Time&Eternity

Biblical and Theological Conceptions of Time 105
in order to relate divine eternity to human time and then to calculate from
that point. In such a process, he says, the phase of salvation history is extended
backwards and drawn out into infinity. But the preexistent “before”
and the time of salvation history should neither be separated nor added on
to each other; instead, they are present in each other, Schelkle states. In
light of the self-determination of God, Jüngel’s approach indeed avoids this
before-and-after difficulty, but is this advantage perhaps gained at the price
of a neglected theology of time? Would a theology of time elevate Jüngel’s
formulations above the suspicion of clever play on words?
This suspicion of puns is not expressed frivolously or ironically at all;
Kuschel also remarks that the language here has reached its limitations:
“Holding Jesus’ preexistence, existence, and post-existence together conceptually
.l.l. requires a language of simultaneity, which is perhaps possible for
the ciphered language of modern poetry, the tonal language of music, or the
color-filled language of painting, but it is not possible for the language of
reflection and discourse.” 334 Modern science may be able to contribute
metaphors and/or models that can be helpful for formulating a theology of
time.
In Pannenberg, the eternity of the Son becomes conceivable primarily in
his role as mediator of creation. The origin of everything that is different
from the Father lies within the Son. “[God’s creatures] become the object of
the Father’s love because the eternal Son is manifested in them.” 335 With respect
to his creaturely existence, Jesus remains different from the eternal
Son. The eternal Son is the ground of his own being and the being of all
created things. 336
Otherwise, Pannenberg sees the life of the earthly and resurrected Jesus—his
post-existence—closely tied to the work of the Spirit. In the act of
the Incarnation and Resurrection, which, from the perspective of eternity, is
one and the same event, the Son was merely an object of the creative dynamic
work of the Spirit. The Spirit also participates in the return of Christ, but
now in such a way that the work of the Spirit is consummated in Christ’s
parousia. 337 The Incarnation is already the dawning of God’s future, the dissolution
of the opposition of time to eternity, 338 and the entrance of eternity
into time. Essentially, neither the Resurrection nor the parousia can add anything
to this. Only from the human perspective is there an escalation: The
Resurrection provides the foundation for the confession of the Incarnation;
the parousia ultimately provides the public confirmation of the Easter event.
Just as the Resurrection is the prolepsis of eschatological salvation, so is the
pre-Easter work of Jesus the prolepsis of the coming reign of God. 339