L-G-0008528755-0017860938.Pdf

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe

Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

315

Eschatology of the New Testament and Some Related Documents

Edited by Jan G. van der Watt

Mohr Siebeck Jan G. van der Watt, born 1952; Professor of New Testament Studies, Radboud Univer- sity Nijmegen, Netherlands and extraordinary professor at the North-West University, South Africa.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151814-0 ISBN 978-3-16-150973-5 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio- graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2011 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany. Preface

In theological circles the meaning of the term ‘eschatology’ (first used in the seventeenth century) seems clear – coined on the Greek word , it refers to a set of doctrinal teachings concerning the ‘last’ or ‘final’ things that will occur ‘at the end’. At a conference on the eschatology of the New Testament and some related documents, held at the Uni- versity of Pretoria in 2007, it became evident that this is more or less where the consensus ends. Simply agreeing on what should be included or excluded when dealing with the concept of eschatology of the New Testa- ment has proven to be a challenge, leading to intense debates. Efforts in formulating an overarching definition that would include the variety and richness of what eschatology is about, has resulted in a deadlock. That is why the authors of this volume were asked to state their views on eschatology in their respective articles – by reviewing the diverse set of articles in this volume the multiple dimensions, variety, depth, mystery as well as problematic nature of analyzing New Testament eschatology will become evident. As such this volume offers a bird’s eye view of the intricacies, variety, similarities and possibilities that arise when one addresses the issue of eschatology. In the introductory chapter Jörg Frey gives some indication of the multiple hurdles that have to be faced: there are the historical questions of the origin and history of religions framework of New Testament eschatology, the tension between the different eschatologies of the New Testament, their coherence and distinctive character, and the hermeneutical issues of the interpretation and application of the eschatologically related ideas of the New Testament. Especially pertinent is the question of the relationship between the eschatological images of the New Testament and those of the present day, since, in essence, eschatology deals with the relationship between the past, present and future – it is a matter of the present experience of people being interconnected with an expectation about the (eternal) future in the light of experiences and prophecies from the past. How literally or figuratively should these eschatological images that express such related elements be understood? Each of these areas offer challenges of their own which are addressed in different ways in the articles, although not every article deals with every problematic aspect. It must be noted that the aim and focus of this volume is not to describe the characteristics and nature of the eschatological material of the New Testament systematically, neither to VI Preface treat the question of the application of the resulting material in current day situations, although the necessity of doing that also is acknowledged.1 Eschatology focuses on specific events related to and expected at the ‘end of times’. These are not just ordinary everyday events but presuppose a period(s) or situation(s) in history in which things were(are) not ideal and are experienced as an (existential) crisis. Hope is created (through, for instance, prophecy or prediction) that this crisis or even the dispensation (situation) within which the crisis is prevalent, will pass and be replaced (in future) by a new changed period in history that will be ideal. The changed situation will bring a final and lasting end to the crisis and inau- gurate a new situation in which ideal circumstances result which will pre- vail. Different aspects are therefore relevant for this process, namely: time (i.e. periods, the question of when, etc.); action (i.e. judgment, regenera- tion, restoration, the question of how, etc.); and space (i.e. situation, status, place, the question of where, etc.). Central to the eschatology of the New Testament is the coming, presence and future expectations of Jesus Christ. As Messiah, and Son of God, he addressed the crisis of evil and brought the rule and kingdom of God near. He opened up new possibilities of becoming part of this kingdom which inaugurates a new era. Wolter underlines that proclamation and faith are only eschatological events because they proclaim Jesus Christ and belief in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one who acted decisively in history and is expected to return to earth soon. This return will herald the final eschatological consummation, starting with the raising of the dead and their trans- formation as well as the final judgment, leading to destruction of everything that opposes God. This final future consummation is only part of what could be called eschatology – many eschatological expectations that originated in the First Testament were already fulfilled in the past with the coming of the Messiah, inaugurating the era of the coming of the kingdom. For present day readers many of these eschatological events are past already, although they still determine the present day eschatological situation. One should therefore distinguish between past, present and future eschatological events. Apart from this, different categories of eschatological events may be distinguished, for instance, universal (cosmic), individ-

1 Although current day issues are undeniably part and parcel of eschatological discussions, dealing with the hermeneutical presuppositions for applying the material of ancient documents to situations today, as well as analyzing the different views currently being held would have overburdened this volume. The same applies to the vast amount of material about eschatology that forms part of the Wirkungsgeschichte of this concept through the ages. Our surveys are limited to the analysis of the texts of the New Testament and some related material, which forms and formed the basis and point of departure for considering eschatology. Preface VII ual, or social eschatological events, involving different aspects of the eschatological process. From this it is evident that a complicating factor in considering New Testament eschatology is the relationship between expectations (prophecy), fulfilment during the New Testament period, prophecies still to be fulfilled (like an idyllic new Jerusalem), as well as new prophecies deliv- ered during that period (such as the return of the Messiah). What took place during and after the New Testament times was not a complete consummation of what was expected, although the presence of the eschatological times was experienced in different ways – some eschatological events were still (and still are) awaiting fulfilment: it is indeed a matter of already-not yet. When considering issues related to eschatology, the focus cannot be restricted to events that lie in the future only (from the position of the current reader), rather situations in the present as well as in the past should be considered as part of the process. Identifying, categorizing, and relating these different eschatological events become important tasks in formulating one’s eschatological perspectives. The order of the articles in this volume follows the canonical sequence. Other ways of ordering were possible (i.e. Johannine, Lukan, Pauline material could have been ordered together), but by following the canonical order we hope to give the necessary emphasis to the individual documents as unique writings. For this reason we also asked different authors to deal with, for instance, the Johannine, Pauline or Lukan material. Following the Pauline articles, Wolter gives an overview of the Pauline discussions, since the multiple Pauline letters do offer some cohesion. Some articles on material related to the eschatology of the New Testament are also added. We were interested in how the eschatological ideas of the New Testament were received in documents immediately following them (like Gnostic documents or the writings of the Church Fathers) or documents that overlapped in time (like the Didache). Obviously not all the relevant documents could be treated and a selection had to be made. Since the relevant documents are so numerous overview articles on the eschatology of the Church Fathers and Gnostics have to suffice, with the exception of 2 Clement. This gives some impression of the earlier reception of the eschatological ideas of the New Testament. I would like to thank Petrus Maritz for his editorial assistance, as well as Jörg Frey and Mohr Siebeck for publishing this volume in the WUNT II series.

Nijmegen Jan van der Watt April, 2011

Table of Contents

Preface ...... V

Introduction

Jörg Frey New Testament Eschatology – an Introduction: Classical Issues, Disputed Themes, and Current Perspectives ...... 3

Eschatology: Gospels and Acts

Andries van Aarde ‘On Earth as it is in Heaven’– Matthew’s Eschatology as the Kingdom of the Heavens that has Come ...... 35

Ernest van Eck Eschatology and Kingdom in Mark...... 64

Michael Wolter Eschatology in the Gospel According to Luke...... 91

Jan van der Watt Eschatology in John – A Continuous Process of Realizing Events ...... 109

Ulrich Busse Eschatologie in der Apostelgeschichte...... 141

Eschatology: The Letters of Paul (Pauline and Deutero-Pauline)

Cilliers Breytenbach ‘For in Hope We Were Saved’– Discerning Time in Paul’s Letter to the Romans ...... 181 X Table of Contents

Wolfgang Kraus in collaboration with Martin Kraus On Eschatology in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians ...... 197

Stephan Joubert Paul’s Apocalyptic Eschatology in 2 Corinthians ...... 225

Francois Tolmie Living in Hope ‘in the Fullness of Time’ – The Eschatology of Galatians...... 239

Petrus J Gräbe ‘And he made known to us the mystery of his will …’ – Reflections on the Eschatology of the Letter to the Ephesians ...... 256

Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte In Search of Hope. Eschatology in Philippians ...... 269

Jeremy Punt Eschatology in Colossians – ‘At Home in the World’...... 283

Pieter G R de Villiers In the Presence of God – The Eschatology of 1 Thessalonians ...... 302 The Glorious Presence of the Lord – The Eschatology of 2 Thessalonians...... 333

Bernhard Mutschler Eschatology in the Pastoral Epistles ...... 362

Jeremy Punt Eschatology in Philemon –‘Biding the Time’ ...... 403

Michael Wolter The Distinctiveness of Paul’s Eschatology ...... 416

Eschatology: General Epistles, Hebrews and Revelation

Gert J Steyn The Eschatology of Hebrews – As Understood within a Cultic Setting . 429

Patrick J Hartin James and Eschatology – Place and Function of Eschatology within a Letter to the ‘Twelve Tribes in the Dispersion’...... 451 Table of Contents XI

Fika J van Rensburg The Eschatology of 1 Peter – Hope and Vindication for Visiting and Resident Strangers ...... 472

Jörg Frey Judgment on the Ungodly and the Parousia of Christ – Eschatology in Jude and 2 Peter ...... 493

Ruben Zimmermann Remembering the Future – Eschatology in the Letters of John...... 514

Jan A du Rand Depicting Eschatology in the Apocalypse of John...... 535

Eschatology: Some Explorations into its Immediate Influence and Development

Jonathan A Draper Eschatology in the Didache...... 567

Hennie Stander The Eschatology of the Theologians of the Second Century...... 583

Tobias Nicklas Gnostic ‘Eschatologies’ ...... 601

Wilhelm Pratscher Eschatology in 2 Clement ...... 629

Hermut Löhr The Role of Eschatology in New Testament Moral Thought – Some Introductory Observations ...... 644

List of Contributors...... 667 Index of Authors...... 671 Index of Sources ...... 681

Introduction

New Testament Eschatology – an Introduction Classical Issues, Disputed Themes, and Current Perspectives

Jörg Frey

Eschatology has always been one of the most disputed fields within New Testament exegesis. The reason for this can only be understood in light of the history of modern interpretation. The present introduction will, therefore, go back to the roots of modern critical exegesis and focus on some of the most fervent debates of New Testament scholarship. Although the heat of those battles has cooled down, some of the theological and hermeneutical questions discussed in earlier periods are still unanswered and deserve being further considered.1 Eschatology – literally translated the ‘teaching of the Last Things’ – is full of unresolved questions that cover a number of dimensions: first, there is the issue of the history-of-religions context and the question of the origins and character of early Christian eschatological imagery, which is still openly debated although in some aspects a wide consensus has been achieved. Even more open – and strongly influenced by hermeneutical presuppositions – is the debate on the internal coherence and distinctive character of the eschatologies not only of the historical Jesus, but also of Paul, John and the other early Christian authors, and – even more – the issue of the coherence of the diverse early Christian eschatologies. Do they enable us to draw a coherent image of the parousia of Christ, of resurrection, judgment and eternal life? The most urgent and problematic field seems to be the question how the eschatological imagination of the New Testament authors is related not only to the ‘real’ world of the addressees but, even more, to the world as we understand it in modern times. This dimension has often set the agenda of the debates within theology and between aca-

1 A comprehensive book-length treatment of New Testament eschatology is still a de- sideratum. Cf. however, some important articles by Aune (1992), Klein (1982), Linde- mann (1999) and Merklein (1995). The differences represent the variety of scholarship in the last decades. Whereas Klein still continues the lines of the Bultmann school, Linde- mann has largely left them behind, and Merklein and especially Aune represent very different viewpoints. See also the comprehensive treatment in New Testament theologies, most thoroughly Hahn (2003, 2.738–798) and the discussion (in comparison with Qum- ran views) in Hogeterp (2009). For a more recent systematic approach (with consideration of the exegetical discussion) see Schwarz (2000). 4 Jörg Frey demic theology and Christian communities. It is still debated in broad circles whether the eschatological expectation as expressed in the New Tes- tament is ‘reliable’ as a part of Christian doctrine that can be taught and should be accepted as a truly Christian expectation even today. Or is it, as many critics inferred, merely ‘speculation’ and as such a less reliable part of the Christian doctrine due to the fact that human beings – including the New Testament authors – are simply unable to know the future? Or should one consider New Testament eschatology to be a rather ‘symbolic’ uni- verse that can only be interpreted as an expression of the Christian self- understanding or as a means to provide a framework of orientation within a (perceived) crisis of faith, of the respective community, or of the world? What is, therefore, the relationship between eschatology and ‘reality’? The history of interpretation of Revelation, e.g., is full of bizarre attempts to link the visions narrated in that book with real events in political or church history – in order to maintain the idea that the prophetic visions of the last book of the Bible were ‘true prophecy’ and to determine the interpreters’ positioning within the schedule of an allegedly prophesied world and end history. Whereas such interpreters (including theologians such as Martin Luther and Johann Albrecht Bengel2) have tried to tighten the relationship between the eschatological visions of the Bible and the ‘reality’ of world history, others have expressed the suspicion that the eschatological views of the New Testament express or even stimulate a lack of interest in the real problems of this world and society, with the consequence that the apocalyptic views should be rejected for the sake of an orientation towards ‘reality’.3 But the questions about the relationship between eschatology and ‘real history’ have not only accompanied the interpretation of Revelation, although this last book of the Bible was most often read as a prophecy of the last period in history. But if this book could be marginalized by the mainstream church as a ‘dark’ or even ‘dangerous’ book to be left for the en- thusiasts and ‘sectarians’, the issue was unavoidably linked with the central teachings of Paul and also with the teaching of Jesus. Thus, one of the most fervently debated problems has been the question how the idea of the imminent end of the world and of Jesus’ parousia should be understood in

2 Cf. Luther’s Preface to the book of Revelation from 1530 where he reads Revelation as an account of Church history. On Luther’s interpretation cf. Maier (1981, 267–306), more extensively Hofmann (1982). On Bengel’s interpretation of Revelation see Maier (1981, 393–439). On the history of interpretation of Revelation see also Frey (1999, 50– 67), more comprehensively Maier (1981), for the first millennium Kretschmar (1984). 3 It should be noted, however, that not only is Marxist criticism of religion based on a rejection of the ‘other-worldly’ orientation of Christian tradition but also that Marxism as a social utopia is in itself a secularized form of earlier Christian eschatological and chili- astic views. Introduction 5 the face of the obvious delay of the parousia. Or, phrased even more pro- vokingly: How can we cope with the error of Jesus regarding the end of the world and beginning of the kingdom of God, or, respectively, the error of the apostles (such as Paul) regarding the impending return of Christ? Al- though the scholarly view that the delay of the parousia was the most important motif of the development of early Christian theology, has been widely abandoned, interpreters cannot deny the fact that at least Paul had expected to see the coming of Christ during his lifetime (cf. 1 Thess 4:15, 17 and 1 Cor 15:52). If this is accepted, the consequence is almost un- avoidable: Paul’s expectations are far from being a firm basis of any Chris- tian doctrine of what is to come; they must be interpreted in historical terms as a time-related expression of his own religious viewpoints, as a perspective that had to be corrected at least when Paul – and all the others of the first Christian generation (cf. Mk 9:1; Joh 21:22–23) – had died before the end of the world. Therefore, it has been in the field of eschatology that traditional views of Christian doctrine have had to face their most severe crisis. The historical approach developed in modern interpretation has plainly demonstrated the time-dependent character and the limitations of early Christian views that had formerly been held to represent the ‘Last Things’, the final word about human history. On the other hand, many Christian communities still maintain a naïve understanding of early Christian eschatology, which is almost untouched by debates within academic and critical theology. Espe- cially in conservative or evangelical Protestantism, there are still numerous attempts to construct an eschatological ‘time-table’ or to teach a coherent scheme of eschatological expectation, composed from the harmonization of very diverse elements from different Biblical traditions and books: Thus, the time calculations of the book of Daniel, the narrative sequence of Revelation, and the notion of a ‘rapture’ found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 are naïvely combined in disregard of the historical situation and perspective of the different authors and books, based on an assumption of a supernatural ‘harmony’ of the different views and teachings of the Biblical authors. The fact that such constructs are even utilized to frighten people or to urge them to accept the ‘good news’ of salvation before the coming plagues, or even to legitimize violence and wars against those who are viewed to represent evil, amply shows that eschatology is one of the most ‘dangerous’ fields of New Testament teaching and that there is a deep and vital need for sober and critical reflection. The crisis of traditional eschatology was most strongly felt within Ger- man theological tradition from the impact of enlightenment through the nineteenth century until the school of Rudolf Bultmann. After some terminological remarks (I), I will, therefore, provide a brief sketch of the exe- 6 Jörg Frey getical (and theological) debate which may not be so well-known within an English speaking and non-European context (II). Then I will briefly com- ment on some important issues and categories of the exegetical debate (III) and, finally, phrase some preliminary perspectives for further discussion (IV).

1. The Term ‘Eschatology’ and the Confusion of Theological Language

‘Eschatology’, the logos of the ‘Last Things’ (ta eschata; cf. Eccl 7:36), is not an ancient term but was coined in the seventeenth century within classical Lutheran dogmatics. The term can be found first in the title of the fifth part of the dogmatics of Philipp Heinrich Friedlieb published in 1644: Eschatologia seu Florilegium theologicum exhibens locorum de morte, resurrectione mortuorum, extreme iudicio, consummation seculi, inferno seu morte aeterna et denique vita aeterna. In this title the themes of what is meant by ‘eschatologia’ are enumerated: Eschatology is about death, the resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, the end or dissolution of the world, about hell or eternal death and, finally, about eternal life. Somewhat later, the famous Lutheran dogmatist Abraham Calov called the 12th volume of his comprehensive dogmatics Systema locorum theologicorum which appeared in 1677, c SACRA (Hjelde 1988, 37). Nei- ther of these authors explain the term more precisely. Possibly it is taken from 1 Corinthians 15:24 where denotes the act of the final deliverance of the kingdom from Christ to God himself, i.e. the beginning of God’s eternal kingdom (Sauter 1988, 191). In German, the term occurs first in Christian Wilhelm Flügge’s Geschichte des Glaubens an Un- sterblichkeit, Auferstehung und Vergeltung from 1795 (Hjelde 1988, 97ff.), and, within an exegetical context, as a heading in Gottlob Wilhelm Meyer’s Entwickelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffes from 1801, where it is adopted with the remark that it had become usual only quite recently (Lona 1984, 14). Thus, eschatology emerged as an exegetical category only about 1800. But only by the influence of the school of the so-called ‘consequent eschatology’, i.e. Johannes Weiss and, more influentially, Al- bert Schweitzer4, was it moved to the centre of the exegetical and – even more – the theological debate. At least in the early works of the so-called ‘theology of crisis’ or ‘dialectical theology’, eschatology became a central term of Systematic Theology.

4 This term was created by Schweitzer (1906/1913), who thus linked his views with the work of Weiss (1892). Introduction 7

The precise meaning of the term, however, was often unclear, and the ‘confusion of language’ has been criticized by a number of authors (Hjelde 1988, 15–33; already Holmström 1936, 8–15, and Wanke 1978). This is largely due to the fact that influential theologians of the twentieth century such as Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann used the terms ‘eschatology’ or ‘eschatological’ in a sense that differed completely from its traditional reference to the ‘Last Things’ to be expected in history or at the end of the personal life. Instead, these theologians used the term to express timeless realities or the ultimate perspective on human existence in the present. In his famous exposition on Romans the eminent Swiss theologian Karl Barth phrased most radically and influentially: ‘Christianity, which is not totally and completely eschatology, has totally and completely nothing to do with Christ’.5 Quite similarly, numerous other authors of this period were eager to affirm that eschatology (radically distinguished from ‘apocalypticism’) is not about the end of history but about what is beyond or transcends history. Thus the term got an atemporal meaning, strongly related to the present realities. The new meaning could become usual due to the fact that the term was so prominent in the theological debate that it could not be avoided, whereas on the other hand, most theologians of that period could not consider the traditional idea of a remote final period of history or a remote final judgment of any meaning or even religious value for contemporary thought. What should be considered, instead, was the transcendent or ultimate reality beyond history – and this is what now was called ‘eschatological’. In the theology of Rudolf Bultmann and his school, the term ‘eschatological’ could even adopt the meaning of ‘truly Christian’ (Körner 1957, 77; cf. Frey 1997, 87f.). Due to these terminological changes, theologians are now used to distinguish between a ‘future-oriented’ and a ‘present-oriented’ type of eschatology, i.e. between an expectation of imminent or even more remote acts or dispensations and, on the other hand, the conviction that the things originally expected are now at hand or even fulfilled. In contrast with earlier scholarship, it is no longer possible to use the attribute ‘eschatological’ only for expressions of the first ‘line’ of eschatological thought and to la- bel the second, present-oriented line ‘non-eschatological’. Accordingly, New Testament exegesis also has to distinguish between two ‘lines’ of eschatological expressions or ideas in early Christian texts: first the reference to events, situations or circumstances that were traditionally expected in the future or linked with the end of the individual life or the end of time, and second the idea that at least some of those elements of traditional expectation are now made present or fulfilled (in Christ, in

5 In the German original: ‘Christentum, das nicht ganz und gar und restlos Eschat- ologie ist, hat mit Christus ganz und gar und restlos nichts zu tun’ (Barth 1921, 298). 8 Jörg Frey the Christian community or the individual life of the Christian). Thus we find the idea of God’s kingdom still to come (Lk 11:2) or already arrived, e.g. in Jesus’ acts (Lk 11:20), or the idea of resurrection and life to be present in Jesus (Joh 11:25) or expected for ‘the last day’ (Joh 6:39, 40, 44, 54). In some passages, the two ‘lines’ of eschatological expression are even presented side by side in one phrase, thus most clearly in John 5:25 (cf. 4:23): ‘The hour is coming – and now it is’. In this saying, the traditional expectation of a ‘coming’ hour and the announcement that this eschatological hour is now present are straightforwardly connected – with the implication that what was formerly expected is now present when Je- sus’ words are proclaimed. Such passages show that it is textually justified to call the present-oriented line of thought ‘eschatological’, since it refers to motifs or themes which were originally or traditionally expected to come, but are now considered to be at hand, in Jesus’ presence or in the time of the community. The question is only, why and how the formerly expected goods or acts can now be considered to be present and, moreover, whether the presence of those goods still allows for a future completion. Can we assume that an early Christian author, such as the Fourth Evangel- ist, wants to express that the time of the community is, strictly speaking, the last hour of the world, so that there can be no idea left of another last day or another last hour in any future time? Or more generally: Does the fact that the eschaton is made present, exclude any further expectation of eschatological ‘fulfilment’ or ‘consummation’ as (logically) impossible? Or is such an interpretation rather a modern idea, depending on a modern logic, which cannot be applied to an ancient author? It is, therefore, important to describe eschatological expressions as precisely as possible with regard to their orientation toward the present or toward a cosmic or trans-cosmic future. Or, more precisely, it is necessary to ask for the concept of time (and space) involved in such expressions and to interpret them within their ancient context. A second task is, then, to consider how those ideas – phrased within an ancient world-view – can be of theological relevance or even be meaningful for Christian life within the modern or post-modern world view.6 On the field of eschatology, the hermeneutical challenge is most obvious, and a naïve transmission of New Testament concepts into the present – as often practiced in traditional and conservative Christian circles or, especially in evangelical preaching – has to face massive problems.

6 Such considerations are absolutely necessary, but they should be kept separate as a second step rather than already setting the scene for the description, classification and historical contextualization. Otherwise, we get into a vicious circle in which we only see what we already know or want to see. Introduction 9

2. The Deconstruction of Eschatology in the Modern Debate: From Reimarus to Schweitzer and Bultmann

To understand the reason for the deconstruction of traditional eschatology, we should briefly look at the history of modern theology and the begin- nings of critical exegesis (with particular focus on German Protestantism).7 According to Albert Schweitzer’s famous history of the life-of-Jesus research (Schweitzer 1913, 65), the ‘discovery’ of eschatology can be traced back to the Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768).8 Influenced by the English Deists, Reimarus advocated a type of enlightened ‘natural religion’. The famous ‘fragments’ from his work, published only after his death and anonymously by the philosopher Gotthold Ephraim Lessing,9 caused a fierce debate on religion and criticism in German intellectual circles between orthodox defenders of supranaturalism and moderate advocates of enlightenment, the so-called ‘Fragmentenstreit’. In the fragment ‘Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner Jünger’, Reimarus radically distinguished between Jesus’ own views and intentions and the later views and intentions of his former disciples, the apostles, thus initiating the historical quest for Jesus. In Reimarus’ own skeptical view, Jesus was a Messianic pretender with political ambitions, but the failure of his way to Jerusalem was veiled by a fraud of his former disciples who took away his corpse, claimed his resurrection, interpreted his fate as sacrificial death and transformed the expectation of the imminent inauguration of the God’s kingdom into the hope for a promised second coming of Jesus. The delay and final non-fulfilment of the expectation of the parousia and modern historical research demonstrate, according to Reimarus, that the traditional Christian hope is based on a fraud, so that the Christian claim of revelation appears to be false. Reimarus’ questioning of New Testament eschatology thus caused a general questioning of Christianity, which since then has been confronted with a suspicion of deception and religious fraud.10

7 Here, I draw largely on my work on the history of research on (not only) Johannine eschatology: Frey (1997). 8 Before Reimarus, there was already the criticism of some Deists such as Matthew Tindal in his work Christianity as Old as the Creation (1730) who observed that most of the apostles had erred in their expectation of the parousia of Christ, and concluded that even more parts of their teaching might be erroneous (Erlemann 1995, 2). 9 Reimarus’ work is now published as a whole, cf. Reimarus (1972). On Reimarus see most recently Klein (2009). 10 For the pre-history of the accusation of deception see already the anonymous work (probably written about 1546 by Jacques Gruet against the views of Jean Calvin) De Tribus Impostoribus (= On the Three Deceivers); cf. Gericke (1982). 10 Jörg Frey

The reactions to that challenge were manifold. Apart from the defenders of orthodoxy, scholars such as Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791)11 sug- gested that in their eschatological ideas, Jesus as well as his apostles had simply adapted themselves to the mindset of their addressees. According to this so-called ‘Akkobmodationstheorie’ (cf. Hornig 1961, 211ff.), the real character of Jesus’ teaching was not shaped by those Jewish or ‘apocalyptic’ elements, but simply by morality and spiritual veneration of God. The elements of future-oriented eschatology in Jesus’ teaching could be viewed as a simple adaptation to the views and ideas of his contemporaries. Con- sequently, God’s kingdom as actually proclaimed by Jesus, was conceived of not as outward, political and imminent, but as inward, spiritual and already present. The ‘future’ aspect of eschatology was widely dismissed, and only the hope for personal immortality could be retained. As a side effect, the truth of Jesus’ teaching and its claim for revelation were largely based on his distance from contemporary Judaism and its ‘apocalyptic’ eschatological expectations. Interestingly, Semler and others found Jesus’ true eschatology in the Gospel of John, whereas the Synoptic views were regarded as simple adaptations to the mindset of the contemporaries. Thus, the Gospel of John was actually used as the criterion to separate between true religious teaching and mere didactic adaptation. Eschatology was pressed into categories such as outward versus inward, sensual versus spiritual, political versus religious, national-particularistic versus univer- salistic, and also ‘future-oriented’ versus ‘present’-oriented. During the whole nineteenth century, the debate – at least in German speaking Protestantism – was strongly dominated by different attempts to demonstrate that the truly Christian type of thought was oriented not towards a remote and uncertain ‘kingdom’ in a mythological future or heav- enly realm, but rather to this world, to present religious experience and morality. In the intellectual debates of this period, such a concept of Chris- tianity appeared to be the only one that could escape the criticism that had been expressed against the traditional expectation of the parousia of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment with punishment and reward.12 To intellectuals of this period such a teaching could not rea- sonably be adopted or was even suspected of being a mere element of clerical rhetoric to keep people under control. And if human behaviour was

11 Semler’s most important contribution to Biblical criticism was his claim (in his work Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Kanon (4 vols. 1771–1775) that the canonical writings should be investigated freely, without presupposing a particular quality or inspired character, as human writings – and that also their claims regarding authorship, historical reliability etc. should be investigated to be either confirmed or falsified. 12 Humans should do the good for its own sake, not in order to be rewarded. This is, e.g., a basic principle of the ethics of the philosopher Immanuel Kant. Introduction 11 merely guided by the hope for reward or the fear of punishment, it could not be viewed to be ‘moral’ any more. Human acts should be motivated intrinsically, not just by the hope for a better life in future or in heaven. Thus, early Christian eschatological views could only be valid if they could be interpreted as morally reasonable and thus authoritative for present conduct. The most important battlefield was the preaching of Jesus, although during the nineteenth century scholars had not yet reached a generally accepted solution to the problem of the interrelation between the gospels, let alone determining criteria for identifying the authentic sayings of Jesus. For many interpreters of this period, Luke 17:21 (in Luther’s individualis- tic translation13) served as a key for understanding the kingdom of God as an internal, present reality, which progressively leads to a growth of morality in human society. This was often combined with some sayings from the Fourth Gospel, because during the nineteenth century, many interpreters still reckoned the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John with some kind of authenticity,14 and thus used John as an additional source for recon- structing Jesus’ teaching. From a philosophical viewpoint, the Johannine type of eschatological teaching could be more easily accepted than Jesus’ sayings about the Son of Man coming with the clouds (cf. Mk 14:62 etc.), as documented in the Synoptics. Accordingly, the ‘apocalyptic’ and future- oriented elements of New Testament eschatology were largely ignored or marginalized, and within such an interpretation, the idea of the (present, internal and ethical) kingdom of God could easily fit into the general views of the late nineteenth century liberal theologians. In German liberal theology, Jesus’ preaching was largely interpreted as an expression of religious ideas related primarily or even merely to the present, not to a distant future. This was changed by the discovery of Jesus’ eschatology, or – one should rather say – the discovery of the future-oriented or ‘apocalyptic’ perspective in the teaching of Jesus. Of course, with regard to the primitive community or even to Paul, the interpreters of the nineteenth century had recognized the expectation of an imminent end or of the parousia, but they had interpreted it as a complex of mythological ideas determined by the

13 Luther’s traditional of the reads: „Das Reich Gottes ist inwendig in euch“ (internally within you); similarly KJV: ‘within you’, whereas most contemporary interpreters translate the term ‘among you’ or ‘in your midst’ (NAS), thus also the re- vised Luther version „mitten unter euch“. 14 The ‘critical consensus’ on the historical value of the Fourth Gospel, with the consequence that John had to be excluded from the search for the ‘Historical Jesus’ was only established at about 1900 and phrased by scholars such as Heinrich Julius Holtzmann, Adolf Jülicher, William Wrede or Alfred Loisy. See, for details Frey (1997, 37–39). 12 Jörg Frey time or the context of earliest Christianity, or even as an erroneous expectation of Jesus and the apostles, which could be distinguished from the essence and eternal truth of Christian faith. Only a few interpreters had accepted these elements as a characteristic aspect of Jesus’ genuine teaching, among them severe critics of Christian doctrine (as, e.g. David Frie- drich Strauss or Franz Overbeck). But the problem was obvious: If there was such an apocalyptic, future-oriented eschatology or, strictly speaking, an erroneous world view at the very roots of Christianity, in Jesus’ own teaching, the only consequence could be that such a teaching and the religion based on it was incompatible with the modern world. To avoid such a consequence, most liberals had tried to keep at least Jesus in the distance away from such a future-oriented or apocalyptic eschatology, and tried to interpret the respective sayings of Jesus as mere adaptations, marginal elements, or even later additions. With the programmatic writing of the young Johannes Weiss (1863– 1914) on Jesus’ preaching on the kingdom of God (Weiss 1892), a provoking new reading was established (Frey 1997, 43–45; Lannert 1989). Weiss interpreted Jesus’ eschatology only according to the Synoptics, without modifying additions from John, and, as a consequence of this, Jesus’ views appeared to be (almost) purely future-oriented.15 In contrast with the leading liberal theologians, Weiss claimed that for the historical Jesus, the kingdom of God was a transcendent reality, and that the liberal idea of an inner-worldly development of the kingdom was historically mistaken. Weiss’ study opened the eyes for the fundamental difference between the ideas of the historical Jesus and modern religious thought. From this point on, the appropriation of Jesus’ teaching in the liberal idea of the internal kingdom and the ‘biblicistic’ way to support the liberal views had become impossible. Now it was clearly pronounced: Jesus’ views were different from ours. Consequently, the modern view of the kingdom (which was also accepted by Weiss) had to be established on other grounds than on a present-oriented (mis)reading of Jesus’ own eschatology. This is the remaining value of Weiss’ provoking book – which was efficiently sup- ported by Albert Schweitzer (1906/1913), who called this viewpoint ‘consequent eschatology’. According to Schweitzer’s (1913, 402–450) own reconstruction, the historical Jesus had been convinced that he was the coming Son of Man. While upholding these eschatological ‘dogmatics’ and with the intention of enforcing the decisive end of history, he went to Jerusalem, but with the failure of his mission this eschatology had definitively collapsed. There is no need to discuss Schweitzer’s reconstruction here, but his systematic

15 In the second edition from 1900, however, Weiss modified his views slightly and considered that there was also a kind of present-orientation in Jesus’ views. Introduction 13 summary is worth noting. ‘The “Son of Man” was buried in the ruins of the collapsing world of eschatology; it is only Jesus, “the Human”, who stayed alive’.16 According to Schweitzer, Jesus’ eschatological views and his ethics must radically be conceived in historical terms, whereas contemporary theology can only develop a ‘mystical’ relationship with Jesus and a radically this-worldly ethics of love. Weiss’ and Schweitzer’s views were not easily adopted by their contemporaries. The predominant liberal school still tried to maintain the view of a present-oriented and ethical Jesus, and the members of the upcoming history-of-religions school (which Weiss belonged to), e.g. William Wrede and Wilhelm Bousset, were also reluctant to adopt the new eschatological view of Jesus’ teachings. Schweitzer’s account of the impasses of the classical life-of-Jesus research inspired parts of German scholarship to dismiss the quest for the Historical Jesus and to focus on other issues. The most important factor for the change of the intellectual climate, however, was World War I, with the collapse of the liberal theology and its belief in the progress of humanity. After the war, a new generation of theologians en- tered the scene, asking new and more radical questions, e.g. for the real truth of theology, or, in other words, for the radically ‘eschatological’ character of theology.17 Now the term ‘eschatological’ was used to mark a clear difference from any kind of ‘this-worldly’ or ‘history-oriented’ aspects, it was used to express the ‘infinite qualitative difference’ between the divine and the human. But in contrast with the traditional concept, eschatology was not understood any more as pointing to any event in an expected end-history or within time, but rather in timeless and transcendent categories. This is not only true for the view of Karl Barth but also for the early works of Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) before this scholar developed his particular concept of eschatology in terms of existentialistic thought.18 Thus, in his early book on Jesus, Bultmann accepted the view of his teacher Johannes Weiss that the kingdom of God in Jesus’ proclamation is eschatological and ‘non-worldly’, ‘provided that the idea of eschatology is wholly and radically understood.’19 In Bultmann’s works, ‘eschatological’ is used in a ‘radical’, i.e. non-wordly and atemporal sense. In his later exis-

16 Schweitzer (1906, 282): ‘Der “Menschensohn” ward begraben in den Trümmern der zusammenstürzenden eschatologischen Welt; lebendig blieb nur Jesus, “der Mensch”...’. 17 Significant for that ‘theology of crisis’ or ‘dialectical theology’ was Karl Barth’s exposition of Romans, with the first edition in 1919, the second, considerably modified edition appeared in 1921, with the phrase quoted above (Barth 1921, 28). 18 For details see Frey (1997, 86–117). 19 Bultmann (1926, 28) (in English Translation: Bultmann 1982, 35). 14 Jörg Frey tentialist terminology, everything that is particularly Christian can be called ‘eschatological’: Eschatology is now the most important theological principle, and true Christian faith is ‘eschatological existence’. Eschatol- ogy has definitively ceased to be a mere (final) part of Christian doctrine, about ‘the Last Things’. It is definitely not about an expected last period or the end of the world but about that what happens now in a strictly defini- tive mode. ‘Eschatology’ is, thus, about the end of time and history within the ongoing flow of time and history, it is by definition present-oriented.20 Of course, Bultmann was well aware that most New Testament texts talk in mythological terms about ‘eschatological’ events (such as the resurrection of the dead, a last judgment etc.) which were naïvely expected at some point of time in the future. Theologically, however, he was convinced that such a (speculative) kind of ‘information’ about what should happen in the future cannot be of any relevance for the existence of a human being or for Christian self-understanding here and now. The same is true, in Bultmann’s view, for any ‘historical’ information about events in a remote past. Thus, in theological interpretation and in Christian preaching the mythological, future-oriented or ‘apocalyptic’ views should be interpreted in strict reference to the present, as a challenge and a call for deci- sion for the addressees. Bultmann’s definition of eschatology as present- oriented thereby serves as a criterion to distinguish between what is said and what is meant.21 Or, in other words: for hermeneutical reasons, Bultmann felt the obligation to reinterpret mythological or future-oriented elements of the New Testament text in terms of the ‘true’ eschatology, i.e. the orientation towards the present. In the development of New Testament tradition, Bultmann perceived an increase of clarity with regard to the eschatological views (Frey 1997, 107–114): Whereas Jesus’ proclamation and also the views of the primitive community were still shaped by the traditional Jewish expectation of the end, the ‘true’ eschatological awareness was developed in the Hellenistic community and in Paul where the ‘salvation-historical’ orientation was abandoned and the cult of Christ was installed as the representation of the divine. Thus, in Bultmann’s view, true eschatology originates in the critical encounter between Biblical (salvation-historical) and Hellenistic- Gnostic (cosmic) thought. This encounter, or ‘syncretistic process’ resulted in a view that dismissed the temporal paradigm and adopted the idea that humanity is transcended from the perspective of the ‘eschaton’. The most

20 In analogy to his concept of eschatology, Bultmann’s concept of time and history is also strictly opposed to a traditional concept of flowing time and worldly history. The background of these views of time, history and human existence are found in the analysis of existence by the philosopher Martin Heidegger. Cf. Frey (1997, 88–94). 21 Cf. Bultmann (1925, 340). Introduction 15 advanced state of the development of the eschatological awareness is, then, found in the Gospel of John or, rather, in the work of the evangelist, without the changes and additions he ascribed to the redaction. According to Bultmann, the theological language of the evangelist was based on the Gnostic myth of the redeemer (from an alleged sayings source), not on the apocalyptic or salvation historical views of the ‘mainstream’ church. The evangelist had, therefore, radically eliminated the traditional eschatology and phrased a purely present-oriented eschatology, according to which in Jesus’ mission, in his coming and departure, as proclaimed in the gospel, eternal life and death are fully present realities. Thus, in his famous com- mentary on John, Bultmann (1948) interprets the work of the evangelist (as he had ‘rearranged’ it) with strong approval while dismissing the altera- tions and additions of the so-called ecclesiastical redaction. Of course, this interpretation is deeply rooted in Bultmann’s critical views on John’s sources and redaction. But in spite of the ‘hermeneutical circle’, the Fourth Evangelist as reconstructed here could figure as an ‘ideal theologian’, or more precisely: as a ‘Biblical’ forerunner of Bultmann’s own program of existential interpretation or ‘demythologization’ of the mythological language of the New Testament (Frey 1997, 141f.). Due to its coherence and systematic character, Bultmann’s interpretation was highly influential, especially in German Protestant theology,22 but to a lesser degree also in other contexts.23 None of his conservative or liberal critics was able to combine exegetical and hermeneutical aspects resulting in a similarly coherent view. Bultmann’s theology became the most famous example of modern interpretation that was both critical and theological. On the other hand, his rejection of any kind of ‘salvation history’ and his program of ‘demythologization’ provoked numerous critical or even hostile reactions from conservative or pietistic circles. Most English speaking scholars were rather reluctant to adopt Bultmann’s views. This may be partly due to the isolation of German scholarship during World War II, but also to a different tradition of thought in British exegesis, which was more inclined to accept a conservative historical viewpoint (opposed to German criticism). Moreover,

22 Roman Catholic scholarship has remained skeptical against Bultmann. The radical source criticism established in German Protestant scholarship was not allowed for Roman Catholics before the liberalization in the context of Vaticanum II. In contrast with the eschatological views of the Bultmann school, Roman Catholic exegesis preferred a salvation historical perspective as documented, e.g. in the compendium ‘Mysterium Salutis’. 23 Whereas Bultmann’s theology was already debated in the time of World War II (especially due to his provoking lecture on ‘demythologization’ (“Neues Testament und Mythologie“) given in 1941 and the time thereafter, the impact of his views (and his school) on research in other countries was somewhat later, in the 1960s and 1970s, mostly due to the isolation of German scholarship in the years of the war. 16 Jörg Frey

Bultmann’s influential ‘counterpart’, Charles Harold Dodd (1884–1973) had expressed very different views on eschatology. In his work on ‘The Parables of the Kingdom’ (1935), Dodd had expressed his concept of ‘real- ized eschatology’, i.e. the view that already Jesus’ own references to the kingdom of God referred to a present reality rather than to an apocalyptic expectation of future events. Thus, the ideas of early Christian apocalypticism could be viewed to be a backslide from Jesus’ own preaching, whereas John’s ‘thoroughgoing reinterpretation of eschatological ideas’ (Dodd 1963, 416; cf. Dodd 1953) in a deeply Hellenistic and, as Dodd phrased, ‘non-eschatological’ context could be viewed as a continuation of the authentic view ‘that “the age to come” has come’ (Dodd 1954, 163). Within the German context, the question of present-oriented and future- oriented eschatology was particularly debated with reference to the historical Jesus and, then, to the Gospel of John. In Jesus research, Werner Georg Kümmel (1905–1995) established a view that later became a new consensus. His work on ‘Promise and Fulfilment’ (Kümmel 1945) demonstrated that within the authentic preaching of Jesus there are present-oriented sayings and future-oriented sayings side by side, and it is not possible to dismiss one of these groups completely as inauthentic. Thus neither the view that Jesus had proclaimed a purely present-oriented view, nor the ‘consequent eschatology’ could be maintained, but the relationship between future-orientation and present-orientation had to be discussed on a new level. The most influential reaction against the ‘consequent eschatology’ and also against Bultmann’s dismissal of salvation history was advanced by Oscar Cullmann (1902–1999) in his two works on ‘Christ and Time’ (Cullmann 1946) and ‘Salvation in History’ (Cullmann 1965).24 Already in his first work Cullmann tried to demonstrate that the views of Early Chris- tianity are fundamentally shaped by the tension between the ‘Already-now’ and the ‘Not-yet’ and that the underlying view of such an eschatology is the idea of a continuing time-line between past, present, and future. With such a concept of time, Cullmann provoked the protest of Bultmann and his school, which considered Cullmann’s salvation historical perspective totally mistaken (Bultmann 1967). Historically, Cullmann’s idea of the somewhat naïve early Christian concept of time seemed to appear more appropriate to the New Testament texts than Bultmann’s existential concept of time or the systematic dialectic between time and eternity as advocated by Karl Barth. The problem with Cullmann’s position was that he did not really interact with Bultmann’s hermeneutical and theological views. Thus, his impact in German speaking scholarship was rather limited, whereas many students from the English speaking world found his views

24 On Cullmann’s development and his theology of salvation history see Schlaudraff (1988), cf. also Frey (2009). Introduction 17 more helpful than the strongly dogmatic views of the Bultmann school. In his second attempt to address the issues of time concept, salvation history and eschatology, Cullmann (1965) elaborated his views and distinguished more clearly between the particular views of the different New Testament authors, but the tension between the ‘already fulfilled’ and ‘not yet com- pleted’ was still considered to be the unifying feature of New Testament eschatology (1965, 154; cf. Frey 1997, 230f.). Since the 1970s the dominance of the Bultmann school and its herme- neutics had faded away, and other theological currents became influential with a stronger consideration of history and especially social history and a more positive view of future-oriented eschatology. The philosophical background changed, and the world-wide challenges such as the threat of nuclear destruction or the ecological crisis stimulated a new interest in apocalyptic imagery. Eschatological expectation was no longer considered as a mere and undue speculation but as a hope that could strengthen hu- manistic activity and social change.25 And the stronger consideration of Early Christian plurality helped to see the plurality of early Christian eschatological views without harmonizing them or reinterpreting them from a particular dogmatic viewpoint. On the other hand, the ‘classical’ issues from the debate in the early and mid twentieth century continued to be discussed with regard to the different New Testament authors and texts. In English speaking scholarship, the debate has always been more open and less influenced by hermeneutical or dogmatic arguments. But especially in the North American context, some ideas from the Bultmann debate were introduced from the 1960s. The importing of these ideas into English scholarship was mediated by a number of eminent scholars such as, e.g. Helmut Koester, James M. Robinson and Norman Perrin. The influence of these scholars inspired a new paradigm shift, especially in Jesus research, from an eschatological towards a ‘non-eschatological’ interpretation of Jesus’ preaching and towards a new plea for a ‘non-apocalyptic Jesus’. The paradigm shift is seen most prominently in Marcus Borg, a member of the famous ‘Jesus Seminar’. In his work on the parables of Je- sus, Norman Perrin had questioned the linear concept of time that had been assumed in the background of Jesus’ eschatology (Perrin 1976, 1–15; cf. 1967, 202ff.), resulting in the notion of the kingdom being switched from a temporal to a non-temporal idea, or rather from a coming to a symbolic reality. The parallels in the Gospel of Thomas, which Helmut Koester dated very early in the middle of the first century, and where a similar non- temporal notion of the kingdom can be found, as well as the search for the earliest strata of the Sayings Source (by Robinson and others) provided

25 Cf., e.g., the eschatological theology of Moltmann (1964). See also Greshake (1995, 864f.).