Theology of Hope
On its publication in 1964, during the postwar years of ferment and change, Jürgen Moltmann’s TheologyofHope made an immediate and astonishing impact. It was to some extent a critical response to the Marxist philosopher Ernst Bloch’s Principle ofHope,1 which had deeply impressed him. But Moltmann took up Bloch’s “hopes for a world without God” so as to link them with “the God of hope” (Rom. 15:13) of Jewish and Christian tradition. The church had always seen eschatology (the doctrine of the last things) as an appendix, something that clocks in once hope for the world has nothing more to offer. But Moltmann sees the Christian faith not only as hope for the end but as hope and promise from the beginning, a hope and promise based on the resurrection of Jesus. The future hope remains “this-worldly,” because expectation leads to a new setting forth and a transformation of the present, and therefore takes in history. In his autobiography, ABroadPlace,2 he later wrote:
I believe that three key concepts are essential for every Christian theology of hope:
1. the concept of the divine promise in the Old Testament;
2. the concept of the raising of the crucified Christ as God’s future for the world, in the New Testament;
3. an understanding of human history as the mission of the kingdom of God today.
Introduction:MeditationonHope
Source:Moltmann1964;ET1967/1993:15–36.
1. WHAT IS THE LOGOS OF CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY?
Eschatologywaslongcalled“thedoctrineofthelastthings”or“thedoctrine oftheend.”Bytheselastthingsweremeanteventswhichwillonedaybreak uponman,history,andtheworldattheendoftime.Theyincludedthereturn ofChristinuniversalglory,thejudgmentoftheworldandtheconsummation ofthekingdom,thegeneralresurrectionofthedeadandthenewcreationof allthings.Theseendeventsweretobreakintothisworldfromsomewhere beyondhistory,andtoputanendtothehistoryinwhichallthingsherelive andmove.Buttherelegatingoftheseeventstothe“lastday”robbedthemof theirdirective,uplifting,andcriticalsignificanceforallthedayswhicharespent here,thissideoftheend,inhistory.Thustheseteachingsabouttheendleda peculiarlybarrenexistenceattheendofChristiandogmatics.Theywerelike alooselyattachedappendixthatwanderedoffintoobscureirrelevancies.They borenorelationtothedoctrineofthecrossandresurrection,theexaltationand sovereigntyofChrist,anddidnotderivefromthesebyanylogicalnecessity. They were as far removed from them as All Souls’ Day sermons are from Easter.ThemoreChristianitybecameanorganizationfordiscipleshipunder the auspices of the Roman state religion, the more eschatology and its mobilizing,revolutionizing,andcriticaleffectsuponhistoryasithasnowto belivedwerelefttofanaticalsectsandrevolutionarygroups.Owingtothe factthatChristianfaithbanishedfromitslifethefuturehopebywhichitis upheld,andrelegatedthefuturetoabeyond,ortoeternity,whereasthebiblical testimonieswhichithandedonareyetfulltothebrimwithfuturehopeofa messianickindfortheworld—owingtothis,hopeemigratedasitwerefrom thechurchandturnedinonedistortedformoranotheragainstthechurch.
Inactualfact,however,eschatologymeansthedoctrineoftheChristian hope,whichembracesboththeobjecthopedforandalsothehopeinspiredby it.Fromfirsttolast,andnotmerelyintheepilogue,Christianityiseschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizingandtransformingthepresent.Theeschatologicalisnotone element of Christianity,butitisthemediumofChristianfaithassuch,thekey inwhicheverythinginitisset,theglowthatsuffuseseverythinghereinthe dawnofanexpectednewday.ForChristianfaithlivesfromtheraisingofthe crucifiedChrist,andstrainsafterthepromiseoftheuniversalfutureofChrist. Eschatologyisthepassionatesufferingandpassionatelongingkindledbythe Messiah.HenceeschatologycannotreallybeonlyapartofChristiandoctrine.
Rather,theeschatologicaloutlookischaracteristicofallChristianproclamation, ofeveryChristianexistence,andofthewholechurch.Thereisthereforeonly onerealprobleminChristiantheology,whichitsownobjectforcesuponit andwhichitinturnforcesonmankindandonhumanthought:theproblem ofthefuture.Fortheelementofothernessthatencountersusinthehopeof theOldandtheNewTestaments—thethingwecannotalreadythinkoutand pictureforourselvesonthebasisofthegivenworldandoftheexperiences wealreadyhavewiththeworld—isonethatconfrontsuswithapromiseof somethingnewandwiththehopeofafuturegivenbyGod.TheGodspoken ofhereisnointra-worldlyorextra-worldlyGod,butthe“Godofhope”(Rom. 15:13),aGodwith“futureashisessentialnature”(as[Ernst]Blochputsit),as madeknowninExodusandinIsraeliteprophecy,theGodwhomwetherefore cannothaveeitherinusoroverusbutalwaysonlybeforeus,whoencounters usinhispromisesforthefuture,andwhomwethereforecannothaveeither, butcanonlyawaitinactivehope.Apropertheologywouldthereforehaveto beconstructedinthelightofitsfuturegoal.Eschatologyshouldnotbeitsend, butitsbeginning.
Buthowcananyonespeakofthefuture,whichisnotyethere,andof comingeventsinwhichonehasnotasyethadanypart?Arethesenotdreams, speculations,longings,andfears,whichmustallremainvagueandindefinite becausenoonecanverifythem?Theterm“eschato-logy”iswrong.There canbeno“doctrine”ofthelastthings,ifby“doctrine”wemeanacollection oftheseswhichcanbeunderstoodonthebasisofexperiencesthatconstantly recurandareopentoanyone.TheGreekterm logos referstoarealitywhich isthere,nowandalways,andisgiventrueexpressioninthewordappropriate toit.Inthissensetherecanbeno logos ofthefuture,unlessthefutureisthe continuationorregularrecurrenceofthepresent.If,however,thefuturewere tobringsomethingstartlinglynew,wehavenothingtosayofthat,andnothing meaningfulcanbesaidofiteither,foritisnotinwhatisnewandaccidental, butonlyinthingsofanabidingandregularlyrecurringcharacterthattherecan belog-icaltruth.Aristotle,itistrue,cancallhopea“wakingdream,”butfor theGreeksitisneverthelessaneviloutofPandora’sbox.
Buthow,then,canChristianeschatologygiveexpressiontothefuture? Christianeschatologydoesnotspeakofthefutureassuch.Itsetsoutfroma definiterealityinhistoryandannouncesthefutureofthatreality,itsfuture possibilities, and its power over the future. Christian eschatology speaks of Jesus Christ and his future. It recognizes the reality of the raising of Jesus andproclaimsthefutureoftherisenLord.Hencethequestionwhetherall statementsaboutthefuturearegroundedinthepersonandhistoryofJesus
Christprovidesitwiththetouchstonebywhichtodistinguishthespiritof eschatologyfromthatofutopia.
If,however,thecrucifiedChristhasafuturebecauseofhisresurrection, thenthatmeansontheotherhandthatallstatementsandjudgmentsabout himmustatonceimplysomethingaboutthefuturewhichistobeexpected fromhim.HencetheforminwhichChristiantheologyspeaksofChristcannot betheformoftheGreek logos orofdoctrinalstatementsbasedonexperience, butonlytheformofstatementsofhopeandofpromisesforthefuture.All predicatesofChristnotonlysaywhohewasandis,butimplystatementsas towhohewillbeandwhatistobeexpectedfromhim.Theyallsay:“Heis ourhope”(Col.1:27).Inthusannouncinghisfutureintheworldintermsof promise,theypointbelieversinhimtowardsthehopeofhisstilloutstanding future.Hope’sstatementsofpromiseanticipatethefuture.Inthepromises,the hiddenfuturealreadyannouncesitselfandexertsitsinfluenceonthepresent throughthehopeitawakens.
Thetruthofdoctrinalstatementsisfoundinthefactthattheycanbe showntoagreewiththeexistingrealitywhichwecanallexperience.Hope’s statements of promise, however, must stand in contradiction to the reality whichcanatpresentbeexperienced.Theydonotresultfromexperiences,but aretheconditionforthepossibilityofnewexperiences.Theydonotseekto illuminatetherealitywhichexists,buttherealitywhichiscoming.Theydo notseektomakeamentalpictureofexistingreality,buttoleadexistingreality towardsthepromisedandhoped-fortransformation.Theydonotseektobear thetrainofreality,buttocarrythetorchbeforeit.Insodoingtheygivereality ahistoricalcharacter.Butifrealityisperceivedintermsofhistory,thenwehave toaskwithJ.G.Hamann:“Whowouldformproperconceptsofthepresent withoutknowingthefuture?”
Presentandfuture,experienceandhope,standincontradictiontoeach otherinChristianeschatology,withtheresultthatmanisnotbroughtinto harmonyandagreementwiththegivensituation,butisdrawnintotheconflict betweenhopeandexperience.“Wearesavedbyhope.Buthopethatisseen isnothope;forwhatamanseeth,whydothheyethopefor?Butifwehope forthatweseenot,thendowewithpatiencewaitforit”(Rom.8:24,25). EverywhereintheNewTestamenttheChristianhopeisdirectedtowardswhat isnotyetvisible;itisconsequentlya“hopingagainsthope”andtherebybrands thevisiblerealmofpresentexperienceasagodforsaken,transientrealitythat istobeleftbehind.Thecontradictiontotheexistingrealityofhimselfand hisworldinwhichmanisplacedbyhopeistheverycontradictionoutof whichthishopeitselfisborn—itisthecontradictionbetweentheresurrection
andthecross.Christianhopeisresurrectionhope,anditprovesitstruthin thecontradictionofthefutureprospectstherebyofferedandguaranteedfor righteousnessasopposedtosin,lifeasopposedtodeath,gloryasopposedto suffering,peaceasopposedtodissension.Calvinperceivedveryplainlythe discrepancyinvolvedintheresurrectionhope:“Tousisgiventhepromise ofeternallife—but tous,thedead.Ablessedresurrection isproclaimed to us—meantime we are surrounded by decay. We are called righteous—and yetsinlivesinus.Wehearofineffableblessedness—butmeantimeweare hereoppressedbyinfinitemisery.Wearepromisedabundanceofallgood things—yetwearerichonlyinhungerandthirst.Whatwouldbecomeofusif wedidnottakeourstandonhope,andifourheartdidnothastenbeyondthis worldthroughthemidstofdarknessuponthepathilluminedbythewordand SpiritofGod!”(onHeb.11:1).
It is in this contradiction that hope must prove its power. Hence eschatology,too,isforbiddentoramble,andmustformulateitsstatementsof hopeincontradictiontoourpresentexperienceofsuffering,evil,anddeath.For thatreasonitwillhardlyeverbepossibletodevelopaneschatologyonitsown. Itismuchmoreimportanttopresenthopeasthefoundationandthemainspring oftheologicalthinkingassuch,andtointroducetheeschatologicalperspective intoourstatementsondivinerevelation,ontheresurrectionofChrist,onthe missionoffaith,andonhistory.
2. THE BELIEVING HOPE
Inthecontradictionbetweenthewordofpromiseandtheexperientialreality ofsufferinganddeath,faithtakesitsstandonhopeand“hastensbeyondthis world,”saidCalvin.HedidnotmeanbythisthatChristianfaithfleestheworld, buthedidmeanthatitstrainsafterthefuture.Tobelievedoesinfactmean tocrossandtranscendbounds,tobeengagedinanexodus.Yetthishappens inawaythatdoesnotsuppressorskiptheunpleasantrealities.Deathisreal death,anddecayisputrefyingdecay.Guiltremainsguiltandsufferingremains, evenforthebeliever,acrytowhichthereisnoready-madeanswer.Faithdoes notoversteptheserealitiesintoaheavenlyutopia,doesnotdreamitselfintoa realityofadifferentkind.Itcanoversteptheboundsoflife,withtheirclosed wallofsuffering,guilt,anddeath,onlyatthepointwheretheyhaveinactual factbeenbrokenthrough.ItisonlyinfollowingtheChristwhowasraised fromsuffering,fromagodforsakendeathandfromthegravethatitgainsan openprospectinwhichthereisnothingmoretooppressus,aviewofthe realmoffreedomandofjoy.Wheretheboundsthatmarktheendofallhuman hopesarebrokenthroughintheraisingofthecrucifiedone,therefaithcan
andmustexpandintohope.Thereitbecomesπαρρησίαand
Thereitshopebecomesa“passionforwhatispossible”(Kierkegaard),because itcanbeapassionforwhathasbeenmadepossible.Therethe extensio animi ad magna [thereachingoutofthesoultowardthegreat],asitwascalledin theMiddleAges,takesplaceinhope.Faithrecognizesthedawningofthis futureofopennessandfreedomintheChristevent.Thehopetherebykindled spansthehorizonswhichthenopenoveraclosedexistence.Faithbindsman toChrist.HopesetsthisfaithopentothecomprehensivefutureofChrist. Hopeisthereforethe“inseparablecompanionoffaith.“Whenthishopeistaken away,howevereloquentlyorelegantlywediscourseconcerningfaith,weare convictedofhavingnone....Hopeisnothingelsethantheexpectationof thosethingswhichfaithhasbelievedtohavebeentrulypromisedbyGod. Thus,faithbelievesGodtobetrue,hopeawaitsthetimewhenthistruthshall bemanifested;faithbelievesthatheisourFather,hopeanticipatesthathewill evershowhimselftobeaFathertowardsus;faithbelievesthateternallife hasbeengiventous,hopeanticipatesthatitwillsometimeberevealed;faith isthefoundationuponwhichhoperests,hopenourishesandsustainsfaith. ForasnooneexcepthimwhoalreadybelievesHispromisescanlookfor anythingfromGod,soagaintheweaknessofourfaithmustbesustainedand nourishedbypatienthopeandexpectation,lestitfailandgrowfaint. By unremittingrenewingandrestoring,it[hope]invigoratesfaithagainandagain withperseverance.”3ThusintheChristianlifefaithhasthepriority,buthope theprimacy.Withoutfaith’sknowledgeofChrist,hopebecomesautopiaand remainshangingintheair.Butwithouthope,faithfallstopieces,becomesa faintheartedandultimatelyadeadfaith.Itisthroughfaiththatmanfindsthe pathoftruelife,butitisonlyhopethatkeepshimonthatpath.Thusitisthat faithinChristgiveshopeitsassurance.ThusitisthathopegivesfaithinChrist itsbreadthandleadsitintolife.
Tobelievemeanstocrossinhopeandanticipationtheboundsthathave beenpenetratedbytheraisingofthecrucified.Ifwebearthatinmind,thenthis faithcanhavenothingtodowithfleeingtheworld,withresignation,andwith escapism.Inthishopethesouldoesnotsoaraboveourvaleoftearstosome imaginedheavenlybliss,nordoesitseveritselffromtheearth.For,inthewords ofLudwigFeuerbach,itputs“inplaceofthebeyondthatliesaboveourgrave inheaventhebeyondthatliesaboveourgraveonearth,thehistoric future,the futureofmankind.”4 ItseesintheresurrectionofChristnottheeternityof heaven,butthefutureoftheveryearthonwhichhiscrossstands.Itseesin himthefutureoftheveryhumanityforwhichhedied.Thatiswhyitfindsthe crossthehopeoftheearth.Thishopestrugglesfortheobedienceofthebody,
becauseitawaitsthequickeningofthebody.Itespousesinallmeeknessthe causeofthedevastatedearthandofharassedhumanity,becauseitispromised possessionoftheearth. Ave crux!—unica spes! [Hailcross,theonlyhope].
Butontheotherhand,allthismustinevitablymeanthatthemanwho thushopeswillneverbeabletoreconcilehimselfwiththelawsandconstraints of this earth, neither with the inevitability of death nor with the evil that constantlybearsfurtherevil.TheraisingofChristisnotmerelyaconsolation tohiminalifethatisfullofdistressanddoomedtodie,butitisalsoGod’s contradictionofsufferinganddeath,ofhumiliationandoffense,andofthe wickednessofevil.HopefindsinChristnotonlyaconsolation in suffering,but alsotheprotestofthedivinepromise against suffering.IfPaulcallsdeaththe “lastenemy”(1Cor.15:26),thentheoppositeisalsotrue:thattherisenChrist, andwithhimtheresurrectionhope,mustbedeclaredtobetheenemyofdeath andofaworldthatputsupwithdeath.Faithtakesupthecontradictionand thusbecomesitselfacontradictiontotheworldofdeath.Thatiswhyfaith, whereveritdevelopsintohope,causesnotrestbutunrest,notpatiencebut impatience.Itdoesnotcalmtheunquietheart,butisitselfthisunquietheartin man.ThosewhohopeinChristcannolongerputupwithrealityasitis,but begintosufferunderit,tocontradictit.PeacewithGodmeansconflictwith theworld,forthegoadofthepromisedfuturestabsinexorablyintothefleshof everyunfulfilledpresent.Ifwehadbeforeoureyesonlywhatwesee,thenwe shouldcheerfullyorreluctantlyreconcileourselveswiththingsastheyhappen tobe.Thatwedonotreconcileourselves,thatthereisnopleasantharmony betweenusandreality,isduetoourunquenchablehope.Thishopekeepsman unreconcileduntilthegreatdayofthefulfillmentofallthepromisesofGod.It keepshim in statu viatoris [inthepositionofthewanderer],inthatunresolved opennesstoworldquestionswhichhasitsorigininthepromiseofGodinthe resurrectionofChristandcanthereforeberesolvedonlywhenthesameGod fulfillshispromise.ThishopemakestheChristianchurchaconstantdisturbance inhumansociety,seekingasthelatterdoestostabilizeitselfintoa“continuing city.”Itmakesthechurchthesourceofcontinualnewimpulsestowardsthe realizationofrighteousness,freedom,andhumanityhereinthelightofthe promisedfuturethatistocome.Thischurchiscommittedto“answerforthe hope”thatisinit(1Peter3:15).Itiscalledinquestion“onaccountofthehope andresurrectionofthedead”(Acts23:6).Whereverthathappens,Christianity embracesitstruenatureandbecomesawitnessofthefutureofChrist.
3. THE SIN OF DESPAIR
Iffaiththusdependsonhopeforitslife,thenthesinofunbeliefismanifestly groundedinhopelessness.Tobesure,itisusuallysaidthatsininitsoriginal formisman’swantingtobeasGod.Butthatisonlytheonesideofsin.The othersideofsuchprideishopelessness,resignation,inertia,andmelancholy. Fromthisarisethe tristesse andfrustrationwhichfillalllivingthingswiththe seedsofasweetdecay.AmongthesinnerswhosefutureiseternaldeathinRev. 21:8,the“fearful”arementionedbeforeunbelievers,idolaters,murderers,and therest.FortheEpistletotheHebrews,fallingawayfromthelivinghope,in thesenseofbeingdisobedienttothepromiseintimeofoppression,orofbeing carriedawayfromGod’spilgrimpeopleasbyaflood,isthegreatsinwhich threatensthehopefulontheirway.Temptationthenconsistsnotsomuchinthe titanicdesiretobeasGod,butinweakness,timidity,weariness,notwantingto bewhatGodrequiresofus.
Godhasexaltedmanandgivenhimtheprospectofalifethatiswideand free,butmanhangsbackandletshimselfdown.Godpromisesanewcreation ofallthingsinrighteousnessandpeace,butmanactsasifeverythingwereas beforeandremainedasbefore.Godhonorshimwithhispromises,butman doesnotbelievehimselfcapableofwhatisrequiredofhim.Thatisthesin whichmostprofoundlythreatensthebeliever.Itisnottheevilhedoes,butthe goodhedoesnotdo,nothismisdeedsbuthisomissions,thataccusehim.They accusehimoflackofhope.Fortheseso-calledsinsofomissionallhavetheir groundinhopelessnessandweaknessoffaith.“Itisnotsomuchsinthatplunges usintodisaster,asratherdespair,”saidChrysostom.ThatiswhytheMiddle Agesreckoned acedia [listlessnessorsloth]or tristitia [melancholy]amongthe sinsagainsttheHolySpiritwhichleadtodeath.
JosefPieperinhistreatise Über die Hoffnung (1949)hasveryneatlyshown how this hopelessness can assume two forms. It can be presumption, praesumptio,anditcanbedespair, desperatio.Bothareformsofthesinagainst hope.Presumptionisapremature,self-willedanticipationofthefulfillmentof whatwehopeforfromGod.Despairisthepremature,arbitraryanticipationof thenon-fulfillmentofwhatwehopeforfromGod.Bothformsofhopelessness, byanticipatingthefulfillmentorbygivinguphope,cancelthewayfaring characterofhope.Theyrebelagainstthepatienceinwhichhopetrustsin the God of the promise. They demand impatiently either fulfillment “now already”or“absolutelyno”hope.“Indespairandpresumptionalikewehave therigidifyingandfreezingofthetrulyhumanelement,whichhopealonecan keepflowingandfree”(p.51).
Thusdespair,too,presupposeshope.“Whatwedonotlongfor,canbe theobjectneitherofourhopenorofourdespair”(Augustine).Thepainof despairsurelyliesinthefactthatahopeisthere,butnowayopensuptowards itsfulfillment.Thusthekindledhopeturnsagainsttheonewhohopesand consumeshim.“Livingmeansburyinghopes,”says[Theodor]Fontaneinone ofhisnovels,anditisthese“deadhopes”thatheportraysinit.Ourhopesare bereftoffaithandconfidence.Hencedespairwouldseektopreservethesoul fromdisappointments.“Hopeasarulemakesmanyafool.”Hencewetryto remainonthesolidgroundofreality,“tothinkclearlyandnothopeanymore” ([Albert]Camus),andyetinadoptingthisso-calledrealismdictatedbythe factswefallvictimtotheworstofallutopias—theutopiaofthestatusquo,as [Robert]Musilcalledthiskindofrealism.
Thedespairingsurrenderofhopedoesnotevenneedtohaveadesperate appearance.Itcanalsobethemeretacitabsenceofmeaning,prospects,future, andpurpose.Itcanwearthefaceofsmilingresignation: bonjour tristesse! Allthat remainsisacertainsmileonthepartofthosewhohavetriedoutthefullrange oftheirpossibilitiesandfoundnothinginthemthatcouldgivecauseforhope. Allthatremainsisa taedium vitae,alifethathaslittlefurtherinterestinitself. Ofalltheattitudesproducedbythedecayofnon-eschatological,bourgeois Christianity,andthenconsequentlyfoundinanolongerChristianworld,there ishardlyanywhichissogeneralas acedia, tristesse,thecultivationanddandling manipulationoffadedhopes.Butwherehopedoesnotfinditswaytothesource ofnew,unknownpossibilities,therethetrifling,ironicalplaywiththeexisting possibilitiesendsinboredom,orinoutbreaksofabsurdity.
Atthebeginningofthenineteenthcenturythefigureofpresumptionis foundatmanypointsinGermanidealism.For[JohannWolfgang]Goethe, [Friedrich] Schiller, [Leopold von] Ranke, Karl Marx, and many others, Prometheusbecamethegreatsaintofthemodernage.Prometheus,whostole firefromthegods,stoodincontrasttothefigureoftheobedientservantofGod. ItwaspossibletotransformevenChristintoaPrometheanfigure.Alongwith thattherefrequentlywentaphilosophical,revolutionarymillenarianismwhich setitselftobuildatlastthatrealmoffreedomandhumandignitywhichhad beenhopedforinvainfromtheGodofthedivineservant.
Inthemiddleofthetwentiethcenturywefindintheliterarywritingsof theexistentialiststheotherformofapostasyfromhope.Thusthepatronsaint thatwasPrometheusnowassumestheformofSisyphus,whocertainlyknows thepilgrimway,andisfullyacquaintedwithstruggleanddecisionandwith patienttoil,yetwithoutanyprospectoffulfillment.Heretheobedientservant ofGodcanbetransformedintothefigureofthehonestfailure.Thereisnohope
andnoGodanymore.ThereisonlyCamus’s“thinkingclearlyandhoping nomore,”andthehonestloveandfellow-feelingexemplifiedinJesus.Asif thinkingcouldgainclaritywithouthope!Asiftherecouldbelovewithout hopeforthebeloved!
Neitherinpresumptionnorindespairdoesthereliethepowertorenew life,butonlyinthehopethatisenduringandsure.Presumptionanddespair liveoffthishopeandregalethemselvesatitsexpense.“Hewhodoesnothope fortheunexpected,willnotfindit,”runsasayingofHeraclitus.Theuniform ofthedayispatienceanditsonlydecorationthepalestarofhopeoveritsheart”
([Ingeborg]Bachmann).
Hopealoneistobecalled“realistic,”becauseitalonetakesseriouslythe possibilitieswithwhichallrealityisfraught.Itdoesnottakethingsasthey happentostandortolie,butasprogressing,movingthingswithpossibilities ofchange.Onlyaslongastheworldandthepeopleinitareinafragmented andexperimentalstatewhichisnotyetresolved,isthereanysenseinearthly hopes.Thelatteranticipatewhatispossibletoreality,historicandmovingas itis,andusetheirinfluencetodecidetheprocessesofhistory.Thushopesand anticipationsofthefuturearenotatransfiguringglowsuperimposedupona darkenedexistence,butarerealisticwaysofperceivingthescopeofourreal possibilities,andassuchtheyseteverythinginmotionandkeepitinastateof change.Hopeandthekindofthinkingthatgoeswithitconsequentlycannot submittothereproachofbeingutopian,fortheydonotstriveafterthingsthat have“noplace,”butafterthingsthathave“noplace as yet”butcanacquireone. Ontheotherhand,thecelebratedrealismofthestarkfacts,ofestablishedobjects andlaws,theattitudethatdespairsofitspossibilitiesandclingstorealityasit is,isinevitablymuchmoreopentothechargeofbeingutopian,forinitseyes thereis“noplace”forpossibilities,forfuturenovelty,andconsequentlyforthe historiccharacterofreality.Thusthedespairwhichimaginesithasreachedthe endofitstetherprovestobeillusory,aslongasnothinghasyetcometoanend buteverythingisstillfullofpossibilities.Thuspositivisticrealismalsoproves tobeillusory,solongastheworldisnotafixedbodyoffactsbutanetwork ofpathsandprocesses,solongastheworlddoesnotonlyrunaccordingto lawsbuttheselawsthemselvesarealsoflexible,solongasitisarealminwhich necessitymeansthepossible,butnottheunalterable.
StatementsofhopeinChristianeschatologymustalsoassertthemselves againsttherigidifiedutopiaofrealism,iftheywouldkeepfaithaliveandwould guideobedienceinloveontothepathtowardsearthly,corporeal,socialreality. Initseyestheworldisfullofallkindsofpossibilities,namelyallthepossibilities oftheGodofhope.Itseesrealityandmankindinthehandofhimwhosevoice
callsintohistoryfromitsend,saying,“Behold,Imakeallthingsnew,”andfrom hearingthiswordofpromiseitacquiresthefreedomtorenewlifehereandto changethefaceoftheworld.
4. DOES HOPE CHEAT MAN OF THE HAPPINESS OF THE PRESENT?
Themostseriousobjectiontoatheologyofhopespringsnotfrompresumption ordespair,forthesetwobasicattitudesofhumanexistencepresupposehope, buttheobjectiontohopearisesfromthereligionofhumbleacquiescencein thepresent.Isitnotalwaysinthepresentalonethatmanistrulyexistent,real, contemporarywithhimself,acquiescent,andcertain?Memorybindshimto thepastthatnolongeris.Hopecastshimuponthefuturethatisnotyet.He remembershavinglived,buthedoesnotlive.Heremembershavingloved, buthedoesnotlove.Heremembersthethoughtsofothers,buthedoesnot think.Itseemstobemuchthesamewithhiminhope.Hehopestolive,but hedoesnotlive.Heexpectstobehappyoneday,andthisexpectationcauses himtopassoverthehappinessofthepresent.Heisnever,inmemoryandhope, whollyhimselfandwhollyinhispresent.Alwaysheeitherlimpsbehinditor hastensaheadofit.Memoriesandhopesappeartocheathimofthehappiness ofbeingundividedlypresent.Theyrobhimofhispresentanddraghiminto timesthatnolongerexistordonotyetexist.Theysurrenderhimtothenonexistentandabandonhimtovanity.Forthesetimessubjecthimtothestream oftransience—thestreamthatsweepshimtoannihilation.
Pascallamentedthisdeceitfulaspectofhope:“Wedonotrestsatisfiedwith thepresent.Weanticipatethefutureastooslowincoming,asifinorderto hastenitscourse;orwerecallthepast,tostopitstoorapidflight.Soimprudent arewethatwewanderintimeswhicharenotours,anddonotthinkofthe onlyonewhichbelongstous;andsoidlearewethatwedreamofthosetimes whicharenomore,andthoughtlesslyoverlookthatwhichaloneexists....We scarcelyeverthinkofthepresent;andifwethinkofit,itisonlytotakelight fromittoarrangethefuture.Thepresentisneverourend.Thepastandthe presentareourmeans;thefuturealoneisourend.Soweneverlive,butwe hopetolive;and,aswearealwayspreparingtobehappy,itisinevitablewe shouldneverbeso.”5AlwaystheprotestagainsttheChristianhopeandagainst thetranscendentconsciousnessresultingfromithasstubbornlyinsistedonthe rightsofthepresent,onthegoodthatsurelyliesalwaystohand,andonthe eternaltruthineverymoment.Isthe“present”nottheonlytimeinwhich manwhollyexists,whichbelongswhollytohim,andtowhichhewholly belongs?Isthe“present”nottimeandyetatoncealsomorethantimeinthe senseofcomingandgoing—namely,a nunc stans [anexisting“now”]andto
thatextentalsoa nunc aeternum [aneternal“now”]?Onlyofthepresentcan itbesaidthatit“is,”andonlypresentbeingisconstantlywithus.Ifweare whollypresent—tota simul—theninthemidstoftimewearesnatchedfromthe transientandannihilatingworkingsoftime.
ThusGoethe,too,couldsay:“Allthesepassingthingsweputupwith;if onlytheeternalremainspresenttouseverymoment,thenwedonotsuffer fromthetransienceoftime.”Hehadfoundthiseternallyrestingpresentin “nature”itself,becauseheunderstood“nature”asthe physis thatexistsoutof itself:“Allisalwayspresentinit.Pastandfutureitdoesnotknow.Thepresent isitseternity.”Shouldnotman,too,thereforebecomepresentlikenature?
Whygochasingdistantfancies?
Lo,thegoodisevernear!
Onlylearntograspyourchances!
Happinessisalwayshere.
Thus the true present is nothing else but the eternity that is immanent in time,andwhatmattersistoperceiveintheoutwardformoftemporalityand transiencethesubstancethatisimmanentandtheeternalthatispresent—sosaid theearlyHegel.LikewiseNietzscheendeavoredtogetridoftheburdenand deceitoftheChristianhopebyseeking“theeternalYeaofexistence”inthe presentandfindingtheloveofeternityin“loyaltytotheearth.”Itisalwaysonly inthepresent,themoment,the kairos,the“now”thatbeingitselfispresentin time.Itislikenoon,whenthesunstandshighandnothingcastsashadowany more,nordoesanythingstandintheshadow.
Butnow,itisnotmerelythe happiness of the present,butitismore,it isthe God of the present,theeternallypresentGod,anditisnotmerelythe presentbeingofman,butstillmoretheeternalpresenceofbeing,thatthe Christianhopeappearstocheatusof.Notmerelymanischeated,butstillmore Godhimselfischeated,wherehopedoesnotallowmantodiscoveraneternal present.Itisonlyherethattheobjectiontoourfuturehopesonthegroundof the“present”attainstoitsfullmagnitude.Notmerelydoeslifeprotestagainst thetortureofthehopethatisimposeduponit,butwearealsoaccusedof godlessnessinthenameoftheGodwhoseessentialattributeis numen praesentiae [presentbeing].YetwhatGodisthisinwhosenamethe“present”isinsisted uponasagainstthehopeofwhatisnotyet?
ItisatbottomeverandagainthegodofParmenides,ofwhomitissaid inFragment8(Diels):“Theunitythatisbeingneverwas,neverwillbe,for nowitIsallatonceasawhole”(νῦνἔστινὁμοῦπᾶν).This“being”doesnot
exist“always,”asitwasstillsaidtodoinHomerandHesiod,butit“is,”andis “now.”Ithasnoextensionintime,itstruthstandsonthe“now,”itseternityis present,it“is”allatonceandinone(tota simul).Infaceoftheepiphanyofthe eternalpresenceofbeing,thetimesinwhichliferisesandpassesfadeawayto merephenomenainwhichwehaveamixtureofbeingandnon-being,dayand night,abidingandpassingaway.Inthecontemplationoftheeternalpresent, however,“originisobliteratedanddecayisvanished.”Inthepresentofbeing, intheeternalToday,manisimmortal,invulnerable,andinviolable([Georg] Picht).If,asPlutarchreports,thedivinenameovertheportaloftheDelphic templeofApollowasgivenas EI,thenthis,too,couldmean“Thouart”inthe senseoftheeternalpresent.Itisintheeternalnearnessandpresenceofthegod thatwecometoknowledgeofman’snatureandtojoyinit.
ThegodofParmenidesis“thinkable,”becauseheistheeternal,single fullness of being. The non-existent, the past, and the future, however, are not “thinkable.” In the contemplation of the present eternity of this god, non-existence,movementandchange,historyandfuturebecomeunthinkable, because they “are” not. The contemplation of this god does not make a meaningfulexperienceofhistorypossible,butonlythemeaningfulnegationof history.The logos ofthisbeingliberatesandraisesusoutofthepowerofhistory intotheeternalpresent.
In the struggle against the seeming deceit of the Christian hope, Parmendides’sconceptofGodhasthrustitswaydeeplyindeedintoChristian theology.WheninthecelebratedthirdchapterofKierkegaard’streatiseon The Concept of Dread thepromised“fullnessoftime”istakenoutoftherealmof expectationthatattachestopromiseandhistory,andthe“fullnessoftime”is calledthe“moment”inthesenseoftheeternal,thenwefindourselvesinthe fieldofGreekthinkingratherthanoftheChristianknowledgeofGod.Itis truethatKierkegaardmodifiedtheGreekunderstandingoftemporalityinthe lightoftheChristianinsightintoourradicalsinfulness,andthatheintensifies theGreekdifferencebetween logos and doxa intoaparadox,butdoesthatreally implyanymorethanamodificationofthe“epiphanyoftheeternalpresent”?
“Thepresentisnotaconceptoftime.Theeternalconceivedasthepresentis arrestedtemporalsuccession.Themomentcharacterizesthepresentasathing thathasnopastandnofuture.Themomentisanatomofeternity.Itisthe firstreflectionofeternityintime,itsfirstattemptasitweretohalttime.”Itis understandablethatthenthebeliever,too,mustbedescribedinparallelterms totheParmenideanandPlatoniccontemplator.Thebelieveristhemanwho isentirelypresent.Heisinthesupremesensecontemporaneouswithhimself andonewithhimself.“Andtobewiththeeternal’shelputterlyandcompletely
contemporaneouswithoneselftoday,istogaineternity.Thebelieverturnshis backontheeternal,sotospeak,preciselyinordertohaveitbyhimintheone daythatistoday.TheChristianbelieves,andthusheisquitoftomorrow.”
Much the same is to be found in Ferdinand Ebner, whose personalist thinkingandpneumatologyoflanguagehashadsuchaninfluenceonmodern theology:“Eternallifeissotospeaklifeintheabsolutepresentandisinactual factthelifeofmaninhisconsciousnessofthepresenceofGod.”Foritisof theessenceofGodtobeabsolutespiritualpresence.Henceman’s“present”is nothingelsebutthepresenceofGod.Hestepsoutoftimeandlivesinthe present.Thusitisthathelives“inGod.”Faithandlovearetimelessactswhich removeusoutoftime,becausetheymakeuswholly“present.”
ChristianfaiththenmeanstuningintothenearnessofGodinwhich Jesuslivedandworked,forlivingamidthesimpleeverydaythingsoftodayis ofcourselivinginthefullnessoftimeandlivinginthenearnessofGod.To graspthenever-returningmoment,tobewhollyonewithoneself,whollyselfpossessedandonthemark,iswhatismeantby“God.”TheconceptsofGod whichareconstructedinremotenessfromGodandinhisabsencefalltopieces inhisnearness,sothattobewhollypresentmeansthat“God”happens,forthe “happening”oftheuncurtailedpresentisthehappeningofGod.
Thismysticismofbeing,withitsemphasisonthelivingofthepresent moment,presupposesanimmediacytoGodwhichthefaiththatbelievesin GodonthegroundofChristcannotadoptwithoutputtinganendtothe historicmediationandreconciliationofGodandmanintheChristevent,and soalso,asaresultofthis,puttinganendtotheobservationofhistoryunder thecategoryofhope.Thisisnotthe“Godofhope,”forthelatterispresent inpromisingthefuture—hisownandman’sandtheworld’sfuture—andin sendingmenintothehistorythatisnotyet.TheGodoftheexodusandofthe resurrection“is”noteternalpresence,buthepromiseshispresenceandnearness tohimwhofollowsthepathonwhichheissentintothefuture.YHWH,as thenameoftheGodwhofirstofallpromiseshispresenceandhiskingdom andmakesthemprospectsforthefuture,isaGod“withfutureashisessential nature,”aGodofpromiseandofleavingthepresenttofacethefuture,aGod whosefreedomisthesourceofnewthingsthataretocome.Hisnameisnota cipherforthe“eternalpresent,”norcanitberenderedbytheword EI,“thou art.”Hisnameisawayfaringname,anameofpromisethatdisclosesanew future,anamewhosetruthisexperiencedinhistoryinasmuchashispromise disclosesitsfuturepossibilities.Heistherefore,asPaulsays,theGodwhoraises thedeadandcallsintobeingthethingsthatarenot(Rom.4:17).ThisGodis presentwherewewaituponhispromisesinhopeandtransformation.When
wehaveaGodwhocallsintobeingthethingsthatarenot,thenthethingsthat arenotyet,thatarefuture,alsobecome“thinkable”becausetheycanbehoped for.
The“now”and“today”oftheNewTestamentisadifferentthingfrom the“now”oftheeternalpresenceofbeinginParmenides,foritisa“now”and an“allofasudden”inwhichthenewnessofthepromisedfutureislitupand seeninaflash.Onlyinthissenseisittobecalledan“eschatological”today. “Parousia”fortheGreekswastheepitomeofthepresenceofGod,theepitome ofthepresenceofbeing.TheparousiaofChrist,however,isconceivedinthe NewTestamentonlyincategoriesofexpectation,sothatitmeansnot praesentia Christi but adventus Christi,andisnothiseternalpresencebringingtimetoa standstill,buthis“coming,”asourAdventhymnssay,openingtheroadtolife intime,forthelifeoftimeishope.Thebelieverisnotsetatthehighnoon oflife,butatthedawnofanewdayatthepointwherenightandday,things passingandthingstocome,grapplewitheachother.Hencethebelieverdoes notsimplytakethedayasitcomes,butlooksbeyondthedaytothethings whichaccordingtothepromiseofhimwhoisthe creator ex nihilo andraiserof thedeadarestilltocome.ThepresentofthecomingparousiaofGodandof Christinthepromisesofthegospelofthecrucifieddoesnottranslateusoutof time,nordoesitbringtimetoastandstill,butitopensthewayfortimeand setshistoryinmotion,foritdoesnottonedownthepaincausedusbythenonexistent,butmeanstheadoptionandacceptanceofthenon-existentinmemory andhope.Cantherebeanysuchthingasan“eternalYeaofbeing”withouta Yeatowhatnolongerisandtowhatisnotyet?Cantherebesuchathingas harmonyandcontemporaneityonman’spartinthemomentoftoday,unless hopereconcileshimwithwhatisnon-contemporaneousanddisharmonious? Lovedoesnotsnatchusfromthepainoftime,buttakesthepainofthetemporal uponitself.Hopemakesusreadytobearthe“crossofthepresent.”Itcanhold towhatisdead,andhopefortheunexpected.Itcanapproveofmovement andbegladofhistory.ForitsGodisnothewho“neverwasnorwillbe, becausehenowIsallatonceasawhole,”butGodishe“whomakeththedead aliveandcallethintobeingthethingsthatarenot.”Thespellofthedogma ofhopelessness—ex nihilo nihil fit—isbrokenwherehewhoraisesthedeadis recognizedtobeGod.Whereinfaithandhopewebegintoliveinthelightof thepossibilitiesandpromisesofthisGod,thewholefullnessoflifedisclosesitself asalifeofhistoryandthereforealifetobeloved.Onlyintheperspectiveof thisGodcantherepossiblybealovethatismorethan philia,lovetotheexistent andthelike—namely, agape,lovetothenon-existent,lovetotheunlike,the unworthy,theworthless,tothelost,thetransient,andthedead;alovethatcan
takeuponittheannihilatingeffectsofpainandrenunciationbecauseitreceives itspowerfromhopeofa creatio ex nihilo.Lovedoesnotshutitseyestothenonexistentandsayitisnothing,butbecomesitselfthemagicpowerthatbrings itintobeing.Initshope,lovesurveystheopenpossibilitiesofhistory.Inlove, hopebringsallthingsintothelightofthepromisesofGod.
Doesthishopecheatmanofthehappinessofthepresent?Howcould itdoso!Foritisitselfthehappinessofthepresent.Itpronouncesthepoor blessed,receivesthewearyandheavyladen,thehumbledandwronged,the hungryandthedying,becauseitperceivestheparousiaofthekingdomfor them.Expectationmakeslifegood,forinexpectationmancanaccepthiswhole presentandfindjoynotonlyinitsjoybutalsoinitssorrow,happinessnot onlyinitshappinessbutalsoinitspain.Thushopegoesonitswaythroughthe midstofhappinessandpain,becauseinthepromisesofGoditcanseeafuture alsoforthetransient,thedying,andthedead.Thatiswhyitcanbesaidthat livingwithouthopeislikenolongerliving.Hellishopelessness,anditisnot fornothingthatattheentrancetoDante’shelltherestandthewords:“Abandon hope,allyewhoenterhere.”
Anacceptanceofthepresentwhichcannotandwillnotseethedyingof thepresentisanillusionandafrivolity—andonewhichcannotbegrounded oneternityeither.Thehopethatisstakedonthe creator ex nihilo becomesthe happinessofthepresentwhenitloyallyembracesallthingsinlove,abandoning nothingtoannihilationbutbringingtolighthowopenallthingsaretothe possibilitiesinwhichtheycanliveandshalllive.Presumptionanddespairhave aparalyzingeffectonthis,whilethedreamoftheeternalpresentignoresit.
5. HOPING AND THINKING
But now, all that we have so far said of hope might be no more than a hymninpraiseofanoblequalityofheart.AndChristianeschatologycould regain its leading role in theology as a whole, yet still remain a piece of steriletheologizingifwefailtoattaintothenewthoughtandactionthatare consequentlynecessaryinourdealingswiththethingsandconditionsofthis world.Aslongashopedoesnotembraceandtransformthethoughtandaction ofmen,itremainstopsy-turvyandineffective.HenceChristianeschatology mustmaketheattempttointroducehopeintoworldlythinking,andthought intothebelievinghope.
IntheMiddleAges,AnselmofCanterburysetupwhathassincebeen the standard basic principle of theology: fides quaerens intellectum—credo, ut intelligam [faiththatseeksunderstanding—Ibelieveinordertounderstand]. Thisprincipleholdsalsoforeschatology,anditcouldwellbethatitisof
decisiveimportanceforChristiantheologytodaytofollowthebasicprinciple: spes quaerens intellectum—spero, ut intelligam [hopethatseeksunderstanding—I hopeinordertounderstand].Ifitishopethatmaintainsandupholdsfaithand keepsitmovingon,ifitishopethatdrawsthebelieverintothelifeoflove,then itwillalsobehopethatisthemobilizinganddrivingforceoffaith’sthinking, ofitsknowledgeof,andreflectionson,humannature,history,andsociety. Faithhopesinordertoknowwhatitbelieves.Henceallitsknowledgewill beananticipatory,fragmentaryknowledgeformingapreludetothepromised future,andassuchiscommittedtohope.Hencealso vice versa thehopewhich arisesfromfaithinGod’spromisewillbecomethefermentinourthinking, its mainspring, the source of its restlessness and torment. The hope that is continuallyledonfurtherbythepromiseofGodrevealsallthinkinginhistory tobeeschatologicallyorientedandeschatologicallystampedasprovisional.If hopedrawsfaithintotherealmofthoughtandoflife,thenitcannolonger consideritselftobeaneschatologicalhopeasdistinctfromtheminorhopes thataredirectedtowardsattainablegoalsandvisiblechangesinhumanlife, neithercanitasaresultdissociateitselffromsuchhopesbyrelegatingthem toadifferentspherewhileconsideringitsownfuturetobesupra-worldlyand purelyspiritualincharacter.TheChristianhopeisdirectedtowardsa novum ultimum,towardsanewcreationofallthingsbytheGodoftheresurrection of Jesus Christ. It thereby opens a future outlook that embraces all things, includingalsodeath,andintothisitcanandmustalsotakethelimitedhopes ofarenewaloflife,stimulatingthem,relativizingthem,givingthemdirection. Itwilldestroy the presumption inthesehopesofbetter human freedom, of successfullife,ofjusticeanddignityforourfellowmen,ofcontrolofthe possibilitiesofnature,becauseitdoesnotfindinthesemovementsthesalvation itawaits,becauseitrefusestolettheentertainingandrealizingofutopianideas ofthiskindreconcileitwithexistence.Itwillthusoutstripthesefuturevisions ofabetter,morehumane,morepeaceableworld—becauseofitsown“better promises”(Heb.8:6),becauseitknowsthatnothingcanbe“verygood”until “allthingsarebecomenew.”Butitwillnotbeinthenameof“calmdespair” thatitseekstodestroythepresumptioninthesemovementsofhope,forsuch kindsofpresumptionstillcontainmoreoftruehopethandoesskepticalrealism, andmoretruthaswell.Thereisnohelpagainstpresumptiontobefoundin thedespairthatsays,“Itwillalwaysbethesameintheend,”butonlyina perseveringrectifyinghopethatfindsarticulatedexpressioninthoughtand action.Realism,stilllesscynicism,wasneveragoodallyofChristianfaith. ButiftheChristianhopedestroysthepresumptioninfuturisticmovements, thenitdoessonotforitsownsake,butinordertodestroyinthesehopes
the seeds of resignation,whichemergeatlatestwiththeideologicalreignof terror in the utopias in which the hoped-for reconciliation with existence becomes anenforced resignation. This, however, brings themovements of historic change within the range of the novum ultimum of hope. They are takenupintotheChristianhopeandcarriedfurther.Theybecomeprecursory, andtherewithprovisional,movements.Theirgoalslosetheutopianfixityand becomeprovisional,penultimate,andhenceflexiblegoals.Overagainstthe impulsesofthiskindthatseektogivedirectiontothehistoryofmankind, Christianhopecannotclingrigidlytothepastandthegivenandallyitself withtheutopiaofthe status quo.Rather,itisitselfsummonedandempowered tocreativetransformationofreality,forithashopeforthewholeofreality. Finally, the believing hope will itself provide inexhaustible resources for the creative,inventiveimaginationoflove.Itconstantlyprovokesandproduces thinkingofananticipatorykindinlovetomanandtheworld,inordertogive shapetothenewlydawningpossibilitiesinthelightofthepromisedfuture,in orderasfaraspossibletocreateherethebestthatispossible,becausewhatis promisediswithintheboundsofpossibility.Thusitwillconstantlyarousethe “passionforthepossible,”inventivenessandelasticityinself-transformation,in breakingwiththeoldandcomingtotermswiththenew.AlwaystheChristian hopehashadarevolutionaryeffectinthissenseontheintellectualhistoryof thesocietyaffectedbyit.OnlyitwasoftennotinchurchChristianitythatits impulseswereatwork,butintheChristianityofthefanatics.Thishashada detrimentalresultforboth.
Buthowcanknowledgeofrealityandreflectionuponitbepursuedfrom thestandpointofeschatologicalhope?Lutheroncehadaflashofinspiration atthispoint,althoughitwasnotrealizedeitherbyhimselforbyProtestant philosophy. In 1516 he writes of the “earnest expectation of the creature” of which Paul speaks in Rom. 8:19: “The apostle philosophizes and thinks about things in a different way from the philosophers and metaphysicians. Forthephilosophersfixtheireyesonthepresenceofthingsandreflectonly ontheirqualitiesandquiddities.Buttheapostledragsourgazeawayfrom contemplating the present state of things, away from their essence and attributes,anddirectsittowardstheirfuture.Hedoesnotspeakoftheessence ortheworkingsofthecreature,of actio, passio,ormovement,butemploysa new,strange,theologicaltermandspeaksoftheexpectationofthecreature (expectatio creaturae).”Theimportantthinginourpresentcontextis,thatonthe basisoftheologicalviewofthe“expectationofthecreature”anditsanticipation hedemandsanewkindofthinkingabouttheworld,anexpectation-thinking thatcorrespondstotheChristianhope.Henceinthelightoftheprospectsfor
thewholecreationthatarepromisedintheraisingofChrist,theologywillhave toattaintoitsown,newwayofreflectingonthehistoryofmenandthings.In thefieldoftheworld,ofhistoryandofrealityasawhole,Christianeschatology cannotrenouncethe intellectus fidei et spei [theunderstandingoffaithandhope]. Creativeactionspringingfromfaithisimpossiblewithoutnewthinkingand planningthatspringsfromhope.
Forourknowledgeandcomprehensionofreality,andourreflectionson it,thatmeansatleastthis:thatinthemediumofhopeourtheologicalconcepts becomenotjudgmentswhichnailrealitydowntowhatitis,butanticipations whichshowrealityitsprospectsanditsfuturepossibilities.Theologicalconcepts donotgiveafixedformtoreality,buttheyareexpandedbyhopeandanticipate futurebeing.Theydonotlimpafterrealityandgazeonitwiththenighteyes ofMinerva’sowl,buttheyilluminaterealitybydisplayingitsfuture.Their knowledgeisgroundednotinthewilltodominate,butinlovetothefutureof things. Tantum cognoscitur, quantum diligitur (Augustine).Theyarethusconcepts whichareengagedinaprocessofmovement,andwhichcallforthpractical movementandchange.
“Spes quaerens intellectum” [hope seeking knowledge] is the first step towardseschatology,andwhereitissuccessfulitbecomes docta spes [educated hope].
PromiseandHistory
Source:Moltmann1964;ET1967/1993:102–106.
THE WORD OF PROMISE
Ifinthewordpromisewehavebeforeusakey-wordofIsrael’s“religionof expectation,”thenitmustnowbyexplainedwhatwehavetounderstandby “promise”andmorespecificallybythe“promiseof(theguide-)God.6
(a)Apromiseisadeclarationwhichannouncesthecomingofarealitythat doesnotyetexist.Thuspromisesetsman’sheartonafuturehistoryinwhich thefulfillingofthepromiseistobeexpected.Ifitisacaseofadivinepromise, thenthatindicatesthattheexpectedfuturedoesnothavetodevelopwithinthe frameworkofthepossibilitiesinherentinthepresent,butarisesfromthatwhich ispossibletotheGodofthepromise.Thiscanalsobesomethingwhichbythe standardofpresentexperienceappearsimpossible.7
(b)Thepromisebindsmantothefutureandgiveshimasenseforhistory. Itdoesnotgivehimasenseforworldhistoryingeneral,noryetforthehistoric characterofhumanexistenceassuch,butitbindshimtoitsownpeculiar history.Itsfutureisnotthevaguegoalofpossiblechange,northehopearoused bytheideaofpossiblechange;itisnotopennesstowardscomingeventsassuch. Thefuturewhichitdisclosesismadepossibleanddeterminedbythepromised fulfillment.Itisinthefirstinstancealwaysaquestionhereof[Martin]Buber’s “hopesofhistory.”Thepromisetakesmanupintoitsownhistoryinhopeand obedience,andinsodoingstampshisexistencewithahistoriccharacterofa specifickind.
(c)Thehistorywhichisinitiatedanddeterminedbypromisedoesnot consistincyclicrecurrence,buthasadefiniteturntowardsthepromisedand outstandingfulfillment.Thisirreversibledirectionisnotdeterminedbythe urgeofvagueforcesorbytheemergenceoflawsofitsown,butbytheword ofdirectionthatpointsustothefreepowerandthefaithfulnessofGod.It isnotevolution,progress,andadvancethatseparatetimeintoyesterdayand tomorrow,butthewordofpromisecutsintoeventsanddividesrealityinto onerealitywhichispassingandcanbeleftbehind,andanotherwhichmustbe expectedandsought.Themeaningofpastandthemeaningoffuturecomesto lightinthewordofpromise.
(d)Ifthewordisawordofpromise,thenthatmeansthatthiswordhas notyetfoundarealitycongruouswithit,butthatonthecontraryitstandsin contradictiontotherealityopentoexperiencenowandheretofore.Itisonly forthatreasonthatthewordofpromisecangiverisetothedoubtthatmeasures thewordbythestandardofgivenreality.Anditisonlyforthatreasonthatthis
wordcangiverisetothefaiththatmeasurespresentrealitybythestandardof theword.“Future”ishereadesignationofthatrealityinwhichthewordof promisefindsitscounterpart,itsanswer,anditsfulfillment,inwhichitdiscovers orcreatesarealitywhichaccordswithitandinwhichitcomestorest.
(e)Thewordofpromisethereforealwayscreatesanintervaloftension betweentheutteringandtheredeemingofthepromise.Insodoingitprovides manwithapeculiarareaoffreedomtoobeyordisobey,tobehopefulor resigned. The promise institutes this period and obviously stands in correspondence with what happens in it. This, as [Walther] Zimmerli has illuminatinglypointedout,distinguishesthepromisefromthepropheciesofa Cassandraanddifferentiatestheresultingexpectationofhistoryfrombeliefin fate.
(f) If the promise is not regarded abstractly apart from the God who promises,butitsfulfillmentisentrusteddirectlytoGodinhisfreedomand faithfulness,thentherecanbenoburninginterestinconstructingahardand fastjuridicalsystemofhistoricalnecessitiesaccordingtoaschemeofpromise andfulfillment—neitherbydemonstratingthefunctioningofsuchaschema inthepastnorbymakingcalculationsforthefuture.Rather,thefulfillments canverywellcontainanelementofnewnessandsurpriseoveragainstthe promiseasitwasreceived.Thatiswhythepromisealsodoesnotfalltopieces alongwiththehistoricalcircumstanceorthehistoricalthoughtformsinwhich itwasreceived,butcantransformitself—byinterpretation—withoutlosingits character of certainty, of expectation, and of movement. If they are God’s promises,thenGodmustalsoberegardedasthesubjectoftheirfulfillment.
(g)ThepeculiarcharacteroftheOldTestamentpromisescanbeseenin thefactthatthepromiseswerenotliquidatedbythehistoryofIsrael—neitherby disappointmentnorbyfulfillment—butthatonthecontraryIsrael’sexperience ofhistorygavethemaconstantlynewandwiderinterpretation.Thisaspect comestolightwhenweaskhowitcameaboutthatthetribesofIsraeldid notproceedtochangetheirgodsontheoccupationofthepromisedland, butthewildernessGodofpromiseremainedtheirGodinCanaan.Actually, the ancestral promises are fulfilled in the occupation of the land and the multiplicationofthepeople,andthewildernessGodofpromisemakeshimself superfluoustotheextentthathispromisespassintofulfillment.Thesettled lifetowhichtheyhaveattainedinthelandhaslittlemoretodowiththe Godofpromiseonthejourneythroughthewilderness.Forthemastering oftheagrarianculturethelocalgodsaretohand.Itcouldofcoursebesaid that the ancestral promises regarding the land have now been fulfilled and liquidatedbutthat,forexample,thepromisesofguidanceandprotectionfor
thehostsofIsraelintheholywarscontinueandarestillliveissues.Butitcould alsobesaidthattheGodwhoisrecognizedinhispromisesremainssuperior toanyfulfillmentthatcanbeexperienced,becauseineveryfulfillmentthe promise,andwhatisstillcontainedinit,doesnotyetbecomewhollycongruent withrealityandthustherealwaysremainsanoverspill.Thefulfillmentsin theoccupationofthelanddonotfulfillthepromiseinthesensethatthey liquidateitlikeacheckthatiscashedandlockitawayamongthedocuments ofagloriouspast.The“fulfillments”aretakenasexpositions,confirmations, andexpansionsofthepromise.Thegreaterthefulfillmentsbecome,thegreater thepromiseobviouslyalsobecomesinthememoryoftheexpositoratthe variouslevelsofthetraditioninwhichitishandeddown.Thereisnotrace hereofwhatcouldbecalledthe“melancholyoffulfillment.”Thispeculiarfact ofthepromisethatgoesonbeyondexperiencesoffulfillmentcouldalsobe illustratedbythetracesthepromiseleavesinthehopesanddesiresofmen. Itisultimatelynotthedelaysinthefulfillmentandintheparousiathatbring mendisappointment.“Disappointingexperiences”ofthiskindaresuperficial andtriteandcomeofregardingthepromiseinlegalisticabstractionapartfrom theGodwhopromises.Onthecontrary,itiseveryexperienceoffulfillment which,totheextentthatwereflectonitasanexperiencebehindus,ultimately containsdisappointment.Man’shopesandlongingsanddesires,onceawakened byspecificpromises,stretchfurtherthananyfulfillmentthatcanbeconceived orexperienced.Howeverlimitedthepromisesmaybe,oncewehavecaughtin themawhiffofthefuture,weremainrestlessandurgent,seekingandsearching beyondallexperiencesoffulfillment,andthelatterleaveusanaftertasteof sadness.The“notyet”ofexpectationsurpasseseveryfulfillmentthatisalready takingplacenow.Henceeveryrealityinwhichafulfillmentisalreadytaking placenow,becomestheconfirmation,exposition,andliberationofagreater hope.Ifwewouldusethisasahelptowardunderstandingthe“expandingand broadeninghistoryofpromise,”8ifweaskthereasonfortheabidingoverplus of promise as compared with history, then we must again abandon every abstractschemaofpromiseandfulfillment.Wemustthenhaverecoursetothe theologicalinterpretationofthisprocess:thereasonfortheoverplusofpromise andforthefactthatitconstantlyoverspillshistoryliesintheinexhaustibility oftheGodofpromise,whoneverexhaustshimselfinanyhistoricrealitybut comes“torest”onlyinarealitythatwhollycorrespondstohim.9
TheResurrectionandtheFutureofJesusChrist
Source:Moltmann1964;ET1967/1993:139–43.
GOSPEL AND PROMISE
WhenwecometothequestionoftheviewoftherevelationofGodintheNew Testament,thenwediscoverthefact,alreadyfamiliarfromtheOldTestament, thatthereisnounequivocal concept ofrevelation.WhattheNewTestament understandsbyrevelationisthusagainnottobelearnedfromtheoriginal contentofthewordsemployed,butonlyfromtheeventtowhichtheyarehere applied.TheeventtowhichtheNewTestamentappliestheexpressionsfor revelationimpartstothemapeculiardynamicwhichismessianicinkindand impliesahistoryofpromise.Thegeneralimpressioncouldbedescribedinthe firstinstancebysayingthatwiththecrossandresurrectionofChristtheone revelationofGod,thegloryofhislordshipwhichembracesrighteousness,life, andfreedom,hasbeguntomovetowardsman.10Inthegospeloftheeventof ChristthisfutureisalreadypresentinthepromisesofChrist.Itproclaimsthe presentbreakinginofthisfuture,andthus vice versa thisfutureannouncesitself inthepromisesofthegospel.TheproclamationofChristthusplacesmenin themidstofaneventofrevelationwhichembracesthenearnessofthecoming Lord.Ittherebymakestherealityofman“historic”andstakesitonhistory.
TheeschatologicaltendencyoftherevelationinChristismanifestedby thefactthattherevealingwordisεὐαγγέλιονandἐπαγγελίαinone....The gospeloftherevelationofGodinChrististhusindangerofbeingincomplete andofcollapsingaltogether,ifwefailtonoticethedimensionofpromisein it.Christologylikewisedeterioratesifthedimensionofthe“futureofChrist”is notregardedasaconstitutiveelementinit.
Buthowis“promise”proclaimedintheNewTestamentascomparedwith theOldTestamenthistoryofpromise?Howisthefuturehorizonofpromise assertedintheNewTestamentasagainsttheviewsoftheHellenisticmystery religions?
TheapproachtoChristologyhasbeensoughtinChristiandogmaticsalong differentlines.Wehereselecttwobasictypesasillustrationsoftheproblem.
SincetheshapingofChristiandogmaticsbyGreekthought,ithasbeenthe generalcustomtoapproachthemysteryofJesusfromthegeneralideaofGodin Greekmetaphysics:theoneGod,forwhomallmenareseekingontheground oftheirexperienceofreality,hasappearedinJesusofNazareth—beitthatthe highesteternalideaofgoodnessandtruthhasfounditsmostperfectteacherin him,orbeitthatinhimeternalBeing,theSourceofallthings,hasbecome
fleshandappearedinthemultifariousworldoftransienceandmortality.The mysteryofJesusisthentheincarnationoftheone,eternal,original,true,and immutabledivineBeing.ThislineofapproachwasadoptedintheChristology oftheancientchurchinmanifoldforms.Itsproblemsaccordinglyresultedfrom thefactthattheFatherofJesusChristwasidentifiedwiththeoneGodofGreek metaphysicsandhadtheattributesofthisGodascribedtohim.If,however,the divinityofGodisseeninhisunchangeableness,immutability,impassibility,and unity,thenthehistoricworkingofthisGodintheChristeventofthecrossand resurrectionbecomesasimpossibletoassertasdoeshiseschatologicalpromise forthefuture.
InmoderntimestheapproachtothemysteryofJesushasoftenbeenfrom ageneralviewofthebeingofmaninhistory.Historyhasalwaysexisted, eversincemanhasexisted.Buttheactualexperiencingandconceivingofthe existenceofmanashistoric,theradicaldisclosureofthehistoriccharacterof humanexistence,cameintotheworldwithJesus.ThewordandworkofJesus broughtthedecisivechangeinman’sunderstandingofhimselfandtheworld, forbyhimman’sself-understandinginhistorywasgivenitstrueexpression inanunderstandingofthehistoricalcharacterofhumanexistence.Insteadof ageneralquestionofGodandageneralideaofGod,whichfindsitstrue expressioninJesusandisthusverifiedbyhim,whatisherepresupposedis ageneralconceptofthebeingofman,ageneralquestionablenessofhuman existence,whichfindsitstrueexpressioninJesusandisthusverifiedbyhim.
BothapproachestothemysteryofJesussetoutfromtheuniversal,inorder tofinditstrueexpressionintheconcreteinstanceofhispersonandhishistory. NeitheroftheseapproachestoChristology,tobesure, need bypasstheOld Testament,buttheirwaydoesnotnecessarilyliethroughit.Theapproachof Jesustoallmen,however,hastheOldTestamentwithitslawanditspromise asanecessarypresupposition.Itisthereforearealquestionwhetherwedo nothavetotakeseriouslytheimportancefortheologyofthefollowingtwo propositions:
1.Itwas Yahweh,theGodofAbraham,ofJacob,theGodofthepromise, whoraisedJesusfromthedead.WhotheGodiswhoisrevealedinandby Jesus,emergesonlyinhisdifferencefrom,andidentitywith,theGodofthe OldTestament.
2. Jesus was a Jew.WhoJesusis,andwhatthehumannatureiswhichis revealedbyhim,emergesfromhisconflictwiththelawandthepromiseofthe OldTestament.
If we take these starting points seriously, then the path of theological knowledgeleadsirreversiblyfromtheparticulartothegeneral,fromthehistoric totheeschatologicalanduniversal.
Thefirstpropositionwouldmean,thattheGodwhorevealshimselfin JesusmustbethoughtofastheGodoftheOldTestament,astheGodofthe exodusandthepromise,astheGodwith“futureashisessentialnature,”and thereforemustnotbeidentifiedwiththeGreekviewofGod,withParmenides’s “eternalpresent”ofBeing,withPlato’shighestIdea,andwiththeUnmoved MoverofAristotle,noteveninhisattributes.Whoheis,isnotdeclaredbythe worldasawhole,butisdeclaredbyIsrael’shistoryofpromise.Hisattributes cannotbeexpressedbynegationofthesphereoftheearthly,human,mortal, andtransient,butonlyinrecallingandrecountingthehistoryofhispromise. InJesusChrist,however,theGodofIsraelhasrevealedhimselfastheGodof allmankind.Thusthepathleadsfromthe concretum tothe concretum universale, nottheotherwayround.Christiantheologyhastothinkalong this line.Itis notthatageneraltruthbecameconcreteinJesus,buttheconcrete,unique, historic event of the crucifying and raising of Jesus by Yahweh, the God ofpromisewhocreatesbeingoutofnothing,becomesgeneralthroughthe universaleschatologicalhorizonitanticipates.11ThroughtheraisingofJesus fromthedeadtheGodofthepromisesofIsraelbecomestheGodofallmen. TheChristianproclamationofthisGodwillaccordinglyalwaysmovewithin ahorizonofgeneraltruthwhichitprojectsaheadofitandtowardswhich ittends,andwillclaiminadvancetobegeneralincharacterandgenerally binding,evenifitsownuniversalityisofaneschatologicalkindanddoesnot comeofabstractargumentfromtheparticulartothegeneral.
IfontheotherhandtheologytakesseriouslythefactthatJesuswasa Jew,thenthismeansthatheisnottobeunderstoodasaparticularcaseof human being in general, but only in connection with the Old Testament historyofpromiseandinconflictwithit.Itisthroughtheeventofthecross andresurrection,whichisunderstandableonlyinthecontextoftheconflict between law and promise, that he becomes the salvation of all men, both Jews and Gentiles. It is the Christ event that first gives birth to what can betheologicallydescribedas“man,”“trueman,“humanity”—“neitherJewnor Greek,neitherbondnorfree,neithermalenorfemale”(Gal.3:28).Onlywhen thereal,historic,andreligiousdifferencesbetweenpeoples,groups,andclasses arebrokendownintheChristeventinwhichthesinnerisjustified,doesthere comeaprospectofwhattruehumanitycanbeandwillbe.Thepathleads herefromthehistoricanduniquetotheuniversal,becauseitleadsfromthe concreteeventtothegeneralinthesenseofeschatologicaldirection.Christian
proclamationwillconsequentlyhereagainmovewithinthehorizonofgeneral truthandmaketheclaimtobeuniversallybinding.Itwillhavetoexpoundthis claimincontra-distinctiontootherkindsofgeneralanthropologicalconcepts of humanitas,preciselybecauseitsowngeneralconceptofhumanityhasan eschatologicalcontent.Itwillnotbeable,forexample,tosetoutfromthefact thatmanisthebeingwhichpossessesreasonandlanguage,andthengoonto verifythisaspectofhisbeingbymeansoftheeventofjustification,butitwill setoutonthecontraryfromtheeventofjustificationandcalling,andthengo oninfaceofotherassertionsastothenatureofmantoupholdthiseventwhich makesman,theologicallyspeaking,trueman.
ExodusChurch
Source:Moltmann1964;ET1967/1993:338 (the book’s concluding paragraph).
AsaresultofthishopeinGod’sfuture,thispresentworldbecomesfreein believingeyesfromallattemptsatself-redemptionorself-productionthrough labor, and it becomes open for loving, ministering self-expenditure in the interestsofahumanizingofconditionsandintheinterestsoftherealization ofjusticeinthelightofthecomingjusticeofGod.Thismeans,however,that thehopeofresurrectionmustbringaboutanewunderstandingoftheworld. Thisworldisnottheheavenofself-realization,asitassaidtobeinIdealism. Thisworldisnotthehellofself-estrangement,asitissaidtobeinromanticist andexistentialistwriting.Theworldisnotyetfinished,butisunderstoodas engagedinahistory.Itisthereforetheworldofpossibilities,theworldinwhich wecanservethefuture,promisedtruthandrighteousnessandpeace.Thisis anageofdiaspora,ofsowinginhope,ofself-surrenderandsacrifice,foritis anagewhichstandswithinthehorizonofanewfuture.Thusself-expenditure inthisworld,day-to-dayloveinhope,becomespossibleandbecomeshuman withinthathorizonofexpectationwhichtranscendsthisworld.Thegloryof self-realizationandthemiseryofself-estrangementalikearisefromhopelessness inaworldoflosthorizons.Todisclosetoitthehorizonofthefutureofthe crucifiedChrististhetaskoftheChristianchurch.
Notes
1.ErnstBloch, The Principle of Hope,3vols.,1954–59,trans.NevillePlaice,StephenPlaice, andPaulKnight(Cambridge,MA:MITPress/Oxford:BasilBlackwell,1986).
2.JürgenMoltmann, A Broad Place: An Autobiography (Minneapolis:FortressPress/London: SCMPress,2008),101.
3.JohnCalvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion III.2.42,trans.FordLewisBattles(London: SCMPress,1961),590.
4.LudwigFeuerbach, Das Wesen des Christentums (Leipzig:OttoWigand,1848);trans. GeorgeEliotas The Essence of Christianity (London:JohnChapman,1854).
5.BlaisePascal, Pensées,No.172,trans.W.F.Trotter,Everyman’sLibrary#874(London:J. M.Dent&Sons,1943),49f.
6.Fortheexpression“guide-God,”cf.MartinBuber, Königtum Gottes,2ded.,1936,xi;see The Prophetic Faith,trans.C.WittonDavies(NewYork:Macmillan,1940).
7.Forwhatfollows,cf.thedefinitionsofpromisebyWaltherZimmerli,“Verheissungund Erfüllung,” Evangelische Theologie 12(1952):38ff.
8.GerhardvonRad,“TypologischeAuslegungdesAltenTestaments,” Evangelische Theologie 12(1952):25f.
9.GerhardvonRad,“ThereRemainsStillaRestforthePeopleofGod,”in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays,trans.E.W.T.Dickinson(London:SCMPress,1966),94ff.
10.HannelisSchulte,“DerBegriffderOffenbarungimNeuenTestament,” Beiträge zur Evangelischen Theologie 13(1949):23.
11.Cf.ErnstKäsemann,“TheProblemoftheHistoricalJesus,”in Essays on New Testament Themes, trans.W.J.Montague(London:SCMPress,1964),30f.