time theory in some real sense), has to be corrected and balanced with an equally important insistence on Goďs Gods omnipresence in and engagement with creation and its time. Rather than "outside" “outside” time, on the basis of the docdoc­ trine of creation, "God “God should transcend space-time:' space-time.” Although so conceived, "God “God cannot be limited in space-time;' space-time,” this understanding also means that it is possible for God to be "in “in time;' time,” so to speak. Indeed, both divine omnipresence (that God is present everywhere at all times) and incarnation imply some kind of temporality in divine life. Furthermore, the openness of the future fu ture seems to 20 Russell's brilliant summary can require some relation to temporality. temporality.20 Robert Russells hardly be improved: "I “I understand eternity to be the boundless temporality of the Trinitarian God, a lavishly rich 'supra-temporality' supra-temporality’ that is both the source and fulfillment of the temporality of creation: the temporality we experience in nature, in our lives, and in history. This is an eternity that flows out of the endless perichoretic dance of the divine persons ceaselessly taking place within 21 the unity ofTrinitarian of Trinitarian community:' community.”21 In other words, eternity is neither timelessness nor lack of movement. Trinitarian doctrine alone shows the contrary: in the immanent Trinity, an eternal reciprocal loving relationship, there is movement, dynamic, receiving,

19. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, pp. 134, 135. 134,135. 20. Explanation;' p. 250. 20. K. Ward, "God “God as a Principie Principle of Cosrnological Cosmological Explanation,” 21. frorn Pannenberg, 21. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, Eternity, p. 5. In this section, I also glean from "Eternity, “Eternity, Tirne Time and Space;' Space,” pp. 163-74; Jackelén, Jackelen, Time and Eternity, chap. 4.

95

HOPE

giving -— let alone in the economic Trinity in its outward movement.22 movement. 22 Hence, rightly conceived, we may speak of "temporalized eternity:' 23 Or, as Pannen“temporalized eternity.”23 24 as the infinite berg came to say in his later years, eternity is "omnitemporaI:' “omnitemporal,”24 source of time both transcends and incorporates it into itself. Therefore, "we “we temporal:' 25 This find God on both sides of the fence, both as eternal and as temporal.”25 26 kind of "Goďs will not divorce God from real activity and pres­ pres“Gods own time" time”26 ence in the world (as timelessness would do), nor lead to the problem in which world;' as would "God “God will be conceived by a process of abstraction from the world,” be the case if God were placed "within" temporality. 27 “within” our temporality.27 In the dynamic trinitarian context of speaking of Gods Goďs own time — - and only in that context -— Boethius's Boethius’s oft-cited definition that "[e]ternity “ [e]ternity is the 28 simultaneous and complete possession of infinite life" life”28 makes the correct point (which is neither about "block “block time" time” nor removing God from time). In Goďs Gods eternity, time is transcended but not "canceled" “canceled” in the sense that it never had any meaning ((that that would be an idea closer doser to the intuitions of the great Asiatic faiths). But doesn't doesn’t this lead to a self-contradictory statement that in the divine life there are both timely sequence (which implies finitude) and infinite transcendence of time by eternity? Many contemporary philosophers think 29 so. Again, it seems to me that only the turn to the Trinity may help us avoid so.29 self-contradiction: the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity tells us 30 Why could we not apply the hypostaticthe eternal God has entered time. time.30 union template also to the eternity-time relationship? This kind of conception of time gives us the needed resources to eter­ imagine the final eschatological redemption. Participation in God’s Goďs eterlife" 31 with the "entry nity "can “can overcome the disintegration of human life”31 “entry of 32 eternity into time:' Eternity is not only the source of time, it is also the time.”32 22. See Pannenberg, ST 1:405. 23. See Peters, God as Trinity, pp. 146-47, 173-75. 146-47,173-75. 24. Pannenberg, "Eternity, “Eternity, Time and Space:' Space.” 25. Peters, "The “The Trinity in and beyond Time;' Time,” pp. 263-64 (264). Goďs temporality 26. Cf. Gunton (The Triune Creator, p. 92), who (rightly) rejects both Gods and Goďs Gods timelessness but (wrongly) asks us to stop there, in an apophatic position. 27. Gunton, Ihe The Triune Creator, pp. 91-92 (92). 28. Boethius, Consolation of o f Phi/osophy Philosophy 5; similarly, Augustine, Confessions 11.11; for comments, see Pannenberg, ST 1:403. 29. For debates, all the details of o f which are not totally transparent to me, see Stump and Kretzmann, "Eternity:' “Eternity,” and the rejoinder from Helm, Eternal God, chap. 22 particularly. 30. So also Peters, "The Time:' p. 269. “The Trinity in and beyond Time,” 31. Pannenberg, ST 3:601. 32. Pannenberg, ST 3:603.

96

The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation

goal, the destiny. Time thus has a teleological nature.33 nature. 33 This means that the "eternity “eternity of the New Creation" Creation” is the "gift “gift of true temporality of the Trinity to our world, both as it is to be and as it is being transformed into the new creation by Goďs resurrecG ods radically new act beginning with the hodily bodily resurrec­ tion of Jesus at Easter:• Easter.” It is the time of healing, sanctifying, and bringing to fulfillment of Goďs judgG ods purposes for creation; it is also the time of judg­ 34 ment of all that does not hold up to the standard of eternity. eternity.34 Judgment and reconciliation call for a more nuanced understanding of the nature of Goďs G ods eternity, "an “an eternity that holds all the events of the creation in an overarching and differentiated unity, a unity that brings together our lived experiences of the flow of fragmentary present moments without subsum­ subsummoment:' 35 To be ing their distinctions or separations into one timeless moment.”35 more precise, "the “the distinction between events in time will be sustained in eternity while the separation between events in time will be overcome in eternity:' eternity.” The distinction allows for "the “the unique character of every event as 36 present:' The lack of separation means overcoming the limitations of the present.”36 earthly time in which the "present" “present” can be had only once, the "past" “past” is ever temlost, and the "future" “future” is not yet with us. That is the linear time. Eternal tem­ porality overcomes it and makes it possible for events to be "re-experienced, “re-experienced, forgiven, and savored endlessly:>37 temporality" thus is endlessly.”37 The term "eternal “eternal temporality” the current theological conception of time, rather than "timeless" “timeless” eternity or endless duration. The important idea of "distinction" “distinction” between events in time will make it possible for divine judgment and reconciliation to happen proper ly, 38 as will be discussed below. properly,38

Space-Time and New Creation

Traditionally there have been two main ways of conceiving of space, namely, as "receptacle" “receptacle” (or "container"), “container”), that is, space as container of all objects, and as "relational;' “relational,” that is, rather than having its own objective existence, space is a positional quality of material objects (i.e., how they are related to each other). Theologyy p. 33. 33. Tillich, ST 3:320; see also Goosen, Spacetime and Theology, 34. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, pp. 5-6 (5). For the eschatological importance of Jesus Jesus' resurrection, see also O'Collins, O’Collins, Jesus Risen, pp. 154-57. 35. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 6. 36. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 14, emphasis in original. 37. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 14. 38. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 97.

97

HOPE

As is well known, similarly to absolute time, the concept of absolute space was shattered, if not totally abolished, by relativity. In current understanding, "time energY:' 39 The “time is dosely closely interlocked conceptually with space, matter and energy.”39 theologian T. F. Torrance makes the surprising claim that long before that, some (Eastern) church fathers rightly saw the significance of the relational idea of off creation, Trinity, and o f space as they were explaining the meaning o incarnation. He says: "In noth“In the light of Goďs Gods creation of the world out of noth­ ing, His interaction with nature, and the Incarnation ooff His Creator Word, they [Greek church fathers] developed a thoroughly relational conception of space and time in which spatial, temporal and conceptual relations were in­ inseparable:'40 separable.” 40 If eternity entails Goďs Gods omnipresence -— that is, all things are "present" “present” to God -— it also means conversely that God is present to all things 41 Needless to say, Gods Goďs presence in the world should not in their place (space). (space).41 be understood in any way "physically;' “physically,” nor as something that makes created things' things presence in the same place impossible. As will be argued below, God 42 exists in Goďs Gods own space, so to speak. speak.42 When speaking of the world as Gods Goďs space, at the same time it is of utmost importance to speak of "the “the absolute priority of o f God over all time and space, for the latter arise only in and with created existence and must be conceived as relations within the created order.”43 order:' 43 The theological conclusion - that we "should from all of this is -— in analogy to the talk about time — “should accept 44 The former neither the spacelessness nor the spatiality of off God. o f the being o G o d "”44 would separate God from the world, whereas the latter would make God yet another object among other worldly objects. God must have his own space, so to speak. God can use the space of creation, but he has his own space different from that of creatures. Having now clarified the meaning and ramifications of time-space, we are ready to tackle the issue of continuity versus discontinuity in the transition from time to Goďs Gods eternity.

39. Peacocke, Theology fo forr a Scientific Age, p. 130. 40. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Incarnation, p. 58. 41. Pannenberg, ST 1:410; see R. Russell, Time in Eternity, pp. 101-2. 42. Pannenberg, ST 1:4n; 1:411; R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 102. 43. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Incarnation, p. 11. n. 44. C. H. Park, "Transcendence Creator;' p. 78, emphasis ernphasis “Transcendence and Spatiality of the Triune Creator,” in original.

98

1he The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation The Transition from Time to Eternity: The Dynamic of Continuity and Discontinuity Annihilation or Transformation? Otherworldly or 1hisWorldly Locus of This-Worldly o f New Creation?

Would the transition from time to eternity imply total destruction of the world? Or is there a way to think of the transformation in other terms? There is no doubt that biblical symbols, visions, and teachings assume a dynamic tension and interrelationship between continuity and discontinuity. They fund continuous anticipation. The very term "new creation'' implies this twofold dy“new creation” dy­ namic: that it is "new" “new” reflects discontinuity, and that it is "creation" “creation” bespeaks A strikingjuxtaposition striking juxtaposition and mutual conditioning can also be found continuity. A blood" may not enter Gods Goďs eternity, in sayings according to which "flesh “flesh and blood” and yet it is physical resurrection that stands at the forefront of that hope!45 hope! 45 Polkinghorne puts it well: "the “the new creation does not arise from a radically vetere, out of old.”46 old:'46 novel creative act ex nihilo, but as a redemptive act ex veterey lt balIt has taken a long time for Christian theology to reach a dynamic bal­ ance in this understanding. On the basis of 2 Peter 3:10 3:10 and related passages (Rev. 20:11; anni20:11; 21:1; 21:1; among others), in Lutheran orthodoxy the view of the anni­ ''After the final judgment, the absolute hilation of the world established itself: “After . . . [[as] as] everything that belongs to this world will end of this world will come ... be burnt up by fire and reduced to nothing. Not a transformation of the world, 47 therefore, but an absolute annihilation of its substance is to be expected:' expected.”47 But if this were the case, it would not be merely destruction of all but also "a “a reversal of the creation out of creatio ex nihilo) into a reduction to o f nothing ((creatio nothing (reductio ad nihilum):' nihilum).” 48 48 An opposite position is the transformatio mundi, Chrismundiy which finds support in Romans 8:19-25. 8:19-25. Reflecting the ancient Chris­ mutatur,; non tollitur (“Life ("Life will tian prayer (also used in Catholic liturgy), vita mutatur 49 be changed rather than destroyed"), destroyed” ),49 Calvinist theology highlighted Goďs Gods faithfulness as Creator to creation: ''After “After the judgment will come the end of 45. So also Polkinghorne and Welker, "Introduction:• 2. “Introduction,” p. 2. 46. Polkinghorne, God oj Hope, p. 116; Polkinghorne, Science and Christian Belief Belief, p. 167. ofHopey 47. Schmid, Doctrinal Theology oj of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Churchy §66-4, §66.4, pp. 655-56, cited in Moltmann, "Cosmos “Cosmos and Theosis;• Theosis,” p. 256 (from a different edition). For a recent similar statement, see the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England, The Ihe Mystery ofSalvationy oj Salvation, p. 199; I am indebted to Moltmann, "Cosmos Theosis;' p. 256. “Cosmos and Theosis,” 48. Moltmann, "Cosmos “Cosmos and Theosis;' Theosis,” p. 256. 49. Moltmann, "Cosmos “Cosmos and Theosis;' Theosis,” p. 257.

99

HOPE HOPE

this world, since God will destroy its present state by fire, i.e., not destroy the world but out of o f the old make a new world, a new heaven and a new earth 50 Moltmann rightly concludes: "The which will not pass away:' away”50 “The eschatological transformation of the universe embraces both the identity of creation and its newness, that is to say both continuity and discontinuity. All Ail the information of this world remains in eternity, but is transformed:' This corresponds to of transformed” 51 the vision in Revelation (21:1): "Then earth:' 51 “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth” Annihilation and transformation should not be juxtaposed, however, but rather put in a dynamic mutual conditioning. There is much in the “old "old creation" creation” to be annihilated, particularly decay and effects of sin and fall. Yet, differently from the old paradigm of annihilatio mundi, the final cleansing and sanctification are not unrelated to the "first creation'';; in all of Gods Goďs works, “first creation” there is continuity, even in discontinuity. This template has implications for 52 the location of the new creation, the eschatological kingdom of God. God.52 M. Volf argues that "[t]he “ [t]he stress on the earthly locale of the kingdom of God in the New Testament corresponds not only to the earthly hopes of the Old TesTes­ 11:6-10 ; 65:17-25), but even more significantly to the tament prophets (Isa. 11:6-10; Christian doctrine of the body. Theologically it makes little sense to postulate a nonearthly eschatological existence while believing in the resurrection of the b body .... o d y.. .. The resurrected body demands a corresponding glorified but nevertheless material environment:' environment.” 53 53 These two templates have to be placed in mutual dialogue. A A proper negotiation of the dynamic tension between annihilatio mundi and transformatio mundi has tremendous effects on a number of lifestyle and attitudinal issues. Whereas the implications for ecology will be touched on below, let us reflect here on work and human effort to improve the conditions of earthly 54 life. If human work (inclusively understood) is related to the divine purpose life.54 of creation that points to new creation, then work gains its ultimate meaning from Goďs ture; work is not only a matter of the present world. Essential to Gods fu future; that kind of vision "is Goďs new creation and “ is the anticipatory experience of Gods 55 a hope ofits of its future consummation:' consummation.”55 Volf argues that "[t]he “ [t]he assurance of the 50. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 706, cited in Moltmann, "Cosmos Theosis;' p. 257 “Cosmos and Theosis,” (from a different edition). Note that the section in Heppe is under the heading "Glorification:' “Glorification “Cosmos and Theosis;' Theosis,” p. 257. 51. Moltmann, "Cosmos “ The New Jerusalem;' Jerusalem,” p. 258. 52. See Gundry, "The 53. Volf, Work in the Spirit, Spirityp. 95. Humanity,, 54. A constructive theology of work is attempted in my Creation and Humanity pp. 456-64. Spirit, p. 79; see also pp. 76-87. 55. Volf, Work in the Spirit,

lOO 100

The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation 1he

continuity between the present age and the age to come (notwithstanding the abolition of all sinfulness and transitoriness that characterize the present age) is a 'strong strong incentive ttoo ... . . . cultural involvement: involvement' For the continuity guarantees that no noble efforts will be wasted:' wasted.” 56 56 In contrast, the annihilationist alteralter­ meaningnative stalls the valuation of o f human effort and work and makes it meaning­ less. Only in the dynamic continuity-in-discontinuity template do "the “the results of ultio f the cumulative work of human beings have intrinsic value and gain ulti­ .... mate significance, for they are related to the eschatological new creation creation.. .. [T]he noble products ofhuman of human ingenuity ingenuity.... . . will be cleansed from impurity, perfected, and transfigured to become a part of Gods Goďs new creation.”57 creation:' 57 This dynamic Christian vision stands in stark contrast to a widely held Islamic transeschatological doctrine with a "focus “focus on a sudden, even instantaneous trans­ formation in which the earth and heaven are rent, scattered, or melted away, and each human soul stands to hear the judgment on its eternal destiny.”58 destiny:' 58 That annihilationist vision does not leave much hope for this world.

Transformed "Space" “Space” and "Time" “Time” in New Creation What does it mean to envision time-space in the new creation (in some sense) analogously to the current world? Opinions among theologians vary. Pannenberg believes that time will not apply to eternity because "temporality “temporality is of a life;' and therefore the fulfilment piece with the structural sinfulness of our life,” 59 requires the coming to an end of time. time.59 Although he adds a helpful note -— 60 that "God -— Polkinghorne disagrees with “ God and not nothing is the end oj of time" time”60 “time is no Pannenberg (as do I): the main reason for rejecting the idea that "time more" more” is that "any “any implication that the value of human temporal experience is ultimately a misapprehension or a deficiency'' deficiency” is unacceptable in light of the doctrine of creation. Rather, God is patient "who tempo“who acts through tempo­ 61 rally unfolding process in the old creation:' Temporality in itself cannot be creation.”61 something to be deleted. Indeed, we have to say even more against the idea of time literally coming to an end: if the "end" term s of “end” of time is understood in terms 56. Volf, Work in the Spirit, pp. 91-92, citation from Lausanne Committee, Evangelism and Social Responsibility, p. 42. 57. Volf, Work in the Spirit, pp. 88-102 (91). 58. Sells, •~rmageddon Traditions;• p. 469. “Armageddon in Christian, Sunni, and Shia Traditions,” 59. Pannenberg, ST 3:561, 587. 60. Pannenberg, ST 3:594, emphasis in original. 61. Polkinghorne, God oj Hope, p. 120. ofHopey 101 101

HOPE 62 literal end of time (and also, of course, of space), byimplication space),62 then it means by implication 63 creation!63 That conclusion follows from the premise that the destruction of creation! Gods giving time for creation is constitutive for creation to exist (as Augustine Goďs 64 already saw it rightly). rightly).64 The idea of the "end inter“end of time" time” could be corrected by a more robust inter­ pretation of the eternity bringing about the "fufilment time;' 65 a "new" “fufilment of time,”65 “new” time 66 sin66 and entropy and, unlike earthly time, does that lacks the potentiality for sin not denote creaturely limitations characteristic of current space-time. This can 67 be called "finitude “finitude beyond transience:' transience,”67 because "transience, “transience, which human beings experience as death, is an enemy at the end of life, whose menacing 68 life.” 6 8 and violence-including presence casts a dark shadow on the entirety of oflife:' Hence, I argue ((with with Polkinghorne) for a new kind of time-space environment in the new creation. lt if"[i)n It is built on the assumption that if “ [i]n this universe, space, time and matter are all mutually interlinked in the single package deal of general relativity then it] seems reasonable to suppose that this linkage relativity.... . . [[then is a general feature of the Creator's Creator s will. If so, the new creation will also have its 69 'space' This means then that "the space and 'time' ‘time and 'matter:" ‘m atter”69 “the transmuted 'matter' ‘matter o f the new creation ... . . . will be the setting for human re-embodiment in the of resurrection life" ofhuman life” 70 70 because, on the one hand, the current form of human life Gods eternity (1 Cor. 15:50 15:50), is not fit for Goďs ), and on the other hand, it would make no sense to speak of the resurrection of the body (in any sense even close to what we understand by that phrase) without some kind of time/space/matter/ energy reality, however different it may be (because of lack of entropy and so forth). As Polkinghorne brilliantly puts it: "Presently “Presently we live in a world that contains sacraments: the world to come will be wholly sacramental. In the

62. As is argued by Moltmann in the final coming of Gods Goďs eternity into time (Coming (Coming of God, pp. 279-95); for the end of space in Goďs Gods presence, see pp. 296-308. oj 63. Rightly noted by C. Keller (Apocalypse Now and Then, p. 18 ), who speaks of the "end 18), “end

of nature" nature” if time comes to an end. “Enter into Joy!" Joy!” pp. 272-73, 272-73. 64. Volf, "Enter (“Enter into Joy!” Joy!" pp. 274-75), who makes a 65. I am not necessarily following Volf ("Enter distinction between the "fulfilment times:' “fulfilment of time" time” and "reconciliation “reconciliation of times.” 66. Cf. Volf ("Enter "po(“Enter into Joy!" Joy!” p. 274), who argues that rather than the lack of the “po­ tentiality for sin," oj innocence:' sin,” eternity is characterized by the "possibility “possibility of innocence!' 67. This would accord with the proper translation ofRev. of Rev. 10:6, "that “that there should be no more delay" time:' Aune, Revelation 6-16, p. 567; delay” (RSV) or "There “ There will be no more interval of time.” I am indebted to Volf, "Enter “Enter into Joy!" Joy!” p. 273 n. 69. 68. Volf, "Enter “Enter into Joy!" Joy!” p. 273. 69. Polkinghorne, God oj of Hope, p. 117; Polkinghorne, "Eschatology;' “Eschatology,” pp. 39-40. of Hope, p. 117. 70. Polkinghorne, God oj

102 102

The Transition from frorn Tirne Time to Eternity and New Creation 'matter' Goďs eschatological purpose fulfilled in the matter of that world we shall see Gods 71 whole created order:' order.”71 Then it is possible to intuit that what is underdeveloped in this life will be transformed, sanctified, and judged, but not left behind as if it were a failure. The ultimate fulfillment in Christian vision is, then, not a time" but rather renewed embodied life in the new resurrected timeless "end “end of time” body -— totally renewed but not totally unrelated to life on this earth and the cosmos. lt It is embodied life in a newly conceived "time" “time” and "space'' “space” in divine 72 eternity in communion with the triune God. God.72 A significant part of the discontinuity between new and old creation is the overcoming of not only death and decay but also sinfulness and egoism. Only that which is compatible with Goďs Gods holiness may stand face-to-face with the divine holiness. This brings us to the theme of judgment and reconciliation.

Judgment, Purification, and Reconciliation

"Eternity Judgrnent": The Precondition for Transforrnation “Eternity as Judgment”: Transformation For the new creation to be "new:' “new,” there needs to be "redemptive “redemptive purging and healing of our lives:' lives.” Sins and omissions need to be confessed and forgiven, good deeds and virtues to be celebrated and honored. Eternity, the "tempo“tempo­ rality of the New Creation:' Creation,” as R. Russell brilliantly names it, "is “is not only a time of endless rejoicing in all that is true and good and beautiful, it is also a time of leaving off and destroying of all that is wrong and false and ugly in this creation through the amazing grace of justice and mercy bequeathed to all oflife Christ:' 73 of life in the Incarnation, life, ministry, death, and Resurrection of Christ.”73 Hence, judgment is necessary to account for sinners' nothsinners wrongdoings; it is noth­ ing capricious or external, but rather "executes “executes that which is in the nature of 74 the case" and for the faithful, for case” in light of Goďs Gods eternal justice and truth, truth,74 the sake of the gateway for forgiveness and purification. Judgment is a frequent biblical theme, so much so that we hardly need to draft a list of passages. When it comes to the agent of judgment, the New Testament does not speak with one voice. lt It is clear that God the Father is “Eschatological Credibility;' Credibility,” p. 54. 71. Polkinghorne, "Eschatological 72. Volf, "Enter “Enter into Joy!" Joy!” p. 277; Polkinghorne has persistently and widely argued for

the same kind of view, as explained in more detail below. 73. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 6. 74. Pannenberg, ST 3:6n. 3:611. Materially similar is the Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, "Eschatology;' “Eschatology,” pp. n2-13. 112-13.

103

HOPE

5:13; 11 Pet. 4:5; Rev. 20:11; and so forth). Jesus’ judge (Matt. 6:4; Rom. 3:6; 11 Cor. 5=13; Jesus' role as judge, however, is more complicated: it is said, on one hand, that Jesus judges no one (John 3=17; 3:17; 8:15-16; 12:47), but on the other hand, that he serves buton as judge (John 5:22; so also 11 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10). Jesus’ Jesus' role as judge comes to the fore through the New Testament link with the Jewish expectation of the Son of Man who comes in the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13; Mark 13:26; 14:62; 75 Luke 12:8; Acts 10:42). However, at his coming Christ brings grace (1 Pet. 1:13), io:42).75 and even now he acts as our Advocate (1 John 2:1). Furthermore, the Spirit’s Spiriťs role is also connected with judgment at times (John 16:8). How do we collect these various testimonies into a systematic statement concerning the agent of judgment? We can follow Pannenberg here: "Christ “Christ assigns condemnation to none. He himself is pure salvation. Those who stand with him stand in the place of deliverance and salvation. Condemnation does not come from him. lt It is found only where people remain aloof from him and is due to their remaining on their own. The word of Christ as the offer of salvation will then make clear that the lost drew their line themselves and separated themselves 76 from salvation:' salvation.”76 Regarding the standard of the judgment, the New Testament speaks of it Goďs will (cf. Matt. 6:10), the word in many complementary ways, including God’s of Jesus (John 12:48), or more widely, the message of Jesus (see particularly bywhich Luke 12:8-9). Indeed, "[t]he “ [t]he message ofJesus of Jesus is the norm by which God judges personally;' not of course in even in the case of those who never meet Jesus personally,” relation to the response to the gospel (which is impossible in that case), but in keeping with the direction in which Jesus’ Jesus' message points.77 points. 77 Theologically this can be expressed in the following way: "Eternity judgment “Eternity is judgm ent.... . . [because it] brings the truth about earthly life to light.” light:' That, however, does not mean the annihilation or destruction of creatures, because God, the Judge, is also 78 Creator, who holds fast to his creatures. Therefore, we have to say that for creatures.78 creatures, "confrontation “confrontation with eternity means judgment only insofar as they have made themselves autonomous in relation to God, separated themselves 79 creatures:' 79 from him, and thus become involved also in conflict with fellow creatures.” Indeed, already in this life judgment has begun, and those who submit their lives under purifying and reconciling judgment may hope to be preserved 75. See Pannenberg, ST 3:608-9, 613. 76. Pannenberg, ST 3:613-14 ((614), 614), on the basis of Ratzinger, Eschatology, pp. 205-6. 77. Pannenberg, ST 3:614-15 (615). 77Coming oj 78. Moltmann ((Coming o f God, p. 236) rightly notes that ultimately the question of judgment is "the “the question about God" God” and whether he wishes to hold on to his creatures. 79. Pannenberg, ST 3:610.

104

The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation

at the last judgment.80 judgment. 80 Even if the faithful may suffer loss as their lifework "burns up" like wood or stubble, their lives will be saved (1 Cor. 3U2-15).81 3:12-15). 81 Un­ Un“burns up” like for those who continue to live separately from God or are merely nominal Christians, for the followers of Christ who already share in the death, judg­ judgment, and raising to new life with their Savior, judgment will be "redemptive “redemptive transformation.” 82 82 Although judgment has to bring purification from sinfulsinful­ transformation:' 83 ness and filth, it is not the consuming fire (1 Cor. 3:12— p2-15). 15).83 This cleansing effect of judgment is the necessary precondition for the hodily "perishable puts on bodily resurrection to happen in the new creation as the “perishable 84 the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality” immortality" (1 Cor. 15:54). i5:54).84 Herein resurthe work of the Spirit also comes to the fore. Paul's Pauls description of the resur­ rected life as soma pneumatikon, "spiritual body" (v. 44) -— and Christ as the “spiritual body” "life-giving “life-giving spirit" spirit” (v. 45) -— implies that the transformed life in new creation is made possible only by the life-giving Spirit. As a result, in the "change" “change” (vv. (w. 51-52) from "earthly" “earthly” to resurrected body, the Spirit executes judgment as transformation. In keeping with this is the Pauline teaching that the Spirit 85 enables the believers to judge themselves (“all ("all things,” things;• 2:15; 11:31). n:3i).85 Hence, the Spirit bere here serves a dual role in the trinitarian work of o f the eschaton: both as the source of salvation and as the agent of judgment. Perhaps a fitting theological concept for that dual work is glorification, which "links “links the new life of the resurrection to the moment of judgment that carries with it the transfiguration of this earthly life by means of the relation to God the Father and to the praise of God. The glorifying of God in this comprehensive 86 sense is the proper and final work of the Spirit of God:' God.”86 Who or what will be judged? According to the New Testament teaching, Goďs sight it is works (1 Cor. p2-15), 3:12-15), whether as affirmation of their value in Gods or as condemnation. In that light, we have to be critical of the idea of judgment per se as our "justification:• jus“justification.” I agree with M. Volf that rather than "objects “objects of jus­ ti.fication;' judgment:' This refutes tification” works are "an “an object of negative or positive judgment.” 80. For judgment judgrnent as a rneans Jsa. 1:25; Mai. Mal. 3:2-3. means of purification, see Isa. 81. Pannenberg, ST 3:610-12. 82. Pannenberg, ST 3:616-17 (617), following Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 206. 83. Pannenberg, ST 3:617. 84. Pannenberg, ST 3:619-20. o f the significance of the 85. Pannenberg, ST 3:622-23; Pannenberg (p. 623) reminds rerninds us of Gospels' judgrnent Gospels’ linking of the Spirit baptisrn baptism of the Son of Man with fire, that is, purifying judgment (Luke 3:16; Matt. 3:11). 86. Pannenberg, ST 3:623-24; for further reflections on the integral link between the Spiriťs Spirits work and that of the Son at his return, see pp. 626-28.

105

HOPE

the idea that "God persons:' 87 Although fair and “God will justify lived lives, not alive persons.”87 thoroughgoing, judgment is not an act of divine wrath or vengeance. The judge 88 is not only the Creator, as discussed, but also the Savior. This judge is fair Savior.88 and his judgment is in proportion to our opportunities and resources (Luke 12:48). "The “The judge will be none other than the Christ, who died in the place of those who sinned and suffered the fate of those who were sinned against.”89 against:' 89 Ultimately, we can be confident that "the “the final judgment is not a judgment of Gods grace which he has extended to us our merits, but of our response to Goďs 90 Christ.”90 in Jesus Christ:' Judgment is not only about the preconditions for the entrance to new creation and our standing before the holy God. It also aims at reconciliation of our lives, both at the personal and communal level.

al and Social Lives Judgment and Reconciliation of Person Personal Is it the case, as is often claimed, that for reconciliation to happen, all deeds and memories need to be "healed" “healed” and reconciled? Paul Tillich put forth the thesis that in "eternal “eternal memory" memory” the negative memory is not remembered but it) is present in rather "acknowledged “acknowledged for what it is, non being ... . . . [and that it] the eternal memory as that which is conquered and thrown out into its naked 91 If I correctly understand his idiosyncratic nothingness (for example, a lie):' lie).”91 exposition, it seems to me that Tillich is mistaken in making the negative "nonexistent" “nonexistent” in eternity. Nor do I think that (literally) all memories must be recollected in order for reconciliation to happen. A better approach is that of “by enjoying what is the Cappadocian Gregory of Nyssa, according to which "by more worthy,” worthy;' memory of inferior things is blotted out, since "at “at each stage the greater and superior good holds the attention of those who enjoy it and does not allow them to look at the past.”92 past:'92 Gregory argues on the basis of the infinity of God that in eternity an ever-deepening knowledge of God and 87. Volf, "Enter “Enter into Joy!" Joy!” p. 263, emphasis in original, in critical dialogue with Jiingel, "The “ The Last Judgment as an Act of Grace." Grace.” 88. Schwarz, Eschatology, p. 392. 89. Volf, "The “ The Final Reconciliation:• Reconciliation,” p. 102. 90. Schwarz, Eschatology, Eschatology, p. 391. Consider the counterintuitive essay title of Patrick Miller's: Millers: "Judgment “Judgment and Joy:• Joy.” 91. Tillich, ST 3:400; see also the insightful comments by Hick, Death and Eternal Life, Lije, pp. 216-17. of Nyssa, Song oj of Songs, p. 128, cited in Volf, "Enter “Enter into Joy!” Joy!" p. 269. 92. Gregory ofNyssa,

106

The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation

divine mysteries will take place, and we may gather from that the implication that the process helps us properly deal with memories (without ever cheaply forgetting them). In the sanctifying presence of God, in eternity — - to which, as argued, also belongs purifying judgment — - memories of wrong deeds (as corrected.93 well as omissions) will be healed and lives corrected.93 For that to happen, we should not think of eternity in terms of static timelessness. Rather, as argued above, though not time bound, eternity is "boundless “boundless temporality;' temporality,” which makes possible the idea of progress. Rather than temporality -— and hence the possibility of change and progress -— being an obstacle to be removed, it is rather a condition for the ultimate fulfillment. Furthermore, change and progress make it possible for the attainment of recrec­ onciliation. In that sense, Pannenberg's Pannenbergs idea of the "taking “taking up of time into progress. 94 That is the eternity" eternity” must not be understood in terms of the end of progress.94 positive meaning of Moltmann's Moltmanns affirmation of progress in postmortem life, in that he "believe[s] “believe[s] that Goďs Gods history with our life will continue after our death until that perfection is attained in which we will find rest and the joy of 95 eternal life:' Ali presuplife.”95 All notions of purgatory or other "intermediate" “intermediate” events presup­ 96 pose that. that.96 Indeed, argues the Methodist theologian J. Walls, even those who reject the doctrine of purgatory have to face the challenge of negotiating "the “the problem of sin and moral imperfection that remains in the lives of believers 97 at the time of death:' death.”97 This view is in keeping with Augustine's Augustines vision of new creation in terms "of perfec“of the happiness of the eternal peace, which constitutes the end or true perfec­ 98 tion of the saints" saints”98 in "peace “peace.... . . consisting as it does in the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God and of one another in God:' God.” This peace and happiness cannot be reached alone, but rather in communion with others, “life of the [heavenly] city is a social life.”99 life:' 99 Volf rightly reminds because the "life us: "If “If the world to come is to be a world of love, then the eschatological

93. For theFor importance of "remembering rightly"rightly” for the for sakethe ofsake forgiveness in this in th the importance of “remembering of forgiveness world, see my Spirit and Salvation, chap. 10. 10. 94. Joy!" pp. 269-70), to whom I am indebted, 94. I1 am following here Volf ("Enter (“Enter into Joy!” though I also engage Pannenberg from a slightly different perspective. 95. Moltmann, Coming oj of God, p. 192. “Psychopannia,” pp. 414-90, who clearly speaks of 96. Just consider John Calvin, in "Psychopannia;' continuous progress before the final judgment day. I am indebted to Volf, "Enter “Enter into Joy!" Joy!” p. 271. On the other hand, Calvin, as is well known, was adamantly opposed to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory (Institutes oj of the Christian Religion 3.5.6). 97. J. Walls, Heaven, pp. 53-62 (53). peace." 98. Augustine, City oj of God 19.11 (heading); chap. 13 speaks of "universa! “universal peace.” of God 19.17. 99. Augustine, City oj

107

HOPE

transition from the present world to that world, which God will accomplish, must have an inter-human side; the work of the Spirit in the consummation includes not only the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment but also the final social reconciliation:' reconciliation.” 100 100 Astonishingly -— against the mind-set of ancient times -— Augustine envisions not the deletion of distinctive features and diversities between people groups, but rather unity-in-diversity: "This “This heavenly city, then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is sese­ cured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced:'IOI introduced.”101 When it comes to reconciliation between peoples and groups, we have to go back to pneumatological resources, as highlighted profoundly by Panus" up in filial relationship with Jesus nenberg. It is the Spiriťs Spirit s work to "lift “lift us” Christ, the Savior, but not as individuals without an integral link with others, but rather as members of the same "body" “body” whose "head" “head” is Christ. This "ec“ec­ static" static” (as in "standing “standing outside one's ones self") self”) work of the Spirit both affirms the distinct personalities of each human person and binds each of them together with the "removal “removal of the individual autonomy and separation that are part 102 of the corporeality of earthly life:' This is already at work in the church, in life.”102 which "[i]ndividuals “ [individuals become members of one body when they no longer have to assert themselves against one another, but mutually accept one another for what they are in their individuality, and for what in this way they are also for 103 others:' Only then is it possible to dream of every person having "[moved] others ”103 “[moved] toward one's ones former enemies and embraced them as belonging to the same comcom­ munion oflove;' reconciliation. 104 of love,” a precondition for final reconciliation.104 Although not ultimately fulfilled until the arrival of the new creation, this vision urges Christian Christianss to make every effort to "maintain “maintain the unity of the 105 Spirit in the bond of peace" peace” (Eph. 4:3). 4:3).105 Not apathy or inactivity, but hope in reconciliation and peace is the proper attitude for those who dream of the city 100. Volf, "The “The Fina! Final Reconciliation;' Reconciliation,” p. 94. 101. Augustine, City oj of God 19.17. 102. Pannenberg, ST 3:551-52, 628-29 (628). 103. Pannenberg, ST 3:629, emphasis in original. 104. Volf, "The “The Fina! Final Reconciliation:• Reconciliation,” p. 104, emphasis in original. 105. See Volf, "The “The Fina! Final Reconciliation:• Reconciliation,” p. 105.

108

The Transition from Time to Eternity and New Creation

of God. There and only there will we finally experience the consummation for which judgment also makes a necessary contribution: The divine judgment will reach its goal when, by the power of the Spirit, all eschew attempts at self-justification, acknowledge their own sin in its full magnitude, experience liberation from guilt and the power of sin, and, finally, when each recognizes that all others have done precisely that — given up on self-justification, acknowledged their sin, and experienced liberation. Having recognized that others have changed -— that they have been given their true identity by being freed from sin -— one will no longer hapcondemn others but offer them the grace of forgiveness. When that hap­ pens, each will see himself or herself and all others in relation to himself or herself as does Christ, the judge who was judged in their place and 106 suffered their fate. fate.106 As discussed above (chap. 4), Chrisťs Christs resurrection is the "means" “means” by which Christians may hope for the transitioning from time to eternity, from conthis world to "new “new creation:• creation.” Building on that discussion, a systematic con­ sideration of the wider ramifications of Chrisťs Christ s resurrection as the gateway to the "resurrection" “resurrection” of the whole cosmos, and humanity as part of it, will be the theme of the following chapter.

106. Volf, "The Reconciliation;' p. 103. “The Fina! Final Reconciliation,” 10 9 109

6. Resurrection as the Destiny

of o f the Cosmos C osm os and Humanity

The Cosmic Significance of Jesus' Jesus’ Resurrection An indication of the significance of "reclaiming cos“reclaiming the resurrection in its cos­ differmological setting" setting” 11 is the fact that patristic theology at large (however differ­ ently cosmology was understood at the time) widely affirmed the link between Chrisťs world. 2 Highly significant is the fact Christs resurrection and the future of the world.2 that in several early theologies "the under“the resurrection was based on a strong under­ of God as Creator, and this led to a strong sense of Goďs purposes standing Gods for this material creation and its goodness:' goodness.”33 Tertullian begins his great study On the Resurrection oj o f the Flesh with these words: "The “ The resurrection of the dead is the Christian's Christians trust" trust” (1.1). Resurrection is a profound statement of the "Goďs No continuing value of creation that is in the midst of decay and death: “Gods to all evil and its privation of being falls together with his Yes in the final afaf­ dedared to be good.”4 good:' 4 firming of the creation as that which God has made and declared Early Christian theology rightly rejected Gnosticism, which could not embrace an eschatological vision related to bodily hodily and earthly realities because it "shared “shared the conviction that the present, embodied condition ofhuman of human concon­ sciousness is not a natural or ideal state, but is itself the sign of a fallen world.”5 world:' 5 1. 1.

Title for chap. 5 in Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology, p. 89.

2. For details, see Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology, p. 103; C. E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum;

Daley, "A “A Hope for Worms;' Worms,” pp. 136-64; N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, pp. 480-552. 3. Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology, p. 103. 4. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, p. 58. 5. Daley, "Eschatology Fathers;' p. 94. “Eschatology in the Early Church Fathers,” 110 110

Resurrection as the Destiny of oj the Cosmos and Humanity

In Against the Heresiesy Heresies, Saint Irenaeus combated these mistaken notions and affirmed not only the goodness of o f creation in general but also physicality and embodiment in particular, to which resurrection pointed. Rightly, avers Moltmann, "embodiment re“embodiment is also the end of the redemption of the world, the re­ 'The new earth' demption which will make it the kingdom of glory and peace. ‘The earth* completes redemption (Rev. 21), and the new ‘transfigured* 'transfigureď embodiment is the fulfillment of 8 ):'6 o f the yearning of the Spirit (Rom. 8).**6 The emphasis on physicality and embodiment reminds us of the neces­ necessary mortality and decay not only of humans and other creatures but also of the cosmos at large. The death-life/hope-despair paradox stands at the heart of the 7 as also is evident in both continuity and discontinuity Christian Easter message, message,7 between the risen Christ and the Christ before Easter. The risen Christ is the crucru­ cified one. On the other hand, "with “with his resurrection from the grave something had taken place akin to the original creation, and indeed transcending it. It was not just a miracle within the creation, but a deed so decisively new that it affected the whole of creation and the whole of the future:•e future.**8 As Thomas Torrance puts it, we can speak of the "mutual “mutual involution of mortality and immortality, death 9 and life, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ:' Consider in this light Christ.**9 the seeming paradox related to our own hope of the future, namely, that on the one hand, "flesh Goďs eternity, and yet it is physical “flesh and blood" blood** may not enter God’s resurrection that stands at the forefront of eschatological hope!10 hope! 10 Herein the role of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Life, comes to the fore: based on Christ’s Chrisťs resur­ resurrection, the Spirit is at work toward the final redemption of not only spiritual 11 Here again the dynamic of continuity and discontinuity but also hodily bodily life. life.11 -— or, as David Wilkinson puts it, the dynamic of the three interrelated themes 12 -— is again to be seen. of "continuity, “continuity, discontinuity, and transformation" transformation” 12 Recall that above we defined eternity as the "boundless “boundless temporality of the Trinitarian God;' God,” 13 13 which is the source of current time and of a radical transfortransfor­ Christ’s resurrection and the continuing work mation of the cosmos based on Chrisťs of the triune God toward the eschatological consummation. The eschatological 6. Moltmann, God in Creation, p. 246. 7. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, p. 199. 8. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, p. 36. 9. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, p. 48; see also Moltmann, Way of Jesus 213-14. Christ, pp. 213-14. 10. 2. 10. So also Polkinghorne and Welker, "Introduction:• “Introduction,” p. 2. 11. Moltmann, God in Creation, pp. 65-69. 11. 12. m-14. 12. Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology, pp. 111-14. 13. 13. R. Russell, Time in Eternity, p. 5 and passim. illl ll

HOPE

dimension of the resurrection reminds us of the integral link between creation and new creation; the redemption of space and time also bespeaks the healing and renewal of nature. The same God who in the first place created heaven and earth is going to show his faithfulness in renewing creation.14 creation. 14 An important 15 aspect of this renewal is the "redemption time:' 15 as argued above “redemption oj of space and time” (chap. 5). The Johannine Jesus' - as Jesus resurrection appearances (John 20-21) — - may much as exegetical disputes should be taken into careful consideration — be pointers to this healing of space and time. They were continuous with the premortem human life as dramatically exemplified by the eating of fish (21:13) and discontinuous in the apparent overcoming of oflimitations (20:19). 16 limitations of space (20:19).16 In sum: Chrisťs beChrist s resurrection, as "miraculous" “miraculous” as it is, is an event that be­ longs to this world, time, and space in order to secure not only the redemption 17 ofhuman but also all created life, as well as space and time. It of human life on this earth, earth,17 represents Goďs Gods "new “new things:' things.” 18 18 As said, it is not a matter of violating the laws of nature but rather of pointing to the eschatological reality in which "new “new kinds of laws" laws” will be put in place by the almighty God. Resurrection represents a "new" “new” kind ofhappening, of happening, anticipating the coming to fulfillment of the creational proj­ project, as it were. On the basis of the hypostatic-union principle, Christian theology affirms that "in ... there is involved an hypostatic union between “in the risen Christ Christ... beeternity and time, eternity and redeemed and sanctified time, and therefore be­ tween eternity and new time:' time.” 19 19 The ascension of the resurrected Christ takes this development even further and completes the process of the "taking “taking up of human time into God:' God.” As a result, in the risen and ascended Christ, "the “the life ofhuman of human 20 beings is wedded to eternal life:' That is the topic topíc of the rest of this chapter. life.”20

Death -— the "Last “Last Enemy" Enemy” Ihe The Question oj of Death lt It says something about our modem modern culture in the Global North that a best seller since the 1970s has been the anthropologist and philosopher Ernst Beck­ Beck14. For a robust discussion of this theme, see Moltmann, Way of ojJesus Christ, 246-73Christy pp. 246-73. 15. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, p. 90, emphasis in original. 16. See further T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, pp. 90-91. 17. See further T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, pp. 86-87. of God, pp. 27-29. 18. See Moltmann, Coming oj 19. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, p. 98. 20. 20. T. Torrance, Space, Time, and Resurrection, p. 98. 112 112

Resurrection as the Destiny oj o f the Cosmos and Humanity

er's humaner s book Ihe The Denial ofDeath. o f Death. Its main thesis is simple and profound: human­ 21 ity fears death death21 and hence seeks to either ignore or overcome it. Death seems to make null and void all hopes we and our legacy may have of o f any lasting convalue. Ironically, it is so true that although humanity is the only species con­ 22 scious of its mortality, it also refuses to acknowledge it! it!22 But it is also true that modem purmodern society has pushed death out of its pur­ view and does everything in its power to deny the reality of death -— so much death:>n Whereas in the past, even so that we can speak of the "trivialization “trivialization of death.”23 the recent past, death was an everyday experience — - dead corpses frequently - that is no longer remained in the house while awaiting final preparations — the case in the societies of the Global North. At the same time, the human life span has extended considerably during the past centuries, particularly in the 24 twentieth century. century.24 That said, there is wide interest in the phenomenon of death in academia, 25 such that a new field has emerged: thanatology. thanatology.25 Wide and deep debates about what constitutes death have been with us for some time.26 time. 26 According to the 1981 US Uniform Determination of o f Death Act, death is defined in terms of "either “either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of o f all functions of o f the entire brain, including the 27 brain stem" stem” (§1). (§i).27 Biologists debate not only how exactly to define death but also whether death is inevitable. Opinions vary. Yet it seems that, in light of contemporary thermodybiology, "[a]t “ [a]t the organismal Jeve!, level, there are no physiological or thermody­ 21. 21.

The title for Becker's Beckers chap. 22 says it all: "The “The Terror of Death:' Death” See Hick, Death and Eternal Lije, Life, p. 13. 13. 23. Schwarz, Eschatology, pp. 4-5 (4). 24. For a highly insightful discussion of "the his“the changing sociology of death" death” during his­ Lije, chap. 4. tory, culminating in "the “the contemporary taboo;' taboo,” see Hick, Death and Eternal Life, For the difference from cultures in the Global South, e.g., in Africa, see Ogutu, "An “An African Perception,” pp. 102-11. 102-11. Perception:' 25. For basic issues and methods, see Handbook oojf Thanatology. For the Association http:/ /www.adec.org for Death Education and Counseling of the Thanatology Association, see http://www.adec.org /adec/default.aspx. A current academic journal is Advances in Thanatology, published by the Foundation ofThanatology, of Thanatology, Center for Thanatology Research and Education. Degree programs and certificates in thanatology have been established in some institutions, such as Marian http://www.marianuniversity.edu. University (Wisconsin): http:/ /www.marianuniversity.edu. 26. See further Bleich, "Establishing “Establishing Criteria ofDeath;' of Death,” pp. 28-32; Sumegi, UnderstandUnderstand­ ing Death, pp. 9-14. 27. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, "Uniform “ Uniform DeterDeter­ Act,” p. 3. mination of Death Act;' 22. 22.

113

HOPE

namic reasons why death must occur:' occur.” We know of a few unicellular species that do not undergo natural death, and there is at least one advanced mul­ mul28 ticellular species without a discernible process of deterioration with age. age.28 The evolutionary biologist J. P. Schloss concludes that although "death “death is not physiologically necessary necessary.... . . it has proven evolutionarily valuable;' valuable,” and that has to do with ecological matters, which are not of course infinite. As long as the resources of the cosmos are limited, its consumption and hence population 29 So, the precise response to the question above is: cannot be ever increasing. increasing.29 in our kind of world, death is inevitable (and, ironically, desirable from the evolutionary-ecological point of view). In the wider cosmic framework, death and decay are inevitable, as everything ultimately will come to an end. What makes death unique to humanity is that, differently from all other oflife. creatures, we alone have an awareness of the coming to an end of life. Animals know. 30 (similarly to human infants) do not have that capacity, as far as we know.30 What can be said safely is that even if higher animals may experience an inin­ stinctual awareness of impending death in danger, only humans can make it a theme and reflect on it. In humans, that capacity is related to the conception 31 of time with tenses. In that light, it is not a surprise that hope for life after tenses.31 death is deeply embedded in human evolution. The custom ofburials of burials going (300,000 to 50,000 50,000 years ago) is back at least to the (Middle) Paleolithic age (300,000 32 an indication of that hope. A related, much later development (fifth/sixth hope.32 centuries B.C.E.) b .c .e .) marked a significant milestone with an emerging awareness of individuality in Greece and Israel, which meant that death came to be a one's own life was but part of the threat in a way it had not been felt as long as ones 33 collective. collective.33 Philosophers -— particularly in the twentieth century — - have devoted 34 death. In his profound a lot of o f attention to the (existential) meaning of o f death.34 28. For information on this species, the bristlecone pine, see the article on the Blue Planet Biomes Web site: http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/bristlecone_pine.htm. 29. Schloss, "Prom “From Evolution to Eschatology;' Eschatology,” pp. 82-84 (83). 30. Schwarz, Eschatology, p. 23; for his nuanced treatment of a traditional view, see pp. 16-26. 31. Pannenberg, ST 3:556. 32. Lieberman, Uniquely Human, Lije, Human, pp. 162-63; see also Hick, Death and Eternal Life, pp. 55-58. 33. The philosopher Karl Jaspers took this as an important cultural shift in his Origins and Gaal Goal oj o f History, History, pp. 18-21; see Pannenberg, ST 3:556-57. For a highly useful historical of beliefs about afterlife and immortality among both the Jews and tracing of the emergence ofbeliefs Lije, pp. 60-73. surrounding cultures and religions, see Hick, Death and Eternal Life, Lije (including M. Heidegger, 34. A A useful primer is chap. 5 in Hick, Death and Eternal Life

114 114

Resurrection as the Destiny oj o f the Cosmos and Humanity philosophical analysis of death in Being and Time, the secular existentialist Martin Heidegger sets forth and develops the thesis that human life -— which is "being-there" - is in its authentic form “being-there” (or "being-in-the-world;' “being-in-the-world,” Dasein) — also a robust acknowledgment of its nature as "being-towards-death:' “being-towards-death.” Only then can "being-there" “being-there” be understood as a "whole:' “whole.” This is because "being“beingthere" there” is always "being-ahead-of-itself"; “being-ahead-of-itself” ; that directness forward, however, off its life, Dasein is will find its end in death. Until then, "at “at each moment o Being-ahead-of-itself, oriented towards the realm of its possibilities, and is thus incomplete. Death completes Dasein's existence:' 35 Death, hence, in that Dasein s existence.”35 36 special Heideggerian sense, means fulfillment ooflife. Heidegger'ss final con­ conf life.36 Heidegger atclusion is that, on the one hand, as long as there is existence, it has not yet at­ tained totality, which only gives it final meaning, but that, on the other hand, 37 when that happens, "being" “being” is not there anymore. anymore.37 For his fellow atheist existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, on the contrary, there is nothing noble about death (as much as he otherwise appreciated Heideggers Heidegger's thought). In his Being 38 and Nothingness, NothingnesSy Sartre merely laments that we are "condemned “condemned to be free;' free,”38 but that freedom is worthless, as we are totally left to our own devices in a world without meaning. Finally, we all face death. "Thus “Thus we must conclude in opposition to Heidegger: death, far from being my peculiar possibility, is a contingent fact which as such on principie principle escapes me and originally belongs 39 to my facticitY:' facticity.” 39 Among contemporary theologians, no one has provided such a nuanced theology of death as the Roman Catholic Karl Rahner. Rather than the traditradi­ tional (Catholic) idea of death being the separation of soul from body, Rahner whole" 40 because the human considers "death “death as an event concerning man as a whole”40 41 Rahner'ss description of death as hu­ huperson is "a “a union of nature and person:' person.”41 Rahner man persons' persons "free, “free, personal self-affirmation and self-realization ... . . . achieved

J.J.-P. -P. Sartre, and D. Z. Phillips). Chapter 8 continues that discussion by focusing specifically on a comparison between atheistic (naturalist) humanists such as Bertrand Russell and religions’ religions' insistence on immortality. “Martin Heidegger:' Heidegger.” 35. M. Wheeler, "Martin 1; for concluding thoughts on death, 36. Heidegger, Being and Time, division 2, 2, question 1; see also pp. 304-7 particularly. An unparalleled recent discussion is Pattison, Heidegger on Death. 37. Heidegger, Being and Time, p. 280; see Pannenberg, ST 3:557. 38. Sartre, Being and Nothingness, p. 186. 39. Sartre, Being and Nothingness, p. 697. For details, see P. Edwards, “"Heidegger Heidegger and Death as 'Possibility."' ‘Possibility.’” 40. Rahner, On the Theology of Death, chap. 11 title (p. 13). 41. Rahner, On the Theology of Death, p. 13.

115

HOPE 42 in death definitively;' clearly comes much doser Heideggeťss than to Sardefinitively,”42 closer to Heidegger Sar­ tre's tres view. Rahner's Rahner s view of death as "end" “end” (ofhuman (of human life) and its "fulfillment" “fulfillment” also differs significantly from the atheist philosopher philosopher'ss view in that for Rahner one's the self-realization can happt:n happen only when the human person surrenders ones life to Christ, in "dying “dying with Christ, the participation in, and appropriation of, his redemptive death:' God. 43 death.” Otherwise the sinner excludes oneself from God.43 Another innovative idea ofRahner's spirof Rahner s is that at death "[t)he “ [t]he human spir­ particiitual soul will become ... . . . 'pancosmic'"; pancosm ic” ; that is, in some real sense it partici­ pates in the rest of the cosmos. For Rahner, this does not mean some kind of pantheistic nonindividualized absorption of the soul by the world any more than it means the soul's souls omnipresence in the whole cosmos. Rather, it means that "the hodily structure in death, becomes “the soul, by surrendering its limited bodily open towards the universe and, in some way, a codetermining factor of the universe precisely in the latter's latter s character as the ground of the personal life of other spiritual corporeal beings:' faith's conviction that beings.” lt It is supported by faiths each personal life in some sense is coresponsible for attitudes and behavior toward other people and the world. In other words, Rahner does not wish to set up the physical/material and spiritual/"soulish" spiritual/“soulish” in opposition to each other, 44 Rahner's interpretation has not although he affirms a body-soul distinction. distinction.44 Rahner’s been followed at large (nor condemned as heretical).

Toward a Contemporary Theology oj o f Death John Hick makes the important observation that because of of"so “so vivid a sense of the reality and love of God, and of Christ as having overcome death” death" among the earliest Christians, those who had died were considered to have reached the final blessedness ahead of others, and therefore those remaining did not necessarily Paulíne consider physical death a tremendous tragedy. tragedy With the consolidation of Pauline theology, as authoritatively established later by Augustine, however, death came 45 to be seen as an enemy and punishment for sin. sin.45 Regardless of the historical accuracy of that thesis, it is uncontested that until modernity physical death was attributed to original sin and the Fall in Christian tradition.46 tradition. 46 With the rise of 42. Rahner, 011 On the Theology oj o f Death, p. 18; on the inevitability of sin, see pp. 15-16; so also pp. 32-33 and passim. 43. Rahner, 011 On the Theology oj of Death, p. 36. 44. Rahner, 011 On the Theology oj of Death, pp. 20-23 (20, 21). 45. Hick, Death a11d and Eternal Lije, Life, p. 207. 46. Representative examples are the Council of ofTrent, Trent, Session V, "Decree “Decree concerning

116 116

Resurrection as the Destiny of oj the Cosmos and Humanity

evolutionary theory, this belief has been replaced by the "naturalness" “naturalness” of death 47 because of finitude. finitude.47 Barth, in contrast with tradition and in agreement with liberal Protestantism, rightly saw that "finitude mortality:' 48 “finitude means mortality.”48 The traditional position of course claimed biblical support. Even concon­ is not possible temporary exegesis must grant, it seems to me, that for Paul "it “ it to exclude so-called natural death as not being cointended" cointended” in passages such 49 as Romans 5:12 and 11 Corinthians 15:44-48. Be that as it may, we know that 15:44-48.49 death is "natural" “natural” in the sense that all individuals of all species must die to make room for the next generation. Nor do we really find solid basis in the biblical narrative for the idea of the immortality ofhumanity of humanity before the Fall. In modem modern theology, a correct terminological distinction was made between "natural" “natural” death that is not related to sin but to finite nature and the death of "judgment" “judgment” that manifests intensification of the personal feeling toward death in light of the possibility ofbeing God. 50 of being cut off from the life of God.50 The idea of death as "natural" “natural” -— while true -— has to be handled with care and qualified theologically. First of all, while inevitable, death is not "nat“nat­ ural" ural” to (at least) human persons. The Catholic catechism puts this seemingly paradoxical statement in perspective: "Even man's nature is mortal “Even though mans 51 Second, in biblical estimation, God had destined him not to die" die” (#1008). (#ioo8).51 Tesdeath, while inevitable, is seen as an "enemy" “enemy” (1 Cor. 15:26). In the Old Tes­ tament, death means separation from God (Ps. 88:5) and has nothing to do with the establishment of life's fulfillment. Death is not to be idealized, and basic human intuition tells us that death ends the life drive and prevents lifes life's 52 fulfillment. ofHeidegger's fulfillment.52 As a result, even Rahner's Christianized version of Heideggers idea of death hardly can be supported.

Sin,” June 17, 17,1546; (Melanchthons) Apology of the Augsburg Confession 2.47, p. 106. Original Sin:' 1546; (Melanchthon's) For a constructive theology of sin and the Fall in light of Christian tradition, contemporary sciences, and living faith traditions, see chap. 16 in my Creation and Humanity. 47. Schleiermacher ((CF CF §76.2, p. 319) correctly noted the presence of death everywhere in nature and thus that it is not the result of sin. 48. Barth, CD III/2, p. 625; so also Jiingel, Death, p. 120. Schleiermacher had already made a distinction between death as "natural" “natural” and as curse (dueto (due to sin), CF §75, pp. 315-17. 49. Pannenberg, Anthropology in Iheological Theological Perspective, p. 129. 50. For details and documentation, see Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Iheological Per­ Perspective, pp. 138-39. 51 . I1 am indebted to Schwarz, Eschatology, p. 259. Materially similarly, the Orthodox 51. David Bentley Hart, "Death, ofLife:' 477“Death, Fina! Final Judgment, and the Meaning of Life,” p. 477. 52. Pannenberg, ST 3:558; Anthropology in Iheological Perspective, p. 138. p. 13 Pannenberg, STPannenberg, 3:558; Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective, 1:21 is not a way to glorify death but rather an expression of Paul's Pauls intense longing Even Phil. 1:21 to be with the Lord.

117 117

HOPE

So, how should Christian theology view death? It should "understand “understand 53 presupposition;' 53 death as a necessary companion of o f life, and its actual presupposition,” yet as something to be defeated because it is the "last enemy" (1 Cor. 15:26). True, “last enemy” to the created and contingent life in this cosmos, death and decay belong as the condition of the continuation of life. In that perspective, to be born is to die. But eschatological faith visions a world in which death, as the last enemy, will be destroyed, and in which God, as the giver oflife, of life, grants as gift eternal life. Death then is "natural" “natural” only in the sense that no creature can avoid it in our kind of world. The overcoming of mortality as a divine gift from the Creator (rather than as an innate capacity) can be only imagined in view of the "new “new creation:' creation.” Only in new creation are resources infinite -— a necessary precondition for the continuation of life forever -— in contrast to this world, in which only death guarantees the availability oflimited resources. 54 of limited resources.54 In theological perspective, death as much as birth and life is ultimately only in the hands of the Creator. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger captured it well: the human being] cannot bring forth of himself, so neither can "Just “Just as ... . . . [[the 55 he hurl it back into sheer nothingness:' nothingness.” 55 What about "after" “after” physical death? With some overgeneralization we might say that among theologians there are two ways to intuit the relationship of each individual person's persons death and the resurrection of all at the eschaton. On the one hand, there is the idea according to which physical death marks a total cessation and there is no continuity in the "intermediate “ intermediate state:' state.” On the other hand, there is the traditional dualistic anthropology that feeds the idea that while the body decays totally, the soul more or less independently continues its existence until the two finally become united again; this latter view is shared with Jewish and Islamic traditions. In contrast to these two, I seek to construct a radical middle position. On the one hand, we have to underline the radical coming to an end of human life at physical death: "Death “Death denotes a demarcation between this life and the hereafter, a demarcation so radical that it could hardly sustain the idea of a continuance, unless we talk about a 'shadowy shadowy existence' existence in analogy to 56 On the other hand, to combat the obvious implication existence in Sheol:' Sheol.”56 53. Schwarz, Eschatology, Eschatology, p. 253. 54. For this point and related considerations (e.g., having to do with energy flow and biomass turnover, as much as those can be imagined on the basis of parallels from this world), see Schloss, "From “From Evolution and Eschatology;' Eschatology,” p. 84. 55. Ratzinger, Death and Eternal Life, p. 156, cited in Schwarz, Eschatologyy Eschatology, p. 277. 56. Schwarz, Eschatology, p. 278. 118 118

Resurrection as the Destiny of the Cosmos and Humanity that therefore the newly resurrected body means once again creation ex nihilo (because of the lack of any form of continuity), I wish to insist that the hope for a personal resurrection in new creation means that death is not the final end. Perhaps a fitting way to express this theologically is to name "death “death as finality 57 and transition:' transition.” 57 Even if one may no longer find compelling the traditional idea of the soul's souls survival without the body, there are satisfactory ways of speaking of"continuity" of “continuity” in Goďs Gods memory or similarly (to be discussed below). Moltmann puts it succinctly: "Goďs “Gods relationship to people is a dimension 58 of their existence which they do not lose even in death:' death.” 58 He reminds us of the important statement ofLutheťs: of Luther s: 'í\.ccordingly, “Accordingly, where and with whomever God speaks, whether in anger or in grace, that person is surely immortal. The Person of God, who speaks, and the Word point out that we are the kind of creatures with whom God would want to speak eternally and in an immortal 59 manner:' Moltmann names this "dialogical immortality" (in contrast with manner.”59 “dialogical immortality” 60 process theology's theology s "objective “objective immortality"). immortality”).60 However exactly the theology of death is conceived, Christian tradition agrees that the belief in the resurrection of the body is hope for defeating death in the new creation. Having clarified its meaning and conditions, we will also investigate the question of the "intermediate" “intermediate” state, that is, what, if anything, "happens" “happens” between my own death and the resurrection of all? Recall that the linking of o f personal and communal hope is one of the necessary tasks for a constructive eschatology.

Human Destiny Resurrection as Homan Theological Desiderata fo o f the Body 1heological forr the Hope fo forr the Resurrection oj

We have argued that the resurrection of o f Jesus Christ on the first Easter morning provided the "first fruit:' an anticipation, a prolepsis of the coming “first fruit,” new creation in which the power of o f entropy, ultimate decay and death, is o f the cosmos anticipates the new creation in which overcome. The whole of 61 all of creation will participate (Rom. 8:19-27). con8:i9-27).61 In that it signals the con­ 57. Schwarz, Eschatology, p. 296. 58. Moltmann, Coming of God, p. 76. 59. Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 26-30, in LW 5:76. 60. Moltmann, "!s nomencla“Is There Life after Death?" Death?” p. 246. Ratzinger uses the same nomencla­ ture, as will be discussed below. 61. See further Peters, God -— the Worlďs Worlds Future, p. xi. 119 119

HOPE

summation of history and creation in the coming of the righteous rule of God, the Uruguayan liberationist Juan Luis Segundo sees the resurrection of Jesus as the "primordial" “primordial” event that is nothing less than the recapitulation of the universe, an eschatological sign of coming consummation.62 consummation. 62 Humanity’s Humanity's hope participates in this cosmic hope. Hence, resurrection is nothing less than "healing, “healing, lifting up and projection of o f human being into a new order of 63 things:' Furthermore, our argument has been that the hope for resurrection things.”63 is not merely "spiritual" “spiritual” and abstract but rather an all-inclusive, personal, and "newly" “newly” embodied existence in communion with the triune God, other 64 people, and new creation. creation.64 Having set forth and clarified these theological desiderata, we now take up a complex and complicated task. It is one thing to affirm the theo­ theological significance of o f the hodily bodily resurrection in the Christian eschatoeschato­ logical vision; it is another thing to intuit how it may happen: in other words, how could we envision the transition from premortem embodied existence (via physical death as well as general resurrection and judgment) to postmortem "physical" “physical” resurrection existence in the new creation — o f has to be the same person!65 person! 65 particularly when the person we speak of resurrection 66 -— or Unless one wishes merely to affirm the possibility of o f resurrection66 stay "agnostic" happen 67 — “agnostic” about how it may happen67 two interrelated, complicated intellectual tasks face the constructive theologian. First, how do we think of the nature ofhuman of human nature in general? (One's (One’s theological anthropology sets the parameters and conditions for the resolution of this question.) Second, based on one's one’s conception of o f human nature, one has to choose from among various options in philosophical and theological traditions concerning the 68 idea of o f the transition. transition.68

62. Segundo, An Evolutionary Approach to Jesus oj of Nazareth, pp. 111-14 111-14 particularly. 63. Segundo, An Evolutionary Approach to Jesus oj of Nazareth, p. 86. Escha64. Dabney, "Justified “Justified by the Spirit;' Spirit,” pp. 61-62, cited in Wilkinson, Christian Escha­ tology, p. 98. 65. On the suprerne supreme irnportance importance of this question and its corollaries, note that it also greatly concerned Ratzinger, Eschatology, p. 106. 66. Cf. Tertullian ((On On the Flesh oj Chrisťs resurrection that o f Christ 5), who said of o f Christ’s "the arn indebted to Gasser, introduction to “the fact is certain, because it is irnpossible"; impossible” ; I am PIR, p. 3. 67. Cf. Merricks, "The Body;• p. 481. “ The Resurrection of the Body,” 68. For a fairly cornprehensive comprehensive and accessible account, see Baker, "Persons “Persons and the Metaphysics of Resurrection," Resurrection,” pp. 168-75. 120 120

Resurrection as the Destiny oj o f the Cosmos and Humanity 1he The Dilemma oj o f Personal Identity in New Creation

Already in early Christian theology the problem of explaining the transition from the earthly life to the life to come was clearly acknowledged. What can be conveniently called the "anthropology “anthropology of composition'' composition5became a fairly standard view in patristic theology: once the body decays at death, on the last day God reassembles it from the last constitutive material particles available and rejoins it with the soul that