Proceedings Chapter

Editors' Introduction

CHALAMET, Christophe, et al.

Abstract

Introduction to the Volume "Game Over? Reconsidering Eschatology"

Reference

CHALAMET, Christophe, et al. Editors' Introduction. In: Chalamet, C. ; Dettwiler, A. ; Mazzocco, M. & Waterlot, G. Game Over? Reconsidering Eschatology. : Walter de Gruyter, 2017.

DOI : 10.1515/9783110521412-201

Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:97634

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1 Editors’ Introduction

This book gathers most of the papers which werepresented at an international theological conference held at the University of Geneva (October 22–24,2015). The conference was organized by the University of Geneva’sFaculty of , jointlywith the Institut romand de systématique et d’éthique (IRSE),which be- longstothis Faculty. The project of organizingaconference on the topic of eschatology emerged duringadaylongconference on the thought of Jacques Ellul, as several members of Geneva’sTheologicalFaculty began discussing the question of the traditional Christian representations of “the end,” and especiallyits relationship to recent developments within the natural sciences on the end of the universe. The general public hears from the natural sciences that the universe will eventually die. Jour- nalists who cover the naturalsciencesask not whether the universe will die, but how that willhappen.¹ How should Christian theologyconsider the narrative(s) of the natural sciences concerning the final cataclysm towards which the uni- verse as awhole appears to headed ?Needless to day, with its vision of an ulti- mate judgment and redemption, in which will wipe “every tear from their eyes” (Rev 21:4), in which God willbe“all in all” (1 Cor 15:28), Christian theology makes very different claims about the eschaton,i.e.the “end” of all things. Hencethe (somewhat catchybut theologicallyquestionable) title of the Geneva conference and of this book: “Game Over – good news or bad news?” Should we set out to reconcile the rather “bad” news which seems to be conveyedbysci- ence with the “good” news which is proclaimed by the New Testament witness? Shouldweconsider,asJohn Zizioulas suggests in aforthcomingwork,² the claims made by the natural sciences as the confirmation of the Church Fathers’ insights into the creatureliness,and hence intrinsic finitude, of the created order?This suggestion is enticing,but it risks leading us either into asomewhat schizophrenic existence: Christians oughttoplace their trust in acertain vision of the “end,” but as women and men of the 21st century they might find it diffi- cult to articulate this trust with the picture modern science presents to us. Or per- haps schizophrenia can be avoided, but in such away that,inthe Christian view, modernscience onlygives us one part of the equation (the finitude of the created

 PierreBarthélémy, “ Comment l’Univers va-t-il mourir ? ”, Le Monde (September 14,2016). http://passeurdesciences.blog.lemonde.fr/2016/09/14/comment-lunivers-va-t-il-mourir/(consult- ed on 2017/01/05).  Cf. John Zizioulas, Remembering the Future. An Eschatological Ontology (Bloomsbury T&T Clark).

DOI 10.1515/9783110521412-201

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM X Editors’ Introduction order), whereas the Christian adds something crucial, namely: the world will indeed end, but God, as creator of the world, will renew it through God’sres- urrectingpower. As the table of content of the present volume indicates,some of the papers do touch on the relationship between theologyand the natural sciences,but we did not wish to exclusively focus on this difficult,perhaps intractable, question. Our aim was to gather together exegetes,historians of ideas, philosophersofre- ligion, scholars of theologyand literature, ethicists, and systematic theologians. We hoped to foster aconversation across severaldisciplines, even if our central goal was to enrich the current theological reflection. The “rebirth” of eschatology within theologycan be traced back to a67 pages pamphlet published by the New Testament scholarJohannes Weiss in 1892: Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht).³ As is well-known, in this work Weiss questioned the modern, including Albrecht Ritschl’s, interpretation of ’smessageconcerning God’sKingdom. As a thinker influenced by Kant and Schleiermacher,Ritschl stressedthe ethical sig- nificance of the Kingdom. In his view, “Kant […]was the first to perceive the su- preme importance for ethics of the ‘Kingdom of God’ as an association of men [sic] bound togetherbylawsofvirtue.”⁴ ForJesushimself, the Kingdom of God was “the moral end of the religious fellowship He had to found.” Jesus did not understand by it “the common exercise of worship, but the organization of humanitythrough actioninspired by love.”⁵ And so, to Ritschl,who had to defend himself against critics who perceivedPelagian overtones in his thought, the Kingdom was both “our task to realize,” as well as “the highest good which God destinesfor us as our supramundane goal.”⁶ The Kingdom maybewhat we are called to fulfill, but this doesn’tmean the Kingdom has lost its transcenden- tal dimension.⁷ It is both apromise and atask.⁸

 Jesus’ Proclamation of the KingdomofGod,trans. RichardHydeHiers and David Larrimore Holland (Chico: Scholars Press, 1985; reprint of the edition published by Fortress Press in 1971). This is atranslationofthe first edition of J. Weiss’ book (the 2nd edition, published in 1900,was significantlyexpanded, from 67 to 210pages).  Albrecht Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation: ThePositiveDevel- opment of the Doctrine (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1900), III:11.This translation was based on the thirdedition of Ritschl’sbook, originallypublished in German in 1888.  Ibid.,12.  Ibid.,205–6.  “It is an essential characteristicofthe Kingdom of God that,asthe final end which is being realised in the world and as the supreme good of created spirits,ittranscends the world, just as God Himself is supramundane.” Ibid.,281.

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM Editors’ Introduction XI

Four years after Albrecht Ritschl’sdeath in 1889,Johannes Weiss, who hap- pened to be Ritschl’sson-in-law, argued that Jesus’smessageabout the Kingdom was essentiallyeschatological, rather than ethical:

It is evident fromagreat number of passagesthat Jesus thinks the establishment of the βασιλείατοῦθεοῦ will be mediated solelybyGod’ssupernatural intervention. Any human activity in connection with it thus is ruled out completely.[…]evenhe[Jesus] can- not intervene in the development of the Kingdom of God. He has to wait,just as the people have to wait,until God onceagain definitively takesuptherule.⁹

Such claims, to which some of us have become accustomed in recent Christian theology, were, then, quite revolutionary.Its impact was profound and lasting. Indeed, AlbertSchweitzer and , i.e. two of the greatest inter- preters of Jesus’slife and messageinthe 20th century, cannotbeunderstood if we omit the prior scholarshipofJohannes Weiss. The sameistrue of ’s earlydialectical theology, which alsoplaced eschatology at the center of biblical and theological interpretation, even if, in Barth’scase, the influenceofthe two Pietist pastors Johann Christoph Blumhardt and his son Christoph, and especial- ly their eschatological realism, is clear. “Jesus ist Sieger” (“Jesus is victor!”)was the battlecry of the two Blumhardts, and Barth remained impressed by their faith. The Blumhardts found an echo not just in Barth, but alsoinsignificant the- ologians of the last half-century such as JürgenMoltmann and Gerhard Sauter. Still other thinkers, such as Wolfhart Pannenbergand Robert W. Jenson, on the basisofother insights,made eschatology into acrucial theological theme. What should we make, today, of eschatology in our exegetical,theological and ethical reflection?The papers gathered here offer many possible answers to this question. But all of them, it seems to us, make clear or presuppose, in one wayoranother,thatthinkingand speakingabout the “end” can and should never be disconnected from the past and from our present,inall of its dimen-

 It “is promised onlyasthe ground of blessedness,while at the same time it is the task to which Christiansare called.” Ibid.,35.  JohannesWeiss, Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God,82–83.Or, elsewhereinthe book (91;see also 102–103,113 and 129–133): “So long as the time of the end can somehow be cal- culated, the establishment of the Kingdom remains ahuman work. But for Jesus it is unqualifi- edlythe work of God, and thereforetobeleft to God in every respect.”“[…]asJesus conceived of it,the Kingdom of God is aradicallysuperworldlyentity which stands in diametric opposition to this world. This is to saythat there can be no talk of an innerworldly development of the Kingdom of God in the mind of Jesus! On the basis of this finding, it seems to follow that the dogmatic religious-ethical application of this idea in morerecent theology,anapplication which has com- pletelystripped away the original eschatological-apocalyptical meaningofthe idea, is unjusti- fied.” (114).

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM XII Editors’ Introduction sions. This is one of the basic groundrules of anyeschatological discourse. The point of eschatology is not simplytoconsider what comes “at the end,” even less what comes “at the end”“for me,” but rather how thinking about the end, how hoping for acertain end, impactsour present understanding of life, socially,and individually. Speculations about an “ultimatestate” without consideration of what thatstate mayactuallymean for us or for our world, indeedfor creation as awhole, is of limited interest.Whether we consider the endpoint or,more broadly, the futureasthat towardswhich we are headed through astrictlyimma- nent,temporalcontinuum (futurum), or as atranscendent reality which is head- ed toward us (adventus), to borrow JürgenMoltmann’sinsightful distinction, such discourse does not abstract from our (or the world’s) present situation or from our past.’scritique of can be discerned behind the re- vised understanding of eschatology as adiscourse which concerns our present situation. Liberation and other forms of contextual theologies have especiallytaken such revisions to heart.AsJamesCone put it in Black Theology and Black Power:

The most corruptinginfluenceamong the black churches was their adoption of the ‘white lie’ that Christianity is primarilyconcerned with an otherworldlyreality.Whitemissionaries persuadedmost black religious people that life on earth was insignificant because obedient servants of God could expect a ‘reward’ in heavenafter death.¹⁰

This “whitelie,” in Cone’sview,needs to be eradicated and replaced by an es- chatology which “comestomean joining the world and making it what it ought to be. It means that the Christian man [sic] looks to the future not for arewardor possiblepunishment of evildoers, but as ameans of making him dissatisfied with the present.”¹¹ One of the manythingsadiscourse about the end (an eschato-logy) should do is remind us that we are not yetatthe end, but on our waytoit(or,again, that the end is on its waytous). This claim may, at first sight,appear rather innoc- uous. Not so! If we are not at the end, that means we are still searchingfor truth in its ultimate, full and final manifestation. Allwemay attain is aglimpse – a furtive,fragmented, glimpse of truth. The New Testament is filled with reminders of this fragmentariness, for instance when the apostle Paul writes, in 1Cor 13:12, that we “know onlyinpart”:rather than knowing “face to face,”“for now we see in amirror,dimly” (δι’ ἐσόπτρου ἐναἰνίγματι; per speculum in ænigmate,Vul- gate). If we are people still in via,then we should be wary of anyclaims of “own-

 James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power (New York: Seabury Press, 1969), 121.  Ibid.,126.

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM Editors’ Introduction XIII ership” or “possession” of the truth. Theologians call the emphasis on the “not yet”“eschatologicalreservation.” This is akey theological motif. It is, however,not just amatter of “knowing” or “understanding”.Itisalso a matter of conformity – or rather the tragic lack thereof – between our world and what our world is called to be or to become. If the “end” is aKingdom of justice, then this Kingdom compels us not justtopray “your Kingdom come!,” but also to live and act in ways through which this world mayreach, ever so slightly – and without the pretensetobe“building” the Kingdom – agreater conformity with regardtoits destination. But the “not yet” should not eclipse the “already.” Our knowledge of the “last things” (de novissimis)isfragmentary,but historians of theologyand phi- losophy, exegetes and systematic theologians,when they studythe Scriptures and their interpretation throughout history,encounter claims to acertain knowl- edge,claims which express the trust that something has alreadybeen unveiled about “the end.” Jesus put it clearly, and centrally, in his proclamation: “The Kingdom of God has become near” (Mark 1:15 par; ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλείατοῦ Θεοῦ). Thisisthe pivotofhis entire message, accordingtothe synoptic gospels – most New Testament scholars and theologians agree on this point.Everything, indeed, flows from it.Jesus’smessagewas eschatological through and through. But it was also apocalyptic, and here the matter suddenlybecomes more complex. Especiallyinthe anglophone world, debates among New Testament scholars between the “apocalyptic” interpretation of certain texts have been going on for several decades.Onlyrecentlyhavethey begun to permeate system- atic theologyand . “Apocalyptic” should not be confused with “es- chatological.” The two are not synonyms.Rather,wesuggest that anyapocalyp- tic discourse touches on eschatology,but eschatological discoursesortheories may, or maynot,beapocalyptic.¹² The two, thus, resemble two concentric cir- cles, with eschatology as the largercircle which includes the other one (apoca- lypticism). Jesus’smessage was thoroughly eschatological, but it also was thoroughly apocalyptic: God’ssovereign rule is at hand, the final manifestation or disclosure

 One of the foremost scholars of the ancient apocalyptic writings offers the followingdefini- tion: “‘Apocalypse’ is agenre of revelatory literaturewith anarrative framework, in which arev- elation is mediated by an otherworldlybeingtoahuman recipient,disclosing atranscendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisageseschatological salvation, and spatial, in- sofar as it involves another,supernatural world.” John J. Collins, “Apocalypse: The Morphology of aGenre”, Semeia 14 (1979), 9. See also John J. Collins, “Apocalyptic Eschatologyinthe Ancient World”,inTheOxfordHandbookofEschatology,ed. Jerry L. Walls (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 46.

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM XIV Editors’ Introduction of God’swillisabout to take place in these last days.The urgency of the good news suffuses much of the New Testamentcanon, and especiallyPaul’sepistles (see e.g. 1Cor 7:29a: “Imean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short”), all the wayuntil Romans. Interestingly,this urgency,alreadybythe end of the 1st century CE, led to some questions. It became necessary to interpret these claims, as 2Pet 3:3 – 4confirms.¹³ What are we to make, today, of the apocalyptic imagery which we encounter here and there in Scripture and in other ancient texts?There is no circumventing the necessity, the inescapability of interpreting these texts.Weare convincedthat Rudolf Bultmann’sdemythologizingprogram was an important attempt at think- ing through the ways in which the New Testamentmust be interpreted in the cul- tures of our present time, i.e. in cultures which are vastlydifferent from the cul- tural and theological presuppositions of the biblical (and otherancient) authors. Otherwise, as Bultmann sawitcorrectly, we risk replacing the true scandal, i.e. the scandal of asuffering Messiah, with false scandals which arise from the clash of radicallydifferent cosmologies and world-views (Weltbilder). We remain convinced of the necessity of interpreting Scripture through Scripture, which pre- supposesthe (communal) call to discern and distinguish expressions of the Good News from culturalaccretions which always accompanythese expressions. This does not need to entail the casting out of this or that canonical book, or of particularfigures or metaphors.Eschatology,asweindicated above, urgesusto resist all “definitive” or “final” conclusions. In Christian theology, the “end” is not areturn to the “beginning”–Augus- tine was not at his most inspired when he stated, in asermon: “Then we shall return to the beginning.”¹⁴ Forwhat is envisioned is aheavenly city (Rev 21:2.10 – 27;22:1–3), not agarden. Andyet the end is not without relation to the “beginning.” The telos of God’screative act is inscribed right from the begin- ning,tothe point where, as John Zizioulasputs it in his signal contribution, the beginning makes sense onlyinlight of the eschaton (infra, 259). As Augustine

 “First of all youmust understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffingand indulgingintheir own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? Foreversince our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation’!” (2 Pet3:3 – 4). The author adds: “But do not ignore this one fact,beloved, that with the Lord one dayislike a thousand years,and athousand years arelikeone day. The Lordisnot slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wantingany to perish, but all to cometo repentance.” (2 Pet3:8 – 9).  Augustine, Sermon 259,2(givenin393). QuotedinBrian E. Daley, TheHope of the Early Church: AHandbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 150.

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM Editors’ Introduction XV put it,this time in away which, to us, is profoundlytrue: “fecisti nos ad te”– “youmade us for yourself.”¹⁵ The telos (ad te)isalreadypresent in the original and ongoing creative act (fecisti). And, as sawit, if the telos weretodisappear,orifitdid not exist,then what would there be left for us to desire?¹⁶ “Although the end be last in the order of execution,yet it is first in the order of the agent’sintention. And it is this waythat it is acause.”¹⁷ The end- point,ortelos,isintrinsically connected with the starting point,with the cause, orienting it in aparticulardirection. The end is not areturn to the origins,and it is also not asalvation or re- demption in the sense of an escape from this world. Heretoo, the metaphor of the city,which descends from the heavens, is significant and helps us frame the “end” not as an “extraction” (or as a “rapture”)awayfrom the material world, but rather as anew entrance into the world. The modern critique of Chris- tianity as areligion centered on an other-worldly “illusion” waswarranted. It still needs to be heard today. In conclusion,and returningone last time to the bishop of Hippo,itmay be that we wish to follow Paulinus of Nola who, when asked by Augustine for his opinion on “what the activity of the blessed will be in the next age, after the res- urrection of the flesh,” replied “that he is more interested to receive Augustine’s advice on how to live in the present world.”¹⁸ Our claim, following in James Cone’s(and manyothers) footsteps,isthat the two, i.e. the reflection about what is to come and the burningquestions concerning this life and this world, ought not to be disconnected, but rather articulated. The Christian Churches,inthe West,are in adeepcrisis, which began along time ago, in the course of the modern era(17th–18th centuries). Chances are that those who are not facing this crisiswill eventually(and sooner rather than later) join the others and experiencethe difficulty of transmitting the Gospel to the new generations. Thinking about eschatology,aswellasapocalypticism,helps us see whythe crisis is so profound, to the point whereready-made solutions are similar to asmall bandagebeing placed on alarge,bleeding wound. Chris- tians themselvesare confused as to what they mayhope. Are they supposed to

 Confessions I,1.  Summa theologiae Ia-IIae,q.1,a.4.  Ibid.,q.1,a.1.  Epist. 45,4 (letter from 408), quoted in Daley, TheHope of the Early Church, op.cit., 159.Pau- linus of Nola did add, however (in Brian Daley’swords), “likeAugustine, that the norm for con- ceivingthe stateofthe blessed in heavenmust be the risen Christ,and that their activity will be to praise God, in harmonywith each other and with the angels,usingthe tongues of their trans- formed bodies as well as their minds.”

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM XVI Editors’ Introduction believeinthe glorious return of JesusChrist,orisit“optional,” i.e. reserved for deeplyreligious and convinced believers?Ifthis optional, whyisthatthe case? If it isn’t, what exactlydoes the discourse about such a “return” mean?These ques- tions, among others, reveal the predicament Christian theologyisand has found itself in, for quite some time. The present volume does not pretend solving these issues and releasingusout of this predicament.Itis, rather,anattempt at think- ing,onthe grounds of arigorous studyofScripture and othertexts as well as on the grounds of the Christian faith, about what we mayhope. We attempt to do this through four main avenues, i.e. the four main parts of the book which, in turn, focus on biblical interpretation and reception (I), mod- ern science and transhumanism (II), the political,literature, and ethics (III), and afinal part dedicatedtoconstructingtheological and philosophical perspectives (IV). Readers who wish to read summaries of each contribution mayconsult them at the end of the volume (427–436). Thefour parts of the book,and the wealth of insights each contains,are atestimonytothe plurality of perspectives through which the topic of eschatology can be considered. We wish to thank the threeeditors of the Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann for welcoming this book in this prestigious collection, as well as the editors at de Gruyter who shepherded this book from inception to publication, especially Dr.Alissa Jones Nelson, Dr.Albrecht Döhnert,Stefan Selbmann and Antje-Kris- tin Mayr.

Brought to you by | Université de Genève - Bibliothèque de Genève Authenticated | [email protected] author's copy Download Date | 9/27/17 9:46 AM