CHAPTER:
7
HEAVEN,
THE LAND OF THE LIVING
Introduction
Heaven is
usually imaged as the beatific vision. It is more intellectual rather than
personal. Heaven is essentially a blissful communion with the Triune God in the
radiance of the Risen Christ. This communion to which Christians hope for is Christological,
Trinitarian, ecclesial and cosmic in character. Any conception of heaven, which
is not profoundly Christological and Trinitarian, ceases to be biblical and is
therefore pastorally worthless.
This deep,
pervading communion of love between the blessed and their God does not however
isolate them from one another. An essential dimension of heaven is the
communion of saints, for the beatifying communion with God binds them all
together into the glorified people of God. For God’s plan is “that the whole
human race (should) form one people of God, coalesce into the one Body of
Christ and be built up into the one temple of the Spirit” (Ad Gentes, 7).
Christians often
speak of ‘meriting heaven’. Although this terminology is theologically correct,
it is inclined convey that heaven is as if the fruit of one’s hard labour.
Heaven, when everything is said and done, is the supreme, gratuitous gift of
God to sinful humanity. Properly speaking we do not merit heaven, we are rather
gently drawn into it by God’s loving hand, for “our merits are in reality his
own gifts to us” (Augustine). The indwelling of the Holy Spirit has rightly
been called ‘heaven anticipated’, for we possess now, through faith and
justification, the very persons that will possess us later in intimacy of their
joyful and protective presence.
1. Old Testament:
The OT,
especially its post-exilic literature, seems to bear witness to a hope of blissful
life after death in the presence of God. The first dim glimpses of a future
life are perceptible in the so-called ‘mystical Psalms’ (Ps 15, 16, 36, 49, 73).
These psalms express God’s protective presence, interpersonal relationship with
God, implying mutual love and delight.
Ps 15: 10f reads “For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor
will you suffer your faithful one to undergo corruption. You will show the path to life, fullness of
joys in your presence, the delights by your right hand forever”.
The Lord’s
presence and right hand are symbolic portrayal of God’s unfailing protection.
It is a song of trust in a God who never lets down his faithful.
Ps 16: 8 – 11 reads, “I keep the Lord always before me; because he
is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my
soul rejoices; my body also rests secure. For you do not give me up to Sheol,
or let your faithful one see the Pit. You show me the path of life. In your
presence there is fullness of joy; in your right hand are pleasures
forevermore.”
It is a song of
trust in God who is the source of delight to those who truest him.
Ps 36: 8 – 10 reads, “How precious is your kindness, O God”, the
children of men take refuge in the shadow of your wings... from your delightful
stream you give them to drink. For with you is the fountain of life, and in
your light we see the light”.
This psalm description
of the retribution of the just and the idea of intimacy of presence are
accompanied by joy, rather than vision.
Ps 49: 14f reads, “They are appointed as a flock for Sheol; Death shall be their shepherd;
straight to the grave they descend; and their form shall waste away; Sheol
shall be their home. But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for
he will receive me.”
This psalm
presents in contrast language the final reward of the just and that of the
wicked. The author seems to have in mind something more than a temporary reward
in this life.
Ps 73: 23-26 reads, “I am continually with you; you do hold my
right hand... You will receive me in glory. Who have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing upon earth that I desire
besides you. My flesh and my heart may
fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my fail, but God is the strength
of my heart and my portion forever”.
This psalm
comments that the God, who enriches the righteous persons now with his
fellowship, will grant them fuller fellowship hereafter.
2. New Testament:
2.1. Heaven is the Risen Christ:
It is Christ
himself who admits the just into eternal life (Mt 7: 22f; 25: 41). The
celestial beatitude consists in being with Christ (Lk 23: 43; Mt 25: 34). Heaven is presented as a banquet or a
marriage feast with Christ (Lk 12: 37; 22: 29). It is to “enter into the joy of
the Lord” (Mt 22: 2ff; 25: 1-10). Christ himself serves the banquet (Lk 12: 37;
Mt 20: 28). The heavenly communion with Christ is the continuation of the
fellowship/friendship Jesus had on earth (Lk 22: 28 – 30; Mk 14: 25). The real
meaning of these texts is the essential mediatorship of the Risen Lord in
heaven, because it is he who will unite the blessed to the ultimate source of
that blissful joy, God the Father. Hence,
heaven is the perfect ‘doxophany’ or manifestation of Christ’s splendour (doxa)
leading to a perfect and uninterrupted doxology (worship/celebration). Apart
from this Christological dimension, the NT describes heaven under some
metaphors, like Temple, Light, Vision, and Cloth/ white robe.
2.2. Temple & cloth metaphors (2 Cor 5:1 – 10)
Temple is the sign of God’s presence among people. This explains the almost
instinctive attraction the Hebrews experience towards the temple in
Jerusalem. In the NT, however, the
‘temple’ is interiorised and personalized.
Jesus’ body is the temple. The Christian’s body is the temple of the
Spirit (2 Cor 5: 1 – 4).
Cloth stands for adornment, respect, dignity and celebration. Paul connects
the metaphors of temple and cloth in 2 Cor 5: 1 – 10. In this passage, the
building from heaven refers to the glorified body of the Christians in so far
as they are essentially connected with the Risen Christ. Paul claims that the
Risen Lord is the building where we shall all dwell. The guarantee of our final
dwelling with the Risen Lord is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in us. In 2
Cor 5: 2-4, the two symbols of clothing and building are now fused and the
result is a strange metaphor of putting on the heavenly dwelling place, i.e.,
the desire to put on our final glorified body is essentially related to that of
Christ. “To be further clothed” is another forced metaphor that Paul uses to
express the desire to receive the new body without losing the present one, if
this were possible. “To be found naked” (v.3), i.e. stripped of the present
body, although which people naturally despise.
In vv. 5-8, Paul
says that the best guarantee of our final glorification is the presence of the
Spirit within us (v.5). It should be
recalled that the mention of the Father and of the Spirit, which is added to
the reference to Christ’s body in v.1, completes the Trinitarian character of
the text. Paul here seems to envisage a
union with the Risen Christ, which follows immediately after death (v.8). “To
be with the Lord” and “to be with Christ” do not seem to be substantially
different expressions. Bultmann suggests that in this passage Paul comes very
close to Hellenistic-Gnostic dualism of the body and soul.
White Robe (Rev &: 9 – 17; 19:11; 20: 11 – 14; 22: 14 – 15): This metaphor is noticeably used in
the Book of Revelation. The passage in Rev 7: 9 - 17 describes the multitudes of Christians, victorious over
persecutions, appear in full heavenly glory. Rather than martyrs alone, the
text seems to refer to all members of the Church who have remained faithful.
What is referred to in this text is the glorification of the entire people of
God. ‘White robe’ is a symbol of
joy, purity, victory and triumph. It is the colour of life and light. In heaven
there is a white horse (Rev 19: 11), a white throne (Rev 20: 11), etc. In the
mount Tabor experience, the transfigured Jesus is similarly described, “His
garments became glistening, intensely white” (Mt 9: 3). This whiteness has been
acquired by socking “in the blood of the Lamb” (Rev 20: 14), namely their final
victory is the result of Christ’s death. This white robe is not a consequence
of entry into eschatological glory, but rather a condition for admission (Rev
22: 14). The blessed are represented as celebrating a ceaseless celestial
liturgy in the Father’s temple (Rev 22: 15). The Father will extend to them his
protective presence by drawing them into Himself, and thereby by wiping away their
original suffering from their faces. The entire passage is centred on the
persons of the Father (‘the one who sits on the throne’, according to the usual
terminology of the Book of Revelation) and the Risen Christ (the Lamb).
2.3. Light metaphor:
Light is a
universal symbol used in all religions for the presence of God. This is much
more so with Judaism. The religious life of the Jews at the time of Jesus
revolved around the majestic Jerusalem temple where the Ark and Yahweh’s mercy-seat (kapurat) were kept symbolising God’s abiding presence among people.
In the temple, the memorah, the seven
branch light-stand stood jetting out brilliant flames. During festival seasons,
the entire temple was alighted with lamps. Further, at night, during the ‘festival
of the dedication of the temple’, which is also known as the festival of Hannukka (the festival of lights), the whole
of Jerusalem city remained aglow from the blazing light shining forth from the
temple. For the Jews, this sight of Jerusalem temple was a sign of heavenly
Jerusalem entailing the protective and joyful presence of God.[1]
It is from the
perspective of the Jerusalem temple that the Book of Revelation gives a glimpse
of heaven as given in Rev 21: 22 – 23:
“And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty
and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the
glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb.” The Bible applies light
metaphor primarily to God the Father, “who dwells in unapproachable light” (1
Tim 6: 16), who “covers himself with light as with a garment” (Ps 104: 2).
Christ himself is “the reflection of his (Father’s) splendour” (Heb 1: 3) .When
transfigured, “his face shone like the sun” (Mt 17: 2). On the way to Damascus,
Paul sees “a light from heaven, brighter that the sun” (Act 26: 13). Further, Paul
sees the splendour of the Father reflected on the face of Christ (2 Cor 4: 6). Similarly,
John portrays God “is light” (1 Jn 1: 5), and Jesus is “the light of the world”
(Jn 8: 12). When applied to the relation of intimacy between God and humankind,
the metaphor of the light means simply the joyful and protective presence of
God.
In Rev 21: 1-22, John describes the
condition of the elect in heaven. Here, the two metaphors of temple and light
are fused together; the link between both is the intimacy of presence. The
celestial Jerusalem, namely the glorified Church, is “coming out of heaven from
God” (Rev 21: 2). The meaning of the expression is that the final glorification
of the Church is a gratuitous gift of the Father. Heaven is undoubtedly a
reward for her deeds (Rev 21: 12) but primarily she is made up of those “whose
names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (21: 27). The intimacy of union
between God and his people is expressed under the image of the “dwelling of
God” (v.3). God, who dwelt or pitched his tent (cf. Jn 1: 14) among humankind
in the Incarnation and who dwelt in them through his Spirit (Rom 8: 11), now
dwells with them in glory.
The light of God
shines on the city. the presence of the Father, filling the Church,
transfigures her. As a consequence, the
Church is radiant like a most rare jewel clear as crystal (Rev 21: 11) with her
streets “translucent like glass” (v. 21). The Church has no need of light, she
is illumined from within, for the “splendour of the Father is its light and its
lamp is the Lamb” (v. 23). The entire people of God are drawn into God, into
the midst of his blinding splendour. It is the transfiguration, the Easter day
of the Church. And given the meaning of
the metaphor of the light, to be drawn into it is to be drawn into the joy and
protection of the Father and his Christ.
The “temple” of
the Church is the very person of God himself. Not only is the Church the
dwelling place of God (Rev 21: 3; 22: 2) but, reciprocally, the Father and the Lamb
become the dwelling place of the Church (21: 22). This metaphor should
obviously not be taken in the sense of a fusion of existences and confusion in
the order of being. It is not a question
of fusion but of communion of personal intimacy. God himself becomes the temple
of the Church. Now the indwelling is mutual and intimate, a reciprocal
hospitality and mutual communion. This
intimate reciprocity implies more than a mutual immanence. To possess God in
this mutual reciprocity is to be filled with God. The blessed are in the Father
and in the glorified Christ. One may speak of a veritable immersion in God,
like a person who is surrounded by mist, bathed in light, sunk in water. Viewed
in this manner, one is certainly justified in appealing to the sense of touch
rather than of sight, to describe this intimacy of communion. The blessed are
in the resurrected Christ like the foetus in its mother (Rom 6: 5) drinking in
the very life of God as Jesus says, “He
abides in me and I in him” (Jn 15: 5) like wine and branches.
2.4. Vision metaphor:
This is another
important metaphor goes well with God’s spiritual nature (Jn 4: 24). God
cannot, properly speaking, be seen by humans even after the resurrection. The
vision metaphor means the intimacy of relationship, pervaded by mutual love and
intimate happiness. To see God is to be directly admitted into his presence. It
is being touched by God.
In 1 Cor 13:12f, Paul uses the vision
metaphor where he compares the knowledge we have of God in this world with that
hoped for in the world to come. Not even Moses could see God ‘face to face’
(Ex.32, 20). Our present knowledge of God is comparable to the perception of an
object in a mirror in which we do not see the object itself, but only its
reflection. It is clear from the context that Paul is comparing the “face to
face” vision of God with the knowledge which we posses now through the
charismatic gift of prophecy. The phrase seeing “face to face” should be
understood against the OT concept of ‘knowledge’, which designates the
concrete, experiential knowledge of another person. It conveys an existential
relation pervaded by affectivity and love rather than an intellectual
(Bultmann).
In like manner, Jn 17: 3 gives a loaded and concise
definition of heaven, “This is eternal life, that they know you the only true (faithful) God and Jesus Christ.” Understood semantically, to know Jesus and
his Father is not only to understand them in the abstract, but also and,
especially to experience, feel, touch and love them in an intimacy of mutual
possession. In Jn 3:1-2, John
connects the vision metaphor with our filiation with God. In biblical thought,
filiation is based on the fact of the gratuitous election (Israel is the
firstborn of Yahweh: cf. Ex 4: 22; Jer
31: 9). In the NT, the fullness of filiation is accomplished by the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom 8: 12 ff). Seen pneumatologically, our filiation is
more than a metaphor because we share already now in God’s own life.
Our preceding
biblical study leads us to conclude that all the biblical metaphors of temple,
vision and light, clothing and write robe have as common pointer to the idea of
‘presence’. And this presence points
to an intimate Trinitarian relationship. It is the protective and joyful
presence of the Father in the radiance of the Risen Christ and the refreshing
waters of the Spirit. The entire people of God will be immersed in God who is a
communion of three divine persons. As
Saint Augustine puts it “this will be at the end without end.” These biblical
metaphors may not be very precise intellectually, but they are exceedingly
suggestive and pastorally useful, for God’s revelation is not directed only to human
beings’ mind but also to their heart. Now it is clear how rich is the content of
Rev 7: 15: “... and God will shelter
them with his presence”.
3. Patristic position on
the immediacy of the vision:
The existence
and nature of heaven being a clear scriptural achievement, the attention of the
Church Fathers turns to modality (manner) of obtaining the beatific vision. In
this regard, the Patristic thought was conditioned by the ideas of private and
general judgements and the Jewish idea of Hades. Most held the view that the blessed
have partial vision immediately after death and full vision after general
judgement on the day of Parousia. All the dead would be in Hades until
Parousia, waiting for the general judgement. However, in the Western Church,
Cyprian in the 3rd century and later Augustine established
unhesitatingly the correct doctrine. They held that the just possess God
immediately after death. For those who are not entirely purified at the moment
of death, there is a possibility of purification after it.[2] This
position was taken over in the East, especially by Gregory of Naziancen.[3]
4. The Magisterium:
By 13th
century, delayed vision of God by the just was given up. However, Pope John
XXII opted for the delayed vision, but held it as his private opinion. The
Franciscans supported the papal position while the Dominicans opposed it. On 3rd
December, 1334, Pope John XXII retracted his position and affirmed that the
just see the Triune God immediately after death. The Constitution Benedictus,
in 1336, affirmed the belief that the just see the divine essence immediately
after death; faith and hope do not exist in heaven (ND, 2305 f). The Council of
Florence, held in 1439, resolved the problem existing between the Western and
Eastern Churches regarding the manner of understanding the vision of God for
the just. The Eastern Church opted not for immediate vision of God, but for
gradual and postponed full vision for the just. The Eastern approach is more
mystical while Western approach is more intellectual. The Council opted for a
reconciliatory formula of reunion between the West and East. It stated that the
just have immediate vision of the essence of God, but some perfectly than
others (ND, 2308 f).
5. Summing up:
Christological and Trinitarian aspects of heaven: Most theologians like, Rahner, Ratzinger and Alfaro stress
on the Christological and Trinitarian aspects of heaven. The glorified Christ
is the revealer of the Father even in heaven. Jesus’ saying, “I made your name
known to them and I will make it known (Jn 17, 26)”, has been understood by
several Church Fathers as directly applicable to heaven. In this, they saw
Jesus’ heavenly mediation of God the Father. The glorified Christ, who is directly
seen by the blessed, reveals to them the mystery of the Eternal Son. This
vision of the Son plunges the blessed into the immediate vision of God. Christ
is still the way to the Father. Since Father and Son necessarily breathe forth
(aspirate/share) the Holy Spirit, the blessed enjoy the Trinitarian mystery of
life and love, which is the immersion into the delight of the mystery of
existence itself.
Heaven is,
therefore, being in communion with God, who is a communion of divine three, the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Heaven is endless celebration of the
mystery of existence to which we are created and invited (led into) by
justification. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which is a gratuitous gift
that we posses now, is God’s assurance for us here and now about the life eternal
in heaven. This insistence on the personal aspect of heaven explains its nature
far better than an abstract theology of heaven as seeing a lifeless essence of
God. Pastorally, the popular images of the Synoptic gospels such as banquet,
wedding feast, etc. should be interpreted theologically, but not at the cost of
turning a mystery throbbing with life into the cold contemplation of a frozen
divinity.
Anthropological aspect of heaven: Heaven, besides being a gratuitous gift, is also a
reward of one’s life-commitment led by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This
is meaning of the idea of ‘meriting heaven’ as taught by the Council of Trent
(ND, 1982). The different degrees of communion among the blessed in heaven are
rooted in the different personal response of each individual person to the indwelling
Spirit. A greater openness to the indwelling Spirit now will necessarily result
in a higher degree of celestial union later, a higher degree of mutual
possession as said by the Council of Florence, “some more perfectly than
others” ( ND, 2309).
Heaven is the
ceaseless experience / celebration of the infinite riches of existence
intensively and extensively in the radiance of the infinite glory and majesty
of God, because human freedom is limitless and human experience is endless. Anthropologically, eternal life may be
conceived as an open process of becoming, of progressing ever further into the
person of God. “The happiness of heaven, therefore, consists in a continual
process of transformation” (Boros). Human person’s unquenchable thirst for God
and God’s own unfathomable riches seem to account for this endless process in
heaven. It is on account of this, some Church Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa and
others) suggested an indefinite progress of the blessed in the vision. The
blessed will plunge ever deeper into the immensity of God’s life and love. This
idea may sound new, but is certainly not absurd, given God’s incomprehensible
infinitude, which is inexhaustible.
God’s
inexhaustible riches will never be comprehensibly seen, enjoyed and loved by
the blessed. If you drop a stone on the surface of the ocean the stone will
slowly sink down but eventually its downward trend will cease, once the bottom
is reached. But God being a bottomless
abyss of Trinitarian life and love, the blessed in heaven will sink ever deeper
into it without ever reaching the end of the process. The blessed will drink God’s
own life and they will never be satiated, for as they drink, their capacity of
reception will further expand and this newly expanded capacity will be the
receptacle of a further outpouring of divine life.
Ecclesial and cosmic aspects of heaven: The anthropological aspect is intimately connected
with the ecclesial and cosmic character of heaven. Human being is glorified,
not as an individual, but as a member of ekklesia and spear-head of
creation. Christ, who is now the centre of the universe (cf. Col 1: 16ff) and
the head of the Church (Eph 5: 23) will be in heaven the meeting point of all
the blessed. The double dimension of human relationality, vertical (with God
Through Christ) and horizontal (with entire humanity as well as the cosmos
through Christ) becomes now heavenly without ceasing to be deeply ecclesial.[4]
The idea of
filiation – that we are God’s children in the Son (cf. Rom 8: 19ff) – reaches the
state of perfect maturity and becomes the strongest binding force of the
blessed, who will be truly “sons [children] in the Son”. It is only then that the real extension and
vastness of the people of God will be appearing as real children of God whom we,
perhaps, tended to discard as non-Christian outcasts! The ‘Nations’ from East
and West in their geographic diversity will then be part of the people of God
(cf. Mt 8: 11ff; 25: 31-46; Rev 21: 26).
Each one’s personal traits will not, in this manner, be abolished but
rather perfected in the absolute reciprocity of charity as described Augustine,
“All blended together into one spirit by the fire of charity.”[5]
Then the Father, operating through Christ’s dazzling humanity, will attract the
Church to himself, perfectly unified by the Spirit. And then the Church will
become the possession of the Father (cf. Eph 1: 14). This perfect ecclesial
unity together with the transfigured cosmos will be but the reflection of the
absolute Trinitarian unity, a people united with the unity of Father, Son and
Holy Spirit.
Eternity of heaven: The concept of an eternal heaven does not raise in the
mind of the Christian the difficulties that are connected with the eternity of
hell. Humans willingly accept heaven’s eternity, but a satisfactory
understanding of it remains exceedingly difficult. This is partly due to the
fact that we are now immersed in time and space as formal objects under which
our cognition takes place. This
obscurity is further increased by the fact that revelation speaks of an eternal
heaven but is entirely silent about its nature.
Eternity cannot
be reduced merely to timelessness. Nor can it be conceived as an endless
succession of time that is lost in the midst of a distant past and fades away
into the haze of the future. Eternity is rather an ‘ever-present-now’, in which there is neither before nor after. It
is not so much timelessness. Ever-present-now is contemporaneous with the flow
of life at all time.
Past and future
temporal tenses are compatible with God, who simply is in the present. “Before
Abraham was, I am” (Jn 8: 58). The blessed are in this realm of eternal present.
And yet this eternity should not be conceived as a lonely and static state of
life, because God is essentially the eternal flow (spring) of life and,
therefore, ceaseless activity. Therefore, the blessed live ceaselessly in the
ever-present-now of the divine presence. Continuance of life without succession
of time may be a fairly adequate description of eternity, which is, in the last
analysis, a mystery of the ever-present-now throbbing with life.
Glimpses of the eternal: In spite of our intrinsic limitations to understand
eternity (ever-present-now), yet we do have some glimpses of its real meaning, because
humans can never long for what they never experience, at least to some extent. We
experience moments of total absorption in work, contemplation, the communion of
personal love, when time seems to stand still. These moments of deep personal
involvement seem to take us ‘outside the realm of succession of time’. These
moments are pointers towards eternity. These three instances (work, contemplation,
love) imply moments of our total dedication and absolute self-gift for a
cause/people/God, in which we find a sense of fulfilment. This intrinsic delight
of self-gifting finds completion in the eternity of God.
Humans’ psychological makeup offers instance to sight
the experience of eternity. Human memory can re-live the past in the present
and can anticipate the future in the present.
By means of our memory and imagination, we are able to make the past and
the future flow into the present, into a kind of analogical timeless ‘now’. Perhaps,
all these are but only blurred perceptions of what eternity is, embedded in
human nature!
Heaven is eternal because God’ love is eternal: Human life, which is God’s own sovereign and
gratuitous gift of love for us, is always loved and protected by God (cf. Jn 3:
16 – 17; 17: 3). He is the giver and guarantor of life. God’s love for the
blessed will never cease nor will the love of the blessed for their God ever
cease. They will live forever because they will be loved forever. In heaven there will be endless life because
there will be endless love of God. In the last analysis, eternity is not a time
abstraction but a person. It is an immersion into the ever present now of God’s
own life and love.
JR/MSC/ESCH/ CHAPTER SEVEN/
2010 – 2011
CHAPTER: 8
THE PAROUSIA OF THE LORD
Introduction
The centre of
the Christian concept of salvation history is the Paschal Mystery of Christ. This
is the centre towards which the entire preceding history tends and from which
all subsequent history flows. Consequently, the ultimate dimension of the
Christian eschatological hope is the glorious Parousia of the Risen Christ, the
final manifestation of his glory.
The infant
Church looked forward to this event longingly as the centre of its hope and
fulfilment of its desires. On the contrary, the immense majority of the Christian
believers, today, consider the Parousia
a totally irrelevant topic, which does not concern. Just as the obsession of
the infant Church with the Parousia
was to some extent based on the misunderstanding of its early arrival, so also
the present widespread neglect of this event may well derive from a fundamental
misrepresentation of its true nature. Most people feel that the Parousia will affect only those belonging
to the end of time but not themselves. In this, perhaps, they are totally
wrong. This calls for a systematic study of the topic with its pastoral and
personal significance.
1. Parousia in the New Testament:
The term Parousia (from the Greek pareimi /
from Latin parere)
expresses, in biblical and extra-biblical usage, the idea of coming or bringing
forth/ arrival. In the Greco-Roman world, the Parousia of princes and emperors was always accompanied by an
extraordinary display of ceremonial pomp and solemnity, to mark the importance
of the occasion. Generally it signified their victorious home-coming after
subduing their enemies.
The Parousia texts appear in the Synoptic
gospels (Mk 13; Mt 24: 1 – 44; Lk 21: 5 –36) and Pauline literature (1 Thess 4:
13 – 17; 2 Thess 2: 1 –12). These are given in apocalyptic language, mostly
taken from Dan 7:13 ff; 9: 27 ff; 12: 11; Is 42:1; 43:20; Jer 23:19; etc).
These texts point to the final manifestation/coming of the Risen Lord in
his glory. The same idea, however, is conveyed by other terms like “revelation/disclosure”
[apokalypsis] (1 Cor 1:
7; 2 Thess 1: 7) “manifestation” [epiphaneia] (mainly in the Pastorals: 1 Tim 6:
14; 2 Tim 4: 1); “the Day of the Lord” [he
hemera tou kuriou] or simply “the Day”
[he hemera] (Acts 2: 20; 1 Cor 1: 8; etc.).
The emphasis of the Parousia texts seems to
fall not on the coming of Christ, but rather on the recognition of his Lordship
and the vindication of his messianic mission by God the Father before all
people. The term ‘Second Coming,” which does not appear anywhere in the NT, was
used by St Justin martyr in the 2nd century. Its closest biblical equivalent
appears in the Hebrews 9: 28: “He will appear a second time”.[6]
The Parousia, as
used in the NT, has the following characteristics: it is a communitarian event,
because the glorious manifestation of Christ will take place before all
humankind; it is an ecclesial event, because the elect will gather around the
Risen Lord and will constitute the glorified ekklesia that began taking
shape during Jesus’ life time and will be fully manifested at Parousia; it is a
soteriological and not a punitive event; however, to some extent, it is also a judicial event, because Christ will then
obtain his definitive victory over his opponents; and finally it is be a cosmic
event because the entire creation will be transfigured into his glory.
1.1. Parousia
language in Mark 13:
For our study of
the Parousia texts, we take the Mark’s texts as given in Mark 13, because
Mathew’s and Luke’s are almost the same. In keeping with the OT apocalyptic
genre, the primary intention of the author seems to be to bring some measure of
consolation to the Church in time of trial, rather than to describe accurately
the events preceding the End-time.
Apocalyptic images and language are used with their usual symbolic
meaning, portrayal, which partly reveal and partly hide the reality they
convey.
Mark 13 is an extremely complex chapter on which the best modern exegetes are
still divided. The chapter seems to announce simultaneously the destruction of
Jerusalem and the End of the world. It
is the former that is in the foreground but through it one can discern certain
features of the End-time. Jesus and the
evangelist have a vague notion of the End-time. They try to express it by
referring it to the end of the Jewish world, the destruction of Jerusalem. “For
Mark one could say that Jerusalem’s fall was a ‘trailer’ to the consummation of
the world” (Nolan). And in typically prophetic fashion, the time gap between
the two events drops out; they are seen in one single glance. The chapter can
be divided in four distinct sections: introduction (vv 1-4); miseries which
will proceed the last days, with strong apocalyptic colouring (vv 5-13);
description of the last days (vv 14-23); and the end, with the Parousia (vv 24-27).
The text begins
with a disciple pointing to Jesus at the magnificent sight of the Jerusalem
Temple (v.1) whereas Jesus’ reply is about the impending destruction of the
Temple (v.2). And then four disciples ask Jesus when this will take place? (vv.
3 –4) but Jesus’ answer deals with the trials and tribulations that the Church
is expected to face at the End-time (vv. 5 – 13). There is no need to see in
them a reference to contemporary historical events, for the expressions are
commonly found in apocalyptic literature: hunger (Is 8: 21); earthquakes (Is
13: 13; Is 14: 30) and famine (Is 19: 2); wars (Jer 23: 19), etc. These events
are not the immediate signs of the End. Probably, against the widespread
opinion held by the Jews at that time that these are the signs of the End-time,
Mark stresses that these calamities do not imply an immediate End-time but
highlights that the universal preaching of the Gospel is a necessary part of
God’s plan before the End-time (v.10).[7]
And then
description about the great tribulation is given (vv. 14 – 23). The “desolating
sacrilege” (v.14) refers to the statue of Caligula, the Roman emperor, which
was placed in the Jerusalem Temple in AD 40. In any case, the expression reproduces
almost exactly Dan 9: 27; 12: 11. The
necessity of instant flight as vividly depicted in vv. 15-18 is common to apocalyptic
writings. Though these sayings are placed in Jesus’ own mouth, these need not
be authentic sayings, for Jesus never makes use of apocalyptic speculations.
The idea of shortening the days for the sake of the elect has roots in the OT,
especially in Ps 105: 6; Is 43: 20; etc, but is not found anywhere else in
Jesus’ teaching. Probably, it represents Mark’s view.
The Parousia is
explained in vv.24 – 27. The description of vv.24f is entirely apocalyptic and
is therefore to be interpreted accordingly. Its parallel passages are given in
Ezekiel 32: 7; Amos 8: 9. Since Jesus is not known to have made apocalyptic
predictions of this kind, many exegetes regard these verses as largely
secondary, originating from the early Church rather than from Jesus himself. The “arrival of the son of man coming in
clouds” (v 26) is an echo of Daniel 7: 13, where the expression stands for the
arrival of God’s kingdom and Yahweh’s vindication.
In the OT, the
clouds are often the vehicles of God, and here they indicate the divine status
of the ‘Son of man’. Hence the metaphor
means the perfect triumph or vindication of the Messiah, rather than his return
in glory. This has been mentioned by Jesus in the ‘trial saying’ before the
Passion, “You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming
on the clouds of heaven”( Mt 26: 64). Jesus hopes that God will bring about his
final vindication and the triumph of his kingdom, without any idea of a return
in glory. The reference to Daniel 7: 13, which is a passage of vindication,
makes this interpretation clear, for Daniel portrays a divine figure going up
to heaven, not coming down from heaven. Jesus is here affirming, not his second
coming (visitation) but his final vindication.
Taylor claims, “It
is highly doubtful therefore if Mk 13: 26 can be regarded as an actual saying
of Jesus.” Today, many Bible Scholars like Lagrange, Feuillet and Robinson hold
that the interpretation of Mk 13: 26 and Mt 26: 64 as sayings of vindication
rather than of visitation. A series of sayings on watchfulness (Mk13: 28-37) is artificially added to the preceding
passage. The perspectives are suddenly changed. Jesus, who was pictured earlier
as prepared to reveal the signs of the End-time, now disclaims any knowledge of
the time of his coming.
On the other
hand, it is quite possible to understand the Parousia saying in the sense that
Jesus expected and preached an early Parousia.
Raymond Brown suggests, “Is it totally inconceivable that since Jesus did not
know when the Parousia would
occur (cf. v.32) he tended to think and say that it would occur soon? If so, he
was obviously mistaken.” For, “That Day” is a technical Christian term for the
Day of Judgment (cf. Lk 21: 34; 2 Thess 2: 10).
Originally it seems to have been an independent saying inserted by Mark
here. Nevertheless, most exegetes defend the authenticity of the saying to
Jesus, because the Church would have never ascribed to Jesus such self-limiting
utterances. The saying is baffling, and “its offence seals its genuineness”
(Taylor). This ignorance of Jesus seems to be part of his kenotic state, for only that
knowledge is to be attributed to him, which is demanded by his messianic
function, and this function does not require an exact foreknowledge of the date
of the Parousia.
The unavoidable
conclusion regarding Mark Chapter 13 is that some elements of the Chapter only
belong to secondary tradition. Authentic sayings of Jesus, when found, are recognized
as such, though at times they lie beneath the surface, covered by the
overgrowth of tradition. To draw a demarcation line between the sayings of
Jesus and the adaptation of those sayings by the early Church is very
difficult, and in a way, a secondary task. No compelling evidence can be
adduced to show that the climax of the passage (vv 24-27) is entirely authentic
or that, if authentic, it should be understood in any other sense other than
that of Jesus’ vindication, rather than visitation. Taylor comments that by
saying this “we are far from robbing the teaching of Jesus of its essentially
eschatological content, which is unmistakably present in many sayings.... but
what we detach from his shoulders is the glittering apocalyptic robe with which
primitive Christianity clothed Him and with which He is still draped in popular
Christian expectation.”
1.2. The
Parousia parables:
Most of the
Parousia parables have an inner nucleus which goes back to Jesus himself, but
which has been adapted by the Church to her concrete historical pastoral situation.
Three of these parables we study below:
The burglar (Mt 24: 43ff; Lk 12: 39ff): Jesus seems to be drawing
upon an actual happening, a night-time robbery in a village, and he uses this
as a warning against the impending eschatological catastrophe. They should not
be caught unaware as the owner of the house was caught by the burglar. But the infant
Church applied the parable to its members, ‘to his disciples’ (Lk 12: 22). It
is a reminder to Church leaders not to become slack in view of the delay in
Christ’s return. By allegorising the parable, the burglar has become the figure
representing the Son of Man. The Church’s application is somewhat strange, for
a burglary is an unpleasant occurrence, whereas the Parousia of Jesus is a great day of joy for his disciples!
The Church
changed the emphasis of the parable by applying it to its own situation,
characterized by a delay in Christ’s return.
Its eschatological character is preserved, but a warning to the crowd
becomes an admonition to Church leaders and the impending eschatological
catastrophe becomes the Parousia
at the end of time. Joachim Jeremias suggests that the parable has received “a
Christological twist.” And yet this is an adaptation by the Church, not a
distortion, because Jesus and the Church knew that the impending crisis would
be marked by tribulations. Whereas Jesus emphasized the suddenness of this
tribulation, the early Church laid stress on the end of this tribulation. Coming
in the line of prophetic tradition, Jesus’ outlook was concerned with the
present but the Church’s gaze is directed to the future. Jesus’ intention was
eschatological only in the broad sense, directed to the decisiveness of the
present time, but the Church’s adaptation makes it eschatological in the strong
sense, referring it to the End-time.
The ten maidens (Mt 25: 1-13): This parable, with its clear eschatological
setting in Mathew is eschatological in character. It has undergone a
transformation similar to the burglar parable. The occasion now seems to be an
actual wedding; the sudden coming of the bridegroom is parallel to the sudden
entry of the burglar. The crisis is at the door. It is imminent and will bring
about an inexorable separation, like that between the wise and the foolish
maidens. This seems to have been the original meaning of the parable, because
the description of the Messiah as a bridegroom is foreign both, to the OT and
to late Judaism; and it appears for the first time in Paul (2 Cor 11: 2),
besides being absent from the rest of Jesus’ teaching. Perhaps, Jesus’
listeners lacked the necessary background to make the application of the
bridegroom to the Messiah.
In its original
meaning, therefore, this parable was not an allegory applicable to Jesus’
return. But later, the infant Church allegorised, giving to it an
Christological meaning. The bridegroom is the figure of Christ; the delaying of
the bridegroom means the postponement of his return; his sudden coming is the
unexpected Parousia of himself; the rejection of the foolish maidens is the
final judgment. The final and irrevocable separation of the two groups of
maidens remains still the central point of the parable. Jesus’ warning to awake
the crowd (his listeners) from their slumber has become the Church’s admonition
to Church leaders to be watchful.
The talents (Mt 25: 14-30; Lk 19: 12-27): The original meaning of
this parable, with its emphasis on the reckoning of the third servant who
buried the talent, seems to have been a severe warning to the leaders of the
people, particularly the scribes (cf. Lk 11: 52) for withholding from the
people their share in God’s gift. They have not made the right use of the talent
entrusted to them, the Word of God. Hence, they will soon have to give an
account.
Now Mathew
changes the emphasis of the parable by adding an Christological interpretation
twice (vv.21: 30), by including a double penalty for the slothful servant, earthly
and heavenly and by emphasizing a secondary element (v. 28). This emphasis
changes the entire outlook of the parable, making it a parable on the nature of
divine retribution. Consequently, Mathew heavily eschatologizes and
christologizes the parable. The merchant’s journey becomes almost the central
point in the story. The merchant is an allegory to Christ. His journey is
Christ’s ascension and his return ‘after a long time’ (Mt 25: 19) has become
Christ’s Parousia as an immediate prelude to the divine judgment. Hence, a
parable of threatening judgment for the Scribes (Jewish religious leaders) has
been allegorised into an Christological judgment at the End-time. The judgment
element is common to both, Jesus and the Church. However, the reference to Parousia is clearly Mathew’s addition
because he places the parable in the eschatological context of the last
judgement in Chapter 25.
All the three parables
are crisis-parables, intended to awaken the people to the decisive moment of
salvation. Hence, they are eschatological in the broad sense and marked by
Jesus’ characteristic emphasis, which is prophetic in intend. The final
catastrophe will be as sudden as the appearance of the burglar, the bridegroom
and the master returning from his journey. The early Church, however, added the
idea of Christ’s parousiaic coming to these sayings and presented them as a
warning addressed to the community, especially to Church leaders not to become
slack because of the delay in Christ’s return.
1. 3. Pauline
contribution:
The development
in the Pauline doctrine of the Parousia
is just the reverse to that of the Synoptics. The original teaching of Jesus is
given apocalyptic overtones in the Synoptics, whereas in Paul the trend is from
the early apocalyptic to a more sober on-apocalyptic approach to Parousia in
his later writings. This is noticeable even in the terminology used by Paul. In
the early writings, Paul speaks of the ‘Parousia’ (1 Thess 2: 19; 3: 13; 4:
15), whereas later he introduces other sober terms, like ‘revelation’ (1 Cor 1:
7) and ‘manifestation’ (Col 3: 4; 1 Tim 6: 14). These two extremes show that
his teaching of Parousia has
undergone a process of gradual maturation.
The theme of 1 Thess
4:13-18: The Thessalonians expected an imminent Parousia (cf. 2 Thess 2: 1 f). Yet in the past twenty years many
had died without seeing it. Hence, in their general disappointment, they stand
in need of comfort (4: 18; 5: 11). Paul’s reply is that even those who are
already dead will see and enjoy the Parousia,
on account of the general resurrection, which will take place at that time. He
explains that Christ’s resurrection (v.14) is the foundation of our
resurrection, a theme he developed in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul is here thinking
exclusively of the resurrection of Christians, of those who die in Jesus. Paul
speaks to two categories of people (v.15 ff), namely those who, at the time of
the Parousia will still be alive and who would have died before. Paul deduces from
the central doctrine of the resurrection that both will share the glory of the
Risen Lord at the time of Parousia, which is described in apocalyptic language
(1 Thess 4; 16 = cf. Dan 7:13; 12: 1).
1.4. Johannine
insights on Parousia:
The vivid
imagery of the Synoptics and early Paul should be checked against the more
sober insights of John, which are devoid of apocalyptic conceptions but closer
to the viewpoint of the prophets. John certainly admits a futurist element in
his eschatology; he speaks clearly of a last Day, which will be marked by the
resurrection (Jn 6: 39; 11: 24) and final judgment (Jn 12: 48; 5: 28f). But in
a certain way, this future is already present here and now, because his
emphasis is that one who believes in Jesus has already eternal life (Jn 6: 47).
His entire eschatology must be interpreted in the light of 4: 23: ‘The hour is
coming and now is”. Johannine conception of the Parousia is coloured neither
exclusively by futurist eschatology nor entirely by realized eschatology, but comes
under the category of an inaugurated eschatology, in which the future realities
are already seen in an embryonic form here and now, whereas its full flowering
lies still in the future.
In other words,
the Synoptics and the Pauline Letters are concerned with what must take place
after the death of Jesus, whereas John is concerned with what happens in the
death of Jesus. The pivotal centre of the Johannine idea of eschatology is
Jesus’ Paschal Mystery, rather than his Parousia – that is, his final coming in
glory – parallel to the first coming (Incarnation).
John gazes upon the entire field of eschatology from the perspective of the
Paschal Mystery, because all the subsequent events are rooted there, in Jesus’
death and resurrection. The Synoptics and the Pauline literature stress on the
‘coming’ aspect of Parousia, while
the Johannine idea focuses on presence of the Risen Christ here and now in the
life of the Church. J. Robinson comments that in John, “the Parousia is clearly
understood not as a separate catastrophic occurrence, but as a continuous
pervasion of the daily life of the disciple and the Church.”
2.
Tentative sum up: Firstly, the New Testament writings
present Parousia as the consummation
of the salvation history whose centre is the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Secondly,
Parousia is essentially a social, ecclesial and cosmic event in which Jesus’
Lordship as Christ will be vindicated. Thirdly, in the NT, the idea of Parousia
is a gradually evolving thought, which seemed to have reached some sense of
maturation in the Johannine writings, where its apocalyptic colouring has been
very much reduced while its connection to the Paschal Mystery has been
deepened. Fifthly, The Parousia
is not an event that can be precisely dated. Even if all the classical
premonitions of the Parousia as
given in the NT writings go back to Jesus – which is doubtful – its arrival
cannot be submitted to correct dating. Sixthly, No clear conclusion has been reached
among scholars regarding Jesus’ expectation of an imminent Parousia.
3. Premonitions
of Parousia:
The traditional
presages of the Parousia do not
indicate a fixed date but only its proximity. The premonitions are rather
negative signs. Some of them are very difficult to identify, referring to
events, which must take place before the End-time. In general, they must be
handled “with critical prudence” (Rahner) and not to treat them as idle Christian
curiosity. We survey below the premonitions as narrated in the Synoptics and
Pauline Letters.
The preaching of the Gospel: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed
throughout the earth as a testimony to all nations and then the end will come”
(Mt 24: 14). This universal proclamation of the Gospel prior to the Parousia seems to be firmly embedded
in the synoptic tradition (cf. Mk 13: 10; 14: 9; 16: 15; Lk 24: 47; etc). However,
it is very difficult to determine when the Gospel can be considered as already
preached to all the nations. In any case this general proclamation should not
be identified with the conversion of the Gentiles, even though preaching and
conversion are intimately connected.
General conversion of Jews and Gentiles: The people especially elected by God to receive the Messiah
have refused to accept him (Mt 23: 37; Lk 13: 25-30). According to Paul, the
Jewish infidelity to Jesus Christ is only partial (Rom 11: 1-10) and temporary
(Rom 11: 11-24), to be followed by their conversion before the End-time. Further,
Paul seems to believe that the conversion of the Jews is to be preceded by that
of the nations (Rom 11: 25-26). Surprisingly, this hope seems to be Paul’s and
not shared by other NT authors.
The great apostasy and the antichrist: The defections and apostasies preceding the End-time
will be numerous: “Many false prophets will arise... many will lose their faith”
(Mt 24: 11f; cf. Mk 13: 21f; Rev 13). As
for the antichrist, the name itself is found in 1 Jn 2: 18-22; 4: 3; 2 Jn 7.
This idea is also found in Paul’s writing (2 Thess 2: 3 – 12). “Antichrist” is
used either as an individual noun or as a collective noun, who, at the
End-time, will oppose the religion of Christ with a power and efficacy unknown
before.
The idea of antichrist
is found already in the OT, announcing the arrival of an enemy of God who will
succeed for a time but who at the end will be conquered (Dan 7 & 8; 1 Macc
2). Jesus himself announces the arrival
of falsechrists (Mt 22: 24; Mk 13: 22) whose activity will be essentially anti-religious.
John also speaks of numerous antichrists collectively as a godless force
already present in the world (1 Jn 4: 3; 2 Jn 7, 18). Perhaps the “two beasts”
as referred to in the Book of Revelation alludes to the same category of antichrists
(Rev 13). The key text regarding antichrist is given in 2 Thess 2: 3-12, which
refers to three forces, namely the apostasy, the antichrist and the restrainer
that causes apocalyptic anarchy. This calls for an explanation.
“The
apostasy” as referred by Paul (2 Thess 2:3) is, perhaps, related to Mathew’s
description (Mt. 24: 11-24). It is a
general defection from the Christian faith. After 1 Macc 2: 15, the apostasy
enters as an ordinary element in apocalyptic descriptions. The expression seems
to designate simply a general defection; a denial of whatever is divine and
religious, effected by the Antichrist, which is the final onslaught of the internal
powers against the Church (cf. Rev 20: 7-10).
It seems futile to read in detail further the identification of this
apostasy, when Paul himself, probably, did not have a very clear idea as to
what form this final rebellion would take place.
The idea of “the
antichrist” or “the man of lawlessness / the son of perdition” as referred to
by Paul (2 Thess 2: 3f) seems to be an
apocalyptic symbol, which, though referring probably to a concrete human being,
remains somewhat indeterminate. Hence, some scholars say that it may refer to
an individual (Cerfaux, Rigaux) or to a collectively to be identified with the
antichrist of John (Allo, Bonservin). According to the first opinion, the
absence of the personal, individual antichrist would be a sign that the Parousia
is not yet imminent (cf. 2 Thess 2: 8f), because the coming of the antichrist
will be a sign of Christ’s Parousia. The absence of the first shows the error
of the Thessalonians who believed in an imminent Parousia.
For the
defenders of the second opinion, however, the collective antichrist would be
already present, but as yet not manifested, to be revealed later on. Paul’s
description is extremely sober. Consequently, we cannot determine further what
he himself probably did not know. The “mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thess 2: 7)
is closely associated with the antichrist but probably not to be identified
with the antichrist. It is like the
personification of Satan. It has been suggested by scholars not to speculate
about these forces because no one is able to identify concretely what these
evil forces would mean.
4. Theological
Reflection:
Parousia, the final vindication of Jesus as the
Messiah: When all the
demythologization is done to remove the apocalyptic garb, the Parousia
designates the vindication of Jesus as the true Messiah and his mission of the
kingdom of God. Hence, Parousia is Christological, ecclesial and cosmic in
character.
Parousia is
Christological. The Parousia is a word that has no plural. Properly speaking
there is only one Parousia or
“coming of the Lord” and this is the Incarnation that climaxed in the Paschal
Mystery. Hence the Parousia
should not be conceived, as a historical coming parallel to the first (i.e.,
Incarnation). It is to be understood as the glorious revelation (apokalypsis) or manifestation (epiphania) of the present kenotic
presence of Christ in the Church and the world.
The Parousia is essentially “a
conformation to Christ from within, not a confrontation of the universe from
without” (Nolan). Probably, the best and most satisfying expression of the Parousia in the NT is found in John
and late Paul. It is the summing up of all things in the Risen Christ, centre
of the cosmos and end of world history.
At the Parousia, the Risen Christ, present and operative in the Church
and the world, will remove the veils of his sacramental presence letting the
splendours of his glory pervade the entire cosmos. This will be ‘his finest
hour’, the decisive moment of his eschatological vindication.
Parousia is
ecclesial. The Church, as the pleroma (fullness) of the Risen Christ, cannot
possibly be a stranger to this final vindication. At the Parousia, the Church’s
own kenotic state will be assumed into the glory of her Lord, but this final
triumph of his “mystical body”, the Church, will come not from without, but
from within, from her innermost core and centre, which is the Risen Christ
himself. In this sense, the Parousia
will be the exteriorisation of Christ’s current spiritual presence and activity
in the Church. Therefore the real nature of the Parousia should be conceived in
close connection with the multi-faceted Christic presence of his immanence and
the Eucharistic real presence as well as his presence in all people and in
creation. The glorified Jesus is present in the Church even now, but not
detectable to experience, like the sun behind the clouds. At the End-time, the cloud will break and the
sun (the glorious presence of Christ) will shine in all its radiance. It is, in
fact, a veritable epiphaneia, (a
visible manifestation) of the invisible but present Christ.
Christ came to
the Church once and only once. Hence, the Parousia is not his second coming,
but the final reaping of the harvest planted at his first and the only
coming. And yet this End-time ‘kairos,’ which is the decisive moment of
the completion of salvation, is not predicable by the Church but set only by
the Father. In this sense, the Parousia
is the supreme manifestation of God’s transcendence over the Church and
creation. The recent document of CDF (17May 1979) states, “In accordance with
the Scriptures, the Church looks for “the glorious manifestation of the Lord
Jesus Christ, believing it to be distinct and deferred with respect to the
situation of people immediately after death” (n.5).
5.
The transfiguration of the world:
The
transfiguration of the people of God at the time of the Parousia cannot but produce a concomitant transfiguration of the
material universe, given the God given connection between humankind and the creation.
For, the final destiny of the material universe is interwoven with the final
destiny of humankind. Regarding the final destiny of the material universe, the
NT presents two different conceptions, namely the Pauline and Petrine. These
seem to be apparently difficult to reconcile but mean the same, that is,
purification and transfiguration of everything and everybody in the glory of
the Risen Lord.
Pauline
conception: The material
world was created and subjected to humankind before the fall (Gen 1:
26-31). But even this creation was
essentially Christological, centred on Christ, “in whom everything in heaven and
on earth was created” (Col 1: 16). Christ is not only the head of the Church
but the meeting point of the entire material universe (Eph 1: 10). These Pauline epistles speak of the influence
of the Risen Lord, which breaks through the framework of the Church and bursts
forth into the outer world. Durrwell says that it is a cosmic influence, and
the world “is drawn behind the Church in the wake of Christ’s exaltation.”
Romans 8: 19 – 22 is the key test, where Paul most explicit speaks
about the destiny of the world. The
perfect filiation of the “sons of God” [children of God] will be shared by the
material universe which groans in pain, eagerly expecting its own eschatological
fulfilment. This final redemption of the universe is considered by Paul as a
result of the glorification of humankind’s body, because the soma
(“body” understood as human person
in one’s biological life), in Hebrew thought, is what connects human person
with the surrounding universe. Hence the glorification of humankind’s soma entails the consequent
glorification of the material universe. “The universe is not like a pedestal on
which human beings are placed by God. Looked from the perspective of quantum
mechanics, human beings are the self-conscious knots or the embodied spirits of
the cosmos. Hence, the world’s final destiny is not death but life, its fate is
not annihilation, but transfiguration. It is the glorified Christ that draws
unto himself first the entire humankind, and then through them the material
universe.
Patrine conception: The picture presented in 2 Peter 3: 7 –13, which is the key text of Peter’s approach, is quite different. Now the world
seems to be headed for destruction through an immense general conflagration/blazing
fire (vv.7 & 10). The main
difficulty of interpretation arises from lack of biblical parallels, because
this is the only place in the entire NT where the world is said to be destined
for burning. The OT often speaks of fire
as a symbol of God’s wrath to be manifested at the judgement (cf. Is 34: 4; Jer
21: 12; Ez 22: 31). What is implied in Peter’s text is not a question of a
total destruction and annihilation by fire, but rather of purification through
fire similar to that of the flood through water (cf. vv. 5f). Hence, the
author’s main intention is to express God’s direct intervention and judgement
on the world. This divine intervention is clothed in symbolic language largely
derived from Jewish apocalyptic literature.
Consequently, the metaphors of disintegration through fire are not to be
taken literally.
The opposition
between these two texts therefore, (Rom 8: 19 – 22 and 2 Pet 3: 7 – 13) seems
to be more apparent than real. It would be real if the apocalyptic description
of 2 Pet were to be understood literally, which is not the case. A combination
of both the texts yields the following result. Firstly, the material universe
will be subjected to God’s direct eschatological intervention in judgment,
thereby undergoing a process of purification (spiritual catharsis), which will
lead to its final transfiguration.
Secondly, Just
as humankind’s destiny patterned according to the Paschal Mystery of Christ
implies the purifying destruction of death but only to be superseded by the
final glorification in the resurrection, so also the material universe will be
subject to ‘death’, only to be subsumed into its definitive transfiguration
into the glory of Christ. The ultimate reason for this final cosmic
transfiguration is the intimate link and close connection that binds together
Christ’s Risen body, humankind’s glorified body and the material universe. All
three are like links of one and the same chain, subject to the same final
destiny of death and glorification. Christ’s Paschal death, which is a death of
transition into glory, has left its imprint on the materiality of humankind and
the material universe. But further details about the manner of this cosmic
transformation/transfiguration escapes us altogether, just as we know for sure
the fact of our eventual resurrection, whereas the manner in which this will
take place and the qualities of the human-risen-body are and will always be
shrouded in impenetrable mystery.
Therefore, we
can affirm that the Parousia of
the Lord and our final salvation will take place in this world, transfigured
but still the same material world. Therefore the Christian loves the universe
and all terrestrial values with an eschatological love and a parousiac hope.
The centre and the pinnacle of the world is the Risen Christ, with all people
and the world subject to Him. And then
“[God] will shelter them with his presence…and will wipe away tears from their
eyes (Rev 7: 15, 17), and “God will be all in all” (1 Cor 15: 28).
JR/MSC/ESCH/ CHAPTER EIGHT/
2010 – 2011
[1] . L. Bermejo,
166 – 67.
[2] . Patrologia Latina, vol. 4, 596 ff; vol.32, 765
[4] . This will be
further developed in Chapter VIII on “The Parousia of the Lord.”
[6]
. How the doctrine of the Parousia
as “Second Coming” or “Visitation” came about in the Christian tradition is
rather outlandish. It should be noted that Judaism does not have the idea of
the “second coming of the Messiah.” So, the idea of the second coming of
Christ/visitation must have originated from the Christian tradition itself. In
what follows is a tentative explanation/hypothesis for this belief: The
earliest strata of the NT, which is visible in the archaic speeches of Acts 2
& 3, gives us kerygma centred writing on the resurrection of Jesus, without
any mention of the Parousia.
This argument from silence, ‘ex silentio’, should be handled
cautiously, but it is nevertheless a striking fact. Explicit belief in the Parousia seems to have arisen, not
immediately after Pentecost but later (cf. the first testimony is 1 Thess 4).
Perhaps, some vague expressions of Jesus like “I will come to you” ( Jn 14: 3)
, etc., coupled with the doubt of the Church as to whether all the OT
prophecies about the Messiah had been fulfilled with his first coming – that
is, during his earthly life – gave rise
to the explicit belief in the “second coming”/ “visitation”. In any case, the mythical or symbolic imagery
of 1 Thess and the Synoptics is clearly reminiscent of the OT theophanies. The
striking similarity between 1 & 2 Thess and Is 66 is obvious.
[7] . See its parallel in Mt
24, 14 and Rom 11, 25ff. Most scholars hold that this expression reflects
Jesus’ mind but probably does not go back to Jesus’ himself as a historical
saying. Possibly, the infant Church connected with the End-time all these
tragic premonitions, which in themselves refer rather to the tribulations
associated with the preaching of the gospel.
No comments:
Post a Comment