Abstract
The Enlightenment offered a critique of religion that by and large affords to modern Western people the freedom of religious unbelief. This great good counteracts a general proclivity of religion to superstition and tyranny, and yet religious questions are of perennial concern to human beings and are a natural consequence of how human language enables us to frame questions about ultimate meaning and value: What is the purpose of life? What is our best hope? What is the meaning of suffering? Religion might even be thought of as the pre-eminent means whereby people describe their aspiration to ultimate meaning and purpose. Religious language is therefore especially a language of promises, and the possibility of a religious view of the world and of human destiny is an ineradicable consequence of our condition as persons in history.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Jürgen Moltmann, Theology of Hope. On the Ground and Implications of a Christian Eschatology, trans. James W. Leitch (London: SCM, 1967). The following pragraphs draw on Moltmann, especially pp. 95 ff. The idea that apocalypses forge a new view of history is a familiar one.
See for instance Bernard McGinn, ‘Revelation’, ed. Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987), p. 526: ‘It is also becoming evident, as more work is done on early apocalypses and their later influence, that this genre not only introduced a new conception of history into Western religions but also was central in the development of the visionary tradition in Western literature and mysticism.’
For the rise of prophecy as a response to political threat, and the consequent opening of Israel’s message to the nations, see Moltmann, Theology of Hope, pp. 127–9. It is interesting to consider the universalising of the exodus theme in this context. See J. Casey, ‘The Exodus theme in the Book of Revelation Against the Background of the New Testament’, Concilium, 189 (1987), 34–43.
Adela Yarbro Collins, The Combat Myth in the Book of Revelation (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1976); ‘The Political Perspective of the Revelation to John’, Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977), 241–56.
Bernard McGinn, ‘Revelation’, ed. C. A. Patrides and Joseph Wittreich, The Apocalypse in English Renaissance Thought and Literature (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984), pp. 2–39;
Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven. A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK, 1982), esp. pp. 7 ff.;
J. Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: the Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 135–7;
J. J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: the Morphology of a Genre, Semeia 14 (1979);
Klaus Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalypic: a Polemical Work on a Neglected Area of Biblical Studies and its Damaging Effects on Theology and Philosophy, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM, 1972).
Norman Perrin and Dennis C. Duling, The New Testament: an Introduction (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 2nd edn, 1982), p. 73: ‘The Christian Church began as an apocalyptic sectarian movement within ancient Judaism.’ See also pp. 81, 89;
W. A. Beardslee, ‘New Testament Apocalyptic in Recent Interpretation’, Interpretation 25 (1971), 419 ff.;
Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 314: ‘If Christianity is not altogether and unreservedly eschatology, there remains in it no relationship whatever to Christ.’
Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, trans. W. Montgomery (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1910).
Moltmann’s general argument informs the last paragraph: it is taken up and developed with renewed vigour by Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus. An Experiment in Christology, trans. Hubert Hoskins (Collins: Fount, 1979), and Christ. The Experience of Jesus as Lord, trans. John Bowden (New York: Crossroad, 1983). Schillebeeckx draws on the idea of ‘negative contrast’ throughout.
See Rowan Williams, Resurrection. Interpreting the Easter Gospel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1982), pp. 100 ff.
James P. Mackey, Jesus, the Man and the Myth. A Contemporary Christology (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), pp. 92 ff.
All this is familiar enough. C. G. Jung, Answer to Job, trans. R. F. C. Hull (New York: Meridian, 1960), pp. 142–3, draws the contrast to the gospels
as does D. H. Lawrence, Apocalypse: and the Writings on Revelation, ed. Mara Kalnis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 67.
Jung also notices the images of rigidity and hardness (145), as does Amos Wilder, ‘The Rhetoric of Ancient and Modern Apocalyptic’, Interpretation 25 (1971), 441 ff. Dale C. Allison Jr., ‘4Q 403 Fragm. 1, Col. 1, 38–46 and the Revelation of John’, points to a tradition wherein inanimate objects are presented as living beings able to praise God. But the disturbing effect of such a bizarre spectacle depends precisely on our recognising first the impenetrability and hardness of walls, pillars and so forth. The non-humanness of the effect is confirmed rather than lessened by the metamorphosis.
See Adela Yarbro Collins, ‘The Revelation of John: An Apocalyptic Response to a Social Crisis’, Currents in Theology and Mission 8 (1981), 4–12, arguing that the author of Revelation was likely a charismatic, eschatological prophet who wanted his community to focus its life on the liturgy in the face of resentments about differences in wealth and prestige in Asia Minor, and in the context of threatened persecution by Rome. Collins also argues that Revelation was written in reaction to sporadic repression and not to the Diocletian persecution, which is unsubstantiated. See Crisis and Catharsis. The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), pp. 104 ff.
See also Stephen R. Travis, ‘The Value of Apocalyptic’, Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979), 53–76, arguing that transcendent eschatology of an apocalyptic kind encourages responsibility towards the world.
Austin Farrer, A Rebirth of Images: the Making of St. John’s Apocalypse (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1970), p. 36.
This is not to discourage those who seek a plan: indeed, we are constantly provoked to do so. Various suggestions have been offered. John Wick Bowman, ‘The Revelation of John: Its Dramatic Structure and Message’, Interpretation, 9 (1955), 440 ff., argues for a drama in seven acts, each with seven divisions.
C. E. Douglas, The Mystery of the Kingdom: an Attempt to Interpret the Revelation of S. John the Divine by the Method of Literary Criticism (London: Faith Press, 1915), pp. 7 ff., suggests that a four-times repeated ‘in the Spirit’ marks the principal divisions, and points to a main contrast between settings on heaven and earth.
John Sweet, Revelation (London: SCM, 1979), pp. 52–4, suggests a plan of four divisions of seven elements, with an introduction and a conclusion.
J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, The Anchor Bible, vol. 38 (New York: Doubleday, 1975), sets out a series of seven sevens (46–48), but prefers an alternative plan of six sixes, ‘a symbol of incompleteness congruous with the 666, the number of the beast, expressing a lack of fulfillment felt by the Baptist and his followers before the coming of Christ (13:18)’ (48).
See for instance William A. Beardslee, Literary Criticism of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), pp. 59 ff.;
Ibon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 216 ff. This point about disruption from within is a main strand in my treatment of Revelation in Reading the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1989), pp. 114 ff., which I redact briefly in the following paragraphs.
There is debate about whether the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 can be identified with the suffering Jesus in Mark, mainly because Isaiah 53 is not alluded to in Mark’s passion sayings. D. Lorenzen, ‘Jesu lidelsesudsagen i Markusevangeliet’ (Jesus’ Passion Sayings in the Gospel of Mark), Dansk Teologisk Tidskrift 42 (1979), 217–54, surveys the debate and concludes that Mk. 9:12; 10:45; 14:21–25, especially give evidence that Jesus did assume the role of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus, pp. 284 ff., argues that a broad ‘Old Testament and intertestamentary tradition of the suffering righteous one’ (285) is important here, and points especially to this tradition in the Psalms; the motif is applied ‘in a special way’ in Isaiah 53 to the suffering prophet (285). He concludes that ‘the complete motif “suffering much” and “being glorified”, became general only during the first quarter of the first century before Christ’ (286).
See Charles H. Talbert, What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977);
Ralph P. Martin, Mark, Evangelist and Theologian (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1972), pp. 17 ff.
B. A. Stevens, ‘Why “must” the Son of Man Suffer?’ The Divine Warrior in the Gospel of Mark’, Biblische Zeitschrift 31 (1987), 101–110.
P. Patten, ‘The Form and Function of Parables in Select Apocalyptic Literature and their significance for Parables in the Gospel of Mark’, New Testament Studies 29 (1983), 246–58, argues that parables in 4 Ezra, I Enoch, and 2 Baruch are enigmatic and require special interpretation to be understood by a select group, and that Mark’s problems derive from this apocalyptic example.
And see also G. R. Beasley-Murray, ‘Eschatology in the Gospel of Mark’, Southwestern Journal of Theology 21 (1978), 37–53.
B. A. Stevens, ‘Why “must” the Son of Man Suffer?’ The Divine Warrior in the Gospel of Mark’, Biblische Zeitschrift, 31 (1987) 101–110, argues that the Divine Warrior mythology contributed to the emerging concept of the apocalyptic Son of Man, thus forging a link between Mark 13 and the apocalyptic genre.
P. Patten, ‘The Form and Function of Parables in Select Apocalyptic Literature and their significance for Parables in the Gospel of Mark’, New Testament Studies 29 (1983), 246–58, argues that parables in 4 Ezra, I Enoch, and 2 Baruch are enigmatic and require special interpretation to be understood by a select group, and that Mark’s problems derive from this apocalyptic example.
And see also G. R. Beasley-Murray, ‘Eschatology in the Gospel of Mark’, Southwestern Journal of Theology 21 (1978), 37–53.
William Wrede, The Messianic Secret, trans. J. C. G. Grieg (London: James Clarke, 1971. First edition, 1901).
See James L. Blevins, The Messianic Secret in Markan Research, 1901–76 (Washington: University Press of America, 1981).
See T. J. Weeden, ‘The Heresy that Necessitated Mark’s Gospel’, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59 (1968), 145–58 Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971) argues that Mark wrote his gospel to criticise false prophets in the community, who presented Christ as a Hellenistic wonder-worker.
Weeden is followed notably by Norman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), pp. 92 ff., 112 ff.
But reactions to this interpretation have been presented, for instance by D. L. Tiede, The Charismatic Figure as Wonder Worker (Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972).
See also J. D. Kingsbury, ‘The “Divine Man” as the Key to Mark’s Christology — The End of an Era?’ Interpretation 35 (1981), 243–57. Still, it does seem clear that Mark is concerned with how easily misunderstood are the ‘signs’, including Jesus’ miracle working, and that he does warn us against seeing Jesus just as a powerful wonder-worker.
I allude to the distinction drawn by Ulrich Luz, ‘The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology’, trans. R. Morgan, ed. Christopher Tuckett, The Messianic Secret (London: SPCK, 1983), pp. 75–96.
Qumran fragments suggest that ‘Son of God’ was a messianic title. See J. M. Allegro, ‘Fragments of a Qumran scroll of Eschatological Midrasim’, Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958), 350–54. J. D. Kingsbury, ‘The “Divine Man” as the Key to Mark’s Christology’, p. 253, points to Psalm 2, where the king is named God’s anointed, and God’s son. So, Jesus ‘is the Davidic Messiah, the royal Son of God, exactly as Mark also states in the superscription to his Gospel: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Messiah, the Son of God” (1:1).’
See James P. Mackey, Modern Theology. A Sense of Direction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 3.
Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979), deals with interpretive strategies in Mark.
There is a great deal of commentary on the disciples in Mark. For opinions that touch on the concerns of the present chapter, see S. Freyne, ‘The Disciples in Mark and the maskilim in Daniel. A Comparison’, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 16 (1982), 7–23. Freyne places the disciples in an apocalyptic context in which the elect play a special role because of their insight into the divine plan, in the midst of the end-time struggle and its confusions.
C. Burdon, “‘Such a Fast God” — True and False Disciples in Mark’s Gospel’, Theology 90 (1987), 89–97, repeats the general point that the disciples frequently are not presented as positive models for the reader, and stresses the fleetingness of Jesus’ revelatory encounters as the essential point about Christian discipleship: people can touch Jesus, but not hold on to him.
David Daube, ‘The Anointing at Bethany and Jesus’ Burial’, Anglican Theological Review 22 (1950), 186–99, suggests that Mark was concerned to show that the proper rites had been performed.
See D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St. Mark (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1963, revised, 1968), p. 374.
See Heribert Fischer, ‘Mysticism’, ed. Karl Rahner, Sacramentum Mundi (New York: Herder, 1968–70), p. 138: ‘The Church is never without the mystic element. It has never made any universal and binding declarations on the exact nature of the mystical experience.’
See Jacques Maritain, The Degrees of Knowledge, trans. Bernard Wall and Margot R. Adamson (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1937), pp. 327, 354 ff.
R. C. Zaehner, Mysticism Sacred and Profane. An Inquiry into Some Varieties of Praeternatural Experience (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), passim.
Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism. A Study in the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual Consciousness (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1961. First published, 1911), p. 72.
See James P. Mackey, The Christian Experience of God as Trinity (London: SCM, 1983), pp. 2 ff., et passim;
Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society, trans. Paul Burns (New York: Orbis Books, 1988).
See Patrick Grant, A Dazzling Darkness (Collins: Fount, 1985), especially Chapter VI, ‘Personal Progress’, pp. 252 ff.
Cuthbert Butler, Western Mysticism. With Afterthoughts (London: Grey Arrow, 1960. First published, 1922), pp. 50 ff.
David Knowles, The English Mystical Tradition (London: Burns and Oates, 1961), p. 10.
See Jacques Guillet, Gustave Bardy, Francois Vandenbroucke, Joseph Regan, Henri Martin, Discernment of Spirits, trans. Sister Innocentia Richards (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1957)
Martin Kelsey, Discernment: A Study in Ecstasy and Evil (New York: Paulist Press, 1978).
Erich Neumann, ‘Mystical Man’, The Mystic Vision. Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks, Bollingen Series XXX, 6 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1968), pp. 401 ff.
Cited without reference in James R. Home, Beyond Mysticism (Toronto: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1978), p. 78.
See for instance Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Vintage Books, 1981).
Origen, The Song of Songs: Commentary and Homilies, trans. R. P. Lawson (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1957).
Bonaventure, The Mind’s Road to God, trans. George Boas (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1953). References are cited in the text.
Jean-Pierre de Caussade, Abandonment to Divine Providence, trans. John Beevers (New York: Image Books, 1975). References are cited in the text.
Edward Schillebeeckx, Jesus in Our Western Culture. Mysticism, Ethics and Politics, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1987), p. 71.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1992 Patrick Grant
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grant, P. (1992). Religious Promises. In: Literature and Personal Values. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22116-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22116-5_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-22118-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-22116-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)