Abstract

This dissertation explores into the nature of aeonic time, a novelistic formulation of Jurgen Moltmann as developed in his later theological writings. The main argument is that Moltmann has failed to show comprehensively how aeonic time is redemptive over historical time. In other words, Moltmann's notion of aeonic time has little in common with the historical time of sequence, succession, and chronology. ;Chapter 1 describes the importance of Moltmann's new approach to the issues regarding time and eternity, and offers an explanation of methodology. Then, the main interactions with Moltmann's eschatological theology are presented. ;Chapter 2 describes Moltmann's theology as background to proceeding further into evaluating his position on the time-eternity relationship. The first section is devoted to the explication of the three key theological principles of Moltmann to help readers be acquainted with Moltmann's theology in general and his eschatology of time specifically. The second section overviews the thought of Oscar Cullmann and Karl Barth, who had significant impact upon later theological discussions of time-eternity linkage. ;Chapter 3 presents a detailed exposition of Moltmann's view of time. In constructing his view, Moltmann accepts Augustine's famous thesis that time was created together with the universe, but Moltmann seeks to overcome the time-negating image of God's timeless eternity by virtue of the Jewish kabbalistic view of creation. Stress is given to Moltmann's view of the dual aspect of time, the time of futurity, and the time of transience. ;Chapter 4 describes and acknowledges Moltmann's methodological contribution to understanding the end of time, in light of Moltmann's exegetical, theological, and philosophical arguments about the end of time. Regrettably, his claim is found to be less than persuasive. ;Chapter 5 discusses Moltmann's concept of aeonic time and corroborates that aeonic time is hardly in continuity with historical time. According to our investigation, two main problems of aeonic time are shown. First, Moltmann's notion of aeonic time suffers from a metaphoric inconsistency, for there is little commonality between cyclicity and simultaneity. Second, Moltmann's explication of aeonic time is very much akin to the notion of timeless eternity just because the sense of futurity is deficient in Moltmann's explanation of aeonic time. Finally, this study suggests a view of the temporal notion of creaturely eternity as a remedy against Moltmann's time-negating model of aeonic time. ;Chapter 6 summarizes the arguments of this dissertation, identifies the implications of this study and the issues that need further research