You are on page 1of 5

Some comments on The Resurrection of Christ and the New Earth by Jurgen Moltmann.

Robert Tulip
Resurrection and Responsibility
1
is a new collection of essays on theology, scripture and
ethics in honour of Baptist theologian the Rev Dr Thorwald oren!en. "t the #anberra
boo$ launch, co%editor David &eville told of an en'uiry from Dr Jurgen Moltmann, in
which Dr Moltmann said he greatly esteemed Thorwald, and hoped space might be found
in the collection for a short article he had written on The Resurrection of Christ and the
New Earth. David &eville assured the giant of theology, author of Theology of Hope,
The Crucified God and The Way of Jesus Christ Christology in !essianic "erspecti#e,
that yes, there would be room enough at the inn.
(t is wonderful that Dr Moltmann has provided this short distillation of his life)s wisdom
for this collection of essays. Moltmann is renowned for the e*ploration of #hristian faith
with eschatology as its central theme. +e li$ens resurrection to new creation, presenting
a #hristology of hope. +e uses his short essay to present ideas from the refiner)s fire,
purified by the thought of a lifetime. My effort here to respond with honesty to these
ideas aims to open dialogue in theology, including about the relation Dr Moltmann
describes between #hrist and nature.
" 'uestion ( wish to e*plore in Dr Moltmann)s #hristology is his theory of nature, as gift
from ,od rather than revelation of ,od. +is orthodo* panentheism places ,od beyond
the universe, re-ecting the heresy of pantheism that sees ,od in the universe alone. +is
statement on which ( propose to focus here is that .under the rule of the risen #hrist,
people were liberated from the divini!ation of natural forces./ 0p123
"lthough ( come from a #hristian heritage, and ( love the ,erman 4rotestant theology of
Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Tillich, 4annenberg and Barth, a tradition of which Moltmann is
the great living representative, ( fear their cosmology is wea$ened by e*cluding thought
that is outside the #hristian frame. 5or me, observation starts with the planet, and
#hristianity is -ust one tradition among many that provide understanding of the nature of
,od and the planet. 6e cannot start with the assumption of the truth of #hristian
premises, but must assess them against all thought.
Moltmann appears to imply that the rule of #hrist sets us free from nature. +ar$ing to
Saint 4aul, and his e*altation of #hrist as the source of freedom from sin and death,
Moltmann)s cosmology contains strong cultural assumptions. "ccepting the spirit%nature
divide underpins old orthodo*ies7 that #hrist did not wor$ through divine natural forces,
that divini!ation of nature is a form of bondage that can be remedied and redeemed by
pure spiritual #hristian faith, and, most problematic, the claim from "ugustine that the
saving rule of grace of the risen #hrist has been reali!ed in the church. 8ach of these
assumptions, if that they be, is highly contestable. Moltmann)s theology seems to retain
a magical sense of the miraculous which is out of step with the boundaries set by
9
Resurrection and Responsibility, Essays on Theology, $cripture and Ethics in Honour of Thorwald
%oren&en, edited by :eith D Dyer and David J &eville, www.wipfandstoc$.com ;<<=
scientific observation. Surely >the rule of the risen #hrist) is not a reali!ed eschatology in
our fallen world?
8*ploring such 'uestions is assisted by comparing #hristian faith against other religious
traditions. 5or e*ample, one big tradition which was somewhat invisible to the ,erman
theologues was the (ndian mythology of the @edas. (n my opinion, the @edas bear
careful comparison with #hristianity, and dialogue has fallen away compared to earlier
times. #onsidering Moltmann against an inter%faith dialogue with +induism would
re'uire effort to see #hristianity through a @edic lens. 5or e*ample, we could loo$ at the
apparent similarities between "braham and Brahma, Sarah and Sarasvati, #hrist and
:rishna, and the atin Deus 4aterAJupiter, who comes etymologically from the @edic s$y
father Dyaus 4ita via Beus 4atera. There is more than a pinch of cultural bias in the
e*clusion of such 'uestions of comparative mythology from the dialogues around
theology.
6e should $eep an open mind, using these @edic%#hristian comparisons as e*amples,
about syncretic emergence of faith traditions. 6e must as$ whether Biblical stories
should be accepted at face value, or if their deconstruction can reveal mythic lin$s with
other traditions. This is a fruitful path towards enabling Moltmann)s cosmic vision to be
reconciled to the actual cosmos. Cn this path, the relation between #hrist and nature
becomes a problem, not -ust an answer.
6hat is the actual cosmos? +ere is one short story. The river 8ridanus is a long winding
constellation, flowing from Crion at the e'uator to the star "chernar near the South 4ole.
8tymologically, the name 8ridanus D Jordan. So, if we thin$ of the baptism of Jesus in
the River Jordan, we can better understand the power of the myth by imagining Jesus
bapti!ed in the stars of the constellation 8ridanus, representing his union with the ,od
who is revealed in the cosmos, the ,od whom Job and the 4salmist saw in Crion and the
4leiades.
8ridanus provides an e*ample to see how #hristian symbols can be better understood in a
cosmic frame. 4arables such as the loaves and fishes also lend themselves to this
treatment, as does the schema of the holy city of the apocalypse. 6e can consider the
risen sun of Mar$)s resurrection narrative as the risen Son, so the light and life giver of
the cosmos becomes identified with the Son of righteousness.
Moltmann does not seem to agree that the symbols of faith can be interpreted as signs of
nature. +e specifically states the sun and moon are not gods, and, with all nature, the sun
and moon and stars deserve the same honour as the 8mperor, an honour distinct from that
due to #hrist. ( find this e'uivalence of nature and empire surprising. The Roman
8mperor was an epitome of alienation from nature, while #hrist was the e*pression of
,od in nature, the one for whom even the stones of the fields cried out on 4alm Sunday.
6hen Moltmann see$s the resurrection of life from death, it is fair to as$ if this includes
the ,ods whom #hristianity has sought to banish from the pantheon as false myth. &ow
we can assess the ,arden of 8den and the 5lood as myths of similar stature to the ,ree$
myths, we can as$ why the +ebraic #reation story is privileged against pagan thought.
The answer is that the Jewish people were the cradle of #hrist, but this answer demands a
more respectful view towards pagan thought than is traditional in theology.
Moltmann describes the ,arden of 8den as .a resurrection out of the dar$ness of chaos to
the light of a beautiful cosmos/. 8ven as metaphor, accepting the Biblical 8den as an
origin story is fraught with problems, notably that it can e*clude non%"brahamic faiths
from dialogue. (n anthropological terms, 8den mar$ed the start of the fall, understood as
the rise of agriculture and town. To analyse Dr Moltmann)s statement about 8den as
implying that pre%agricultural societies are chaotic is a reasonable reading. ()m sure he
doesn)t thin$ this, but the problem remains how 8den is to be imagined.
The Tree of ife appears twice in the Bible, at the beginning and the end, in the ,arden
of 8den and in the +oly #ity of Revelation, providing a source and goal for human
redemption from the fall. (n view of the identity with nature symboli!ed by the tree of
life, it seems fair to argue that redemption re'uires a thorough%going natural theology. (n
evolutionary terms, we may as$ if the mythic 8den was really preceded by chaos, or if it
stretches bac$ in time as part of an ordered cosmos through the four billion years of life
on earth. Setting 8den as the real dawn of life places the Biblical story as metaphor, and
we must loo$ for the mythic elisions as well as the authentic sources in this image.
&atural theology is sometimes regarded as heretical, but nonetheless presents the only
coherent way to read the Bible. (t is about finding ways to embed the traditional E<<<
year span of #hristian time starting from "dam in 2<<< B# into a larger real
understanding of time. (n the Biblical vision, from "ugustine and Joachim of 5iore, from
#reation to the Millennium is E<<< years or a cosmic wee$, considered at one thousand
years per day. 6e are now at the end of day si* and approaching the cosmic Sabbath.
Fnderstanding this mythic framewor$ re'uires that it be reconciled with modern
scientific $nowledge. This is a 'uestion to which ( have devoted much thought.
The reconciliation of astronomy and #hristian faith opens difficult 'uestions, and readers
may wish to see my comments on it.
;
My interpretation of time is based on the
astronomical framewor$ of the slow movement of the heavens whereby the sun at the
March e'uino* is now near the end of 4isces and nearing the constellation of "'uarius.
oo$ing to the Bible to validate this framewor$, we can see the >time, times and half a
time) of the tribulation as matching fairly directly to the precession of the e'uino* from
2<<<B# to G<<<"D, through the G.1 "ges of Taurus, "ries, 4isces and half of "'uarius.
Similarly, the twelve -ewels of the foundation stones of the +oly #ity of &ew Jerusalem
are the twelve signs of the !odiac in reverse, by old tradition, starting with 4isces and
ending with "ries. This framewor$ matches the eschatology that places #hrist as "lpha
and Cmega as the turning point of time when the e'uino* moved from one ,reat Hear to
the ne*t, from "ries the first sign to 4isces the last, at the birth of #hrist.
"n area where Moltmann implies and has room for e*pansion of vision is in his theology
of the resurrection from the dead. (n conventional #hristian terms, referring to the
#hristian saints, the doctrine of physical re%emergence at the eschaton is not believable.
;
The ,as ,iants, The ,reat Hear and the +oly #ity7 rtulip.netAastronomy
+owever, if we e*pand the idea, to include among the saints the ,ods of non%#hristian
faiths, from 8gypt, Babylon, (ndia and elsewhere, we may start to place #hristianity into
a fuller vision, where its myths have a deep and enduring heritage lin$ing beyond the
+ebraic imagination, and where Moltmann)s theology of our reconciliation to ,od and
nature through #hrist may find a deep and persuasive meaning as a true religious re%
binding.
There are some very beautiful ideas in The Resurrection of Christ and the New Earth' +e
says the resurrection of the dead is li$e a new creation from ,od who calls into being
what is not. 5or me, this idea brings to mind the miracle of the loaves and fishes, where
Jesus loo$s to the s$y to create something from nothing. (nterestingly, the cosmic a*is of
the loaves and fishes 0@irgo and 4isces3 matches the #hristian symbols of the virgin and
the ichthys, and the time of #hrist was the beginning of the ;91< year period 0aion3 in
which the sun is in these constellations at the e'uino*es, and when the sun and moon are
in these constellations at 8aster.
Moltmann says #hrist as firstborn of creation ma$es resurrection an eschatological act of
history, the meaning of history and of nature. The women who $ept eye contact with
#hrist on the cross are named, and in whose e*perience at the empty tomb the regular
order of things is shattered. .The spirit of resurrection is forming our solidarity of
suffering and hope with all living things on earth. iving in the presence of the risen
#hrist opens our life to cosmic dimensions./ 0p1G3
"s the community of the #reator and Redeemer of all things, Moltmann suggests that
#hristian communities presented themselves as establishing peace and unity with nature,
bringing new life. "t face value, this presents an ideali!ed vision of the church as the
form of the incarnate messiah, ignoring the e*tent to which #hristian theology actively
separated spirit and nature in pursuit of the peace of the cosmos.
#omparing Mar* to Saint 4aul as prophets of the travail of nature, Moltmann loo$s to
philosopher 8rnst Bloch)s vision of matter as 'uantum process with open potentiality.+e
implicitly contrasts Bloch to the modern scientific view of hostility to nature as the
sub-ect of research and domination. .The framewor$ of an eschatological hermeneutics
I allows us to elicit the significance of nature in light of its transcendent resurrection./
0p1J3
Mar* saw the union of humanity and nature in the vision of the classless society.
Moltmann calls Mar* .an idealist who denied evil and ignored death/. Resurrection, in
4lato)s dream of a world beyond, is for Moltmann .for God(s belo#ed earthI6e
discover again the religion of the earth, that is the Sabbath)s the earth shall celebrate for
its #reatorK we discover that our heaven lies on earth./ 0p1E3 Moltmann suggests that
such ideas inspired Barth and Brunner. "s ever, the final lucid summary comes from
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, .only the one who loves ,od and the earth in one breath can hope
for the :ingdom of ,od./
Moltmann concludes by seeing heaven on earth. 6e may as$, should we not also see
heaven in the heavens, providing the eternal conte*t for the life of ,od on earth? (t is
true as Moltmann says, .on earth stands the cross of #hrist./ (t is e'ually true that the
cross finds its reflections in the physical heavens, and that study of our comple* universe
against the myths of time can be a source of resurrection as divine secular creation.

You might also like