God and Future Pannemberg

GODAND THE

FUTURE

This page intentionally left blank

GODAND THE

FUTURE

Wolfhart Pannenberg's EschatologicalDoctrine of God

CHRISTIAAN MOSTERT

T 8 . T C L A R KA Continuum imprintL O N D O N N E W Y O R K

T&T CLARK LTDA Continuum imprint

59 George Street 370 Lexington AvenueEdinburgh EHi iLQ New York 10017-6503

Scotland USAwww.tandtclark.co.uk www.continuumbooks.com

Copyright T&T Clark Ltd, 2002

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,without the prior permission of T&T Clark Ltd.

First published 2002

ISBNo 56708821 9 HBISBNo 56708850 2PB

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Typeset by Fakenham Photosetting LtdPrinted and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books, Bodmin

In memoriamMarijke Mostert

1944-1993

Contents

Foreword ixPreface xiAbbreviations xv

1. Eschatology in twentieth-century theologyIntroduction iA shocking discovery 6Eschatology in non-historical form 9Eschatology in the key of promise 14Pannenberg's comprehensive eschatology 19

2. The appeal of apocalypticTheology and apocalyptic 27The emerging picture of apocalyptic 3 2The kingdom of God in the message of Jesus 3 8The resurrection of Jesus from the dead 43Conclusion 53

3. An ontology of the wholeIntroduction 5 5The inter-disciplinary responsibility of theology 5 8Ontology - common province of theology and philosophy 62Reality as temporality 69Can there be a universal history? 79

4. The ontological priority of the futureIntroduction 89Being and appearance 93Contingency and connection 97Time and eternity 104The present as anticipation of the future 112

GOD AND THE FUTURE

5. The God of the futureIntroduction 127Early ideas about God 129God's futurity and eternity 141God and time 152Creation from the future 161An all-determining or determinist God? 175

6. The reign of the triune GodIntroduction 183A decisive turn to the Trinity 187The triune God 201The economic and the immanent Trinity 213The seal of God's futurity 225

Postscript 237

Bibliography 239

Index of Subjects 257Index of Authors 261

Vlll

Foreword

Concerning oneself with Christian doctrine, with its history and itsconceptual ramifications, is one of the most fascinating intellectualadventures, not to speak of its profound spiritual depth. It is thesatisfaction of teaching theology and of publishing on Christiandoctrine to convey this enthusiasm to others. I hope that this bookmay succeed in achieving such an appreciation of studyingChristian doctrine, as I experienced it myself through decades. It isa document of such an experience. The book describes impres-sively how basic issues of biblical exegesis like Jesus' teaching onthe kingdom of God and the proclamation of his resurrectionsuggest the idea of God's kingdom, power and life to be future aswell as eternal. It shows how this had to be elaborated with thehelp of hermeneutical and philosophical reflection. It also showshow the idea of God in terms of the power of the future requiresfor its explication a reinterpretation of the trinitarian doctrine ofthe church. I feel particularly satisfied to see this connection beinghighlighted as it is done in this book, and I am grateful for thiscontribution of the author.

Wolfhart Pannenberg

IX

Preface

The eschatological theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg has excitedme and baffled me for over three decades. I have learnt importantthings from a wide range of theologians, but no influence has beengreater than that of Pannenberg. I have only met him once, duringa visit to Miinchen in January 1995, when, together with PhilipClayton, we had what Pannenberg described as 'eine intensivetheologische Unterhaltung' in his study and over lunch in arestaurant. However, I do remember vividly the thrill I experiencedwhen first reading his work on Christology, Jesus - God and Man,in Cambridge in the summer of 1971. Over the years, back inAustralia and while teaching in Korea, I read other works byPannenberg, mainly the volumes of essays. The three volumes ofSystematic Theology were eagerly awaited and, though not theeasiest to read and understand, they continue to illuminate many atheological problem.

I have attempted to understand Pannenberg's theology, both inits development through four decades and in its most carefullyformulated systematic form. Two things struck me particularlyabout it: the fact that the whole range of Christian doctrine mustbe understood as an expanded doctrine of God and that escha-tology shapes the structure of every doctrine. The consequence ofthis is that eschatology must also have a decisive influence on thedoctrine of God in the narrower sense. It is no accident that theidea of the reign (kingdom) of God and the understanding of Godas Holy Trinity coincide exactly in Pannenberg's theology.

Methodologically, I am drawn to Pannenberg's approach.Despite his recognition that all theological work is historically andgeographically (as well as culturally and ecclesially) contextual, hedoes not abandon the question of the truth-claims inherent intheological statements. The question about the truth of Christian

XI

GOD AND THE FUTURE

claims is assuredly not the only important question, but it is, in myview, the first question to ask. Pannenberg's theology exemplifiesthe way this question can become a significant part of constructive(systematic) theology. I am also drawn to his engagement withphilosophy and the natural sciences, though these are neverinvested with the authority of establishing or refuting truth-claimsin the province of theology. However, there are philosophical(ontological) implications in making theological assertions, andsome of Pannenberg's most interesting work is in the clarificationof his ontological ideas, notably the priority of the future over theother modes of time.

I have questions about some of Pannenberg's ideas, but I findthem powerful and persuasive. Part of the reason for seeking tomake this work more widely available in published form is to offerstudents who want to learn from Pannenberg a key that may giveaccess to some major currents in his thought. It is also intended asa modest contribution to the serious discussion of issues raised byhis theology for those already familiar with it.

It had been my intention to bring Pannenberg's theology intorelation with the concerns of postmodernism (in its varying forms).This would certainly have made for either a much longer work ora very different work. However, the pressure to do so was substan-tially lessened by the recent appearance of F. L. Shults's book, ThePostfoundationalist Task of Theology: Wolfhart Pannenberg andthe New Theological Rationality. He argues that Pannenberg maybe regarded - contrary to popular perception of him - as an ally inthe postfoundationalist task of theology, without turning him(impossibly) into a postfoundationalist. This is a welcome andimportant contribution to the discussion of Pannenberg'stheology.

A note about language: I have tried to avoid the use of the thirdperson masculine pronoun to refer to God, even though thissometimes results in clumsy and repetitive constructions. To methis is preferable to using gender-specific language for God.However, if the decision is made to speak of the Trinity as Father,Son and Holy Spirit, it is impossible to avoid the use of pronounsand artificial to avoid 'he', 'him' and 'his', at least for the Fatherand the Son. Until an acceptable convention establishes itself intheology, none of the available options is problem-free.

I owe a debt of gratitude to many people for their support and

xii

PREFACE

encouragement over the years. In Sydney I could not fail tomention Gordon Dicker, Stephen Pickard, Allan Loy, James Tulip,Paul Crittenden, Graham Hughes and Doug Purnell, as well as thestaff of the Camden Library. In Melbourne I have receivedinvaluable support from Dorothy Lee, Peter Matheson, RufusBlack, Harry Wardlaw, Eric Osborn, and from the staff of theJoint Theological Library. Help and encouragement in one form oranother have also come from overseas scholars: Philip Clayton(USA), Colin Gunton (UK), Martien Brinkman and Bram van deBeek (The Netherlands). I owe my assistant, Lisa Stewart, a debtof gratitude for her help with the proofs and indices. I am mostgrateful to the publishers for their helpful approach and theirmeticulous attention to detail.

My children are not theologians in the normal sense of theword, and have not helped directly with the writing of this book.However, in indirect ways, too numerous to mention, they havegiven me 'heaps' of inspiration and helped me more than theyknow. I cannot exaggerate the debt of gratitude to my late wife,Marijke, who lived with this work in most of its first stage but didnot live to see its completion. Her encouragement to 'get on withit' has stayed with me throughout the second stage. In so manyways she was a tower of strength and an example of faithexpressed more in deed than in word. I cannot think of God andthe future without also thinking of her, and it is to her memorythat I dedicate this work.

CHRISTIAAN MOSTERTMelbourne

Advent 2001

xin

Abbreviations for works byWolfhart Pannenberg

ATP Anthropology in Theological PerspectiveBQTi Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. iBQTz Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. 2,BQTj Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. 3GSTz Grundfragen systematischer Theologie, Bd 21ST An Introduction to Systematic TheologyJGM Jesus - God and ManMIG Metaphysics and the Idea of GodRAH Revelation as HistorySTi Systematic Theology, Vol. iSTz Systematic Theology, Vol. 2STj Systematic Theology, Vol. 3TKG Theology and the Kingdom of GodTPS Theology and the Philosophy of ScienceTTN Toward a Theology of NatureWM What Is Man?

xv

Eschatology in twentieth-centurytheology

Introduction

Wolfhart Pannenberg is widely regarded as one of the foremostsystematic theologians in the world, with a readership inmany countries. His publications number in excess of six hundredworks. Until his retirement in 1994 he was Professor of SystematicTheology in the University of Munich, having been appointed tothe newly formed Protestant faculty there in 1968. Through hiswritings, culminating in his magnum opus, the three-volumeSystematic Theology', he has gained a reputation for wide learningand deep insight, sharp powers of analysis and unusual capacityto relate Christian theology to other fields of enquiry. He is aconsummate Systematiker, an original thinker, a theologians'theologian. His ecclesiastical roots are Lutheran, but histheological engagement is with the full breadth of the Christiantradition. For many years he was engaged in theological work onbehalf of the World Council of Churches (Faith and Order) aimedat promoting the unity in faith of all Christians. He writes, ofcourse, as a European, but does not set out to write a Europeantheology. In the face of sometimes stridently 'contextual'theologies, Pannenberg's concern is with 'the truth of Christiandoctrine and the Christian confession',1 for the doctrines ofChristianity, in his view, make truth-claims about objective statesof affairs, essentially about God and God's activity in the world.

1 W. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol. i (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), xiii; hereafter STi.

I

I

GOD AND THE FUTURE

Theology is essentially a Gotteswissenschaft, a doctrine of God; itis fundamentally about God and all things in their relation toGod.

This book is about Pannenberg's elaboration of the Christiandoctrine of God, which is as formidable as any in recent theology.In Christian theology no other concern could displace the concernwith God. This does not imply a narrow view of the subject,however. If the Christian claim about God is true, everything thatexists has some relation to God, which makes theology the mostall-encompassing of fields of enquiry. This also makes theology avery concrete discipline, for it is concerned with things in the (so-called) 'real' world. However, our concern here is with the wayPannenberg thinks about the God of Christian faith, which - andhere lies its novelty - does rather more with the notion of thefuture than most other theologies. Hence the title of this book,God and the Future. Putting it more technically, this way ofthinking about God gives more prominence to eschatology thanhas usually been the case in theology. Indeed, I call Pannenberg'sdoctrine of God eschatological. The whole of this book is anexplanation of what this means and the difference it makes tothinking about God.

Not everyone thinks that theology is primarily about God. Itcan easily be argued that Christian theology is about the Christianreligion or about Christian beliefs. It can also be construed as anexplanation (or exploration) of Christian life and faith, both in itsindividual and socio-political aspects. But Pannenberg arguesagainst such views, claiming that theology - any theology - mustbe about God, whether God is named as such or not. In his view,the Christian doctrine of God must be an unfolding of the divine'economy' of creation and redemption. It is an elaboration of thebiblical statement that God is love, an idea that includes boththe relations between the three Persons of the Trinity and therelationship between the triune God and created reality. The cosmoshas its origin in the divine love; all the works of God are anexpression of the love of God. In fact, God has determined not tobe God without a creaturely counterpart. The sending of the Sonand the Spirit are also the manifestation of the love of God. Thisdivine love is expected finally to reach its fulfilment in the escha-tological consummation of this finite, temporal creation and itsparticipation in God's eternal (trinitarian) life. This consummation

2

ESCHATOLOGY IN TWENTIETH-CENTURY THEOLOGY

will mean at the same time the glorification of God by createdbeings and their glorification by God.2

Pannenberg is by no means alone in his insistence that theChristian doctrine of God, both narrowly and broadly conceived,must be a doctrine of the Trinity. His three-volume SystematicTheology is one of the strongest and most nuanced examples of atrinitarian doctrine of God. However, he is also acutely aware thatthe word 'God' has become highly problematic and in need ofrational explanation in a culture which has marginalised it or isunable to rise above the scepticism or agnosticism sown bymodern atheism.3 One of the tasks taken up in the first volume ofSystematic Theology is that of investigating the ground on whichGod-talk might gain at least a preliminary plausibility; certainly no'proofs' are available. This is an unavoidably rational task, forwhich fervent appeal to faith and commitment is no substitute. Inthe wake of the breakdown of classical metaphysical assumptions,speaking plausibly about God is far from simple. In Pannenberg'sview, nothing less than a new understanding of reality - a newmetaphysics - is required for this task.

Pannenberg's early writing on the subject of God largely servedthis purpose. His search for a new metaphysics, a new ontology,converged with the growing conviction that Jesus' proclamation ofthe coming of God's kingdom had to occupy a central place inChristian theology. More likely, this new conviction, andespecially Pannenberg's acceptance of the view that Jesus' under-standing of the kingdom of God was radically eschatological,provided the stimulus for the new ontological explorations.Although Earth and Bultmann had, in their very different ways,given a certain prominence to eschatology, Pannenberg regardedthis as inadequate. His own approach was ground-breaking: thestarting point for theology had to be 'the Kingdom of God under-stood as the eschatological future brought about by God himself'.4The imminent kingdom of God, the central idea in the message ofJesus, had to become the key to Christian theology as a whole. The

2 W. Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans;

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 625; hereafter ST3.3 STi, 63f.4 W. Pannenberg, Theology and the Kingdom of God, ed. Richard J.

Neuhaus (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 53; hereafter TKG.

3

GOD AND THE FUTURE

important place which the idea of the future came early to occupyin both Pannenberg's theological work and his ontological ideascan be traced back to the central place he gave to the eschato-logical message of Jesus about the kingdom of God. Closelyconnected with this was his view of the resurrection of Jesus fromthe dead as an eschatological reality that had proleptically madeits appearance within time and space.5 Clearly, the idea of thefuture was fundamental, fundamental for Jesus' own message andfundamental for the understanding of time.6

The prominence of eschatology in Pannenberg's thought gaverise to the impression of a certain convergence between his workand that of Jiirgen Moltmann. Almost exact contemporaries, theywere briefly colleagues at the Kirchliche Hochschule in Wuppertalin the late 19505. However, their intellectual background andtheir personal history differed considerably and they found theirtheological and philosophical inspiration in very different figures.Although it is likely that there was some cross-fertilisation ofideas, the directions their work took were, in the main, divergent.Although Earth remained one of Pannenberg's principal sourcesof influence, Pannenberg moved further away from him in histheological method than did Moltmann. Moltmann's work ispredominantly a theology of hope - as the title of his first majorpublished work suggests7 - though his later work culminates in atheological discussion of the future for which Christians hope.8Pannenberg's work is much more a theology of the future,although he has written about hope.9 They are in strongagreement about the central importance of eschatology inChristian faith and theology; for neither is it merely the last itemon the theological agenda. On the contrary, for each of themChristian theology as a whole and in all its parts acquires its shapefrom eschatology. However, despite some points of similarity

5 See Pannenberg's discussion of the resurrection in Jesus - God and Man

(London: SCM Press, 1968), ch. 3, esp. 74-88; hereafter/GM.6 The priority of the eschatological future which determines our present

demands a reversal also in our ontological conceptions.' TKG, 54.7 J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope (London: SCM Press, 1967).

8 J. Moltmann, The Coming of God (London: SCM Press, 1996).

9 See e.g. The God of Hope' Basic Questions in Theology, Vol. 2.

(Philadelphia: Westminster Press; London: SCM Press, 1971), ch. 8; hereafterBQTi. See also the discussion of hope in STj, 173-81.

4


between them formally speaking, materially their theologies differsignificantly.

In Pannenberg's view, we cannot think of God's being apartfrom God's rule (kingdom). God's being is God's rule; 'the deity ofGod is his rule'.10 God's rule is an expression of God's power, andthe idea of power is implicit in the very idea of deity. If thekingdom of God does not come, God cannot be God! But how isGod powerful? How does God rule in and over the cosmos?Obviously, in a Christian frame of reference we have to speakabout God's power in close connection with God's love, for Godis love as much as God is power. Another strong element in thediscussion of God's power and rule is its trinitarian form. Godworks (rules) in the cosmos in a trinitarian way because God is theHoly Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It cannot be otherwiseif God's being and God's rule are one and the same. The othermajor characteristic of God's being and rule that will behighlighted in this discussion of Pannenberg's theology is its escha-tological form. God is associated primarily with the future, evenwhen God's action in the past or the present is under consider-ation. Indeed, God is the power of the future. What this means willrequire detailed discussion. Eschatology and Trinity belongtogether, and Pannenberg's promise of a strongly eschatologicaldoctrine of God is eventually materialised in the articulation of avery strong doctrine of the Trinity, orthodox in its basic structure,yet full of new variations on the old themes. Ultimately thetheology of the eschatological kingdom of God and the doctrine ofthe Trinity coincide.

The present work begins with a focus on eschatology and endswith a discussion of Pannenberg's doctrine of the Trinity. It alsoreflects the indissoluble unity of theological and ontological ideaswhich is characteristic of Pannenberg's work. We begin with thetheological, move to the ontological, and return to the theological.There is a certain artificiality about this structure, for the trini-tarian theology fully articulated at the end is already more thanhinted at in Pannenberg's early writing. We begin, then, with afocus on the eschatological shape of Pannenberg's theology, andthis itself must be put in its historical context.

10 TKG, 55.

5

GOD AND THE FUTURE

A shocking discoveryPannenberg has a positive view of the adoption of the categoriesof Greek philosophy in early Christian theology, but acknowledgesthat a price was paid for this, notably the loss from view ofthe eschatological character of the Christ event.11 The finality of theChrist event - the message that Jesus Christ was the eschatologicalrevelation of God and thus one with the very 'essence' of God -was expressed in terms of the doctrine of the incarnation.12Although this form of the fundamental Christian claim waspersuasive in a culture which found apocalyptic ideas alien, itrests, in Pannenberg's view, on essentially eschatological ideasabout God's self-revelation. The loss of truly eschatologicalthinking in the theological mainstream - as distinct from ideasabout the life of the soul after death - is beyond dispute.

It was not until the development of modern historiography inthe nineteenth century, with its sharp focus on the history of Jesus,including his message of the kingdom of God, that there was arediscovery of its eschatological character. A huge step in modernbiblical scholarship was taken by Johannes Weiss in 1892. In DiePredigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes^ Weiss broke decisively with theprevailing thinking about Jesus' understanding of the kingdom ofGod. When we bracket out our modern understandings of thekingdom of God, Weiss argued, we end up with the view that Jesusunderstood it as wholly future. During the nineteenth century thekingdom of God was understood as a spiritual community ofpeople joined together by obedience to the will of God. As AlbertSchweitzer puts it, for Weiss, there could be 'no question of afounding and development of the Kingdom within the hearts ofmen'.14

Schweitzer provided a ringing endorsement of Weiss's conclu-sions in his survey of the 'lives' of Jesus during the nineteenthcentury. Along with a sweeping condemnation of all attempts to

11 W. Pannenberg, The Appropriation of the Philosophical Concept of

God as a Dogmatic Problem of Early Christian Theology', BQT2, ch. 5.IZ

See Pannenberg's sixth thesis on revelation in Revelation as History(New York: Macmillan, 1968), 149-52; hereafter RAH.

13 Leander Keck (ed.), Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).14

A. Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical ]esus (New York: Macmillan,1955), 240.

6


picture Jesus in terms of the prevailing ideal of humanpersonhood, Schweitzer declared, 'Jesus of Nazareth will notsuffer Himself to be modernised'.15 It could no longer bemaintained that the kingdom was something Jesus founded; therecould be no doubt that for Jesus the kingdom of God was aneschatological reality. But this was a discovery hardly to bewelcomed! For 'the historical Jesus will be to our time a strangerand an enigma'.16 Theology in the modern world could do littlewith the 'historical Jesus'. Not as an eschatological prophet butonly as the source of a mighty spiritual force was Jesus significantfor the modern world. Great scholar though he was, Schweitzerhad 'no eschatological sense at all'.17

A desire for 'eschatological sense' was not high on the agendaof Protestant culture-Christianity and its theology. Harnack,whose confidence in the relevance of 'scientific' history andtheology exceeded that of Schweitzer, had no trouble putting asideJesus' eschatological ideas; he saw the kingdom of God as 'a stilland mighty power in the hearts of men'.18 The principle ofselection was the priority of what was original to Jesus over whathe shared with his contemporaries. Harnack was a true son of theRitschlian theology which saw Christianity as the perfect practical(moral) religion. The kingdom of God, of which Jesus is thefounder, is to be understood as the moral society of nations. ForHarnack, as for Ritschl, Christianity authenticated itself by itsmoral insights and ideals. Ritschl can be excused for not seeingthat this understanding of the kingdom bore no relation toJesus' view of the kingdom,19 but Harnack cannot. His viewof the history of Jesus was clouded by his convictions aboutChristianity's place in Western civilisation and its universalimportance.

Another issue with some bearing on the discussion is therelation between historical knowledge and faith. Ritschl had noreason to doubt that his view of Jesus was based on solid historical

15 Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 312.

16 Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 399.

17 The phrase is Moltmann's: Theology of Hope, 38.

18 A. Harnack, What Is Christianity?, 2nd edn. (London: Williams &

Norgate, 1901), 54.19

He died in 1889, and Johannes Weiss, who was his son-in-law, did notpublish Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes until 1892.

7

GOD AND THE FUTURE

fact.20 Weiss showed that the evidence of the New Testamentforced a very different judgment. But this raised the broaderquestion of the relation between historically ascertainable factsabout Jesus and what might be accepted in faith. We should brieflyconsider the view of another contemporary, Wilhelm Herrmann, ifonly because of their influence on his most influential pupils, Earthand Bultmann. Herrmann accepted a solid core of facts, knownfrom the New Testament, including the inner ideas of Jesus and hiswork of establishing the kingdom of God. But faith is notinterested in a historical figure; it is the living Christ who is centralfor faith. The historian may not determine what a person canbelieve. Faith needs a surer foundation than historical researchcan provide, namely, one's own experience. Herrmann, as well asMartin Kahler (whose views were close to Herrmann's),21 did notwant faith to be vulnerable to the changing verdicts of scientific(historical) investigation.

Pannenberg is highly critical of this 'flight' from history. Forhim it is axiomatic that if Christian faith lives from a real pastevent, it follows that the object of faith cannot be immune to theresults of historical research.21 The fatal problem with the views ofHerrmann and Kahler was that they made faith rest upon itselfinstead of being built upon a historical foundation. WithHerrmann and Kahler one cannot quite speak of a 'loss of history',but in the theology of their successors, Earth and Bultmann, thereis a severance of the Gospel from its foundation in history. ForPannenberg this renders the Kerygma 'autonomous over against itshistorical correlate'.23

20 Ritschl had 'still upheld' the historical truth of the ground of faith, i.e.

the historical Jesus; see 'Redemptive Event and History', Basic Questions inTheology, Vol. i (Philadelphia: Westminster Press; London: SCM Press,1970), 57; hereafter BQTi.

21 It was Kahler who said, 'the real Christ is the Christ who is preached';

The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic, Biblical Christ, ed. Carl E.Braaten (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), 66.

Zi Faith is not a second way to knowledge of the past. 'In no case

is theology ... in the position of being able to say what was actually thecase regarding contents which remain opaque to the historian'; BQTi,50.

23 BQTi, 85f.

8


Eschatology in non-historical formThe development of Pannenberg's view of the relation betweenhistory and faith was influenced to a significant extent by hisrejection of the approaches of Bultmann and Earth to this issue.Both were theologians of the Word of God: Earth with his conceptof the threefold form of the Word of God, and Bultmann with hisfocus on the kerygma as it addresses people in the present moment.For Pannenberg the Word must be understood as witnessing to theacts of God; 'the Word alone with its sheer claim to truth, takenabstractly by itself, is not yet sufficient ground for faith'.24 It is theevents which the Word proclaims that have to be examined fortheir inherent meaning as redemptive. Troeltsch's failure to findthe final revelation of God in the relative events of historydissuaded Earth and Bultmann from repeating the attempt. Theonly ways left open were to abandon the claim of an absoluterevelation of God in Jesus Christ or to retain it but ground it insomething other than what can be historically investigated.Pannenberg criticises Bultmann and Earth for taking the lattercourse: Bultmann by dissolving history into the historicity ofexistence and Earth by holding that the real content of faith issupra-historical.25

Arguably, no-one exercised a greater influence on Bultmann'sview of history than R. G. Collingwood, from whom Bultmannlearnt that 'historical knowledge is "existential" knowledge';history is '/or human self-knowledge'.26 History is no objectivestudy of self-contained events in the past, which explains whyBultmann had no interest in trying to recover the details of Jesus'life. Jesus Christ addresses people only through the church'skerygma. From Karl Jaspers, on the other hand, Bultmann tookthe point that history serves the human task of being 'responsiblefor the future'.27 This complements Heidegger's insistence that'man, if he is willing to exist in a full personal sense, must be opento the future'.28 The study of history serves the responsibility ofactualising our historicity. So Bultmann goes to the New

2 BQTi, 85.

25 BQTi, i5f.26

R. Bultmann, History and Eschatology (Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, 1957), 133, 134.

27 Bultmann, History and Eschatology', 130.

28 Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology (London: SCM Press, 1960), 77.

9

GOD AND THE FUTURE

Testament asking what it has to say about possibilities for ourexistence. Pannenberg criticises this as too narrow a concern.Bultmann strips 'what happened then [das DamaligeY of its then-ness [Damaligkeit], and fails to let the New Testament speakabout 'God and his works in the events of the world and itshistory', which is its first concern.19

These views about history have implications for Bultmann'sunderstanding of eschatology. He accepts that eschatologicalexpectation and hope is the core of New Testament preaching, buthe does not think that there will actually be an 'end of history'.30With the non-arrival of the eschaton and the continuation ofhistory, the church's eschatological hope experienced a crisis,resulting in a shift of emphasis to the way Jesus had alreadyeffected the transition from the old age to the new. For those whoare in Christ 'the decisive event has already happened'. Christiansmust become what they already are. Pannenberg agrees that theeschatological decision takes place already in the encounter withJesus (or as he is preached in the kerygma), so that in a sense theend of history is already here. However, this end is provisional;within history it is only 'anticipated'. It can be understood onlywithin the framework of an apocalyptic view of history.31Moreover, if Paul speaks of the gift of the Spirit as a firstinstalment (i Cor. 1:22), the question of the remainder cannot bebypassed. At the very least, Bultmann is selective in what heincludes in his eschatology; it may be more accurate to say thatwhat he excludes seriously distorts biblical eschatology.32

Bultmann's eschatology is the prisoner of his existentialistphilosophy. This puts his eschatology in the same situation asevery other doctrine of God. Any objective talk about God,salvation, eschatology or whatever is ruled out. Theology is not aset of general truths. We can speak of God only from the situationof knowing our existence to be 'determined' by God. Likewise, we

Z9 BQTi, nof.3 See H. Ott, 'Rudolf Bultmann's Philosophy of History', in C. W. Kegley

(ed.), The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann (London: SCM Press, 1966), 58.Bultmann's reply is on p. 264 of the same work.

3* BQTi, 36.32

As Paul S. Minear argues on the grounds of the absence of any cosmo-logical considerations; 'Rudolf Bultmann's Interpretation of New TestamentEschatology', in Kegley (ed.), The Theology of Rudolf Bultmann, 82,.

IO


can speak about the end of the world only from the situationof having come to the end of our life on our own terms. This isthe situation of faith, which is 'the affirmation of God's actionupon us, the answer to his Word directed to us'.33 Pannenberg isdissatisfied with the 'formalism' of Bultmann's existentialist inter-pretation, which 'reduces the rich content of tradition to thethinness of [the] single fundamental act of existence'.34 It is the resultof making humankind the bearer of history instead of God.Strangely, as it seems to him, we now have history grounded in thehistoricity of humankind instead of the converse.

Pannenberg is less strident, though nonetheless serious, in hiscriticism of Karl Earth, who is a constant discussion-partner. Hesees Earth as extending Kahler's view that the content of faith issupra-historical rather than historical. Ordinary history is more orless avoided. What he finds in Earth is a 'theology of redemptivehistory [which] fled into a harbor supposedly safe from thecritical-historical flood-tide, the harbor of a suprahistory - or withEarth, of pre-history'.35

Earth is a theologian of the Word of God; his starting-point isthe great fact of Deus dixit. God's great Word - and act - is theincarnation of the Logos, which is the self-revelation of God. Howdoes this relate to history? In the Romerbrief we find the classicsentences responsible for the charge that, for Earth, self-revelationis not truly or consistently historical. Here we find the greatphrases about the meeting of two worlds, the Gospel and humanhistory; but they meet only on the point of intersection. The name'Jesus' defines an historical occurrence, but in so far as our worldis touched by the other world, it can no longer be directly observedas history.36 Who and what Jesus is is beyond historical definition.The divine and human worlds touch 'as a tangent touches a circle,that is, without touching it'. Similarly, the resurrection is both 'anoccurrence in history' and 'not an event in history at all'.

11 R. Bultmann, 'What Does it Mean to Speak of God?', Faith andUnderstanding, Vol. i, ed. R. W. Funk (London: SCM Press, 1969), 61-3.

34 W. Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science (Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1976), 172; hereafter TPS.35 BQTi, 15, 16.36

K. Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London:Oxford University Press, 1933 & 1972), 29. The next several quotations arefrom the same and the following page.

II

GOD AND THE FUTURE

In a section of the Romerbrief entitled 'Concerning the Value ofHistory', Earth speaks of 'the Primal History which conditions allhistory', namely, 'the light of the LOGOS of all history and ofall life', and of the incapacity of history to give any assurance at allof the non-historical.37 The history of Jesus, as the self-revelationof God, is 'not a point among other points'.38 It cannot be under-stood on the analogy of other events, for here our normaljudgments meet their judgment (krisis). Jesus appeared as theChrist within the same flux of time as that in which we live, butthat aspect is of no interest to us.39 Elsewhere Earth says that 'thehistory of Deus dixit has, as qualified history, no ... links withthe rest of history'.40 If it is not understood in its own terms, it willnot be understood at all.

Earth is, as so often, elusive, wanting to utter both a yes and awo; there is continuity', but there is an even more important discon-tinuity. That the Logos was made flesh in a particular time andplace is certainly of the greatest importance. But in themselves thedetails are not of any great interest. Thus the investigation of thisparticular piece of history with the tools of historical-critical schol-arship is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, misleading, bound tomiss the true identity of Jesus. This may not quite be a repudiationof ordinary history, but one can agree with Pannenberg's criticismthat it amounts to a depreciation of real history. The sphere of thehistorically ascertainable and the sphere of revelation touchwithout really touching.41 What accounts for this?

The reason for Earth's ambiguous attitude toward ordinaryhistory is his doctrine of the hiddenness of God. God is utterlydifferent from finite beings, and can never be the object of theircognitive grasp, except in so far as God creates this possibility.Revelation is always God's revelation, and Earth emphasises that'precisely in his revelation God is the hidden God'.41 This isbecause God is the living, utterly free God. Earth will not allow usto think even for a moment that, armed with historical skills and

37 Earth, The Epistle to the Romans, 140, 144.

38 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 91.

3 9 Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 498.

40 K. Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian

Religion, Vol. i, ed. Hannelotte Reiffen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 6of.4' BQTi, 16, 58.^ Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics, 135.

12


careful attention to Jesus' life, we can penetrate what God keepsin concealment. Yet he insists that Jesus' space and time were ofthe same kind as ours. Pannenberg's criticism of Earth, similar tohis criticism of Bultmann, is equally justified. The overshadowingof ordinary history by the non-historical radiance of a primalhistory is no less a withdrawal from history than is Bultmann'sconcentration on the historicity of personal existence.

Pannenberg does not discuss in detail the implications for escha-tology of Earth's ambiguous concern with history. Earth certainlysaw the importance of eschatology, as indicated by the celebratedremark in the Romerbrief that 'if Christianity be not altogetherthoroughgoing eschatology, there remains in it no relationshipwhatever with Christ'.43 But everything hinges on what Earthmeant by 'thoroughgoing eschatology'. Doubtless, he meantsomething more substantial than liberal Protestantism's under-standing of it. Nevertheless, the impression is strong that Earthpressed eschatology into the service of his theology of revelation,with the result that it becomes a way of bearing witness to thetranscendence of God. Earth speaks of a 'timeless age to which allmen belong', a life that is final and non-historical,44 in which weshall live. But it is doubtful that this is a real future. The eschato-logical reality is more like a boundary between the finite and theinfinite. For the power and deity of God, having entered ourworld, has 'set a boundary against everything in our world', andmanifests itself at that boundary.45 Earth speaks also of a'Moment', the eternal Moment, which is the 'now' of revelation,which 'always is, and yet is not'. It is the parousia, but it is notemporal event. It is simply not clear from Earth's early workwhether the 'Moment' can be any 'Now' in which the eternal ispresent in time - between the past and the future - or whether itis truly ('thoroughly') eschatological. The suspicion is thateschatology, for Earth, is another form of the eternity, thetranscendence, the timelessness of God, which meets us as a

43 Earth, The Epistle to the Romans, 314.

44 Earth, The Epistle to the Romans, 249.

45 Earth, The Epistle to the Romans, 314. Gerhard Sauter endorses theidea that for dialectical theology 'eschatology' became 'a boundarymarker (Grenzbegriff)'; What Dare We Hope? Reconsidering Eschatology(Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 68. Eschatology points to thelimitation or the boundary of all human speech about God; ySf.

13

GOD AND THE FUTURE

boundary to our existence.46 In effect, this means the collapse ofeschatology into the doctrine of revelation.

If there is no eschatological 'end', and the revelatory 'moment'can be any moment, Earth's eschatology is less than thoroughgoing,no matter how strong and rich his doctrine of God in relation totime may have been. Is the kingdom of God merely 'above' or also'before' us? The young Earth was as elusive as ever on this point.Later he admits that his view of eternity was not adequate.Referring to his earlier interpretation of a passage such as Rom.13:1 if., he says that he saw it as referring 'only to the momentwhich confronts all moments in time as the eternal "transcendentalmeaning" of all moments in time'.47 As early as 1967 Pannenbergexpressed strong criticism of such an eschatology:

for Bultmann and for the young Earth, Jesus' eschatology is timelessand deprived of its temporal meaning. Dialectical theology disregardedJesus' message about the Kingdom of God as an expectation regardingthe concrete future ... And where Jesus' words about the future havea clearly temporal meaning, these were modified by means ofChristological or anthropological interpretations.48

Eschatology in the key of promiseIn his excellent survey and analysis of types of eschatology in thelast couple of centuries, Gerhard Sauter speaks of 'the third"eschatological storm" ', which broke out in the 19605 in Europeand North America.49 This 'storm' was a new movement intheology which related the Christian hope not to the details of the'last things', the eschata, which will follow this world and this age,but to the whole process of the history of the world, especially itsfuture. It was - as the title of Jiirgen Moltmann's theologicalclassic symbolises50 - a theology of hope, but a hope which is

46 This is the view of Moltmann, who thinks that for Barth, no less than

Bultmann, 'revelation and the eschaton coincide'; Theology of Hope, 46. Ifthe eschaton is the transcendental boundary between time and eternity, theend is always near.

^ K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/i (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), 716.Barth remarks that he was serious about 'the far-sidedness of the comingkingdom of God' but was not confident to discuss its actual coming.

48 TKG, 52..

4? Sauter, What Dare We Hope?, 119.50

Moltmann, Theology of Hope.

14


related very concretely to the social, economic and politicalconditions in which the majority of people in the world live. Thismakes it - at least in Moltmann's version of it - a politicaltheology, which in turn played some part in the development of'liberation' theologies in various parts of the 'two thirds' world.Hope should lead to (hopeful) action for the transformation ofsocio-economic conditions that are contrary to the will of theGod who takes up especially the cause of the poor andthe marginalised.

Pannenberg and Moltmann were the leading figures in the artic-ulation of an eschatological theology of history. In this section wewill briefly consider the main features of Moltmann's theology, inorder to help us to see where Pannenberg's thought both convergeswith it and diverges from it. For Moltmann, as we shall see,the key idea is that of 'promise',51 the promise of God, for thehistorical realisation of which we hope. In a brief autobiographicalpiece Moltmann speaks about the importance of hope in theperiod of internment in a British POW camp, a hope which'rubbed itself raw on the barbed wire'.52 Clearly, it had to be ahope that could conquer the awful experience of personal despairas well as the cultural collapse which World War II symbolised toa devastating degree. It was a hope at once grounded in the crossand the resurrection. Christian faith must know the basis on whichit can have something to say - and something to hope in - in theface of the incalculable suffering that has resulted in 'protestatheism'.53

Like Pannenberg, Moltmann was a student of Gerhard vonRad, who showed that the understanding of revelation found inthe traditions of the Old Testament connected it closely withhistorical events. Against Bultmann's existentialist view of revel-ation, both Moltmann and Pannenberg saw that revelationrequires a theology of history. However, they did so with different

51 Sauter remarks that 'promise is the basic category of eschatology ... ,

the category for perceiving God's faithfulness in God's sayings and doings';What Dare We Hope?, 219.

52 J. Moltmann, 'Foreword' in M. Douglas Meeks, Origins of the Theology

of Hope (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), x.53

J. Moltmann, The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundationand Criticism of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press, 1974), ch. 6, esp.2.19-27, 249-56.

15

GOD AND THE FUTURE

emphases. For Pannenberg, God is revealed in history, but thisrevelation will be complete only at the end of history, when Godwill be seen unambiguously to be the unifying power of all finitereality. Revelation is a predicate of history. Moltmann, on theother hand, saw history as a predicate of revelation.54 History isthe fulfilment of the word of promise which God has spoken.The Bible is 'the history book of God's promises', 'the story of theanticipations of God's future in the past'.55 It is a dangerousbook, especially on account of the subversive memory of the cross.The hope it generates is not one that turns people away from theproblems of their time, but a hope from which to challenge thingsthat fall short of God's promises. Those who live in this hope 'canno longer put up with reality as it is, but begin to suffer under it,to contradict it',56 and to initiate change.

Moltmann's view of history is closely connected with theconcept of promise, and is premised on the distinction between'epiphany' religion and the religion of promise.57 Epiphanyreligion focuses on the times and places where the deity manifestsitself, which then become sacred. For Israel God's appearing isconnected with the uttering of a word of promise, but the promisepoints away from the appearances to the yet unrealised futurewhich it announces.58 This is how the sense of history arises inhuman experience. 'Beneath the star of the promise of God itbecomes possible to experience reality as history.'59 The stories ofthe past are interpreted as stories of the promises of God, whichhave a future fulfilment in view. The past matters because itbecomes the basis of the call for on-going confidence in the Godof the promises. The future matters because the fulfilment ofthe promises is a future reality. The present, the time between thepromises and their fulfilment, matters as the time of orientation

54 For a clear comparison see Meeks, Origins of the Theology of Hope,

67-73. Moltmann says, 'it is not that consummated history reveals God, butGod's universal revelation in the coming of the fulness of his glory bringshistory to its consummation'; Theology of Hope, 115.

55 J. Moltmann, The Experiment Hope, ed. M. Douglas Meeks (London:

SCM Press, 1975), 45.56

Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 2.1.57

Moltmann, Theology of Hope, ch. 2.58

Moltmann, Theology of Hope, yyL59

Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 106.16


toward the fulfilment. Historical events point forward and receivetheir truth 'from the goal that has been promised by God and is tobe expected from him'.60 This makes history the creation of thepromises of God.

In Moltmann's view, God is revealed in the fulfilment of theancient promises. Here an important area of disagreement withPannenberg comes into view. For Moltmann the context of thedoctrine of revelation is not the problem of God's non-provability:that is a philosophical issue. God reveals Godself in order thathumankind might be able to identify God, know who God is, notmerely that God is. God is identifiable where God identifiesGodself with historical acts of faithfulness. With Pannenberg inmind, Moltmann says, 'In proving his faithfulness in history,[God] reveals himself. For the essence and the identity of the Godof promise lies not in his absoluteness over and beyond history,but in the constancy of his freely chosen relation to his creatures,in the constancy of his electing mercy and faithfulness.'61 It is nothistory as such which reveals God, but only the history initiated bypromise and expected as a result of it.

Moltmann is critical of Pannenberg's theology of history,especially the idea of 'universal history'. The main problem with it,for Moltmann, is that revelation is too much a predicate of historyas a whole. Pannenberg's argument proceeds from a view ofhistory in its totality to God as the ground of its unity. Althoughthis is understood eschatologically, it is an attempt to demonstrateGod's existence from the world, albeit in its future totality.Moltmann sees this as a form of the old cosmological argument, inwhich God's existence is inferred empirically from the existence ofthe world. This is essentially an attempt to improve on Greekcosmic theology, and is not significantly different from the'epiphany' religion from which he strongly distinguishes his owntheology of promissory history.62 This history begins withAbraham and the patriarchs and is both validated and set off in anew direction in Jesus Christ. For Moltmann the cross and theresurrection - the resurrection of the crucified one - have to begiven their due already now, in giving humankind knowledge of

60 Moltmann, Theology of Hope', 108.

61 Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 116.

6z Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 79.

17

GOD AND THE FUTURE

God. In his view, Pannenberg puts too much emphasis on thefinality and completeness of revelation at the end of history andreduces the significance of what can be known about God in themidst of history. This knowledge 'moves within the horizon ofremembrance and expectation opened up by the promise5.63 It is ananticipatory knowledge, as Moltmann and Pannenberg both say.The difference between them is that for Pannenberg the notion ofanticipatory knowledge is part of a rich, theoretical epistemology,in which the issue of (eschatological) confirmation is an importantelement, while for Moltmann it is a knowledge of the future ofGod, in the sense of a knowledge of what God will do in theworld, a knowledge gained on the basis of the past faithfulnessof God. This is not the knowledge about which theories ofknowledge are written, but the knowledge of pilgrims on the way.

How does eschatology arise in Moltmann's view of history? Thepromises of God can be termed eschatological when they aredirected 'towards a historic future in the sense of the ultimatehorizon'.64 Thus eschatology arose in the context of promise; thenovum of promise became eventually the novum ultimum^ whenexpectations of salvation within the course of history no longerseemed capable of fulfilment and a new decisive action of Godbeyond the present age was envisaged. This implied a radicaluniversalising of the action of God, which Moltmann expressesbrilliantly:

On its political deathbed Israel brings the nations, as it were, into thehands of its God and into his future. By this very means Yahweh'sthreats and promises for the future are set free from their restriction tothe one specific people and its particular future in history, and becomeeschatological.65

This is the Day of Yahweh, when God's faithfulness to the divinepromises reaches its fullest expression. In the light of the resur-rection of Jesus, this promised future is unthinkable apart fromJesus Christ. He is the validation of the promise of God and thusof the God of promise. But hope for the future cannot go aroundthe cross. The cross is a standing challenge to 'fulfilment ecstasy',

63 Moltmann, Theology of Hope', 118.

64 Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 12.5.65

Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 12.9.18


a warning not to look away from the pain and suffering of theworld as it exists now. Nevertheless, from the resurrection of Jesuswe know that God has begun a history 'whose goal is the annihi-lation of death in the victory of the life of the resurrection, andwhich ends in the righteousness in which God receives in all thingshis due and the creature thereby finds its salvation'.66

It is clear that in the theology of hope eschatology has beenvigorously put back into the centre of systematic theology. It is aneschatology in the key of promise, for God is the giver and thefulfiller of the promise of life and salvation. From the promises ofGod history is created, as human beings respond in hope to thepromises and reach out for the fulfilment. The promises of Godcan be expressed in different metaphors, but the overarching oneis that of the kingdom of God; here is the heart of eschatology.Here the universal horizon of promise and hope is connected withthe theology of the lordship of God; God will be 'all in all' (i Cor.15:28). The world and everything in it will become God's. Tospeak of the kingdom of God is to bring out 'the all-embracingeschatological breadth of [God's] future', to which people arealready related through promise and hope.67 Despite some notabledifferences between the theologies of Moltmann and Pannenberg,they are nowhere closer than at this point.

Pannenberg's comprehensive eschatologyIf Moltmann's theology is best described as a theology of hope,Pannenberg's is more accurately characterised as theology of thefuture, though this is an ambiguous phrase.68 Moltmann'stheology has ontological implications, but he does not pursue thesein detail.69 Pannenberg has devoted many years to working out adetailed onto-theological account of the eschatological world-viewof the Old and New Testaments, and Jesus' view of the kingdomof God. He spoke early of the 'priority of the eschatological

66 Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 163.

67 Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 2.2.0.

68 See P. Hefner, Theological Reflections (4): Questions for Moltmann

and Pannenberg', Una Sancta, 2,5.3, 1968, 38.69

Moltmann speaks of the need for an 'ontology of the future' (or the 'not-yet') as a counterpart to the 'anthropology of hope'; cf. 'Where There IsHope, There Is Religion', The Experiment Hope, 20, 2,5^ But he himself doesnot go into such matters.

19

GOD AND THE FUTURE

future', a fundamental feature of Jesus' message of God'skingdom, which demands a reversal in our ontological concep-tions.70 Among other things, the doctrine of God, the concept ofhistory (time), anthropology and epistemological issues need to bereshaped in the light of the priority of the future. His approach toeschatology is nothing if not comprehensive.

Pannenberg was not the first to undertake a detailed treatmentof the theme of the future in contemporary theology. There wereothers whose work is significant.71 But Pannenberg's retrieval ofeschatology into the centre of the theological agenda is unmatchedin contemporary theology. There are six main reasons for this.First, it is demanded by the Christian faith itself. The originatingevents and traditions cannot be properly understood in a non-eschatological way. Second, the Christian understanding ofsalvation requires it. Without such an eschatological under-standing the old objection that the world looks too unredeemed tobelieve that the Messiah has come could not be met. Third, theimportance of the theme of futurity in modern European thoughtrequires it. Whether the focus is on the problem of history or onindividual existence - thus whether Hegel, Marx and Bloch orKierkegaard and Heidegger are held to raise the critical issues - thetheme of the future cannot be avoided.72 Fourth, Pannenberg'sinterest in anthropology also adds impetus to his exploration of theidea of the future. Human existence is not conceivable apart froman 'unending movement into the open'.73 Our identity is not given

70 TKG, 54, and BQTi, xv, xvi.

71 Mention should especially be made of Gerhard Sauter, Zukunft und

Verheissung: Das Problem der Zukunft in der gegenwdrtigen theologischenund philosophischen Diskussion (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1965). Sauter hasbeen a critic of both Pannenberg's and Moltmann's understanding of escha-tology. He doubts that a theology of history can really grasp the reasonfor Christian hope; What Dare We Hope?, xiif. and EschatologicalRationality: Theological Issues in Focus (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,1996), esp. 149.

7Z John Macquarrie suggests that the theology of hope as a whole is

indebted to the Hegel-Feuerbach-Marxist line in philosophy, as opposed tothe Kierkegaard-Heidegger-Bultmann line; see Theologies of Hope: ACritical Examination', Expository Times 81, 1970-71, 100-5. InPannenberg's case, this is an over-simplification.

73 W. Pannenberg, What Is Man? Contemporary Anthropology in

Theological Perspective (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), 54; hereafter WM

2,0


to us by the past but from the future, an idea that certainlyrequires ontological clarification. A fifth reason is the need for acontemporary articulation of the doctrines of Christianity.Pannenberg early saw the potential of an eschatological under-standing of the doctrine of God, and an eschatological frameworkhas progressively proved fruitful in expressing the meaning ofother doctrines. Sixth, there is a political reason, called suchbecause it concerns a person's basic stance in the public world. Aneschatological understanding of the kingdom of God encouragesrealism in what can be achieved in political, social and economicchange.

We shall briefly consider these six factors in Pannenberg'sdevelopment of an eschatological theology.

First, the restoration of eschatology is demanded by a properunderstanding of the Christian faith. It is no longer possible todoubt that the idea of the kingdom of God, central in the ministryof Jesus, is an eschatological notion. Theology cannot ignoreeschatology, for eschatology is 'no longer a marginal problem oftheology, which one could leave to the last chapter of dogmatics,but the basis upon which everything in Christian tradition isbuilt'.74 If this is ignored, or if eschatology is reduced to a non-temporal phenomenon, violence is done to the core of thefaith-tradition. Furthermore, the resurrection of Jesus from thedead, understood in terms of Jewish eschatological expectation, isthe sine qua non of Christian faith:

The basis of the knowledge of Jesus' significance remains bound to theoriginal apocalyptic horizon of Jesus' history ... If this horizon iseliminated, the basis of faith is lost; then Christology becomesmythology and no longer has true continuity with Jesus himself andwith the witness of the apostles.75

In other words, if the resurrection is central to Christianity, anaxiomatic point, the same must be said about eschatology. It is notpossible to understand Christian faith properly without it.

Second, the doctrines of reconciliation and salvation alsodemand an eschatological understanding. These cannot be

74 W. Pannenberg, 'Can Christianity Do Without an Eschatology?', in G.B.

Caird et al., The Christian Hope (London: SPCK, 1970), 31.75 /GM, 83.

21

GOD AND THE FUTURE

understood adequately in terms of the forgiveness of sins butrequire much fuller articulation. To say without qualification thatreconciliation between God and the world is already establishedin Christ is to lose the crucial 'already-not yet' tension inherent inChristian existence. It ignores the fact that the world is not yetfully redeemed. The modern preoccupation with the concept ofalienation implies that Christian talk of reconciliation mustinclude the eschatological proviso. The reconciliation of the world,accomplished proleptically, does not yet characterise the empiricalcourse of events in history. As Pannenberg puts it,

the decisive reason why Christianity cannot do without an eschatologyis that the reconciliation of the world, the presence of God, and hiskingdom through Christ, have taken place only in the form of an antic-ipation of a future which in its fullness has not yet materialized.Therefore, the belief in the reconciliation of the world in Christ is itselfbased upon eschatology while at the same time it corroborates theChristian trust and hope in the future of God.76

Christian claims about reconciliation must be abandoned if theyare not understood in an eschatological sense. The 'already-notyet' tension in every aspect of Christian existence can only be artic-ulated in eschatological terms.

The third set of reasons is philosophical. In Pannenberg's viewthe Gospel has its foundation in history, and God's relation to thecreation must be understood in terms of 'history'. This requires aview of history in its totality, not a special stream of 'salvation-history'; nothing else would be adequate to the universality ofGod.77 Pannenberg believes that the idea of a single history ismeaningful; that everything in history must be understood in termsof continuities which, in principle, have no limit. Of course,history, not yet complete, requires the idea of an open future. Thishas been made the theme of philosophical inquiry, particularly byErnst Bloch. Bloch has 'recovered the biblical tradition's eschato-logical mode of thought as a theme for philosophical reflection'.78Bloch has done much to explore 'the ontological priority of thefuture' in relation to the mystery of the human being. Pannenbergbelieves Bloch has not really succeeded in finding an ontological

76 Pannenberg, 'Can Christianity Do Without an Eschatology?', 30.

77 BQTi, 67.

78 BQT2, 2.38.

2,2,


ground for the primacy of the future, and that his non-theisticeschatology needs a theological dimension.

Heidegger, too, explored the importance of the future forhuman existence, though very differently. Dilthey had assertedthat the meaning of any individual event (or life) could be deter-mined only in the light of what still lies in the future. Tounderstand the parts one must know the whole. Heideggerdeveloped this not in relation to the whole of history butindividual existence; yet here too the idea of the future plays amajor role.79 Pannenberg is critical of Heidegger's restriction ofthis to the sphere of human existence - in which form it was takenup by Bultmann - but it has potential for much broader appli-cation. Pannenberg's interest in the broader ontologicalimplications is an important factor in developing an eschatologicaltheology.

The fourth factor is Pannenberg's anthropological interest.Developments in modern anthropological thought were a strongstimulus toward modern atheism, and Pannenberg believes thatthe most promising way of creating space today for the God-hypothesis must take place 'on the terrain of the interpretation ofhuman existence'.80 The human person is characterised by thequality of self-transcendence or 'exocentricity',81 but this must beseen in relation to the question of an ultimate destiny, in which anindividual's identity is first truly established, and an ultimatefulfilment in which all the ambiguities of human existence withinhistory are overcome. This is to set out in an eschatologicaldirection in anthropological thought. A decisive impetus comesfrom the New Testament, where Paul re-orients the concept of thehuman person in an eschatological direction.82 A historical under-standing of the human being first emerged in Christian thought,but such an understanding has to include openness to the future,for the meaning of anything includes its outcome, which, at thetime of its happening, is 'still hidden in the womb of the future'.83

79 BQTi, 166. ('Historicness' is not a very attractive word.)

80 W. Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1985), 15; hereafter ATP.81

ATP, 62-6. On exocentricity see also 37.^ ATP, 497.83 ATP, 506.

23

GOD AND THE FUTURE

Thus theological anthropology is a further fruitful field for thedevelopment of an eschatological theology.

Fifth, the need to find the most persuasive articulation of Christiandoctrine is a factor in Pannenberg's pursuit of an eschatologicaltheology, especially the doctrine of God; this is at the heart of hisentire theological work. In the message of Jesus, God is a God of thecoming kingdom. This is the basis for developing both an eschato-logical ontology and an eschatological doctrine of God. Without this,an eschatological form of other doctrines would be of little interest,since their foundation lies in the concept of God.84 The biblical Godis God 'only in the execution of [God's] lordship', and this can befully accomplished only in the future.85 In an early essay Pannenbergsaid that the question of God must now be 'concerned exclusivelywith the possibility of a God "with futurity as a quality of being" '.86The completion of the Systematic Theology gives this understandingof God its most developed expression. Working out an under-standing of God consistent with Jesus' proclamation of the 'God ofthe coming kingdom' has been the major factor in constructing aconsistent and comprehensive eschatological theology.

Finally, Pannenberg also argued for a critical and constructivefunction of eschatology in the public realm.87 Although escha-tology has at times taken 'other-worldly' forms, resulting in a'world-denying' stance, there is a positive element in this 'other-worldliness' that is of some political relevance. Eschatologyprovides a challenge to the self-sufficiency of an entirely secularview of the world. The consummation of human existence liesbeyond death, and eschatology challenges the illusory hopes ofsecular world-views - political and cultural - about the attain-ability of unambiguous happiness in this world. 'Eschatologyexposes secular man's illusions about the possibilities of self-realis-ation in this world, and therefore eschatology is at the heart of aChristian realism in appraising the conditions of human existencein the present world.'88 This is not an excuse for a negative attitude

84 BQTi, xvi.85 BQT2,140.86

BQT2, 241.87

W. Pannenberg, 'Constructive and Critical Functions of ChristianEschatology', Harvard Theological Review 77.2., 1984, 119-39.

88 Pannenberg, 'Constructive and Critical Functions of Christian

Eschatology', 124.

24


toward the affairs of the world. Rather, it makes possible arealistic involvement in the world's struggles, since one canoperate with hope but without illusions. There is a positivecounterpart to this critical function of eschatology, for it canreinforce the sense of the dignity and meaning of humanexperience, by relating it to an eternal and transcendent source ofmeaning. 'Hope in a transcendent completion of human existencein communion with God illumines the present existence in spite ofits shortcomings.'89 To accept this is not to diminish the signifi-cance of life in the world now. On the contrary, this life is enrichedand deepened when it is understood as an 'anticipation' of thatfuller existence that in part is already known and in part is stillawaited from the future.

To show the relevance of an eschatological theology is not yetto establish its truth; that requires a detailed examination ofPannenberg's theology. So far we have traced in outline the fluctu-ating fortunes of eschatology in modern theology, and given anindication of the nature and extent of Pannenberg's commitmentto eschatological theology. We now begin the task of investigatingmajor elements in Pannenberg's recovery of eschatology for theChristian doctrine of God.

89 Pannenberg, 'Constructive and Critical Functions of Christian

Eschatology', 124.

2-5

The appeal of apocalyptic

Theology and apocalyptic

The shape of Pannenberg's theology is determined by themessage and resurrection of Jesus, by 'the peculiar, eschato-logical character of [his] history'.1 He understands Jesus' messageof the kingdom of God and his resurrection from the dead in theclosest relation to second Temple Jewish apocalyptic thought. Thequestion is whether he is on solid ground here. This is animportant exegetical question. However, in view of his appeal tosome key ideas in apocalyptic literature, it is also important to askwhether these ideas are significant within the world of apocalypticand whether they can bear the weight of the theological systemPannenberg builds on them. It is - as he recognises - a world thatis strange to us,2 and whilst the ideas of apocalyptic literature havefascinated many people they have not played a very prominent rolein contemporary theology. That Pannenberg - rather against thestream - should find these ideas challenging and illuminating bearsinvestigation.3

In April 1960 Ernst Kasemann made the now famous remarkthat apocalyptic was 'the mother of all Christian theology'.4 Jesus

1 W. Pannenberg, 'On Historical and Theological Hermeneutic', BQTi,

2 BQTi, 144^; cf. also 146.

3 A. D. Galloway says that Pannenberg (and Moltmann) take 'this

unwanted child of faith unhesitatingly into the bosom of their theology'; TheNew Hegelians', review article, Religious Studies 8, 1972, 369.

4 E. Kasemann, 'The Beginnings of Christian Theology', in Robert W.

Funk (ed.), Apocalypticism, Journal for Theology and the Church 6 (NewYork: Herder & Herder, 1969), 40.

2-7

2,

175.

GOD AND THE FUTURE

himself, in Kasemann's view, preached a message of the kingdom ofGod which was not constitutively stamped by apocalyptic, hisemphasis being on the nearness of God. But Easter and Pentecostcaused primitive Christianity to 'resort again to apocalyptic termsas a means of responding to, and in a certain sense supplanting,Jesus5 preaching of the nearness of God9.5 Pannenberg agreesthat the origins of Christianity cannot be understood in isolationfrom the eschatological expectations of Judaism. In his view, Jesus'message too 'can only be understood within the horizon of apoca-lyptic expectations', which is not to say that Jesus can be describedas simply an apocalyptic figure.6 Various members of the so-called'Pannenberg circle' that met in Heidelberg and published Revelationas History in 1961 discussed the influence of apocalyptic on Jesusand on early Christianity. Ulrich Wilckens saw apocalyptic thoughtas 'the native soil for the proclamation of Jesus',7 and DietrichRossler had earlier written about 'history in its entirety' or 'theunity of history' as a basic theme of Jewish apocalyptic,8 a themethat Pannenberg would make central in his theology of history.

In the last fifty years the question of the influence of apocalypticideas on Jesus has been vigorously debated. Kasemann's essay wascriticised by Gerhard Ebeling and Ernst Fuchs, which prompted aneven stronger essay on the theme from Kasemann.9 If Jesus wasnot an apocalyptic figure, what would need to be explained is thedouble discontinuity between Jesus and John the Baptist andbetween Jesus and the early church. When Jesus is confessed as theSon of Man, the bringer of the last judgment, we are in the realmof apocalyptic, though a modified apocalyptic. Kasemann specu-lated why early Christianity may only have found it possible torespond to Jesus in apocalyptic terms. 'In Jesus the world isconfronted by ultimate promise', the promise of 'the kingdom offreedom', which cannot have been qualitatively ultimate without

5 Kasemann, The Beginnings of Christian Theology', 40.

6 /GM, 32, 2,17.

7 U. Wilckens, The Understanding of Revelation Within the History of

Primitive Christianity', RAH, 71.8 D. Rossler, Gesetz und Geschichte: Untersuchungen zur Theologie der

judischen Apokalyptik und der pharisdischen Orthodoxie (NeukirchenerVerlag, 1960).

9 See the contributions of Kasemann, Ebeling and Fuchs in Funk (ed.),

Apocalypticism.

2,8

THE APPEAL OF APOCALYPTIC

also being temporally ultimate. By breaking the power of deathand bringing in a new age of freedom Jesus had abiding anduniversal significance.10 However, by way of contrast, MarcusBorg, a member of the Jesus Seminar, writing more than fortyyears after Kasemann, argues that 'Jesus' message and missionwere non-eschatological' and that the eschatological expectationsof the early church were not central to its life and belief.11 Thematter is clearly still contentious.

Stimulated more by developments in Old Testament studies(notably von Rad's work on the connection between faith andhistory in the Old Testament), Pannenberg and his friendsdiscovered something like a total view of history in the literatureof apocalyptic, particularly in the period between 200 BCE and 100CE. Their own work led them to conclude that

history is the most comprehensive horizon of Christian theology. Alltheological questions and answers are meaningful only within theframework of the history which God has with humanity and throughhumanity with his whole creation - the history moving toward a futurestill hidden from the world but already revealed in Jesus Christ.12

Jewish apocalyptic had a view of history that covered the wholecourse of the world from its beginning to its end. Pannenbergfound in Jewish apocalyptic the continuation of a strong historicalconsciousness and a view of the cosmos as a whole. It isunnecessary and artificial to separate the cosmological and thehistorical, although, as we shall see, there are different streamswithin apocalypticism. What is most striking for Pannenbergabout apocalyptic is its universal scope. The history of all thenations is included within its compass. This is the necessarycorrelate to his idea that the deity of God (God's reality andpower) can establish itself only with reference to the whole of reality.'Speaking about God and speaking about the whole of reality arenot two entirely different matters, but mutually condition eachother.'J3

10 E. Kasemann, 'On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic', in

Funk (ed.), Apocalypticism, 118.11

Marcus J. Borg, Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, PA:Trinity Press International, 1994), 89.

" BQTi, 15.'3 3QTi, 156.

29

GOD AND THE FUTURE

The legitimacy and relevance of apocalyptic thought fortheology lies, in Pannenberg's view, in its contribution to atheology of revelation, since revelation is not to be understoodprimarily in terms of the concept of the Word of God, but inrelation to history. For Israel the evidence of Yahweh's power anddeity lies in what God does in history. God's self-revelation takesplace as a reflex of this activity in history.14 Pannenberg meansGod's action in its totality, for a series of unrelated revelatoryevents is incompatible with revelation understood as God's self-revelation. It is the totality of God's action that is revelatory, andit is this that requires a notion of history in its totality. Only thelast event will finally and fully disclose the power and glory ofGod. This finds its exact parallel in the theme of salvation. In thegreat future act of judgment and salvation God's self-disclosurewill be final and complete.15 The hidden meaning of the presentwill be disclosed and God's vindication will be clear for all to see.God's power over all things will be confirmed, and God's glorywill be revealed.

In taking key apocalyptic ideas into the centre of his theology,Pannenberg is not without his critics. Moltmann contrasts apoca-lyptic thought unfavourably with the prophetic outlook on thefuture. There is insufficient basis for hope and promise, and inplace of the faithfulness of God there is only the plan of Godwhich has been fixed from the beginning of time.16 Moltmann isstruck more by the differences between prophetic, historicalthinking and apocalyptic ideas than by the similarities. While hesees much that is theologically important in apocalyptic thought -'the New Testament did not close the window which apocalyptichad opened for it towards the wide vistas of the cosmos'17 - hisinterest is in the political implications of the theology of hoperather than, as Pannenberg, in the potential of apocalyptic thoughtto throw new light on ontological questions. Gerhard Sauter alsomakes less than enthusiastic reference to apocalyptic. Whatinterests him is not apocalyptic ideas about the future, but thecapacity of apocalyptic thought to challenge every world-view that

*4 RAH, 13.15

See Pannenberg's second thesis on revelation; RAH, 131-5.16




is self-contained. Preoccupation with the details of the future canbe a form of escape from the troubles of the present. Theologyshould focus on the ground of our hope rather than the end of allthings. Sauter calls for a clear distinction between eschatology andadjacent concepts such as apocalyptic:

The concept of eschatology must be pointed up as talk of God whichis determined by God's coming. God's coming means adventus andfuturum, God's coming to be present both today and in what still liesahead. Eschatology would then be extricated from the almostexplosive profusion of reflections on the nature of time, conceptions ofhistory ..., hermeneutical questions of the interpretation of biblicalexpectations and linguistic aporia. It would concentrate on theeschatos rather than on the eschata: on Jesus Christ... as 'the first andthe last and the living one'.18

Sauter, in explicit opposition to Pannenberg, does not think thattheology has any obligation to determine what the end of historyis or means.19

The sharpest critique of Pannenberg's appeal to Jewish apoca-lyptic has come from William R. Murdock and Hans Dieter Betz.Betz disputes the contention that in apocalyptic writings history isunderstood as a universal process, proceeding according to a kindof divine master plan.20 Not only do some apocalyptic writingsmake no reference to history, but universal history is not the centraltheme in apocalyptic. Apocalyptic is not the climax of a theology ofsalvation-history, but contradicts it. Most serious is the criticismthat one cannot look to apocalyptic for a view of universal history.It is supported by Murdock, who says that the apocalyptic schemataoften do not even cover the whole of history. They do not intend topresent a theology of history.21 If there is an implicit understandingof history, it is dualistic; history is not only the working out of thedivine plan, but also, in part, of the demonic will. The eschatonmeans the termination of the process of history, not its culmination,

18 Sauter, Eschatological Rationality, 145f.; Sauter's emphasis.

19 Sauter, Eschatological Rationality, 149.

20 See H. D. Betz, The Concept of Apocalyptic in the Theology of the

Pannenberg Group', in Funk (ed.), Apocalypticism, 192-207, esp. 195-7,20 if.

21 William R. Murdock, 'History and Revelation in Jewish Apoc-

alypticism', Interpretation 21.2, April 1967, 167-87.

31

GOD AND THE FUTURE

and the alleged eschatological revelation cannot be interpreted as'the final brilliant burst of light ... at the end of a history-longcandlelighting service'. In Murdock's view, Pannenberg's claim ofcontinuity between history and the eschaton cannot be supported.Rather, his scheme is a form of German idealism.22

It remains to consider whether these criticisms hit their mark.Pannenberg continues to think that apocalyptic eschatologyprovides an important foundation for his systematic theology.13 Inan essay on the relation between concepts and truth he refers againto the significance of the biblical experience of reality, especiallyJewish apocalyptic, for philosophical reflection.24 However, whileremaining convinced of the validity of his position, he is open tothe possibility of a more differentiated view of apocalyptic.25Although he himself has not pursued this task in detail, the lastfew decades have seen the appearance of important work onapocalyptic, which must be briefly considered.

The emerging picture of apocalypticThe word 'apocalyptic' is used to mean a variety of distinct(though related) things. It is not clear whether the word is a nounor an adjective; it is used as both. In the recent study of apoca-lyptic terminological clarity and understanding both increased.In popular speech 'apocalyptic' can simply mean 'violent' or'cataclysmic'. It also suggests speculation about the future of theworld. It is also associated with 'fanatical millenarian expectation',and the apocalypse of Daniel has often been used by millenariangroups.26 Since the term comes from apokalypsis, meaning 'revel-ation' or 'disclosure', it denotes for some the 'revelation of thedivine mysteries through visions or some other form of immediatedisclosure of heavenly truths'.27

22 Murdock, 'History and Revelation in Jewish Apocalypticism', 187.

23 See the 'Postscript to the Second Edition' of RAH, 192. See also STi,207-11, 227.

24 W. Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1990), 109; hereafter MIG.25

/GM, znd edn., 1977, 401.26

John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to theJewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984), i.

27 Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in

Judaism and Early Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 70.

32,


Paul Hanson suggests that the term should be understood atthree distinct levels.28 First, it refers to a particular genre ofliterature, through which apocalyptic writers typically conveyedtheir messages. Second, it can refer to apocalyptic eschatology as areligious perspective, a way of viewing divine plans in relation toevents in the world. Third, the term can also refer to 'the symbolicuniverse in which an apocalyptic movement codifies its identityand interpretation of reality'. Apocalyptic is not systematic oruniform; it includes ideas, symbols and themes, all 'highly eclecticin nature and characterized by the esoteric, the bizarre, and thearcane'. An apocalypse is

a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which arevelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient,disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as itenvisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involvesanother, supernatural world.29

This is the core of the genre, describing works like i Enoch,Daniel, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Abraham, 3 Baruch, 2Enoch, Testament of Levi 2-5, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah and,in part, Jubilees and the Testament of Abraham. In the NewTestament the book of Revelation (an 'apocalypse of Jesus Christ',1:1) is the clearest example of apocalyptic literature.

In some apocalypses ('historical') there is a review or summaryof history. In others there are details of other-worldly regions.Collins differentiates between two streams of Jewish apocalypses:one is characterised by visions and has an interest in the devel-opment of history; the other is marked by other-worldly journeysand has an interest in cosmological speculation.30 Common toboth streams, however, is a view of the world as mysterious.Therefore, as Collins puts it,

revelation must be transmitted from a supernatural source, throughthe mediation of angels; there is a hidden world of angels and demons

z8 Paul D. Hanson, 'Apocalypticism', The Interpreter's Dictionary of the

Bible, Supplementary Volume (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), 18-34, esp.2,9-30.

Z9 Collins reports some of the findings in The Apocalyptic Imagination,

ch. i. The quotation and some of the material that follows is on ^L30

Rowland, The Open Heaven, 5.

33

GOD AND THE FUTURE

that is directly relevant to human destiny; and this destiny is finallydetermined by a definitive eschatological judgment. In short, humanlife is bounded in the present by the supernatural world of angels anddemons and in the future by the inevitability of a final judgment.31

This view of the world is not restricted to works that are techni-cally 'apocalypses'. Other types of literature are related to thisgenre. It is important to distinguish apocalyptic from eschato-logical material, though there is overlap. Apocalyptic literature isnot just a sub-group of eschatology; it deals in the categories ofspace as well as time. On the other hand, there are eschatologicalwritings which do not belong to the genre of apocalyptic. Rowlandrestricts the term 'apocalyptic' to works which 'purport to offerdisclosures of the heavenly mysteries, whether as the result ofvision, heavenly ascent or verbal revelation5.32

There is no consistent eschatology in apocalyptic literature.Scenarios of the end of history are typical of historical apoca-lypses, such as Daniel. However, the fact that such scenarios donot feature in other types of apocalypse does not imply that thereis no recognisable apocalyptic eschatology.33 In some there is afocus on the judgment of individuals after their death; Collinsconcludes that there is a clear hope of transcending death in latepost-exilic Judaism.34 Belief in two spheres of life, not necessarilyin temporal succession as two aeons but also as two storeys inthe universe, is common to many apocalypses. In Collins's view, theidea of a transition from one sphere of life to another was moreprominent in second-century Judaism than ideas such as the resur-rection of the body or the transformation of the earth.35 However,the details of the heavenly sphere, which are prominent in the non-historical apocalypses, would be of great interest to those whobelieved that the transition from this sphere of life to the heavenly

31 Rowland, The Open Heaven, 7.

32 Rowland, The Open Heaven, yof.

33 Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 9.

34 J. J. Collins, 'Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death',

in Paul D. Hanson (ed.), Visionaries and Their Apocalypses (Philadelphia:Fortress Press; London: SPCK, 1983), 78.

35 Collins, 'Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death', 73.He says that the idea of a resurrection of the body, although clearly in viewin Daniel 12:2, 'was hardly envisaged at the time.' Note that Collins is hererestricting himself to material from the znd century BCE: see p. 69.

34


one would occur at the end of the present age. Thus even in thedifferent types of apocalyptic there are probably commonelements.

The picture that emerges from recent study of apocalyptic is oneof considerable heterogeneity; it has become much lessmonochrome.36 Boundaries are fluid; there is some continuitybetween the post-exilic prophetic movement - perhaps 'the dawnof apocalyptic' - and the apocalyptic movement as such. Isaiah56-66 already sees the need of divine int

God and Future Pannemberg

Documents

Transcript of God and Future Pannemberg