It is the purpose of this paper to briefly state the case for Wolfhart Pannenberg's view of Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of revelation from God in history. There are two basic prongs through which he builds such a foundation, and only the one will here be handled with any sense of detail. The amount of material Pannenberg has provided on this subject is immense (perhaps, the man should learn to summarize), but it has been profoundly affective to read the contributions he is making to the modern theological mind even in their minutia. To be platonic (and hopefully somewhat humorous), the summary for which I longed will perhaps find a shadow here.

Wolfhart Pannenberg is easily one of the foremost systematic theologians of this day. Particularly, he is known for how his theology is spun in the courts of modern science as he vigorously seeks dialogue between theologians and scientists. His notably unique approach to systematic theology permits such grand ventures.

Pannenberg's theology is in part a response to Neo-Orthodoxy and Existentialism, which he feels have left many problems unresolved ^[1]. He studied under such great theologians as Nicolai Hartmann at Gottingen as well as Karl Barth and Karl Jaspers at Basel. The most important years were spent at Heidelberg, where he developed working relations with people such as Gerhard von Rad (OT scholar and theologian ^[2]), Hans von Campanhausen (NT scholar known particularly for his Formation of the Christian Bible ^[3]), and Karl Lowith (philosopher ^[4]). ^[5]

Pannenberg basically sought to remedy the issue of revelation that had been left unresolved by such great theologians as Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, particularly concerning the relationship between revelation and critical history ^[6]. For him, it left a particularly uncomfortable dimemma concerning Christ, whom they had made immune to the results of critical historical research. Both the Barthian concept of Urgeschichte (what Barth considered "primordial history") and the Bultmannian dualism of Geschichte (existentially significant history) and Historie (the scientific-critical history) contributed to the uneasiness of Pannenberg and the lack of theological satisfaction in connecting God with the world around him. Here, Pannenberg parted company and propounded that Revelation is an historical event ^[7]. This concept is key to a book he published along with other like-minded theologians, entitled Revelation as History. Here is the heart of the issue of Jesus being ultimate in Revelation and in History.

Pannenberg begins his own Systematic Theology with "The Truth of Christian Doctrine as the Theme of Systematic Theology" ^[8] as the first chapter. He then moves on to the "Concept of God and the Question of Its Truth," the "Reality of God and the Gods in the Experience of Religion" and finally (as chapter four) addresses "The Revelation of God," nearly 200 pages into his work. Why so late?And why do I begin here? For Pannenberg, there must be an interpretive framework that can meaningfully fund some of the definitions that will allow his work to be itself meaningful. How can we speak of knowing God's revelation if we do not know what God is or if he is even knowable? This paper will not detail his lengthy developments in these areas, but will offer a few fundamental concepts central to Pannenberg's thought that will enable us to understand the related key concepts that drive his view of Revelation and his advocacy of Christ's ultimacy in it.

Pannenberg strongly sought to uphold certain orthodox propositions concerning God, namely (1) God is wholly free and unsurpassable, and (2) God is the God of all reality, who is the all-determining reality ^[9].

These ideas are rather self-explanatory, for God as being the all-determining reality is simply saying that God is the one who determines all of reality. This reality includes both the reality of the external world as well as the reality of human experience. There is nothing that is (or was) that is not a result of God's determination. However, this is not spun in a mechanistic/fatalistic fashion. For Pannenberg, the idea is rather quite the opposite. There is not a "fixedness" to the order of events within God's eternal realm that consequently adopts a program of "programmedness" for the finite/temporal realm, for this earthly realm is in actuality a mirroring of eternal forms. Already, we can see his philosophic bent toward German idealism.

Yet Pannenberg is at the same time strongly critical of a deterministic God, and is so without doing away with all categories of Divine action and determination as coupled with human action and self-determination. And in this, he has it very much in mind to keep from a deistic dualism, and so will instead advocate a divine mind operating within our sphere, actively. God is interacting with each moment in time, but without the trademarks of Process Theology (Pannenberg even goes so far as to strongly reject Process Theology, and that especially in relation to the philosophies developed by Whitehead and Cobb ^[10]).

Instead of these two views, it is the freedom of God that is the all-determining reality. It is the locus of his sovereignty. Here, God is "the God of the open future," a designation frequently given to God in Pannenberg's works. What does the openness of future mean for Pannenberg? It comes down to meaning that God, in the future, can continually produce something new (and he is not far from creation motifs here), and in this way of being, God is then freefree to do as he will.

For Pannenberg, God is essentially referenced in the future, and from that point God releases each event and each moment into the present. This is the beginning of hia understanding of how God relates to the world in time (or more specifically, how God relates to history), for in this idea it is demonstrated that the future is in relation to that of which it is the future (and hence, God who is in the future relates to each moment past or present: viz. history). The future is really quite distinct from the past and the present, for while the latter are all set and done, it is the future that is continually ungraspable, free and open, not set in its way. God is now seen as the loving (as Pannenberg introduces this quality) source of all existence. Here, his idealist mindset becomes even more obvious.

The free God is the one to release all the finite events from the future where they are integrated in detail into the present. All present events are therefore related to God, and claim him as their source. This creative power is also the unifying power, as the following chart demonstrates:

It is the future's power and love that maintains the coherence of the temporal order (each event being released into the temporal order so that the present is sustained). God sovereignly superintends all of history: he is the all-determining reality. As Lord over all reality, he is in position to be reality's coherence and relationality. This is not to be confused with Tillichian views on God being the ground of being.

This view shows God as being really quite involved in the detail of life from each moment to each moment. There is a sense of immanence here. However, God is not vorhanden ^[11] (literally, "at hand'), or rather said, "at man's disposal." ^[12] In fact, in Pannenberg's mind, because of God's freedom (as it is related to the open future), there is a sense in which it can be said that God is not presently "existing." ^[13] Timothy Bradshaw draws together Pannenberg's view of vorhanden and Heidegger's concept of Vorhandenheit by citing an excerpt from Heidegger's Being and Time and a portion written by the translator ^[14]:

This is so much multi-author interpretation simply to say that "God is not merely an item or factor in the universal process of history: God transcends such a category." ^[16]

Yet, God is a person. And for Pannenbert, he is a trinity. God is an existing deity, and not some mere philosophical concept. This is quite contrary to Hegel, whom Pannenberg criticizes because "he does not seem to have noticed that the concept of a being as the faculty and the 'power' underlying this freedom itself made the absolute finite." ^[17]To make statements otherwise is to violate the ungraspable freedom of God.

God's transcendence is such that it moves beyond even the ordinary opposition of finite and infinite, hence this God can be fully in the future and yet integrate himself into finite reality and into the present.

Kantian dualisms of every form are soundly rejected because God, the all-determining reality, is the very God who discloses himself, and there is then a bridging between basic category/realms of the Kantian noumena and phenomena, not unlike the following illustration:

God transcends these categories and therefore in his interaction with the world in self-disclosure, he is able to bridge the gap, and in an important sense, to bring them together. This theology on the ontology of God and the above illustration of his uniting reality is a formidable attack on epistemological dualism.

"Pannenberg's thesis is that the unique act of revelation and the fact that God is the free God of all reality, the point and the process, are united because revelation is 'as history'." ^[22] "Instead of a direct self-revelation of God, the facts at this point indicate a conception of indirect self-revelation as a reflex of his activity in history." ^[23] That is, the very fact that God is working in history points toward God in the sense where God can accurately be referenced as the source of this or that act, and hence it becomes indirect revelation. It is both a sense of God's superintending each moment, and his sustaining of history so that it becomes a vehicle for his direct revelation. His direct self-revelation does also send "ripples" that God sovereignly oversees into all the rest of history, and hence history, in the manner of ripples, can point to the places of direct self-revelation (as the center and source of that "ripple", so to speak). Therefore, the whole of natural, non-divine reality is a disclosure of God within time (as he releases each moment, each finitude, into the present, integrating it with history). As has been noted, this is inseparable from his essence.

"All events within the process of the totality indirectly bear an inherent revelatory meaning, that is to say the content of events is not to do directly with God, but on consideration from another perspective, the event yields up its hidden, revelatory significance. " ^[24]"Indirect communication is distinguished by not having God as the content in any direct manner. Every activity and act of God can indirectly express something about God. It can say that God is the one who does this or that." ^[25] Pannenberg further warns that "the isolated conception of a single divine action as the revelation of God most often leads to a distorted view, to an idol." ^[26] We must take in a full view of the acts of God if we wish to understand God and the way in which he acts and reveals himself.

There is a change, in a sense, affected on the instance of the event that the meaningful content of the event is prima facie Historie (to use Bultmannian terminology), but upon reflection (referencing it to God) it is to be seen as Geschichte. ^[27] The stimulus for such reflection "derives from the event itself, or from the Word fulfilled in it, announcing the the event as the act of Jahweh." ^[28] The event doesn't become meaningful (receive its meaning) from reflection, but this reflection merely comprehends the divine theme in history and thus it is understood to be meaningful. There are then as many revelations as there are acts of God.

Seeing that everything that happens is the totality of God's revelation raises two possibilities. (1) If the whole of reality is indirect knowledge of God then we are back to the basic Greek philosophical questions concerning God (and Natural Theology), or (2) when the whole of reality in its temporal development is thought of as history and self-communication of God then we are at the idealism that followed Lessing and von Herder ^[29] which offered a too-broad view on religion espoused under "religious freedom" by Lessing, and the romantic, pantheistic tendencies of Herder. ^[30]

Two more points of difficulty with the whole of history being the revelation of God erupt for the Christian. (1) How can an event in history, such as the event of Jesus Christ, "have absolute meaning as revelation"? and (2) "if history is to be the totality of revelation, then it appears that there is further progress that must be made beyond Jesus Christabout God's becoming manifest. " ^[31]

Pannenberg's view of God being open and free lay the foundation for the singular event of Jesus Christ (his life and his death), which can meet the aspect of revelation which, in the concerns of British theologian O. C. Quick,

Let us keep in mind that God is pure freedom, and not dependent on prior thought or action (which would make for a therefore prior deity to constrain God in such a fashion). Thus, the open God, the one to release history from the future, makes for a reality (a history) that is really quite open as well. This frees God up to do something new and unique, to make for an extraordinary revelation. Pannenberg's ontology of freedom and contingency possesses a scheme where such history is "not subject to a fixed and closed system of law which makes all events rigidly analogous." ^[33]

Pannenberg's ontology of history as released from the future allows for such an event (an extraordinary event), a contingent event, which is "yet not wholly separable" from the rest of history and the process of its being released from the future and hence its strong relationship to the free God of the future as well. This ontology of history is now connected with his Christology to support an historical event of ultimate significance as a revelation of God.

Now, with the above in mind, one may wonder if Pannenberg is spinning a model where all of reality, because of God's working in it, is itself what is revelation. Thinking this, one would be partly right, for all things, via their relation to their creative source are in a sense revelation. Observe the following weighty comment made by Pannenberg within the context of the issues of science and faith (which are not too far from the issue at hand):

So then, how far away do we wish to put God from the world that surrounds us (the world which he created)? That is very much the issue which Pannenberg chooses to address, and rightly so, for it has profound ramifications. But there is a more important issue that accompanies this, and toward that end Pannenberg names the wider world as "history" and reserves a special category for "revelation." The trick with Pannenberg's view on revelation is to figure out that which is unique and direct revelation of God, rather than the indirect.

Revelation is the divine expression and the place in which we are to understand God. Revelation is something God was never obligated to do, for it stemmed from God's freedom. It is then his self-disclosure, his self-revelation. Nothing outside of God constrains God to reveal himself, for his freedom and his sovereignty protect him from such. In this self-revelation, "revelation is the free self-imparting to creation of his own essence of freedom." ^[20] Pannenberg here specifies that "one can think of revelation in the strict sense only if the special means by which God becomes manifest, or the particular act by which he proves himself, is not seen as distinct from his own essence." ^[21] We can strongly see certain existential themes which Pannenberg greatly appreciated and integrated into his own system (particularly in his defense of revelation flowing from God's freedom, and the consequent intimacy of revelation; and not to be missed is his emphasis on self-revelation as opposed to merely "revelation," for it is emphasized that it is God who is being revealed and not just abstractions or secret knowledge).

The theme of pulling together God's revelation and God's essence, seems to be particularly important to Pannenberg, and is used to fund a "scientific" pursuit of God where we can apply reasonable methods toward a confidence that we ourselves are indeed understanding that which we are pursuing. In other words, if God's revelation were purely noumenal, how then would we interpret the Christ of history? Again, here is his dissatisfaction with Barth and Bultmann. Has God revealed himself in our world? To this question, Pannenberg answers with a strong "yes."

There are two types of revelation that are the concern of this issue, namely, indirect revelation and direct revelation, with the latter receiving special consideration.

Pannenberg's achievement could be described as the synthesizing of philosophical idealism with Jewish apocalyptic expectations. ^[34] He sees Jesus' resurrection as fulfilling the expectation of the Hebrew eschaton. There is a coherence in the eschaton, in revelation, and in Christ's resurrection.

Pannenberg believes in Jesus' resurrection as a real historical event, and will base it on what he considers real historical evidence. Without going into detail, let it suffice to say that "historiography must not rule out any possibility a priori, and Pannenberg argues that the evidence of the appearances of Christ and the empty tomb give sufficient reason to accept the Resurrection as the most probable explanation of the facts." ^[35]

The resurrection stands out as unique for it is quite unusual and quite unexpected (and hence is so much the more so a fuller communication of God, for its very uniqueness and unexpectedness flow from God's own freedom).

"The event of Jesus of Nazareth is the expected eschaton in advance, which means that it is proleptically ultimate in revelation. " ^[36] This revelation is the self-revelation of God (notice here as well the philosophical idealism which Pannenberg easily fits with his interpretation of Jewish apocalyptic literature and eschatological expectations, as God affects history with this unique revelation of himself). Jesus is then, in the stricter sense, himself revelatory; therefore he is participating in the divine essence (keeping in mind earlier discussion on the relatedness of the essence of God and the revelation itself). He is eschatologically the very futurity of God being visited upon the present, as he is integrated into and affects all of history.

For Pannenberg, Jesus was a man who had placed his faith in God and the promise of God's eschatological kingdom to the point of death, to which God responds and and verifies Jesus' message by resurrecting him from the dead, and hence Jesus is affirmed "as being in revelational unity with God." ^[37] Jesus is then in "essential unity with God," ^[38] for "the event of revelation should not be separated from the being of God himself." ^[39]

Pannenberg stresses that the Father-Jesus relationship is fundamental to an ontology of Christ, as opposed to Logos-Jesus relationship (contra Barth, although the Logos-Jesus relationship does not go unappreciated, but just on other grounds). He tries to "reintegrate the trinity into an organic relationship with finite reality." ^[41] Jesus is one in relationship with the Father, and Jesus is the "Son." "Jesus is from all eternity the representation of God in the creation. Were it otherwise, Jesus would not be in person the one revelation of God." ^[42]

In no sense does Pannenberg seem to think that just any man could have filled that role (that Jesus was simply pious enough to try it and succeed), but rather, he seems to cling to this unique revelation as necessarily unique, because its uniqueness seem sto be the very ground on which he is to be considered a revelation of the divine essence (as per earlier discussion on geschichte and God's "future" orientation of freedom and openness -- his sovereignty).

"Pannenberg's anti-dualistic thrust is consistently applied:essence and temporality are not exclusive, the flow of the phenomenal, the appearance, bears within it the noumenal." ^[43]

Jesus is a man, and his participation in revelation is that of his person and message being associated with and revelatory of the divine essence, and is retroactively, at the point of his resurrection, consummated as the divine:

Notice also that there is within this ontology of Christ a connection between the noumenal and phenomenal which, for Pannenberg, retroactively confirms Jesus as being divine: "Viewed from the confirmation of Jesus' resurrection, the inner logic of the matter dictates that Jesus was always one with God, not just after a certain date in his life. Jesus is from all eternity the representation of God in creation. Were it otherwise, Jesus would not be in person the one revelation of the eternal God. " ^[45] So, it must then be noted that Jesus was a man who was confirmed as being of the divine essence and thus the revelation of God. It is then understood that Jesus was always such a one. He was always divine. His resurrection was the confirmation that this was the revelation of God; he is understood as such retroactively, and this has always been a center of trust in God for the Christian, that his works are understood as his based on his confirmation.

Pannenberg posits Christ as simultaneously the fulfillment of the eschatological kingdom of the Jewish apocalyptic expectation and the very revelation of God. These two elements build Christ as being ultimate. For Christ is the revelation of God, as has been seen, and if he is the bringer of the eschaton, then the end of the world is upon us, and Jesus is the only revelation of God:

Jesus is the revealer of the infinite God only because he in his own person pointed the way to the coming reign of God. He did not bind the infinite God to his own person, but sacrificed himself in obedience to his mission. ^[47]

Because Jesus was open and obedient to God, not setting confines on the God of the future but paying homage to the Father's openness and futurity (e. g. Matt. 26:39, "yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt"), he becomes himself in full harmony with the very essence of God. Jesus is the epitome of all religious individuals because of this, for he "was the epitome of openness, which reveals God as the ever-new and free God of the future," ^[48] and hence Christianity is the paragon of all religions, making it the final word (for only Christ is united to the divine essence). "The revelation in Christ is the 'final' revelation precisely because of its openness to the future. Its very finality consists in its openness. " ^[49] Jesus Christ is the ultimate self-revelation of God.

Jesus is then ultimate in revelation and history.

As is perhaps apparent in my presentation so far, I have a fairly favorable attitude toward Wolfhart Pannenberg, and this particular direction of his theology as well. It has at once been intellectually stimulating and devotionally significant as I poured over the constant reflection on the Christ event as being final and personal, and the efficiency that accompanies it. Not unlike his German idealist forefather, G. W. F. Hegel, there is a neatness to his model that seems to fit everything together. There is also that all-encompassing ontology of history, viz. a metaphysic of everything.

I am encouraged by Pannenberg's "pioneer" spirit, and I find him willing to commit himself to the very things which will help us understand our God and the significance of the Christ event better. My personal reaction from the load of reading and referencingthat was necessary for this paper was twofold: firstly, it make me want to read more of what he had to say (his uniqueness and confidence were intriguing, prompting me toward further investigation), and secondly, I have been stimulated toward a reinvestment in theological academic pursuits that easily been written off in some communities in which I've lived. There is a significance that can be found in deep, responsible, and disciplined reflection. To make an understatement, it is my opinion that God will not be too disappointed if I've spent time trying to know him, biblically and extrabiblically as well, as has been much of the work for this paper.