Evolution and the Third Nature of ChristA Study of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s Cosmic Christ

Course: THEO 761Spirituality and Religion in a Scientific Era

Submitted to Rev. J. Wiseman, OSB

Department of Theology

By Chiu Bit-Shing, Abraham ofm

Washington D.C.December, 1999

1

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE: THE TERM “COSMIC CHRIST”1. The background of the terminology2. The contemporary development of the term “cosmic”3. Summary

CHAPTER TWO: TEILHARD DE CHARDIN’ S “COSMIC CHRIST”1. Evolution and “Cosmic”1.1 A briefing on C. Darwin’s theory of evolution1.2 The cosmic theology of Teilhard2. The third nature of Christ3. Ideas from cons and pros3.1 Cons3.1.1 W. Pannenberg3.1.2 T. S. Gregory3.2 Pros3.2.1 F. Bravo3.2.2 T. M. King3.2.3 T. Peters3.2.4 I. Barbour3.2.5 R. J. Russell3.2.6 P Hefner4. Summary

CHAPTER THREE: THE PROLOGUE AND 17:5 IN JOHN1. Introduction2. The 3. in the Prologue of John4. The glory before the creation of the world in John 17:55. Summary

GENERAL CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2

INTRODUCTION

In The Divine Milieu, P. Teilhard de Chardin says that the Son of God is the

“total Christ”. What “total” means for Teilhard is a “universal Christ.”1 He insists that

“the mystical body of Christ” must be conceived as a physical “Reality,” without any

attenuation. Jesus is the center towards whom all moves.2 In this dynamic motion, all

creatures move towards the center of the universe, Jesus Christ.

The scientific thought of Teilhard leads him towards the Son of God whom he

calls the “universal Christ.”3 The cosmic function of the universal Christ is “not only

moral, but physical.”4 If Christ is to remain without diminution, at the center of our

faith, and if the world is indeed evolutionary, then this cosmic Christ, the beginning,

the bond, and the terminus of all creation must now offer himself for our adoration as

the “evolutive” Christ.5 Creation, incarnation, and redemption together constitute one

1 P. Teilhard de Chardin, The Divine Milieu (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) 101, “the divine omnipresence translates itself within our universe by the network of the organizing forces of the total Christ”; thus, Christ to Teilhard is a “center of radiation for the energies which lead the universe back to God through his humanity.” Teilhard calls this assimilation of humankind in Christ in unitate corporis Christi and then convertuntur in Christum. It is the consequence of the incarnation of the Son of God. The divinity of God transforms the divine immensity for us into the omnipresence of christification. Moreover, Teilhard insists that the whole movement of the universe is that through the Christ the Lord always creates, vivifies, and presents all things to us. (cf. 103)

2 Teilhard, “La Vie cosmique,” Oeuvres de Teilhard de Chardin (12; Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955-1965) 67; The original writings of Teilhard are published in the series from Le Phénomène humain, 1955-1965; Ecrits de temps de la querre (=ETG) (Paris: Grasset, 1965) 47. This important collection of essays, written during Teilhard’s army services in World War I, is the early expression in variant forms of Teilhard’s fundamental outlook. A few are fairly technical, but most are written for the general reader who should be prepared for frequently moving and poetical passages. The English translation is published by Collins from thirteen of the twenty essays in French version in 1968 (Writings in Time of War [=WTW], London: Collins, 1968) 58.

3 H. de Lubac, Teilhard de Chardin: The Man and his Meaning (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1965) 31.

4 Teilhard, “Cosmique,” Oeuvres, 44-45, he states that for minds that are afraid to conceive things boldly or are filled with individualistic prejudices, and always try to interpret the connections between beings as moral or logical relations, the body of Christ is much more like a social agglomeration than a natural organism. Such minds dangerously weaken the thought of Scripture … No, the body of Christ is not an … extrinsic, juridical, association, etc.

5 A. Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (trans. by W. Montgomery; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) 25, “Pauline mysticism is

3

movement, viz., pleromization. The movement goes towards “pleroma.” This is the

oneness of the universe, through the center of the cosmos, the cosmic Christ.

Christology, for Teilhard, becomes a living bond between prayer and action. Since

Christ is the center of his life, Teilhard cries, “O Christ, ever greater!”6

As a matter of fact, the oneness of the Father and the Son is the foundation of the

oneness of the universe. The evangelist of the Gospel of John elaborates this intimacy

between the Father and the Son underneath the simple words in the Prologue and in

17:5.

What light does John 1:3 offer as the evangelist states that the universe is created

through Christ? How does the Son regain the glory that he had before the world was

made? These verses, along with the Pauline letters contribute an important part to

Teilhard de Chardin’s works.

Teilhard’s idea receives both pros and cons from different scholars. In this paper,

we will analyze Teilhard de Chardin’s interpretation of the third nature of Christ, viz.,

“cosmic.” Then the Prologue of John 1:3; 17:5 will be examined to discuss what is

meant when Christ is referred to as the “Omega” of universal creation - the return of

the Son to the Father. Christ manifests his authority over the universe in regaining the

glory that he had before the creation of the world.

historico-cosmic, and looks towards the end of all time.”6 Teilhard, Le Cœur de la Matière. Cf. “July 15 1952, to Marguerite Teillard-

Chambon,” “I have absolute trust in him, whose greatest possible exaltation is my only care.” (Letters from a traveller [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962] 329); Oeuvres 13, 333. This collection of letters is run from 1923 through 1955, which gives an easy entry to Teilhard’s personality and thought.

4

CHAPTER ONE: THE TERM “COSMIC CHRIST”

1. The background of the terminology

The term “cosmic Christ” is rooted in the teachings of the NT.7 The patristic

writers, medieval, and other pre-nineteenth-century theologians follow the line and

define the relation between Christ and the cosmos.8

The significance of the “cosmic Christ” sheds light on the second person in the

Trinity that it is different from the traditional Western teachings on the Trinity.9 The

term “cosmic Christ” developed in the early twentieth century. The significance of

seeing Christ as a cosmic principle can be traced back to 1830s. The epithet “cosmic”

is used of Christ; the Son of God is said to be the instrument in God’s creative

activity.10 The term “cosmic” also points out the involvement of Christ in the

universe.11 In other words, the term “cosmic” denotes the “economic” self-

7 The following texts are usually cited in referring to the “cosmic Christ”: 1 Cor 3:21-23, 8:6, 15:20-28; 2 Cor 5:19; Rom 8:19-23; Phil 2:9-11, 3:21; Col 1:15-20, 2:9-10, 15, 19, 3:11; Eph 1:4, 9-10, 20-23, 3:9-11, 4:9-10, 12-13, 15-16, Heb 1:2-4, 10, 2:5-9; John 1:1-18; Rev 1:17, 2:8, 3:14, 22:13. However, the solely text which provides a full understanding of the descent-ascent scheme of Christ is John 17:4, 5. Christ says that he returns to the Father and regains the glory of which he had before the creation of the world. In this verse the Son is revealed as the God who is supramundane – transcends space and time but he once has concretely become one member of the universe in his incarnation. His incarnation in the universe is the economic revelation of the immanent and dynamic self-communication of the Trinity. We will have a further discussion in Chapter Three.

8 Cosmic-Christ doctrine has been attributed to Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor (Greek patristic theologians), and Ambrose (Latin patristic theologian). In the medieval age, we find Duns Scotus, Bonaventure, Aquinas, Hugh of St. Victor, and Eckhart. Moreover, J. Boehme and F. Christoph Oetinger are also attributed as well.

9 Augustine, The Trinity. The Works of St. Augustine: A Translation for the 21st

Century (Pt. I, vol. 5; Brooklyn: New City Press, 1991); Anselm, St. Anselm: Basic Writings (2nd ed., La Salle: Open Court Pub. Co., 1990); T. Aquinas, The Trinity (Summa Theologiae 6, 7; London: Blackfriars, 1965, 1976); Bonaventure, Breviloquium (London: B. Herder Book Co., 1947).

10 J. A. Lyons, The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin: A Comparative Study (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) 1.

11 Ibid.

5

communication of the Trinity.12 Thus, the universe is christocentric. Christ is the

source and goal of all things.

Christ is also the bond and sustaining power of the whole of creation. Hence, he

is called the head and ruler of the universe. The name “cosmic Christ” defines his

redemptive influence and his body is thought to extend to the limits of the created

order.13

Looking at Christ as “cosmic” suggests that he possesses a greater significance

than God – that he becomes humankind in order to reveal himself in a salvific act.

However, this “wider significance” does not mean “wider” in quality. For God is

perfect and the three persons in the Trinity are co-eternal and equal. Whenever we talk

about the width, it already includes space and time.

Therefore, the incarnation of Christ is the main issue in discussing the “cosmic

Christ” because he becomes incarnate in the universe as one of the creatures. The

participation of God in the universe is dependent on both Christ’s relation to the

cosmos and the kind of cosmos to which he is related.14

Contemporary Christology inquires about the possibility of a plurality of

incarnations within the human race; on the contrary, the cosmic Christ looks to a

possibility beyond humanity.15 In other words, the cosmic Christ goes beyond the

limitation of human race to the entire universe. Thus, as Teilhard defines, Christ is not

solely divine and human, but also cosmic.

2. The contemporary development of the term “cosmic”

“Cosmic Christ” terminology starts in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The term makes its appearance in theological German during the 1830s and 1840s. In

12 K. Rahner, The Trinity (New York: The Crossroad Pub. Co., 1998) 63-64.13 Lyons, Cosmic, 1-2.14 Ibid.15 Ibid., 4.

6

1857, it enters into English world. French theologians begin to use it in 1910.16

In German, the adjective “kosmisch” seems first to have been recorded in 1804,

with the meanings “worldly” and “pertaining to the world.”17 In 1817 it was used in

the sense of “allweltlich” (universal).18

In French, the understanding of the adjective “cosmique” connotes “pertaining to

the cosmos or universe considered in its totality.”19 The term has existed since the end

of the fourteenth century. The word was further nuanced in 1863 to point to

interstellar space. Towards the end of the century it acquired the further meaning,

“immeasurable or vertiginous like the universe.”20

The English appearance of the adjective “cosmical” can be traced back to 1583. It

meant “geographical” or “belonging to the earth.”21 In the sense of “pertaining to the

universe as an ordered system or relating to the sum totality of thing,” “cosmical” is

recorded as having been used first in 1685 but not again until 1850.22

The meaning of “cosmical” acquires further meanings: “relating to the cosmos,”

“belonging to the material universe as distinguished from the earth,” “extraterrestrial,”

and “characteristic of the vast scale of the universe.” Recently, there are additional

meanings of the adjective “cosmic”, viz., “universal,” “infinite,” and “immense.”

16 Lyons, Cosmic, 7.17 See J. C. A. Heyse, Allgemeines Wörterbuch zur Vendeutschung und Erklärung

der in unserer Sprache gebräuchlichen fremden Wörter und Redensarten (1804) 181.

18 F. E. Petri, Gedrängtes Verdeutschungswörterbuch der in unserer Bücher – und Umgangssprache häufig oder selten vorkommenden fremden Ausdrücke, (3rd

ed., 1817) 267.19 L. Guilbert et al. (ed.), Grand Larousse de la langue française, tome 2 (1972)

1000-1001; P. Imbs (ed.), Trésor de la langue française: Dictionnaire de la langue du XIXe et du Xxe siècle (1789-1960), tome 6 (1978) 251-255.

20 The Grand Larousse is incorrect in stating that “cosmos” entered French in 1847. It had already been used in Joseph de Maistre, Les Soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg, ou Entretiens sur le gouvernement temporel de la Providence, suivis d’un Traité sur les sacrifices, tome 1 (1821) 118.

21 R. W. Burchfield (ed.), Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (1; 1972) 648.

22 The absence of a quotation for “cosmical” between 1685 and 1850 is indicative of the word’s rarity during this period. Normally the editors of the New English Dictionary try to include at least one quotation per century for each sense of a word (1; xxii).

7

Concerning immensity, the modern usage tends specifically to convey the

immensity of the universe disclosed by the natural sciences. To the extent that the

modern and the ancient usages coincide, cosmic-Christ terminology reflects the usage

of “cosmos” in Greek.23 This convention relates Christ to the sum totality of the

created order and concludes that this relationship extends beyond the compass of

earthly affairs.24

Cosmic-Christ terminology, therefore, sheds light beyond the confines of human

history. It seems that the development of the understanding Christ goes beyond the

traditional interpretation and definitions that humankind nowadays knows the Son of

God with universal perspective.

3. Summary

The term “cosmic Christ” is controversial since Teilhard defines that the “cosmic”

is the third nature of Christ. Such thinking supposes there is an additional nature

besides the two normally discussed, divine and human. The term “cosmic Christ”

signifies the wider dimension of Christ inasmuch as it points out the involvement of

Christ in the universe. In a trinitarian sense, it denotes the “economic” self-

communication of the Trinity.

“Cosmic Christ” terminology starts in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Either in German, French, or English understandings of the phrase, it acquires further

meaning rather than that of the “world,” i.e., relating to the universal. Christ has a

relationship with the universe as well as being the center of it.

23 We would discuss in Chapter Three of this paper.24 Lyons, Cosmic, 10.

8

CHAPTER TWO: TEILHARD DE CHARDIN’S “COSMIC CHRIST”

Does C. Darwin’s theory of evolution sufficiently explain the existence of the

universe? Does the evolution theory correctly define that the universe is determined

solely by a blind and mindless set of mathematical rules? Does the impersonal notion

of “natural selection” provide us with a sufficient explanation of life’s creativity?

Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory explain the reasons for our moral and religious

behaviors? Is evolution inconsistent with the sense of cosmic purpose posited by

many religions? These questions bring us to the parts, which follow.

1. Evolution and “Cosmic”

1.1 A briefing on C. Darwin’s theory of evolution

The two most common questions that the evolutionists would ask the theists are

the following: First, “how could a lovingly concerned God tolerate the struggle, pain,

cruelty, brutality, and death that lie beneath the relatively stable and serene surface of

nature’s present order?” Second, “could an almighty God of love have designed,

foreseen, planned, and created a system whose law is a ruthless struggle for existence

in an overcrowded world?”

By their observation of phenomena of the universe, the evolutionists define the

theory of evolution. There are apparently three main issues for evolution theory, viz.,

contingency, law, and time. Contingency means accidental, random, or contingent

occurrences. The second issue, namely, is the law of natural selection. In natural

selection, lawfulness includes randomness, placing it within limits, and contributing

order and consistency to life. Finally, biological evolution requires a stupendous span

of time, a vast amount of temporal duration. In the absence of an intelligent designer,

9

the universe finds its evolution within these three features.25

In the process of evolution, it is the nature of genes to maximize opportunities

for survival and reproduction. The capacity of some organisms to survive and

reproduce in any given environment can be explained more exactly if we take into

account the changes in gene frequencies within a given population.26 However,

Darwin knows nothing about DNA or genes. Therefore, he develops his theory only

on the basis of evolutionary selection, i.e., organisms and populations. The proposal

of evolutionary selection thus excludes God as accounting for the obvious design of

organisms. To understand life there is no need ever again to fall back on regressive

religious explanations. Evolution alone suffices.

Evolutionary science contradicts all the traditional religious intuitions that our

universe is guided by divine wisdom and that a glorious destiny awaits it.27 The

evolutionists claim that there is no need to have an “intelligent designer” to supervise

the process. The cosmos as a whole has no explanation. It is only “just is.” Therefore,

Darwin’s theory of evolution at once shatters the Christian faith which is based on an

almighty God who is the designer of the universe.

In its conversation with evolution, theology should deal with the untidiness of

the Darwinian picture of life, since the Darwinians point out the untidiness of life of

the universe in order to develop their theory of evolution.

Nevertheless, Darwin inspires the theists to think about God in a meaningful

way. Teilhard, an evolutionary theologian willingly accepts the facts of evolution and

harmonizes these facts with the creation of God. Hence, we see God’s allowance of

“become itself” for the created world.

25 J. F. Haught, God after Darwin: a Theology of Evolution (Colorado: Westview Press, 2000) 19-20.26 Ibid., 17.27 H. Jonas, Mortality and Morality (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1996)

52.

10

1.2 The cosmic theology of Teilhard

A theology of evolution claims that the story of life provides essential concepts

for thinking about God and God’s relationship to nature and humanity. Those

contemporary theological reflections on biological evolution are situated in a more

expanive context of “cosmic evolution.” The evolutionary theologians focus on the

entire evolution of the cosmic; for Teilhard, it is inclusive of the “cosmic” Christ.

Teilhard, like other evolutionary theologians, seeks to show how our new

awareness of cosmic and biological evolution can enhance and enrich traditional

teachings about God and God’s way of acting in the world.28 Teilhard does not solely

introduce “God” simply to fill up a “gap” in scientific exploration. He also suggests

that a metaphysically adequate explanation of any universe in which evolution occurs

requires a transcendent force to explain the tendency of matter to evolve toward life,

mind, and spirit.

Teilhard says that evolution requires that we think of God not as driving or

determining events from behind or from the past, but as drawing the world from up

ahead (ab ante) toward the future.29 The ultimate goal of evolution is what Teilhard

calls “Omega.”

According to Teilhard, God cannot create without involving himself in his world

through incarnation, nor can he become incarnate without engaging in the redemptive

labor of raising the world up to him. Thus, creation, incarnation, and redemption

constitute the one movement, which Teilhard calls “pleromization.” What “pleroma”

means is a movement towards the fullness of being, in which God and his completed

28 Haught, Evolution, 36.29 Teilhard, “Christianisme et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 192-183.

11

world exist united together.30 In other words, in an evolving universe, “matter” is not

the equivalent of mindlessness. This “mindness” of “matter,” according to Teilhard, is

the attraction to the center of the universe, the cosmic Christ.

Christ’s body is not only mystical, according to Teilhard, but also cosmic. His

body extends throughout the universe.31 In the process of transforming from

cosmogenesis to Christogenesis, Teilhard proposes a purpose (telos) of the universe.

Teilhard interprets this telos as the “end” of evolution, as scientific theory knows it to

be. Teilhard, inspired by Aristotle, says, “God chose the love of his incarnate Son as

the First mover of the restored Universe.”32

In shaping the teleological view of evolution, Teilhard develops his Christian

eschatology. Particularly, the idea of Christ as Omega is the focus of his study. Christ

as Omega means that he is omnipresent in all creation and is the point to which all

things created proceed to their completion.33 Christ is related to all things in the

universe. Every creature lives and proceeds towards this telos, the Omega.

2 The third nature of Christ

One of the controversial features of Teilhard’s cosmic Christology is the third

nature of Christ. Besides the divine and human natures, Teilhard proposes the

30 Ibid.; “Réflexions sur le Péché originel,” ibid., 197-198; It was not until 1945 that Teilhard sumsumed creation, incarnation, and redemption under the general heading of pleromization. But already in 1918 he had stated that they are indissolubly linked together. Also see “L’ Ãme du monde,” Oeuvres 10, 212-213; ETG 231; WTW 189-190.

31 Teilhard, “La Vie cosmique,” Oeuvres 12, 67; ETG 47; WTW 58; “La Lutte contre la multitude,” Oeuvres 12, 148; ETG 128; WTW 110; “L’ Union créatrice,” Oeuvres 12, 223; ETG 196-197; WTW 175; “L’ Élément universel,” Oeuvres 440; ETG 408; WTW 297.

32 Teilhard, “La Lutte contre la multitude,” Oeuvres 12, 144; ETG 124; WTW 106, see also “Le Christique,” Oeuvres 13, 109. Also see Aristotle, Metaphysics 1072b: 1-4 (12.7.4). The First Unmoved Mover of Aristotle as the final cause, which is defined in his famous phrase, “produces motion as one that is loved” ().

33 Teilhard, “Super-humanité – Super-Christ – Super-charité,” Oeuvres 9, 210-212; see also “Note sur le Progrès,” Oeuvres 5, 34-36; “Panthéisme et Christianisme,” Oeuvres 10, 90; “Mon Univers,” Oeuvres 9, 93-96; “Comment je crois,” Oeuvres 10, 146-148.

12

“cosmic.” He offers a solution in terms of Christ’s threefold nature:

… he [Christ] dominates and assimilates it [the universe] by imposing on it the three characteristics of his traditional truth: the personal nature of the Divine; the manifestation of that supreme Personality in the Christ of history; the supraterrestrial nature of the world consummated in God.34

The description of Teilhard concerning the third nature is that between the Word

on the one side and the Man-Jesus on the other, so that a kind of “third Christic

nature” emerges. The concept of “universal Christ” identifies with “total Christ,”

which comes from the “totus Christus” of Augustine. Teilhard calls this nature the

total and totalizing Christ.35

Teilhard locates the precise link between Christ’s human and cosmic natures in

the resurrection of Christ. Christ assumes his cosmic role through the resurrection.36

Thus, Teilhard thinks of Christ’s cosmic nature as a conjunction of the human

and the divine. The cosmic Christ is said to be hominizing; i.e., he raises up creation,

through the evolutionary process to a state in which it is able to form a personal union

with the divine.37

In 1933 Teilhard speaks of the need for Christ to be reincarnated in our present

world. Christ reveals to our minds a new and triumphant aspect of his former

countenance; i.e., the universal Christ, the Christ of evolution.38

Thus, Christ’s body is not merely mystical but also cosmic.39 The humanity of

34 Teilhard, “Réflesions sur la Conversion du Monde,” Oeuvres 9, 162-163; also see “Le Christique,” Oeuvres 13, 103.

35 Teilhard, “Comment je vois,” Oeuvres 11, 214.36 Ibid., 314; also see Journal XIII (1945) 133, “Truly, the great problem of theology

is to determine the position and structure of the Third Christ (Christ-Omega), between the God-Word and the Man-Jesus. = the evolving/and evolutive/Christ, the resurrected Christ in whom the Kosmos is “corporeally” organized”; “Lettre à François Russo (1953),” “… we have reached the point (I think) where it is a question of making clear in Christ (resurrected and theandric) a ‘third’ nature: the universal (or ‘cosmic’) ‘nature’ over and above the human nature and the divine nature.”

37 Journal XV (1947) 32, Christ the hominizer is equivalent to Christ the evolver.38 Teilhard, “Christologie et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 125.39 Teilhard, “La Vie cosmique,” Oeuvres 12, 67; ETG 47, WTW 58; “La Lutte contre

la multitude,” Oeuvres 12, 148; ETG 128, WTW 110; “L’Union créatrice,” Oeuvres 12, 223; ETG 196-197, WTW 175; “L’Élément universel,” Oeuvres 12, 440; ETG 408; WTW 297.

13

Christ is the empirical precondition of his cosmic nature.40

In using the term “cosmic,” Teilhard highlights the relationship between the

human and the cosmic Christ and the cosmic function of Christ. The cosmic nature of

Christ denotes the relationship of God and creation in an evolutionary sense. In

addition, the creation of God goes towards its goal (Omega) in evolution. Therefore,

Christ in his third nature is the prime mover of the evolving universe.41 His cosmic

face as the Omega is this cosmic “nature.” The cosmic nature of Christ is an extension

or transformation of his human nature.

As we see that Teilhard defines Christ in creation as the mediator between the

Creator and creatures, God and the world, Christ’s mediatorial function is bound up

with the nature of creation. In Christ’s operation as the Omega, we evolve towards the

Christ, and encounter his cosmic nature in that movement. Referring to the Omega as

God, Teilhard calls him the “Mover, Gatherer, and Consolidator, lying ahead of

Evolution.”42

The Omega is not merely the focal point of unity; it is also “ultimately the

impulse that drives the initial cosmic dust in the improbable and upward direction of

higher complexes.”43 Thus, Christ is the Omega point of evolutionary development.

To Teilhard, the universe is teleologically oriented in Christ.44 He is the goal to which

the whole evolutionary process of creation is moving because he is an uncreated, and

therefore creative, person.

Therefore, evolution is not a matter of continuous, steady development. It is

40 Teilhard, “Christianisme et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 211; “Introduction à la Vie chrétienne,” Oeuvres 10, 212-213.

41 Teilhard, “Christianisme et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 211; “Le Christique,” Oeuvres 13, 109.

42 Teilhard, La Place de l’homme dans la nature, Oeuvres 8, 173; Le Phénomène humain, Oeuvres 1, 302; “Esquisse d’une Dialectique de l’Esprit,” Oeuvres 7, 153; “Le Dieu de l’Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 288.

43 Teilhard, “L’analyse de la Vie,” Oeuvres 7, 144.44 Teilhard, “Christianisme et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 210; “Le Christique,” Oeuvres

13, 109; see also “Réflexions sur la Conversion du Monde,” Oeuvres 9, 163.

14

characterized by critical points, such as the transition from consciousness to self-

consciousness, from unreflective to reflective intelligence. The incarnation can be

seen as one such critical point in the evolution of the universe.45 The incarnation does

not take place until Christ’s humanity had undergone a certain natural evolution of

anatomical constitution and social organization. So too, the Parousia requires that

humanity shall have reached the summit of its natural potentialities.46

The cosmic aspect of Christology is the means of reconciling the interests of

theology and science. A cosmos demands a cosmic Christ who is present within the

structure and process of creation as the (the Word).47 Thus, Teilhard, with his

definition of the cosmic Christ, triggers people to appreciate the universe in the milieu

of divinity.48

In 1916, about one month after he had hit upon the term “cosmic Christ,”

Teilhard states that, in coming to save humankind, Christ had to animate the whole

universe which bore it. Thus, besides his mystical body, Christ also has a cosmic body

spread throughout the universe. If the mystical Christ has still to attain his full growth,

so too has the cosmic Christ.49 Going a further step, Teilhard maintains that the

evolutionary movement of the universe is directed towards the building up of Christ.

At the same time, Teilhard also ascertains that Christ is the goal of the universe and

introduces the term “Christ-Omega.”50

From 1939 onwards, Teilhard uses the term “christogenesis” together with its

correlative “cosmogeneis.”51 By using these terms together, Teilhard illustrates that

45 Teilhard, “La Vie cosmique,” Oeuvres 12, 67; ETG, 49; WTW, 59.46 Teilhard, “Trois Choses que je vois,” Oeuvres 11, 169.47 Cf. Lyons, Cosmic, 33.48 Teilhard, “Journal,” tome 1 (1916), 57, “And the last position, surrender to the cosmic Christ,

secures the life, the immortal persistence, of all that is truly good and lasting in the first two attitudes.”

49 Teilhard, “L’Union créatrice,” Oeuvres 12, 233; ETG, 196-197; WTW, 175.50 Teilhard, “Journal,” tome 1 (7, 3, 1918) 288; (19, 12, 1918) 382-383; (25, 12, 1918) 387; “Note sur

‘l’Élément universel’ du Monde,” Oeuvres 12, 392; ETG, 361; WTW, 274.51 Cf. Teilhard, “La Mystique de la Science,” Oeuvres 6, 221. It is first used with

“cosmogenesis” in Le Phénomène humain.

15

cosmogenesis means that the cosmos is evolving towards its full realization in the

Omega, the goal of the universe, Christ. Cosmogenesis, thus, is being transformed

into Christogenesis.52 Teilhard insists that creation is a teleological process towards

union with God. In other words, creation will not be complete until participated being

is totally united with God through Christ in the Pleroma.53

Between cosmogenesis and Christogenesis Teilhard places a middle term, i.e.,

anthropogenesis or noogenesis. The universe is oriented towards its goal through the

human or reflectively thinking level of being which emerges from its evolutionary

process.54 Finally, in “Le Christique” (1955), Teilhard states that besides the divine

and human natures of Christ, there is the third one, a cosmic one.55

The third nature of Christ lies on the side of creation.56 If Christ is like a center

seeking for itself a sphere, the cosmos is that sphere seeking a center. In this

52 Teilhard, “Note sur la Notion de Perfection chrétienne,” Oeuvres 11, 116; “Christianisme et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 214.

53 Teilhard, “Mon Univers,” 1924, Oeuvres 9, 113-114; “Panthéisme et Christianisme,” Oeuvres 10, 91; “Introduction à la Vie chrétienne,” ibid., 199-200; “Un Sommaire de ma Perspective Phénoménologique du Monde,” Oeuvres 11, 236.

54 Teilhard, Le Phénomène humain, Oeuvres 1, 331; “Superhumanité, Super-Christ, Super-charité,” Oeuvres 9, 213; “Trois Choses que je vois,” Oeuvres 11, 170; “Comment je vois,” ibid., 200, 218-219, 222.

55 Teilhard, “Le Christique,” Oeuvres 13, 107. Also see Hymn of the Universe (New York: Harper colophon Books, 1961) 133, “Since Jesus was born, and grew to his full stature, and died, everything has continued to move forward because Christ is not yet fully formed: he has not yet gathered about him the last folds of his robe of flesh and of love which is made up of his faithful followers. The mystical Christ has not yet atttained to his full growth; and therefore the same is true of the cosmic Christ … Christ is the end-point of the evolution, even the natural evolution, of all beings; and therefore evolution is holy.”

56 J. Lebreton, Les Origines du dogme de la Trinité (5th ed., 1919) 498. Lebreton emphasizes that the most explicit NT statement on the cosmological role of Christ comes in the Prologue of the Gospel of John. Nevertheless, the Prologue only portrays the descent scheme of the Word of God. The ascent scheme is not mentioned. The incarnation theology of the Word of God will not be completed without a full scheme of ascent-descent theology. In order to maintain Christ is the center of the universe, his authority over all creations must be focused. John 17:5 will provide a full scheme of the existence of the cosmic Christ. If the cosmic Christ manifests the highest spirituality to humankind through his incarnation, so does the axis of its evolution. The return to the pre-existent glory manifests the ultimate goal of humankind, i.e., to be eternal with the center of the universe. And it is the evolution of humankind in this cosmos, through the cosmic Christ.

16

relationship, that aspect of Christ which comes to completion is his third nature.57

According to the theory of Teilhard, Christ becomes incarnate not only on earth but

in other localities as well. Nevertheless, Christ is the center of the universe by virtue

of his cosmic nature, wherever he is. Thus, he must manifest his cosmic presence

through an incarnation wherever those segments arise. His cosmic nature falls with

his human one among the God’s creations. On earth, his human nature is intimately

connected with the cosmic one. Maybe, Christ exists with other incarnate natures

elsewhere in the universe.

3 Ideas from Cons and Pros

3.1 Cons

3.1.1 W. Pannenberg

Pannenberg queries Teilhard, first, as regards the definition of contingency. He

stands for the theory raised by M. Polanyi that argues for the interpretation of the

emergence of more or less durative forms of finite reality in terms of phases of

equilibrium within the context of a field. Pannernberg, thus, neglects the intrinsic

teleological direction in the evolutionary process.58 The recognized contingency

within natural events, as Pannenberg insists, helps us perceive the contingency of

nature’s laws. However, Pannenberg also underlines that the whole of nature is

created by a free divine creator.59 The creating love reproduces permanence to the

content of a contingent act. Therefore, Pannenberg defines that from the concept of

creativity, the relationship of contingency and regularity emerges already. The

57 Teilhard, Journal XXI (1955) 26.58 W. Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith (ed.

by T. Peters; Louisville, John Knox Press, 1993) 47.59 Pannenberg, Nature, 48.

17

repetition of a relation of events causes permanence.60

Hence, Pannenberg finds difficulty agreeing with Teilhard’s conception of

evolution. He focuses on the importance of the element of chance or contingency in

shaping the process of evolution. The existence of Omega as the Prime Mover goes

over against the process of evolution. Pannenberg argues that the Omega, despite its

perfection of the universe as Teilhard defines, cannot be the creative origin of

evolution.61

However, in another article, Pannenberg affirms the reality of God beyond the

study of science. The reality of God, as he illustrates, is a factor in defining what

nature is. He encourages theologians to relate to the natural sciences as they actually

exist; at the same time, theologians must go beyond what the sciences provide and

include our understanding of God.62

3.1.2 T. S. Gregory

To contrast Teilhard’s cosmic Christology, Gregory argues that the Ahead plays

any part in the attainment of God. The universe moves “not forward to the next stage

of its own evolution but upward to the City of God.”63 In Christ, the God-man who is

also the God-community, “the whole natural process reaches its fruition and is

superseded.” What constitutes Christ’s cosmic incarnation, according to Gregory, is

the incorporation of human life and the whole cosmos into a divine world.64 Since

Teilhard throws light on the transformation from cosmogenesis and anthropogenesis

into Christogenesis,65 he sees Christ’s cosmic incarnation as occurring in such a way

60 Ibid., 98.61 Ibid., 143.62 Pannenberg, “The Doctrine of Creation and Modern Science,” Cosmos, 175-176.63 T. S. Gregory, The Unfinished Universe, (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1936) 307;

also 247-248.64 Ibid., 238, 239, 244, 246.65 Teilhard, “Trois Choses que je vois,” Oeuvres 11, 170-175; “Réflexions sur la

probabilité scientifique et les Conséquences religieuses d’ un Ultra-Humain,” Oeuvres 7, 288-291.

18

that the natural process, in its being supernaturally transformed by Christ, contributes

at the same time to building him up.

On the other hand, Gregory gets closer to Teilhardian idea of a third nature in

Christ by suggesting that the incarnation in its cosmic dimension is Christ, the God-

community into which human life and the whole cosmos are incorporated.

3.2 Pros

3.2.1 F. Bravo

Since he follows the theory of Teilhard’s cosmic Christ, Bravo delineates that

until the Word became incarnate, through the joint action of Christ and the world,

what is divine is being built up. The fulfillment of Christ is intimately linked to that of

the world. Towards a further step, Bravo proposes that Christ’s fulfillment is

physically contingent on the fulfillment of the world, just as the fulfillment of the

world is physically contingent on that of Christ. Neither can be consummated without

the other. In this cosmic Christ, the real earth evolves to take on body and form in

Christ and Christ fulfills himself gradually through the ages of evolution.66

3.2.2 T. M. King

King recognizes the fact of evolution. Besides physical evolution, he also

mentions the evolution of ideas. Thus, King agrees with Teilhard that “mind” gropes

towards forming a more comprehensive unity. The “mind” must be seen as integral to

the evolving cosmos, for the “mind” is the process of evolution in cognitive form.

This “mind,” thus, is the cognitive organization of the universe.67

66 F. Bravo, Christ in the Thought of Teilhard De Chardin (trans. by C. B. Larme; London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967) 72-73.

67 T. M. King, Teilhard de Chardin (The Way of the Christian Mystics 6; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988) 84-85.

19

3.2.3 T. Peters

Peters tries to encounter the religious view of creation with the evolution theory

of science.68 He agrees that Big Bangism is currently out in front; at the same time, he

also introduces eternal oscillation, the potential theological significance. Moreover, he

suggests that the question regarding the origin of the universe simply cannot be

answered within the scientific method. What happened before the beginning of time is

beyond scientific knowledge. The scientific method, in fact, cannot deny nor affirm

the relevance of the Beyond. To reconcile the tension between science and designed

creation, Peters suggests that God’s primary action is his master act with which he

creates the whole cosmos. En route to the completion of this creative work, God

engages in sub-acts.69

Thus, Peters concludes that an event has taken place at which time the infinite

entered the finite and made itself known through saving activity. This Beyond, we call

God. Then, we ponder the significance of our intracosmic observations inlight of our

awareness of the extracosmic reality. The Christian doctrine of creation, as a result, is

a product of both revelation and reason, of both faith and science.70

3.2.4 I. Barbour

Barbour neglects the atheistic views of some scientists and philosophers who are

impressed by the role of chance. In contrast to these atheist scholars, Barbour

ascertains that God really controls all the events that appear to us to be chance,

whether in quantum uncertainties, evolutionary mutations, or the accidents of human

history.71 He also suggests that this theory would preserve divine determinism at a

68 T. Peters, “Cosmos as Creation,” Cosmos as Creation: Theology and Science in Consonance (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989) 45-113.

69 Ibid., 95.70 Ibid., 110.71 I. Barbour, “Creation and Cosmology,” Cosmos, 148.

20

subtle level undetectable to science. Natural laws and chance may equally be

instruments of God’s intentions. Similar to Teilhard, Barbour illustrates that there can

be purpose without an exact predetermined plan. He recognizes the contingency in

human life; however, he has confidence in God’s love.

3.2.5 R. J. Russell

Russell provides an optimistic view of creation and contingency. Contingency, as

we recognize, is a product of evolution. However, Russell evaluates the role of

contingency as offering a fresh perspective on why science and theology can be

consistent with each other and need not be compartmentalized.

Despite the fact that every scientific cosmology must include an element of

contingency and it excludes the being which is ultimate, absolutely necessary, a se,

and hence excludes “God” as part of the theoretical explanation, any scientific

cosmology must in some sense be consistent with the doctrine of creation. The

concept of God is in somewhat sense, metascientific.72

3.2.6 P. Hefner

Hefner, along with Teilhard’s theory of Omega, insists on the eschatological

destiny of creation. He points out firstly the intention of God the Creator. God intends

to perfect or fulfill the creation, regardless of the contingency of evolution. Thus,

evolution to Hefner, is the material order that carries out its career from origin to end

as God’s creative process, from 18-billion-year prehistory to the eschaton. Since our

dynamism comes from the eschatological future, God is the telos of the universe.73

4. Summary

72 R. J. Russell, “Cosmology, Creation, and Contingency,” Cosmos, 205.73 P. Hefner, “The Evolution of the Created Co-Creator,” Cosmos, 230-231.

21

Evolution theory includes contingency, law, and time. In the process of evolution,

genes maximize opportunities for survival and reproduction in contingency. Thus, it

seems contradictory to all traditional religious institutions, which hold that there is a

god who designs everything for the universe. Nevertheless, evolutionary theologians

like Teilhard, harmonizes contingency and the design of God in his theory.

Teilhard recognizes contingency in evolutionary process; however, he proposes

Christ the “Omega,” the ultimate goal of evolution. The creation, incarnation, and

redemption constitute one moment, “pleromization.” “Pleroma” means that a

movement goes towards the fullness of being. Therefore, if Christ is being incarnate

into the world as one human being among us, he possesses the third nature, viz.,

cosmic.

This is the transformation from cosmogenesis to Christogenesis. Christ, thus, is

the telos of the universe. He is omnipresent in all creation and is the point to which all

things created proceed to their completion.

This completion, Teilhard bases on the “total Christ.” This “total Christ” obtains

his cosmic role through the resurrection. This cosmic nature conjugates the human

and divine natures. The humanity of Christ is the precondition of his cosmic nature.

This cosmic nature denotes the relationship of God and creation in an evolutionary

sense. Therefore, the cosmic nature of Christ is an extension of his human nature.

When we evolve towards Christ the Omega, we encounter his cosmic nature since

the universe is teleologically oriented in Christ. The incarnation can be seen as one

critical point in the evolution of the universe. According to Teilhard, a cosmos

demands a cosmic Christ who is present within the structure and process of creation

as the Indeed, for Teilhard, the third nature of Christ lies on the side of

creation.

The definition of Christ’s third nature brings forth controversies inside the Church.

22

Pannenberg stands for the theory of Polanyi and insists on the contingency in the

evolution process. He finds difficulty in following Teilhard’s theory of Omega

because the existence of Omega goes against the process of evolution. Thus, the

whole universe is created by a free divine creator. The content of a contingent act is

reproduced permanently by the creating love. Likewise, Gregory argues that the

universe moves not forward to the next stage of its own evolution but upward to the

City of God. What constitutes Christ’s cosmic incarnation is the incorporation of

human life and the whole cosmos into a divine world.

Nevertheless, Bravo, King, Peters, Barbour, Russell, and Hefner support the

theory of Teilhard in different ways.

23

Chapter Three: The Prologue and 17:5 in John

1. Introduction

What is the relationship between the cosmic Christ and the universe? Does the

incarnation of the cosmic Christ become the highest spiritual manifestation to

humankind and the axis of its evolution? Is the meaning of “cosmic Christ” dependent

on Christ’s relation to the cosmos in his incarnation, and also the kind of cosmos to

which he is related?74

Noteworthy is that Teilhard sheds light on the of the Prologue of the

Gospel of John and develops his idea of a “neo-Logos.”75 Moreover, the concept of

oneness in John 17 is one of the sources of Teilhard’s theory of a perfect communion

of the universe.76 Despite this, the Johannine quotations are quite foreign to Teilhard’s

cosmic theology; instead, Paul’s interpretation of Christ and cosmos is frequently

elaborated in Teilhard’s works. In this chapter, we investigate the relation between the

and the world, by an analysis of the Prologue of John and John 17:5.

Before the investigation, we first elaborate the meaning of according to

John.

2. The 77

74 Lyons, Cosmic, 1.75 Teilhard, “Christianisme et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 192-193, he states that

during the first century of the Church, Christianity made its decisive entry into human thought, boldly assimilating the Jesus of the Gospels to the Logos of Alexandria. We cannot fail to see the logical sequel to this gesture and the prelude to a similar success in the instinct which is today impelling the faithful, two thousand years later, to adopt the same tactics – not, this time, with the ordering principle of the static Greek kosmos, but with the neo-Logos of modern philosophy – the evolutionary principle of a universe in movement.

76 Cf. Teilhard, “Note pour servir à l’évangélisation des temps nouveaux,” ETG, 367-381. For a long time Teilhard carried with him a notebook in which he had collected many passages from the writings of Paul and John. The words of the farewell prayer in John, “that they may be one even as we are one,” polarize his thoughts on personal union in our final end. Teilhard sees this definitive that he gives us the key to the Gospel and to the world.

77 In this part, we consult H. Sasse, “,” TDNT 3, 868-895; BAGD, 445-447; A.

24

Generally, means the world considered from the perspective of natural

science and philosophy. In the OT, is understood as the relationship with

Yahweh. There is no single word for (the universe) but the Israelites link

heavens and earth together and express the theological understanding of biblical

cosmology. They divide into three levels, the heavens, the earth, and the

underworld. This concept of is also found in the NT.

In the NT, the term is distinctively used to portray the universe of world

order that God creates according to his purposes. The biblical view of comes

to fruition in the Johannine writings. In John, the concept of is generally

divided into three; i.e., positive, neutral, and negative. The meaning of is

dependent on the context.

The relationship between and the in the Prologue is that the world is

created through the Word (1:3). On the contrary, the world is alienated from the

(1:10; 3:16-21; 7:7; 13:1; 14:17; 15:18, 19; 16:33; 17:25).

In John 17:5, is simply neutral. The evangelist only makes use of to

denote the foundation of the world (17:24). Thus, neither negative nor ethical

implications of can be found in 17:5 as in 17:9, 14, 15, 16, 25.

3. in the Prologue of John

John 1:3, 14, 18 signifies the pre-existence, incarnation, and the ascension of the

In John 1:3, the evangelist indicates that the Word plays a role at creation. The

sense of the word is wider than the , the world, and humanity. The world

is not created by a demiurge, a lower god but rather by the Creator of the universe.

In 1:1, the Word is in relationship with God, who is God eternal. Now, he

Auer, “World,” BEBT, 1001-1006; H. Balz, “,” EDNT 2, 309-313; R. A. Muller, “World,” ISBE 4, 1112-1116. We also have the research from N. H. Cassem, “A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of in the Johannine Corpus with some implications for a Johannine Cosmic Theology,” NTS 19 (1972-1973) 81-91.

25

becomes flesh and builds up his tent among us (the world). The Greek term

insists on the entire human condition: earthly (3:6), mortal (6:63), typically and

simply human. Thus, stresses that Christ is fully human.

The Word comes from the Father (3:13), lives among people to offer salvation to

them (3:31-36), and returns to the Father (13:1, 16:5, 17:5). In John 1:18, some claim

that the phrase “who is in the bosom of the Father” is a reference to the ascension.

Therefore, the Prologue of John portrays Christ the center of the universe. He

participates with himself in the entire humanity and all things are created through him.

Nothing is created without his participation. Then he is the center of all creation as

well as being in the heart of the Father. By his ascension, salvation is accomplished

for the universe. Hence, the universe moves towards the Omega as its end or purpose

since the Word descends to the world and ascends to his pre-existent glory.

Therefore, Teilhard points out the relationship between the humankind and the

cosmic Christ and the cosmic function of Christ according to his incarnation.78 In a

further step, Teilhard identifies Christ with a “neo-Logos,” the evolutive principle of a

universe in movement.79 For Teilhard, Christ is God incarnate and he inserts himself

into creation as the historical Jesus.80 Through his resurrection and ascension, Christ

assumes the cosmic role of Omega.81 That is to say, Christ is related to all things, not

because the Father has simply declared him to be universal ruler or controller, but

because as Omega he is constitutionally the omnipresent organizing principle of a

creation on its way to completion.82

78 Teilhard, “Comment je vois,” Oeuvres 11, 200, “in whom the individual human element born of Mary is transferred, through the transforming effect of the Resurrection, to the state not only of cosmic Element (or Milieu, or Curvature) but of ultimate psychic center of universal assembling.”

79 Teilhard, “Christianisme et Évolution,” Oeuvres 10, 214.80 Teilhard, “Mon Univers,” Oeuvres 9, 113-114.81 Teilhard, Journal XIII (1945) 133.82 Teilhard, “Super-humanité – Super-Christ – Super-charité,” Oeuvres 9, 210-212.

See also “Note sur le Progrès,” Oeuvres 5, 34-36; “Panthéisme et Christianisme,” Oeuvres 10, 90; “Mon Univers,” Oeuvres 9, 93-96; “Comment je crois,” Oeuvres 10, 146-148.

26

4. The glory before the creation of the world in John 17:5

In John 17:5, the imperfect can be understood as either accompaniment83 or

dynamic.84 When Christ desires to return back to his pre-existent glory, there is no

doubt that he asks for the glory in a dynamic sense. Thus, the imperfect and the

dative in 17:5 are defined as a dynamic I had with the Father. In other

words, Christ desires to return to the Father in order that he can be in communion

with the Father again. This process towards the oneness of both manifests the

glorification.

A majority of the scholars believes that there is mainly one aspect of the present

83 W. H. Cadman assumes that “the glory which Jesus already had” points to a glory-relationship, i.e., the relationship between the Father and the Son, and in this relationship, the Son possesses the glory with the Father before the world was created. The glory is within the Godhead before the creation of the world, and ever continues to be (The Open Heaven: the Revelation of God in the Johannine Sayings of Jesus [Oxford: Blackwell, 1969] 205). In A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (2; ICC, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) 563, J. H. Bernard refers 17:5 to 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I am.” He points out the sure conviction of Jesus who is in eternal relation with God. The association of indicates a real pre-existence of Christ. Likewise, L. Morris also believes that there is a clear assertion of Christ’s pre-existence in which he enjoys a unique glory with the Father in that pre-existence state (The Gospel according to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes [NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973] 722). Noteworthy is that Christ says that he “is” while he talks about the existence of Abraham, “was.” Christ is eternal in the universe, transcendent of time and space.

84 D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 557. He maintains that Christ is asking to return to the glory that he has shared with the Father before the world was created. In A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968) 369, J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin argue that Christ resumes the glory proper to the pre-existent Son. Moreover, R. Schnackenburg, in Das Johannesevangelium (3; HTKNT IV, Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 197, asserts that Christ regains the glory which was previously his (see 6:62) and which belongs to the Son as Christ (see 1:14b) and does so in order to enable the believers to share in that glory (17:24). Finally, G. C. Nicholson, Death as Departure: the Johannine Descent – Ascent Schema (SBLDS 63; Chico: Scholars, 1983) 149; he insists that upon Christ’s return to God, it will become apparent that the Son is once again partaking of, and expressing the divine nature.

27

infinitive in 17:5, viz., the pre-existent glory of Christ.85 The glory of the Father

is the revelation of himself to the community of the disciples through the earthly life

of Jesus. In the climax of his earthly life, i.e., the cross event (inclusive of passion,

death, and resurrection), Christ reveals his cosmic nature by showing that his life is

intimately related with the world. The two events of Christ being incarnate into the

human history and returning to the pre-existent glory indicate his authority over time

and space. That is to say, he has the authority beyond time and space with his divine

and human natures. After having completed the work which the Father had given, he

ascends to the Father in a dynamic motion.

If he can be transcendent over time and space, his incarnation manifests his

evolutionary existence with the universe in human history. Since Christ possesses the

divine nature and human nature (specifically, they are integrated in his incarnation) he

is able to have the third nature as the cosmic Omega of the universe.

This dynamic motion of reunification shows off the Omega of the world. If Christ

moves dynamically towards the Father after the completion of the work, and he

85 Morris, in John, 403 states that Christ sees his glory on the cross as linked with his pre-incarnate glory with the Father. Likewise, Carson also believes that Christ is asking to return to the glory in which he shared with the Father before the world began, i.e., before creation (John, 557). See also W. Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (2; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954) 351, he also underlines the communion with the Father: “the erstwhile glory which had been his delight before the foundation of the world and had never been absent from his mind.” P. F. Ellis emphasizes that before the world was made need not be understood in a gnostic sense, but rather in the Jewish Christian sense that Christ is the wisdom which exists before the earth was created (The Genius of John: A Composition – Critical Commentary on the Fourth Gospel [Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1984] 242). In Death, 149, Nicholson refers 17:5 to 1:1-3 and maintains that prior to the creation of the world, Christ shared in the presence, power, and activity of the Father. H. Ritt analyses that the present infinitive and the preposition together with the imperfect, they indicate the time that is pre-existent of the creation of the world (Das Gebet zum Vater: Zur Interpretation von Joh 17 [FZB 36, Würzburg: Echter, 1979] 280-281). R. Bultmann, particularly points out that the returning of the Son to the pre-existent glory is to say that the revelation as judgmental power is to achieve its purpose by making it again possible to understand the world as creation (Das Evangelium des Johannes [19th ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964] 379). Schnackenburg, on the other hand, insists on the beyond time of this pre-existent glory of which is not simply elaborated as pre-mundane but supra-mundane (Johannesevangelium 3, 198).

28

himself is the Omega of the universe, all creation will move towards their only

Omega, the cosmic Christ. This absolute oneness of the Father and the Son offers the

basis of the oneness of the world and Christ. Through his incarnation, Christ becomes

one with creation of the world.

5. Summary

The relationship between and is that the world is created through the

Word. In John 17:5, the mention of denotes that Christ’s authority is beyond

time and space and he is the Omega of the universe as he resurrected and regains the

pre-existent glory.

The Word being incarnate in the world as a human being indicates that Christ

participates himself entirely in creation. Therefore, he is the center of the universe

because nothing is created without going through him. If he is the center of the

universe, all creation moves towards Christ in the fact that he is the purpose. The

incarnation of Christ, thus, makes him possess the cosmic function. On this basis of

the incarnation, Teilhard identifies Christ with a “neo-Logos,” which is the evolutive

principle of a universe in movement.

In John 17:5, the evangelist describes the going back of Christ to the Father as a

dynamic motion. After having completed the work that the Father had given, Christ

goes back to the Father in his pre-existent glory. This dynamic motion of reunification

indicates the Omega of the world. As being the Omega of the universe, Christ’s

“going back” to eternity shows the purpose of evolutionary acts of creation. The

oneness of creation and creator is based on the oneness of the Father and the Son.

29

GENERAL CONCLUSION

Teilhard’s theory of the third nature of Christ, i.e., the cosmic, at once brings

forth controversies in the Church. In order to reconcile science and theology, Teilhard

accepts the evolution theory and on the basis of this scientific approach, he builds up

his theory of “cosmic Christ,” the third nature of the Son, besides his divine and

human natures. This theory points out the involvement of Christ in the universe.

However, what evolution theory includes are contingency, law, and time.

Particularly, contingency seems a contrast to the traditional religious idea of having a

designer of the universe. In order to have an encounter with scientific theory of

evolution, Teilhard introduces the concept that Christ is the “Omega” of evolution.

The creation, incarnation, and redemption together constitute this “pleroma.”

Concerning the creation, incarnation, and redemption, Teilhard somewhat throws

light on the Prologue of John and John 17. The creation is through Christ who is the

ultimate purpose of the universe. Christ is the purpose and center of the universe

because nothing is created without going through him, and he entirely participates in

the life of the universe. Teilhard, thus, identifies Christ with a “neo-Logos,” which is

the evolutive principle. The dynamic motion from the cross to the Father indicates the

oneness of the Father and the Son. Furthermore, it also denotes the dynamic motion of

evolution of the creation towards the Omega of the universe. Through Christ, the

universe can be one with the creator. This is the transformation from cosmogenesis to

Christogenesis.

As a matter of fact, the definition of the cosmic nature of Christ can reconcile the

gaps between evolution and creation, contingency and cosmic design. The cosmic

nature, since it is an extension of Christ’s human nature to his divine nature, denotes

30

the relationship of God and creation in an evolutionary sense. In our evolutionary

process, we are able to encounter Christ’s cosmic nature.

According to Teilhard, we cannot ignore the fact of evolution of the universe,

thus, a cosmos demands a cosmic Christ who is present in the evolutionary process of

the universe, since he is omnipresent. Moreover, he is the Omega of the universe to

which all creation moves forwards to their completion of lives.

On the contrary, Pannenberg strongly argues that the existence of Omega

contradicts to the contingency of evolution. Nevertheless, he suggests that the

contingency is reproduced by the creating love.

Is the creating love the source, or telos, of the universe? Since the creator is

eternal, in the creator there is no beginning and end. The creator must be the source of

the universe. If the creator creates the universe in the creating love, but in absolute

contingency, what does this love mean to us?

Is the third nature of Christ necessarily proposed so as to reconcile the gap

between science and theology? Christ the Omega of the universe implies his

eternality. How do we prove the existence of this cosmic nature? Teilhard does not

give us any further answers.

According to Christian religion, the Son once participated in human history by

becoming a man among us. The evangelist Luke portrays the growth of Christ by

writing in 2:52 that Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God

and humankind. Does evolution identify human growth of Christ?

The incarnation of the Word and the resurrection of Christ manifest the telos of

Christ and this telos is also the completion of Christians’ lives. We can see both of

Christ’s natures in this paschal mystery, divine and human. Are they enough to

explain the evolution of the universe? These questions lead us to further

investigations.

31