FEBRUARY 2005 - ISSUE 4 - ISSN 1448 - 632

‘THE END OF THE WORLD’: WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

VINCENT BATTAGLIA

ABSTRACT

What does it mean when we say we believe in ‘the end of the world’ when scientists tell us that the universe is billions of years old and will continue to exist for billions of years to come? How can we believe in ‘the resurrection of the body’ at ‘the end of time’ in a constantly evolving universe where human life, and indeed planet earth, are but mere specks in the cosmos? This paper explores these questions and others in the light of advances made in the natural sciences. I identify three key distinctions that may assist the development of Christian eschatology in the light of these new challenges. I argue that a renewed Christian eschatology needs to be built upon a dialogue between Christian revelation and tradition, on the one hand, and anthropological and eschatological insights drawn from the natural and social sciences, on the other hand, in order for the ‘cosmic’ gospel of Jesus Christ to remain meaningful in today’s world.

THE LIMITS OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The faith of the church

The Apostles’ Creed asserts a belief in ‘the resurrection of the body and life everlasting’ and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed speaks of Christians looking for ‘the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.’ From these formulae it would appear that it is a central article of Christian faith that the world (as we know it) will come to an end, and that somehow this relates to the mission of the economic Trinity. The idea of the end of the world has permeated Christian imagination and praxis; it forms part of Christian liturgy and piety, ethical deliberation, theology, and art. It is a key theme in Christian eschatology, which in recent scholarship has properly become a study of the end-time (eschaton, from έσχατος, meaning ‘last’) rather than the ‘last things’ (ta eschata, τα έσχατα) as such. The notion of ‘the end of the world’ is pre-scientific, and has deep biblical roots.

Eschatology is a theology of hope, of hope seeking understanding. Hope is a key theme in both the Old and New Testaments.[1] The Old Testament reveals the story of the Hebrew people as one of hope: of Abraham’s hope for progeny and land (Gen 12:3, 15:1-20, 17:1-27), a hope of reaching the ‘land of milk and honey’ (e.g., Ex 3:8, 13:5; Lev 20:24; Num 13:17, 14:8; Deut 6:3, 11:9), a hope for a future messianic king (2Sam 7; Dan 7), a hope for a new and eternal covenant (Is 2:2ff, 55:3, 59:21, 61:8; Jer 31:31-34; Ez 36-37; Mic 4:1-4), etc. The theme of eschatological judgment is also present (e.g., see Is 1-5; Jer 7:1-5; Amos 5:18-20) and well as the divine promise of the restoration of Israel (Is 35, 40-55, 60; Ez 11:14-21, 20:33-44, 37:1-28, 39:21-29; Joel 3-4; Obad 15-17, Zech 10:6-12, 12-14). Hope in the New Testament opens up to a new reality in Jesus Christ, who is the fulfilment of the promises to Israel (Lk 2:29-32, 4:16-21). The language of the New Testament is truly eschatological in that the world is believed to come to some finality, although the language speaks of consummation and re-creation and not strictly of an end as such. The ‘kingdom of God’ which Jesus preached as near (Mk 1:15, 13:30-31; Lk 12:54-59), and present in his works (Mt 11:4-6, 12:28; Lk 10:17-19,23-24, 19:9-10; Jn 12:31-32), is not yet fully realised (cf. Mt 6:9; Lk 11:2), and will come to completion only when He returns again at the end of history in judgment (Mt 24:29-31; Acts 3:20-21). With the idea of the ‘second coming’ of Jesus Christ (parousia, παροuσία) there is a range of eschatological symbols, such as signs of the end times (e.g., see Mk 13; Rom 11:15; 2Th 1:7-10), the ‘antichrists’ (1Jn 2:18-22, 4:3; 2Jn 7; cf. 2Th 2:3-10), general judgment (Mt 25:31-46; Jn 5:28-29; cf. Is 63:3-6; Jer 25:30-33), resurrection of the dead (Jn 5:28; 1Th 4:18-18; cf. Dan 12:2-3), heaven and hell, Christ’s resurrection as the ‘first fruits’/’first born’ (cf. 1Cor 15:20,23; Col 1:15,18), the kingdom of God, and ‘the new heavens and a new earth’ (see 2Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1; cf. Is 65:17, 66:22). Some of these images are apocalyptic, meaning a ‘revelation’ of God’s providential justice (e.g., see Mk 13; 1Th 4:16-17; 2Pet 3:10-12; Rev 19-22).[2] In short, the New Testament evidences a kerygma founded upon a belief that the redemptive work of Jesus Christ has ushered in the kingdom of God, whereby human history has entered into its ‘last days’ (cf. 1Cor 10:11; 1Tim 4:1; 2Tim 3:1; 2Pet 3:3) and which comes to a close when Jesus comes again in glory (cf. 1Cor 11:26; 1Th 4:15-17; Rev 22:17,20).

Some challenges to faith raised throughout the ages

Nascent eschatological beliefs had troubled the early Christians, and apocalyptic and eschatological imagery (scriptural or otherwise) has continued to trouble the church throughout its history. It had become clear within the space of a generation or two that the Lord’s return (parousia) was delayed, a recognition amongst early Christians that is evident in the New Testament itself (see Lk 12:42-48, 18:6-8, 19:11-27; 2Cor 5:1-5; 2Th 2:1-3; 2Pet 3:8-10; Rev 6:10-11). The delay of the parousia forced Christians to rethink their eschatological horizon. The perduring faith-solution was an ‘already and not yet’ eschatology, whereby the church would confess that Jesus came to inaugurate the kingdom of God, not only through His ministry of healing and preaching but primarily through His death and resurrection and the gift of the Spirit, but its fulfilment was to await His glorious return at the end of time, whenever that may occur. In this way, eternal life came to be seen as possible after death and before the parousia (see Jn 14:1-3; 2Cor 5:1-10; Phil 1:21-24, 3:21), although this is distinct from the resurrection of the body which would occur at the ‘general’ resurrection (1Cor 15:35-54; Rev 20:5), that is, when Christ returns in glory to gather the elect from the ‘ends of the world’ (Mk 13:27). The Christian life would now be a life ‘in Christ’ (2Cor 1:21, 5:17; Gal 3:25-26; Eph 1:3-4, 2:6, 5:20; Col 2:10), being an ethical life based on the values of the kingdom as a graced member of the church, which in a real sense is a present participation of the eternal life to come (cf. Jn 5:24-27, 17:3; Eph 2:5-6; Col 2:12, 3:1-4; 2Pet 1:4). Christ remains mysteriously present in His church (cf. Mt 28:20; Jn 14:18-21), to which He is joined as Head (Eph 1:23, 5:23; Col 1:18) and in which He continues His salvific work through the Spirit (cf. Jn 16:7-15).

Throughout the ages there have been trajectories of speculative, and often heterodox, movements that claimed special significance to eschatological symbols in the Bible, especially the notion of the thousand years in Rev 20:2-7. In many ways they reflect the inner tension of the ‘already and not yet’ faith-solution. For example, Millenarian movements have appeared from time to time, most recently around the year 2000 C.E.[3] Others, such as Joachim of Fiore (c. 1130-1202), divided history into some kind of tripartite trinitarian system, whereby he proclaimed that the ‘age of the Spirit’ had arrived, characterised by a church living in a spontaneous fulfilment of the beatitudes through the universally efficacious activity of the Holy Spirit.[4] Patristic and scholastic writers also turned their minds to these questions.[5] This history demonstrates that the Christian articles of faith about the end of the world and the return of Jesus Christ are open to a large degree of speculation as to their meaning. They also suggest that (especially in the Middle Ages) with the end of the world came an expectation of divine retribution, torment and death,[6] symbols that inadequately take into account the fact that Christ came not to condemn us but to bring us to life (cf. Jn 3:17-18, 12:47) through his ‘victory’ on the cross (cf. 1Cor 15:55-57; 2Cor 2:14; Col 2:14-15). Yet the rejection of Millenarianism (or Chiliasm) by the church is the repudiation of the idea of a definitive, inner intrinsic perfectibility of history; rather, this perfection, which is an aspiration for salvation, belongs to God.[7] Thus, from time to time the church has had to re-interpret sacred scripture in a way that discerned the religious truths from those false doctrines claiming biblical support, and it did this primarily using allegorical methods (in the early church) and historical-critical methods (in the modern era).[8] Aside from the problem of the correct use of scripture, new questions have arisen in relation to the doctrine of ‘the end of the world’.

HISTORY, THE KINGDOM AND ESCHATOLOGY

Some challenges raised by the social and philosophical sciences

One key area is to identify the relationship between the notions of human history, the church, the kingdom of God, and cosmic history. Modernity’s ‘discovery’ of historical consciousness, which ended the notion of a static view of history, brought about an appreciation of the historical development of dogma, initiated the ‘search’ for the ‘historical Jesus’, turned history into a social science, and (eventually) facilitated an awareness of the sinfulness of the church.[9] It has thus become clear that, from an empirical point of view, human history continues in much the same way as it did before the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth. The world continues to be characterised by human sin and failure. K. Marx, L. Feuerbach and S. Freud have challenged the traditional foundation of Christian self-confidence, as has widespread atheism and the continuing progress of a radical political secularism. Marx alleged that Christianity serves to drug the masses into submission on the baseless hope of some kind of heavenly reward. Feuerbach saw God as merely a human projection. Freud viewed all religion as a childish illusion hampering psychological maturity. Existentialism heightened the focus on the individual and the concrete choices facing him or her. The development of science and technology has offered a range of benefits, such as better health and longer lives, and has sent to the dustbin of history various biblical and medieval cosmogonies, anthropogenies and cosmologies. Some scientists, natural or social, have claimed that, in principle if not in fact, all reality is knowable.

These intellectual and social developments have raised new questions for the Christian community. How has the life and work of Jesus Christ changed human history? Is the church the kingdom of God? In what sense can we experience the kingdom of God? Will Jesus come again at the end of human history or the end of cosmic history or before either of them? And does Jesus bring judgment or justice or the kingdom? Answers to these questions require a dialogue between theology and the social and natural sciences, and a fresh return to the sources of the faith. As will be seen, the magisterium’s contribution to many of these new questions is merely to define the delineating boundaries of dialogue, thus leaving some room for legitimate speculation.

The church, the kingdom, and human history

Whilst there is a dispute about whether the Second Vatican Council identified the kingdom with the church, whether now or in its eschatological fulness, most Catholic ecclesiologists have since taken the view that the church is not the kingdom of God.[10] This is the first key distinction in Christian eschatology. Pope John Paul II has not made the identification between the kingdom and the church, although of course he affirms the intimate relationship between them.[11] The kingdom of God can be seen as the most comprehensive symbol of God’s plan for all creation.[12] The church’s mission is to reveal to the world the eternal plan of God to lead all people to their final destiny, and it does this by continuing the work of Jesus (Lk 16:16; Acts 10:37-42). The kingdom was inaugurated by Jesus and must now grow through history to reach its eschatological fulness at the end of time, when Christ hands the kingdom over to the Father (1Cor 15:24).

Defining the role of the church in relation to proclaiming the kingdom of God has proved more difficult.[13] What is the relationship between secular history and the eschatological kingdom of God? At issue here is the theological understanding of history. Does the incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and glorification of Jesus Christ commit the church to radical, active engagement in the world for the purpose of building the kingdom of God and continuing the redemptive work of Christ, or is the kingdom a pure gift of God granted at the end of history and discontinuous with human history? Some saw Christianity as hoping for an atemporal future unrelated to this world (R. Bultmann), some found salvific meaning in history itself with Jesus being its decisive nodal point (O. Cullman), others spoke of a ‘realised eschatology’ where God acts now in history through Jesus (C.H. Dodd), and yet others argued for a Christianity that transformed the world using the criterion of hope (J. Moltmann, J.B. Metz).[14] This debate, which (for Catholics) began in the 1940s, achieved some kind of provisional resolution at the Second Vatican Council, which sought to adopt a middle position. Gaudium et spes called for a commitment to the world, but at the same time a hope for an absolute, transcendent future.[15] Yet this resolution did not resolve this tension, but has opened the way for Catholic liberation and political theologies and revived the social dimension of eschatology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, however, has drawn on the fruits of contemporary eschatology by situating discussion about the eschaton in language that is trinitarian, christological, ecclesiological, relational and communion based.[16] This approach, inter alia, not only takes concrete history seriously but also has the Paschal Mystery as its centre and basic hermeneutic principle.

In the discussion of the question about the ‘end of the world’ a second key distinction needs to be made between the temporal end of history (finis) and the unifying goal or purpose of history (telos, τέλος).[17] With the benefit of scientific research, it has become clear that the temporal end of history can eventuate on account of either a natural process of cosmic evolution or on account of global human sin. That is, it has been conjectured by scientists that the universe may evolve in such a way that it may not sustain carbon-based life forms at some point in the (distant) future, or that some other cosmological occurrence may render human life extinct, such as the collision with planet earth of some meteor, a future ice age, or the like. On the other hand, the finis of human history may be the direct result of human moral failure, such as global warfare by weapons of mass destruction or a global ecological breakdown. These considerations, however fantastic, raise their own theological questions. For example, would God allow this to occur? Will the parousia occur concurrently with such phenomena? Answers to these questions require us to avoid false conceptions of God, such as a deity who intervenes to ‘wind up the universe again’ in a time of cosmic or pan-human failure (Deism) or a God who is responsible for human sin.[18]

The telos of human history, on the other hand, raises some key anthropological and soteriological issues. Is there a goal to human history? If so, is it revealed only at the end of human history? Does the parousia coincide with the end of human history? Answers to these questions vary. Some argue that the goal of one’s life is immediately revealed upon death, as would be the case in the view that there is an immediate resurrection of the individual in death (G. Greshake, G. Lohfink, et al.). Others argue that the meaning of history is discernible when the final cause or end is made manifest (K. Rahner, W. Pannenberg, H. Küng, J. Ratzinger, et al.).[19] In this latter view the parousia is not a return of the Lord who has been absent from the world since His resurrection, but rather the final breaking-through of the victorious presence of divine grace that has been present continuously throughout history. Suffering and anxiety have been overcome in Christ’s death, resurrection and glorification, which, to those who see with the eyes of faith, has made certain that love has conquered sin and death, even if the perfect realisation of this victory will occur in the future. This view better allows for a sacramental mediation of grace in and through the church, especially in the sacred liturgy.

The judgment of humanity

Traditionally, the church has understood that judgment and the resurrection of the dead occur with Christ’s parousia (see Mt 24:29-31; 1Th 4:16-17; 2Th 1:7-10), although the Christian life is already on earth a participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (see Rom 6:3-6; Eph 2:4-6; Col 2:12, 3:1-4).[20] The end of human history is thus accompanied by divine judgment, a ‘last judgment’ that vindicates those who gracefully worked for peace, love and truth. Divine judgment is by its very nature just, as it exposes the good and evil choices of human persons (both individual and collective) for what they really are (see Jn 3:18, 12:48), and as such it is not an ‘extrinsic’ judgment. Judgment is at once the consummation of Christian hope and the Spirit’s action in the world, the salvation of the just and the condemnation of the sinner, and the perfect realisation of the kingdom of God.[21] Jesus is this Divine Judge (Jn 5:22,27,30; Acts 17:31; 2Tim 4:1; 1Pet 4:5), although He merely gathers, like a hen gathers her brood (cf. Mt 23:37), all those who chose Him, in faith, in this life. Human history comes to an end not in the sense that human life no longer exists but in the sense that it is radically transformed in ‘the new heavens and a new earth’ where the resurrected have ‘spiritual bodies’ (1Cor 15:44). Thus, at the parousia both the finis and the telos of human history coincide.[22]

RESURRECTION AND ESCHATOLOGY

Even in this formulation, which enjoys a dominance in Catholic thinking, questions arise about how and when the consummation of history will occur. Will Jesus come again to ‘judge the living and the dead’ (2Tim 4:1; 1Pet 4:5; cf. Acts 10:42) only at some mysterious time appointed by the Father (Mk 13:32; Acts 1:7), which would appear to us to be arbitrary, or will it occur as a result of ‘natural’ processes (i.e., if human life cannot be sustained for cosmological or man-made reasons)? Answers to this question are speculative, and resonate with a Christian audience depending on the extent to which they have an inner logic and are faithful to Christian revelation and the apostolic tradition. The classical view is to hold that the resurrection will occur at the ‘end of time’, but such a view invariably conceived of the temporal end of the cosmos as being contemporaneous with the eschaton.[23] Others have posited an immediate, individual resurrection in death, with the material cosmos continuing over into endless time, although this position fails to take into account the social dimension of salvation and does not adequately take into account how the meaning of all human history can be revealed to a single individual upon his or her death before the end-time.[24] The position of individual resurrection in death has not found favour with the magisterium.[25]

Some delineating hermeneutic principles

Angel of the Last JudgementProgress in this area, including the broader question of the theology of history, could be made with the assistance of some delineating hermeneutic principles. First, the use of scripture in theology must reflect sound exegesis and be devoid of eisegesis. In the area of eschatology, it must be remembered that apocalyptic imagery does not serve to predict future events, and the Bible does not operate to provide objective statements of faith.[26] Biblical language has a symbolic and analogical character, which aims to provide religious meaning. Second, it would be opportune to recall the scriptural motif that all things happen in God’s propitious time (kairos, καιρός) rather than in the chronological time (chronos, χρόνος) that marks human life (see Ps 90:4; Qoh 3:1-8; Rom 13:11; 2Pet 3:8). The Father’s saving plan is being presently enacted by the Risen Lord through the Spirit, a plan that is eternal and not temporal (although our salvation occurs within time).[27] Accordingly, a coherent and foundational theology of time is required in the consideration of any conception of ‘the end of the world’ or ‘cosmic consummation in eternity’.[28] Third, attention should be given to avoid conceiving of God as distant (Deism) or passible (‘process theology’) or the sum of all reality (Pantheism) or abiding in all evolving matter (Panentheism) or intermittently involved in creation to ‘plug the gaps’ of an otherwise working cosmos. Instead, God is actively engaged with all of creation as a transcendent actus purus, as a ‘pure act’ with no unrealised potential and is ipso facto unchangeable, impassible and fully relational with creation.[29] Fourth, theories postulating cyclic universes or ‘parallel’ universes both represent a faux pas in theology because they are highly speculative, find little or no basis in revelation or tradition, and cannot be scientifically verifiable. A fifth principle is that whilst it is unknown to what extent God will make use of secondary causes on the ‘last day’ (Jn 6:39-40,44,54, 11:24), it would be rash to interpret apocalyptic scriptural references (e.g., 2Pet 3:10-12) as a divine promise of divine intervention on account of some vast nuclear warfare or the like. Sixth, in relation to whether the divine judgment is extrinsic or intrinsic to cosmic and human progress, an argument could be made that God, in His providential ‘oversight’ of the universe (which appears to Him as an ‘eternal now’), would not act in a way that is ‘inconsistent’ with His creative and salvific activity (as understood by us). That is, creation and consummation are part of the one divine plan, and any large-scale human failure or catastrophic cosmic activity cannot be unknown to God. As God ‘respects’ these ‘natural’ processes, His judgment would be ‘intrinsic’ to human and cosmic progress, but on the other hand His transcendence and sovereignty suggests that the Son’s return to humanity at the close of the age can only be described as ‘extrinsic’ to ordinary, ‘natural’ processes.[30] This last principle demonstrates well the apophatic character of eschatological claims.

Bodily resurrection as a theological problem

One theological problem in this aspect of eschatology is the importance of the human body to human unity.[31] That is, humans are a body-soul unity, and the survival of the soul after death (pending the parousia, which accompanies the general resurrection)[32] is ontologically incomplete without its body. Furthermore, as Jesus has a resurrected body, and that in the Eucharist His body is made sacramentally present, and (according to Catholic tradition) Mary has an assumed body, then the bodies of both Jesus and Mary must presently exist in some kind of space and time.[33] At the end of time, when the world is made anew in Christ (Rev 21:5), will planet earth be re-constituted in some way to accommodate humanity in its risen state? If man was created to enjoy a dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26,28-29, 9:1-3,7), and those in heaven ‘continue joyfully to fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation’[34], then will a resurrected humanity have a similar causal relationship with the material universe? Presumably the re-unification of the resurrected body with the immortal soul at the last judgment, a re-unification for both the saved and damned (Acts 24:15)[35], is significantly different to the particular judgment because of the re-constitution of the whole person, and would thus re-permit a material interaction with the material cosmos.[36] To what extent can we say that the human person exists without a body?[37] Exploring answers to these questions about the immortality of the soul, the ‘interim state’, the nature of the resurrected body and the post-mortem continuation of personal identity are beyond the scope of this paper.[38]

COSMOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY

Some challenges raised by the natural sciences

These issues about the resurrection and materiality do however enable us to see that there is a third key distinction between human history and cosmic history. The universe is estimated to continue in existence for possibly billions of years.[39] Scientific cosmologies vary in their interpretation of the future of the cosmos. Some theorise that the universe is expanding (‘open’ universe), others claiming that it is expanding at precisely the rate necessary to avoid collapse (‘flat’ universe), still others holding that the universe is collapsing and that it will end with a ‘Big Crunch’ (‘closed’ universe) and may even regenerate again in a cyclic manner. Nevertheless, as indicated above, regardless of the life-span of the universe it is possible that the future of the human race is not co-terminus with the future of the universe on the same grounds that it took billions of years for human life to be physically possible in a universe that evolved from the ‘Big Bang’. Christian eschatologies would therefore need to distinguish between ‘the end of the world’ as ‘the end of human history’ and as ‘the end of the cosmos’.

Special theological questions are raised by this scientific data. For example, will the parousia, at which I have argued the finis and the telos of human history will coincide, have any repercussions on the rest of the cosmos (i.e., beyond earth)? Indeed, what does it mean to say that Jesus will inaugurate ‘the new heavens and a new earth’? Lumen gentium, Gaudium et spes and the Catechism all speak of the universal judgment at the end of time renewing the entire ‘universe’ in Christ.[40] Does this mean that planet earth, which appears to be the normal time and space dimension for human life, somehow be literally re-created? In principle, if the end of human history is distinct from the end of cosmic history, it would seem possible for the parousia effecting a renewal of planet earth without having much significance for the rest of the unimaginably large cosmos, although of course there is a causal interrelationship between planet earth and other cosmic phenomena. As stated, given that the resurrection requires some kind of bodily unification with the soul, there are under-explored questions in Christian theology about the place/space (and therefore time) dimensions of heaven.

The scriptural references to the imminent end of the world (e.g., 1Cor 16:22; 2Cor 6:2; Phil 4:5; Jam 5:8; 1Pet 4:7, 5:10; Rev 1:3, 3:11, 22:10), and even those referring to a ‘delayed’ parousia (see Lk 12:42-48, 18:6-8, 19:11-27; 2Cor 5:1-5; 2Th 2:1-3; 2Pet 3:8-10; Rev 6:10-11), need to be newly conceptualised in the light of the possibility of mankind living for tens of thousands (even millions) of years hence. This possibility also challenges those eschatologies that interpret the eschaton and parousia as proleptically occurring in the event of the death and resurrection of Jesus (e.g. W. Pannenberg). These conceptions would be stretched even further if the temporal end of human history is considered as co-terminus with the end of the universe, the latter estimating to occur (in a ‘Big Crunch’ theory) in billions of years from now. Were the human race to end with the natural end of the cosmos, then as Christians speak of transformation and science of absolute finality, it becomes difficult to conceive of a transformed, resurrected humanity that exists eternally if there is no time and space as we know it. A similar problem arises if the general resurrection occurs when an evolved universe can no longer sustain human life. Will God take His people to another dimension or intervene in the clockmaker fashion to rewind the universe? Avoiding a Deistic conception of God, as well as fantastic cosmologies, would keep speculative theology within the bounds of orthodoxy. A model of cyclic or oscillating universes, not unknown in the ancient world and espoused by some early Christians (e.g., Origen), creates its own set of problems, notably the need to determine whether or not the incarnation and death of the Second Divine Person needs to be repeated in each cycle and whether it can be said that creation has a beginning. Traditional eschatology speaks of a definite point in future whereat God will be ‘all in all’ (1Cor 15:28), however, from the point of view of the human subject as empirical observer, even were God to decide to end the universe the theory of special relativity would suggest that it could not occur simultaneously. Christians also need to re-evaluate the meaning and value of the human race in the light of the apparent insignificance of human life forms when compared with the great majesty of an inconceivably large and complex cosmos. Is our conception of the ‘cosmic Christ’, ‘through whom all things were made’ (Jn 1:3; 1Cor 8:6; Col 1:16), who sets creation itself free from its bondage (Rom 8:21), and who is the Lord of history (cf. Eph 1:9-10; Phil 2:11; Col 1:17), big enough to accommodate these conceptual challenges?

Some provisional theological responses

PantocratorAnswers to these questions are only beginning to be sought by Christians. The figure of Christ needs to be reconceived as one and the same divine agent of creation and of eschatological re-creation. Rahner’s ‘evolutionary’ christology can help to situate Christ’s human nature as the apex of creation, whose salvific work orders all creation to its ultimate telos in, through and with Him, and thereby assists us to regain a sense of the cosmic significance of Christ.[41] A recovery of cosmic christology (a christology evident in the scriptures and the writings of the early church fathers) requires a corresponding revision of anthropology, namely one that rediscovers the cosmic dimension of what it means to be human. The matter-spirit unity of the human person forms our identity in relation to all matter, both earthly and cosmic, and the (now risen) humanity of the earthly Jesus enjoys this same material relationality. A revised theological anthropology, however, should not reduce the human person to mere ‘cosmic dust’ but rather dignifies man as being made in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:26-27, 9:6b) and for whom God so loved that he sent His only Son to save (cf. Jn 3:16).[42] A sound sense of God’s transcendence, providence and sustenance of the universe is also needed, a God who is faithful to His covenant(s) with His people (Num 23:19; 1Sam 15:29; Rom 9:6, 11:29; Heb 8:6-13, 9:15).[43] God as creator and consummator come together in the incarnation of Jesus, whose resurrection is the beginning of the transformation of the world in Him and which comes to fulfilment in His return to the time-space dimension of human existence (cf. Acts 1:9-11). As such, Christians can rightly hope for a real and transformed existence ‘at the end of the world’ (however that may be understood), as complete annihilation would flatly contradict the divine promises of a glorious future (Mt 25:34; Lk 23:43; Jn 14:3; 2Pet 1:4; 1Jn 3:2). And this is a fulfilment, a liberation, not only of mankind but also of the angels and indeed of all creation (cf. Rom 8:19-23; 2Cor 5:17; Col 1:20; Rev 21:1,5). Still, despite these reflections, many questions remain unanswered and are unanswerable because they are beyond human understanding.

The challenge facing theologians

This analysis suggests that, for Christianity to remain intelligible and coherent, theologians are called to dialogue with natural scientists, and be well versed in the language of science, in order to formulate an eschatology consistent with both sound science and the data of Christian revelation. Besides, scientists themselves (such as F. Dyson and F. Tipler) have moved into areas that are traditionally the domain of theologians and philosophers, by attempting to provide purely scientific answers to questions about the meaning and ultimate future of the human race.[44] To the extent that revelation is avoided, such natural scientists would thus be undertaking natural theology.

CONCLUSION

The questions raised by the natural sciences over the past few centuries, along with sociological and philosophical critiques of religion, have required Christians to re-examine traditional doctrines. It is clear that many questions remain unresolved. Since the experience of dealing with Galileo Galilei’s Copernican astronomy, it would appear that the church has learned to avoid the pitfall of regarding definitions of natural science as being within its competence. A renewed eschatology works with the advances of the sciences, and re-reads revelation and tradition with the benefits of such insights. Eschatology today also needs to take into account the advances in theological science, such as the re-discovery of the relational or social aspect of salvation, the distinction between the kingdom and the church, the symbolic and analogical function of language, and the mission of the church to proclaim the kingdom in both word and deed. Biblical apocalyptic imagery serves not to provide a prognosis of end-events, or a report of the after-life, but to warn humanity to take seriously the life of grace given us by God and for which we will some day stand under divine judgment.[45] Christian eschatology is a theology of hope in a real, beatific future based on the present experience of grace and sin, freedom and responsibility, and the conviction that salvation history and indeed all human history comes to a final fulfilment in God.[46] In this way, the question about the end of the world comes to be seen not as a scientific question about the cosmic future of mankind and the universe but as a question of the meaning of creation in the light of the ‘cosmic’ redemption won by the life, death, resurrection, ascension and exaltation of Jesus Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acta Apostolicae Sedis. 71 (1979, n. 2): 939-943.

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Volume 3. Containing Supplement, QQ. 1-99, Appendices, Articles on Various Aspects of the Summa, Scriptural, Patristic, Professional and Alphabetical Indices. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Homebush/Vatican City: St Pauls Publications/Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994.

Edwards, Denis. Jesus and the Cosmos. Homebush: St Paul Publications, 1991.

Flannery, Austin, O.P., ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1975. Documents considered: Lumen gentium, Gaudium et spes.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. S.v. ‘Eschatology’, by John T. Carroll, and ‘Parousia’, by F. Connolly-Weinert.

Fuellenbach, John. ‘The Church in the Context of the Kingdom of God’. In The Convergence of Theology: A Festschrift Honouring Gerald O’Collins, S.J., edited by Daniel Kendall and Stephen T. Davis, 221-239. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2001.

Hayes, Zachary, O.F.M. Visions of a Future: A Study of Christian Eschatology. New Theology Series Vol. 8. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989.

Hill, Craig C. In God’s Time: The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

John Paul II, Pope. Redemptoris missio. 1990. http://www.vatican.va. Accessed 22 April 2002.

Komonchak, Joseph A., Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, eds. The New Dictionary of Theology. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1990. S.v. ‘Apocalyptic’, by John J. Collins, ‘Eschatology’, by Dermot A. Lane, ‘God’, by John H. Wright, S.J., and ‘Salvation History’, by Thomas P. McCreesh, O.P.

Küng, Hans. Eternal Life? Translated by Edward Quinn. London: Collins, 1984.

Lane, Dermot A. Keeping Hope Alive: Stirrings in Christian Theology. Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1996.

Moltmann, Jürgen. ‘In the End – God’. In Is the World Ending?, translated by John Bowden and edited by Sean Freyne and Nicholas Lash, 116-125. London/Maryknoll: SCM Press/Orbis Books, 1998.

Peters, Ted, Robert John Russell, and Michael Walter, eds. Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Rahner, Karl, S.J. ‘Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World’. In Theological Investigations. Volume V, translated by Karl-H. Kruger, 157-192. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966.

Ratzinger, Joseph. Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life. Translated by Michael Waldstein and Aidan Nichols, O.P. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. ‘Letter on Certain Questions Concerning Eschatology’. L’Osservatore Romano (July 23, 1979): 7-8.

Senior, Donald, C.P. ‘The End of the World’. The Bible Today 30, n. 1 (January 1992): 4-10.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Farmington Hills: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. S.v. ‘End of the World’, by M. E. Williams, ‘Eschatology (in Theology)’, by M. E. Williams and D. A. Lane, and ‘History, Theology of’, by P.L. Hug and W.J. Hill.

Weinandy, Thomas G., O.F.M. Cap. Does God Suffer? Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000.

Worthing, Mark William. God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

REFERENCES

[1] On the biblical material see David Noel Freedman, ed., Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), s.v. ‘Eschatology’, by John T. Carroll, and ‘Parousia’, by F. Connolly-Weinert; Zachary Hayes, O.F.M., Visions of a Future: A Study of Christian Eschatology. New Theology Series Vol. 8 (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989), 15-67; Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, eds., The New Dictionary of Theology (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1990), s.v. ‘Apocalyptic’, by John J. Collins, and ‘Eschatology’, by Dermot A. Lane; Donald Senior, C.P., ‘The End of the World’, The Bible Today 30, n. 1 (January 1992): 4-10; The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (Farmington Hills: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), s.v. ‘End of the World’, by M. E. Williams, and ‘Eschatology (in Theology)’, by M. E. Williams and D. A. Lane.

[2] For a discussion of the death of Jesus as being apocalyptic see Dermot A. Lane, Keeping Hope Alive: Stirrings in Christian Theology (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1996), 96-100.

[3] On some recent Millenarian movements, many of which have found resonance in Evangelical ecclesial communities, see Hayes, Visions of a Future, 174-176; Craig C. Hill, In God’s Time: The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 199-209.

[4] Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, trans. Michael Waldstein and Aidan Nichols, O.P. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1988), 3, 211-212.

[5] See the discussion in Hayes, Visions of a Future, 156-160; New Catholic Encyclopedia, 216-217, s.v. ‘End of the World’. See, for example, Thomas Aquinas’ view in the Summa theologiæ, Supplement, Q. 77, art. 2, where he specifically rejected numeric calculations about the Lord’s return: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. Volume 3. Containing Supplement, QQ. 1-99, Appendices, Articles on Various Aspects of the Summa, Scriptural, Patristic, Professional and Alphabetical Indices (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1948).

[6] Consider, for example, the artistic representations of the ‘Last Judgment’ adorning many churches, liturgical sequences such as the Dies Irae, and other works of popular piety such as the Danse Macabre and the like: see Ratzinger, Eschatology, 5-8.

[7] Ratzinger, Eschatology, 213.

[8] For Catholics, the official approval of the historical-critical method came only with Pius XII’s encyclical, Divino afflante, of 1943.

[9] The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World has acknowledged many of the challenges facing Christians mentioned in this paragraph: see Gaudium et spes, 5, 10, 20, 33. References to documents of the Second Vatican Council are taken from Austin Flannery, O.P., ed., Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Dublin: Dominican Publications, 1975).

[10] See John Fuellenbach, ‘The Church in the Context of the Kingdom of God’, in The Convergence of Theology: A Festschrift Honouring Gerald O’Collins, S.J., ed. Daniel Kendall and Stephen T. Davis (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 2001), 223-227.

[11] In his encyclical letter Redemptoris missio Pope John Paul II describes the relationship in this way: ‘This is not the kingdom of God as we know it from Revelation. The kingdom cannot be detached either from Christ or from the Church. … Likewise, one may not separate the kingdom from the Church. … The result is a unique and special relationship which, while not excluding the action of Christ and the Spirit outside the Church's visible boundaries, confers upon her a specific and necessary role; hence the Church's special connection with the kingdom of God and of Christ, which she has "the mission of announcing and inaugurating among all peoples"‘: Pope John Paul II, Redemptoris missio, 18, 1990, http://www.vatican.va, accessed 22 April 2002.

[12] The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Homebush/Vatican City: St Pauls Publications/Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994), 1045, also speaks of the church as the sacrament of the kingdom, and the concept of the elect at the consummation of time appears to be broader than those who were members of the church.

[13] See Hayes, Visions of a Future, 126-153.

[14] Ratzinger, Eschatology, 47-60; The New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (Farmington Hills: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 889-890, s.v.’ History, Theology of’, by P.L. Hug and W.J. Hill.

[15] See Gaudium et spes, 39, 42-43, 72, 76, 93; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1049.

[16] See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 998-1060.

[17] See Hayes, Visions of a Future, 162-173.

[18] Edwards appears to tend toward this possibility when he theorises that God can create a ‘new earth’ despite the possibility of the ‘heat death’ of the universe: Denis Edwards, Jesus and the Cosmos (Homebush: St Paul Publications, 1991), 117.

[19] On Ratzinger’s rejection of the thesis of resurrection in death, and on the ‘intermediate state’ more generally, see Eschatology, 119-161, 181-194, and Appendices I and II to that work. On history as coming to a final meaning only at the point of consummation see Hans Küng, Eternal Life?, trans. Edward Quinn (London: Collins, 1984), 261-263, 288. Küng, however, appears to support something of the position of resurrection in death when he argues against the idea of a separated soul (before the general resurrection), as ‘understood in a Platonic or Aristotelian-Thomist sense, as a separation of body and soul’. Instead, he argues that ‘man dies a whole, with body and soul, as a psychosomatic unity …into that eternity of the divine Now which, for those who have died, makes irrelevant the temporal distance of this world between personal death and the last judgement.’ That is, whilst he criticises Ratzinger’s thesis and the theological limitations imposed by the definitive character of the Congregation’s ‘Letter’ (see infra, n. 25), and he approves something of Greshake’s position, he also speaks of the telos only being known only when all people have been resurrected on the last day: op. cit., 175-175, 261-263, 288. Also, Edwards claims that Rahner’s final position was to reject the idea of the ‘interim state’, although Karl Rahner’s conception of time admitted of an end in which meaning will be fully revealed in eternity: Edwards, Jesus and the Cosmos, 106, 111-114, 135. These reflections suggest, inter alia, that a theology of time is also required in any conception of ‘the end of the world’.

[20] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1001-1003, 1010, 1040.

[21] cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1042. cf. Küng, Eternal Life?, 264, who prefers the language ‘kingdom’ instead ‘judgment’ when speaking of consummation. Moltmann prefers ‘justice’ to ‘judgment’, because of the negative associations with that word: see Jürgen Moltmann, ‘In the End – God’, in Is the World Ending?, trans. John Bowden and ed. Sean Freyne and Nicholas Lash (London/Maryknoll: SCM Press/Orbis Books, 1998), 164.

[22] This is the position taken in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1040, 1042, 1045.

[23] See, for example, Thomas Aquinas’ view in the Summa theologiæ, Supplement, Q. 77, art. 1, herein he equates the resurrection with the cessation of cosmic movement: ‘...the resurrection of human bodies will be delayed until the end of the world when the heavenly movement will cease.’ He confirms this position in Q. 91, art. 2.

[24] See Ratzinger, Eschatology, 190, 207.

[25] Both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Catechism affirm the traditional doctrine that the individual soul survives the death of the body and possesses intellect and will, and is judged, although it awaits the Lord’s return so that it may be resurrected with its body to a new life which is radically discontinuous with the old: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Letter on Certain Questions Concerning Eschatology’, L’Osservatore Romano (July 23, 1979): aa. 2, 3, and 5; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 989, 997, 999, 1005, 1016, 1022-1023, 1052, 1059.

[26] On principles relating to the sound use of scripture in eschatology see Küng, Eternal Life?, 260; Ratzinger, Eschatology, 19-23, 167, 171, 202, 271-272.

[27] cf. Ratzinger, Eschatology, 61.

[28] See the discussion of time and cosmic divinisation (in Rahnerian terms) in Edwards, Jesus and the Cosmos, 111-119.

[29] See Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap., Does God Suffer? (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2000), 113-146.

[30] One theologian prepared to take a stand on this issue is M. E. Williams who states that the end of the world (understood as the end of the cosmos) is ‘a divine intervention and not simply … the result of natural processes’: New Catholic Encyclopedia, 216, s.v. ‘End of the World’. The problem here is of course determining what constitutes the ‘natural’ and what is the ‘supernatural’.

[31] On this issue see New Catholic Encyclopedia, 217-218, 346-347, s.v. ‘End of the World’ and ‘Eschatology (in Theology)’.

[32] The Congregation’s ‘Letter’, in opposition to those who claimed a resurrection in death, affirmed these positions. It avoided the use of the term ‘soul’ because of its varying usage in the Bible, instead stating that there is a ‘spiritual element’ in mankind that continues and independently exists after death. It also affirmed that resurrection is a resurrection of the whole person, body and soul: see Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Letter on Certain Questions Concerning Eschatology’, aa. 2, 3 and 7.

[33] Surprisingly, Küng states that life after death does not have a time and space dimension: Küng, Eternal Life?, 145-146, 176, 182. This would undermine doctrine of the ‘communion of the saints’ as it would seem to imply that those in heaven and purgatory cannot act in a way that affects those living on earth, i.e., this present time and space dimension. See also supra, n. 19.

[34] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1029.

[35] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1038.

[36] As to the questions about the difference between the particular judgment and the last judgment, the Catechism adds that ‘[t]he Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life’: op. cit., at 1039. Edwards answers affirmatively the question about the material interaction of the resurrected body with the whole cosmos: Edwards, Jesus and the Cosmos, 106,135.

[37] The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s ‘Letter’, a. 3, says that ‘the spiritual element survives and subsists after death, an element endowed with consciousness and will, so that the “human self” subsists.’ The ‘Letter’, however, does not address how this can be the case but merely asserts it as an article of faith. Lane observes that there is a significant discrepancy between the ‘Letter’ as published officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (AAS) (1979, p. 939) and as published in the L’Osservatore Romano, because in the AAS it adds that the human self subsists ‘though deprived for the present of the complement of its body’ (interim tamen complemento sui corporis carens), which is deleted in the L’Osservatore Romano edition. Lane states that this leaves open the possibility of individual resurrection immediately after death: New Dictionary of Theology, 337, s.v. ‘Eschatology’; Lane, Keeping Hope Alive, footnote 1 on p. 229. I cannot see how this is the case as it would appear that the Congregation wrote the letter precisely to counter the ‘resurrection in death’ position.

[38] Ratzinger declares an agnosticism to these questions, and does not regard this as problematic for a faithful Christian: Ratzinger, Eschatology, 192-194. In his Appendices I and II, however, being subsequent commentaries on the Congregation’s ‘Letter’, he does revisit the question of the

‘intermediate state’ and considers the linguistic problems associated with the term ‘soul’, and its alternatives, and the perduring problem of lurking Platonic dualism: op. cit., at 241-274. Lane also offers some reflections on this ‘disputed question in eschatology’: Lane, Keeping Hope Alive, 150-162. For a collection of theological essays incorporating the insights of natural science see Ted Peters, Robert John Russell, and Michael Walter, eds., Resurrection: Theological and Scientific Assessments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), passim.

[39] For a discussion on scientific cosmologies, some of the theological questions they raise and some provisional conclusions, see Edwards, Jesus and the Cosmos, 95-119; Küng, Eternal Life?, 255-275; Lane, Keeping Hope Alive, 174-193; Mark William Worthing, God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 159-210; New Catholic Encyclopedia, 218, s.v. ‘End of the World’.

[40] See Lumen gentium, 48; Gaudium et spes, 39; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1042, 1044, 1046-1048, 1060.

[41] See Karl Rahner, S.J., ‘Christology within an Evolutionary View of the World’, in Theological Investigations. Volume V, trans. Karl-H. Kruger (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1966), passim. Denis Edwards attempts a theological examination of the relationship of Jesus Christ and the cosmos using Rahnerian categories in Jesus and the Cosmos, passim.

[42] Despite describing the human body as being essentially comprised of ‘stardust’, Edwards is clear to affirm the dignity and value of the human person as a basic principle in this area of theology, noting that this includes a sound understanding of man vis-à-vis the cosmos: Edwards, Jesus and the Cosmos, 81, 138-139.

[43] Writing as a Lutheran, Worthing’s solution is to distinguish between the philosophical/scientific conception of eternity (as the unending conception of space-time structures and processes) and the ‘biblical’ conception of eternity (not so much a negation of time nor infinite duration as such but the presence of the love of God), and claims that these positions are thus reconciled: Worthing, God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics, 177-183, 197-198. Even allowing for a transformation of the world as we know it at the eschaton, Worthing’s position, however, seems to posit two conceptions of time, one for humans and another for the rest of the material order, which would present a relationship between post-mortem humanity and the rest of creation that is radically discontinuous with their present mode of relating. Again, this highlights the need to develop an adequate theology of time (and therefore space).

[44] See discussion in New Catholic Encyclopedia, 351-352, s.v. ‘Eschatology (in Theology)’.

[45] cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1041, which states that the last judgment ‘inspires a holy fear of God and commits [us] to the justice of the Kingdom of God.’

[46] cf. Gaudium et spes, 38, 41, 45.

 

Vincent Battaglia has an Honours degree in theology from the Sydney College of Divinity.

Email: vince.battaglia@optusnet.com.au

 

© Copyright is retained by the author