upon the of it grinded on destroying eschatological expectation. As a failed “wheel history;” apocalyptic prophet, Jesus brought an end to the conditions for the eschaton. Schweitzer wrote, has destroyed failure as an apocalyptic prophet meant that no one could take “he them.” Jesus’ seriously those conditions. Ethics in place of Eschatology on apocalypticism accomplished two things in western Schweitzer’s work Jesus’ theology. First, apocalyptic returned as a necessary context in which to understand Jesus. Second, apocalyptic was largely considered indefensible. mission was inextricably linked Jesus’ with his eschatology, but because the latter was unacceptable to modern persons, something must replace eschatology if Jesus was to be conceived as relevant. Often, what replaced eschatology was ethics. Take as an example the influential work of Paul Ramsey in his 1950 Basic Christian He identified agape or disinterested love as the heart of teaching and he too Ethics. Jesus’ connected it with eschatology. When Jesus tells us to do something difficult like love our enemy, give everything to the poor, or not even call someone a fool, his “strenuous” sayings depend “on his apocalyptic with the American theologian Walter Rauschenbusch expectation.” Agreeing (1861-1918), Ramsey argued that apocalyptic context is untenable for moderns. We can Jesus’ his love commands from that apocalyptic context without significant loss, nor neither “translate” can we inhabit it. We are caught in a conundrum. ethics arise from apocalyptic Jesus’ expectation, but modern, reasonable people cannot inhabit eschatological world. What is Jesus’ to be done? Ramsey argued that teaching could still have without the Jesus’ “validity” eschatology. The of the love commandment in its apocalyptic context had to “genesis” “nothing do with What Jesus teaches can be differentiated from how he taught it and still validity.” function as a Christian ethics. Ethics can be divided from eschatology.
upon the “wheel of history;” it grinded on destroying eschatological expectation. As a failed apocalyptic prophet, Jesus brought an end to the conditions for the eschaton. Schweitzer wrote, “he has destroyed them.” Jesus’ failure as an apocalyptic prophet meant that no one could take seriously those conditions. Ethics in place of Eschatology Schweitzer’s work on Jesus’ apocalypticism accomplished two things in western theology. First, apocalyptic returned as a necessary context in which to understand Jesus. Second, apocalyptic was largely considered indefensible. Jesus’ mission was inextricably linked with his eschatology, but because the latter was unacceptable to modern persons, something must replace eschatology if Jesus was to be conceived as relevant. Often, what replaced eschatology was ethics. Take as an example the influential work of Paul Ramsey in his 1950 Basic Christian Ethics. He identified agape or disinterested love as the heart of Jesus’ teaching and he too connected it with eschatology. When Jesus tells us to do something difficult like love our enemy, give everything to the poor, or not even call someone a fool, his “strenuous” sayings depend “on his apocalyptic expectation.” Agreeing with the American theologian Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918), Ramsey argued that Jesus’ apocalyptic context is untenable for moderns. We can neither “translate” his love commands from that apocalyptic context without significant loss, nor can we inhabit it. We are caught in a conundrum. Jesus’ ethics arise from apocalyptic expectation, but modern, reasonable people cannot inhabit Jesus’ eschatological world. What is to be done? Ramsey argued that Jesus’ teaching could still have “validity” without the eschatology. The “genesis” of the love commandment in its apocalyptic context had “nothing to do with validity.” What Jesus teaches can be differentiated from how he taught it and still function as a Christian ethics. Ethics can be divided from eschatology.
T1%20Long%20Eschatology.docx