And Still We Wait

Hans Urs von Balthasar's Theology of Holy Saturday and Christian Discipleship

Hikota

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781532605604
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Systematic Theology & Ethics

In response to the recent critiques made against Balthasar's interpretation of Christ's descent into hell on Holy Saturday, this book argues that Balthasar does not intend to present a radical reinterpretation of the doctrine in contrast to the traditional teachings but rather intends to fully appreciate the in-betweenness of Holy Saturday as the day of transition from the cross to the resurrection, from the old aeon to the new. The book further argues that this awareness of the "in-betweenness" can be detected throughout Balthasar's theological corpus and provides a clue to interpret his thoughts on Christian discipleship and suffering. After all, the Christian existence is also characterized by the transition from the old aeon to the new, from suffering to victory. The Christian believes that their victory is already here and not here yet. In this sense, the Christian still lives in Holy Saturday. Eventually, we can deepen our understanding of Christian discipleship and suffering in the light of Holy Saturday. In short, we could patiently endure our Holy Saturday because of Christ's Holy Saturday in hell.

1

Christ in Hell on Holy Saturday

Introduction

In chapters 1 and 2, our focus will be on Hans Urs von Balthasar’s interpretation of Christ’s descent into hell. In chapter 1, we will expound and evaluate Balthasar’s interpretation of Christ’s descent into hell by focusing on its Trinitarian framework and its christological significance. As we expound his theology, we would like to note two points in particular; first, Balthasar tries to appreciate the “in-between” state of Christ in Sheol on Holy Saturday instead of departing far from the “traditional” interpretation that seems to emphasize Christ as victor over death and sin; and secondly, Balthasar seems to show a deep interest in the reality of human suffering. Both points will be of particular importance for chapters 3 and 4, where we will widen the scope and discuss Mary’s Holy Saturday as well as the Christian’s Holy Saturday today in order to explore the implications of Balthasar’s theology for Christian discipleship and suffering.

The section titles of this chapter are as follows: under the heading of the Trinitarian framework of Christ’s descent into hell, 1) The overview of Balthasar’s Trinitarian theology, 2) the cross and the descent into hell as Trinitarian events, 3) the question concerning the beatific vision, 4) the Trinity and the problem of suffering, and under the heading of the christological significance of the descent into hell, 5) kenosis as the essence of Balthasar’s Christology grounded in the Trinity, 6) mission, 7) the Son’s obedience—the economic expression of the eternal love within the immanent Trinity, 8) the descent into hell as the center of kenotic Christology, 9) the importance of “analogy” in Balthasar’s theology, and 10) conclusion.

The Trinitarian Framework of Christ’s Descent into Hell

In this section, we turn to Balthasar’s Trinitarian theology. We will explore it as a fundamental framework to understand the cross and the descent into hell, as well as a basis for our argument concerning Christian suffering, which we will develop in the later chapters. Our focus will be placed on the Trinity revealed on the cross and in hell, while reference will be made to relevant topics. First, we will start by describing Balthasar’s subtle and nuanced approach to the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity. Then, following his thoughts, we will discuss kenosis as the essential characteristic of the immanent Trinity. After this preparation, we will examine his interpretation of the cross and the descent into hell as the abandonment of the Son by the Father, which is actually the radical form of mutual love between them. We will also examine the problem concerning the beatific vision. This point seems to be at the core of the difference between Balthasar’s interpretation of the descent into hell and the traditional teachings of the doctrine, and it gives Pitstick one of the reasons for concluding that his interpretation is heretical. Then we will pause to evaluate his Trinitarian theology by considering the serious concern raised against his treatment of the Trinity, namely that he has the tendency to bring a rupture within the eternally blissful unity within the Trinity and eventually ends up elevating and divinizing suffering as well.

The Overview of Balthasar’s Trinitarian Theology

Regarding the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity, Karl Rahner uttered a now-famous dictum: “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.”36 This axiom, now often dubbed “Rahner’s Rule,” is a result of Rahner’s intention to present the Trinity “as a mystery of salvation (in its reality and not merely as a doctrine).”37

On the one hand, Balthasar agrees with this axiom in the sense that it is only through the economic Trinity that we can have knowledge of the immanent Trinity. It is only through the figure and disposition of the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, that we can encounter the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as the divine persons of the Trinity. On the other hand, Balthasar departs from Rahner’s rule and strongly insists that the economic and immanent Trinity cannot be simply identified with each other. He is especially critical of the way Rahner treats the immanent Trinity, even when distinguished from the economic, merely as “a kind of precondition for God’s true, earnest self-revelation and self-giving.”38 Balthasar ascribes such a treatment to Rahner’s “concern to preserve God’s inner, triune nature as the mystery of mysteries.”39 In Rahner’s model, “God” refers to the Father, who communicates himself in history as the Son and the Spirit, while he himself remains the unoriginate source, in other words, the incomprehensible mystery. According to Balthasar, Rahner makes the divine self-communication within the immanent Trinity appear to be “strangely formal,”40 as Rahner admits no reciprocal “Thou” within the immanent Trinity because God has only one self-consciousness.41 As a result, in Balthasar’s view, the immanent Trinity becomes “hardly credible as the infinite prototype of God’s ‘economic’ self-squandering.”42 Instead, Balthasar himself proposes a very lively inter-personal “drama” within the immanent Trinity, which can ontologically ground and support the drama in the economic Trinity.

Balthasar is extremely careful to maintain a clear distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity, so that immanent does not “dissolve into the economic.”43 In other words, he believes we must not let God “be swallowed up in the world process.”44 He says this as a criticism of a Hegelian process theology, the position allegedly taken by such theologians as Jürgen Moltmann. Moltmann’s position is also based on Rahner’s rule. However, Moltmann not only blurs the distinction between the immanent and economic Trinity, but goes further to claim that the economic Trinity becomes the immanent Trinity. In Moltmann’s own words, “The economic Trinity completes and perfects itself to [the] immanent Trinity when the history and experience of salvation are completed and perfected.”45 For Moltmann, the cross in history is the fulfillment of the Trinity. His utmost concern is to show God’s intimate involvement with the world and eventually to claim that God himself suffers in the midst of all the sufferings of his creation. He writes, “God suffers with us—God suffers from us—God suffers for us; it is this experience of God that reveals the triune God.”46

Balthasar shares Moltmann’s concern to some extent and tries to avoid separating the immanent and economic Trinity in such a way that the events of the economy of salvation leave the immanent Trinity unaffected. Nevertheless, he is critical of M...