Biblical prototypes of suffering for others – the eschatological prophet and messianic high priest – are correlated in the present article with Edward Schillebeeckx's examination of two vital concepts to provide the basis for a critical praxis: anamnesis, or the critical remembrance of history, and eschatological hope. The dialectical opposites of anamnesis and hope, which Schillebeeckx deems crucial for solidarity with suffering and its alleviation, are embodied by the prototypical scriptural figures. Indeed, critical remembrance and hope are intrinsic to the (...) images of Jesus as the ‘suffering righteous one’ and the eschatological messianic high priest in Schillebeeckx's theology of suffering for others. Both the images and the critical concepts prove essential in his historical reconstruction of the eschatological communities, religious figures, and symbols in Hebrews and 1 Peter, among other New Testament documents. Schillebeeckx's discernment of hope as an eschatological concept is predicated on the transformation of the history of suffering into a constructive and critical force. He understands Jesus’ preaching about the coming kingdom of God as a message of hope that emerges from Jesus’ consciousness of the contrast between the history of suffering and his experience of God as Abba. Schillebeeckx's exegesis of biblical passages – taken from the Beatitudes, narratives of Jesus’ forgiveness of sins, and stories of his table fellowship – lays the foundation for the development of hope as the antidote to suffering and as a presentiment of eschatological salvation. He proposes that the transformation of failure and suffering into a critical and constructive force is Jesus’ eschatological legacy to the world and a model for the suffering servants of any age. Moreover, Schillebeeckx's dialectical understanding of remembered history and hope attests to his deep engagement with the Frankfurt School of social critical theory. In his later work (published during the 1970s and 1980s), such critical ideas serve to cultivate an eschatological sensibility and an ethical praxis, made possible by grace mediated through voluntary suffering. (shrink)

Edward Schillebeeckx has consolidated the theoretical and practical dimensions of the Christian approach to human suffering in his theological method, specifically his theology of suffering for others. The various elements and sources of his method can be gleaned from his later writings, especially those published during the 1970s and 1980s. Schillebeeckx's theology is anchored in the Thomist‐phenomenological approach of Flemish philosopher Dominic De Petter; the historical‐experiential theology of Marie‐Dominique Chenu; and the social theory of the Frankfurt School. De Petter's perspective (...) on Aquinas integrated a Thomist epistemology with the phenomenological notion that concepts cannot ultimately capture the reality of human experience. From Chenu, Schillebeeckx acquired his commitment to both solid historical research and engagement with socio‐political problems facing church and world.The problem of suffering, which constitutes an essential dimension of Schillebeeckx's theological ethics with its dual emphasis on theory and praxis, raises the question of human responsibility in the face of unjust and needless suffering. His theoretical‐practical approach to the alleviation of human suffering evolved within the framework of social critical theory, specifically: Schillebeeckx's theological integration of Theodor Adorno's negative dialectics into his own method of correlation, which promotes various forms of critical resistance to socio‐political injustice rather than a single program; and the unification of theory and praxis, a priority of Jürgen Habermas's ‘new’ critical theory that Schillebeeckx endorses. Both principles of critical theory — negative dialectics and the union of theory and praxis — inform Schillebeeckx's eschatological orientation and his conception of liturgy as a form of social ethics. (shrink)

Eschatological images of Jesus as found in Jewish and Christian texts constitute the foundation of Edward Schillebeeckx’s positive orientation to suffering for others. Jewish prototypes provided the early Christians with an understanding of Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection as the advent of the eschaton. The pre‐existing biblical figures, which early Jewish Christians appropriated in the aftermath of the devastating crucifixion, provided traditional categories through which the life and death of Jesus could be meaningfully interpreted. Jesus as the eschatological prophet‐martyr and (...) Jesus as the suffering, eschatological high priest of the Epistle to the Hebrews are the most prominent and complex of the ancient figures. In Schillebeeckx’s analysis, each of the two composite titles ascribed to Jesus is an amplification of a prophetic or priestly prototype. The use of both models is predicted on Jesus’ compassionate and redemptive response to suffering – healing the sick, comforting the bereaved, giving hope to the oppressed, and proclaiming eschatological salvation.Schillebeeckx’s historical‐critical investigation of Jesus’ perception of his anticipated death, as revealed in the Last supper narrative, and his analysis of the meaning ascribed to the crucifixion in primitive Christianity establish the basis for a theology of redemptive suffering in the early church. Schillebeeckx has critically examined three pre‐New Testament interpretations applied to Jesus’ crucifixion: the death of the eschatological prophet‐martyr in the Deuteronomic tradition of the prophets whose proclamations were typically misjudged by Israel; the fulfilment of the divine scheme of salvation through the suffering of the ‘righteous one’, who is ultimately exonerated by God; and a vicarious, atoning sacrifice. The interpretative categories examined by Schillebeeckx with respect to the crucifixion are closely related to the biblical images upon which his theology of suffering is based. (shrink)