Should You Put Gravel or Rocks at the Bottom of Plant Pots for Drainage? – Deep Green Permaculture

Should You Put Gravel or Rocks at the Bottom of Plant Pots for Drainage? – Deep Green Permaculture

Deep Green Permaculture

Connecting People to Nature, Empowering People to Live Sustainably

• Home
• Permaculture Design Principles
• Blog
• DIY Instructions
• Reference

Should You Put Gravel or Rocks at the Bottom of Plant Pots for Drainage?

There’s an old gardening myth that it’s best to put a layer of gravel or rocks at the bottom of a plant pot to improve drainage, but how true is it? Can the practice actually harm plants more than help them?

The main reason for wanting to improve drainage in pots is because most plants don’t like having ‘wet feet’, otherwise known as waterlogged roots, because this leads to root rot, which can kill a plant.

Pots, planters, tubs and containers designed to hold plants always have drainage holes in their bases to allow any excess water to drain out freely, preventing water accumulating at the bottom of the pot.

If pots drain because they have holes in them, then why the need to increase drainage? Well, it’s because the potting medium in which the plant grows is designed to retain moisture, to a certain degree at least…

To figure out what’s best for plants, lets look at the science!

 

Potting Mediums, Striking the Perfect Balance

Too much water and plant roots rot, not enough water and plants dry out. A good potting medium (potting mix) has to strike the perfect balance between sufficient moisture retention and good drainage for plants to thrive.

Since any decent quality potting mix must retain some moisture, it needs to contain material which will absorb and retain moisture, much like a sponge does. This wicking or absorbent property of any potting medium is the critical key to understanding the behaviour of water in pots.

 

The Science of Plant Pots and Perched Water Tables

Water naturally runs to the lowest point under the influence of gravity, and will all run out from a container with drainage holes in the base unless there is something else present to hold it there.

Absorbent materials, such as a wet sponge sat upright or a wet bath towel hung from the line, behave the same way. The water will move downward, some of it will drip away, and some of it will be retained. The top of a wet sponge or bath towel will dry the fastest, and the bottom portions will remain damp for the longest period of time.

Potting mediums, being absorbent materials, behave much like any other when wet.

To get into some basic physics, two opposing natural forces are at play within a wet potting medium in a pot.

1. Gravity, which exerts a downward pull on the water, causing it to be drained away through the drainage holes.
2. Capillary action, which exerts an upward pull on the water, causing it to be retained, saturating the potting medium.

Both these forces have limitations though:

• The capillary action can only wick the weight of the water upwards to a limited height against gravity, and no higher.
• The gravitational force can only exert a limited downward pull on the water against the upward pull of the capillary action, and no more.

At some point these two opposing forces balance each other out, and when this happens, a layer of water-saturated potting medium is formed at the bottom of the pot which cannot not drain away, this is termed the perched water table because the water is literally ‘perched’ there and cannot move.

 

 

It’s important to understand that the perched water table does not drain, the water stays there unless plant roots draw the water up, or it evaporates away when the potting mix dries out, in which case the plant won’t survive!

Also, be aware that all pots filled with any kind of potting mix, potting medium or growing  medium, call it what you will, have a perched water table.

The size and shape of the pot makes no difference, it doesn’t matter if a pot is tall and narrow or wide and shallow, neither if it’s big or small, if the growing medium/potting mix is the same, the perched water table will always be the same height.

Different growing media will have different perched table heights, the more absorbent materials will have higher perched water table, and the less absorbent ones will have lower levels.

 

Understanding Capillary Action

In this section we’ll go a bit deeper into the science if you’re interested, if not, please skip to the next section. I like to teach from first principles, as I believe this way we can really come to a deeper level of understanding, but then again, I’ve got qualifications in the biological sciences, so I’m biased!

Gravity is self-explanatory, it’s the ever-present force on this planet which pulls everything down!

Capillary action is created by the cohesive and adhesive forces of liquids.

Cohesive forces are forces of attraction between molecules of the same type.
For example, molecules of water are able cling to each other.

Adhesive forces are forces of attraction between molecules of different types.
For example, molecules of water are able to cling to other materials.

Capillary action by definition is the tendency of a fluid to be raised (or suppressed in the case of mercury) in a narrow tube (capillary tube) due to the relative strength of cohesive and adhesive forces.

 

To explain how this further, we need to understand the nature of water.

Water (H2O) is considered a polar molecule because it has a negative charge on one side of the molecule and the positive charge on the other. Its bent V-shape which gives it a partial positive charge on the side of the hydrogen atoms and a partial negative charge on the side of the oxygen atom.

Polar molecules act like magnets with north and south poles, the (+) positive charged atoms and (-) negative charged atoms of these molecules are attracted to one another.

When the positive side on one water molecule comes near the negative side of another water molecule, they attract each other and form a hydrogen bond, and this creates the strong cohesive forces between water molecules, and this explains why water clings to itself.

Water molecules will exhibit strong adhesive forces that allow them cling to other materials if those materials are even more polar (have a stronger electrical charge) than water itself, as the attraction will be stronger than the attraction of water molecules to each other.

 

The upward motion of liquids against gravity, known as capillary action, is a combination of:

• The forces of attraction between water molecules and another material above the water’s surface which doesn’t already have water clinging to it already (adhesion), causing the water molecules to climb upwards a little.
• The forces of attraction between water molecules to each due to the hydrogen bonds they form with each other (cohesion), causing them to pull each other up.

To put it another way, capillary action is a combination of the effects of adhesive and cohesive forces displayed by water.

Now that we know why water moves upwards and creates perched water tables in growing media, we can now re-examine our opening question from a more scientific perspective!

 

The Effect of Placing Gravel at The Bottom of a Pot on the Perched Water Table

Would it make any difference if we placed a wet sponge upright in the sink, or on a layer of gravel in the same sink? Now that we understand how the forces of adhesion and cohesion within liquids create capillary action, leading to the formation of a perched water table at the bottom of an absorbent medium, we can see that it won’t have any effect on these forces in any way at all.

Remember, the downwards force is due to gravity, which we can’t increase, a lower layer of another material won’t change the adhesive forces between the growing medium and the water molecules, nor will it alter the cohesive hydrogen bonds between water.

 

So what effect will adding gravel at the bottom of a pot below the growing medium have?

It will reduce the volume of potting medium, and push the perched water table higher up into the pot, as shown in the diagram below.

Adding gravel a the the bottom of a pot will create two potentially serious problem:

1. Pushing the saturated water table layer upwards, closer to the plant roots actually increases the risk of root rot, as the roots will stay wetter, longer.
2. Reducing the volume of growing medium available to the plant roots will reduce root growth space and overall root volume, as well as available moisture, thereby decreasing the plant’s drought tolerance and potential maximum growth size.

There is no benefit to be gained by adding a layer of gravel or rocks to a pot when we examine the matter from scientific first principles!

 

The Correct Way to Increase Drainage in Pots and Containers

If the same potting medium is used, irrespective of the size or shape of the pot, the perched water table always stays the same height because it is determined by the wicking ability of the potting medium, since gravity doesn’t change.

The way to increase drainage of the perched water table is to add materials throughout all of the potting medium to increasing the air spaces in the mix and reduce capillary action.

Some plants require extremely well draining potting mixes in containers. A lot of orchids for example are epiphytes (plants don’t grow in soil but obtain moisture and nutrients from the air and rain and usually grow on the surface of another plant), and many grow in trees. Growers of Cymbidium orchids use an orchid mix which is composed mainly of  coarse 20mm (3/4″) composted pine bark pieces. This mixture contains huge air spaces and drains extremely well, barely retaining moisture in the bark pieces, so there is no perched water table.

Cactus and succulent growing mediums for pots are a coarse, open mixes made with some organic matter to retain a little moisture, and plenty of gritty material such as crushed quartz or other crushed rock, which act like a sandy soil and lets water pass almost straight through.

Perlite and vermiculte are materials which are used as soil amendments, and both are minerals that are made more porous by expanding them with heat, much like popcorn. Because they have large air spaces within them, they are used to increase the drainage and aeration in potting mixes. Perlite mainly increases drainage, while vermiculite will also hold some moisture and help retain nutrients too. Mixing either of these amendment materials right though a potting mix will increase aeration, improve drainage and reduce the height of the perched water table.

Hydroponic systems also use perlite as a potting medium, or ‘clay balls’ which are in fact clay coated pumice balls which are very porous and weigh almost nothing. These growing media have large air spaces both inside and between the particles, so they drain extremely well, but hold enough water to keep the roots moist.

We can see that the common practice in horticulture to increase drainage in pots and containers is to alter the composition of the potting medium to increase the air spaces within it, and not by making changes to the the space beneath the pot.

 

How Did The Tradition of Putting Gravel At the Bottom of Pots Originate?

The only way that gravel at the bottom of the pot will increase drainage is if the pot has insufficient drainage, either due to not having enough drainage holes, or by having blocked drainage holes.

This is speculation on my behalf, but I suspect that the reason gardeners traditionally used gravel in the bottom of pots is probably because pots were traditionally made of terracotta clay rather than plastic, and these pots only have a large single drainage hole in the base of the pot. With these pots, it was a traditional practice (and still is) to sit a very loosely fitting stone over the hole to stop the potting mix falling out. If this single hole became blocked, water would pool at the bottom of the pot and drain out very slowly, leading to waterlogging. The problem would be even worse in glazed terracotta pots, which don’t seep moisture from their sides and stay wet longer.

Adding gravel into the bottom of  terracotta pots creates a small water holding area for the excess water that would normally drain out on its own  if the gravel wasn’t there to collect into if the single drainage hole become blocked. That’s my educated guess, and like most traditions, people eventually forget the reason why something was done in the first place, and just keep doing the same thing simply out of habit.

With plastic pots, there are always plenty of drainage holes, and many are designed to increase drainage through the use of domed bases with drainage holes at the edges to take excess water away faster.

 

Still Don’t Believe Me?

If you’ve read this far, and still aren’t convinced that putting gravel at the bottom of a put just pushes the perched water table up, but doesn’t improve drainage, then I have two diagrams and two direct quotations from authoritative sources to illustrate the point:

1. From the North Willamette Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University, Physical Properties of Container Media.
   For a given media, the perched water table remains the same regardless of plant height. It is therefore unwise to use the same media in large containers as small.
2. From the University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, Master Gardeners of Monterey Bay.
   
3. From the University of Illinois Extension, Urban Programs Resource Network – Successful Container Gardens, Choosing a Container for Planting – Drainage Is Critical to Plant Health:“Skip the gravel inside the bottom of individual or pot liners – It is a myth that a layer of gravel (inside the bottom of an individual pot) beneath the soil improves container drainage. Instead of extra water draining immediately into the gravel, the water “perches” or gathers in the soil just above the gravel. The water gathers until no air space is left. Once all the available soil air space fills up, then excess water drains into the gravel below. So gravel in the bottom does little to keep soil above it from being saturated by overwatering.” 
4. From the University of Tennessee, Institute of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension Service – PB1618, Growing Media for Greenhouse Production, we see that reducing the depth of the pot actually increases water retention and reduces drainage, so putting gravel at in the bottom of a pot actually has the opposite effect:“Media Column Height/Containers – Another factor relating media to air/water relations in the root zone is the size of the growing container. With media in containers, the amount of air and water held in a given media is a function of the height of the column of media. The taller the column,the smaller the ratio of water to air spaces.This is most important in plug production where the small cells drain very poorly or not at all, resulting in poor root zone aeration. The dramatic effect of container height on air space is evident in Table 1, which shows the change in percent volume airspace of a 1:1 peat:vermiculite media in various growing containers.In all containers, there will be a certain amount of saturated media at the bottom of the container after drainage. This is due to what is called a >perched water table. The saturation zone is a larger part of the total volume of the growing media in a very short container, such as a plug cell.A good way to illustrate the effect of container height is to use a sponge. A sponge of the dimensions 2@ x 4.25@ x 8.5@ (72.25 cubic inches or 1,184 milliliters) represents the media in a container.When fully saturated, the sponge holds 950 ml; that is, the total porosity is 80percent. Holding the sponge so it is 2 inches high results in about 50 ml water draining out, resulting in a volume air space of 4.2percent. If it then is held so it is 4.25 inches high, another 125 ml drains out, resulting in a volume air space of 14.8 percent. If the sponge is then held so it is 8.5 inches high,another 375 ml drains out, resulting in a volume air space of 46.5 percent. Starting with the same volume of media (sponge), the effect of container height (sponge height) on media air space is dramatic. We can conclude that the choice of containers is important in managing water/air relations in the root zone, especially of plugs.”

Hopefully that’s convincing! If not, then see for yourself. I’ll show you how to test this, all you need is some empty soft drink bottles. This is a proper controlled experiment, so please don’t go changing the experiment design parameters on whim!

 

A Simple Experiment to Test Whether Adding Gravel at the Bottom of a Pot Improves Drainage

Here is a simple experiment that can be set up to determine whether adding gravel at the bottom of a pot improves drainage or not. This would make a great classroom experiment.

1. Make some clear plastic pots by cutting the tops of clear plastic soft drink bottles so the perched water table can be viewed through the sides.
2. Make the same number of decent sized holes (around 6mm or 1/4″) in the bottom of each clear pot.
3. In the first pot, place only potting mix in it, fill to only within 2.5cm (1″) of the pot, leaving a gap from the surface of the potting mix to the top of the pot to make watering easier. When filling the pots, just tap the sides gently to settle the potting mix slightly, don’t compress it down.
4. In all the other pots, add increasing amounts of gravel at the bottom, then fill with potting mix to within 2.5cm (1″) of the pot. Tap the sides gently to settle the potting mix slightly, don’t compress it down.
5. Water each pot with the same volume of water.
6. Wait till all pots drain well, this will depend on the type of potting medium used and the volume of the containers.
7. Observe the perched water table.

If the physics is true, then the perched water table, the wet bottom layer of the potting medium will be the same thickness in every pot, and the gravel will simply push it up higher in the pot because it’s pushing all the potting mix up higher in the pot.

That said, now lets play some mind games!

 

The Permaculture Design Approach, Turning Problems Into Solutions!

If we look at the Permaculture Attitudinal design principle – “Everything Works Both Ways”, we see it states that whether we see something as positive or negative, as a ‘problem’ or as a useful resource, depends on our attitude.

So how can we turn the problems created by adding gravel at the bottom of pots into solutions? This is a real exercise in lateral thinking, or more accurately, Permaculture holistic solutions thinking.

If we do a Permaculture functional analysis of the outcomes our outputs, we see that the technique reduces soil volume and raises the saturated perched water table.

One of the problems gardeners encounter often is unknowingly planting a tiny plant into an overly large pot. Small plants don’t have enough roots to take up huge quantities of water, and in large pots the potting mix stays too wet for too long, causing root rot once again. The growing medium wont be as saturated as the perched water table, but it will still be wet enough for way too long to be detrimental to the plant. There is wisdom in the gardening advice to plant up to the next size pot when repotting, and increase pot size gradually rather than plant into the biggest pot available at the outset.

A shallow rooted plant in a tall narrow pot will have similar issues, there will be too much overly wet potting mix which the roots will never be able to reach, and if the potting mix stays too wet for too long it will break down much faster, and sink down, dropping the level of the plant in the pot. Filling the bottom of the pot with coarse scoria, which is light in weight, will eliminate the unusable space in a tall, narrow pot and effectively reduce pot size to a more suitable volume.

The only kind of plants which love a saturated growing medium are marginal aquatic plants, and there are plenty of useful edible ones such as watercress, taro, kangkong and water chestnuts for example. With these plants it’s much better to remove the drainage altogether and saturate all of the growing medium though, or sit the pots in a saucer of water.

 

There are always exceptions to the rules, as we’ve discussed in this section, but in general, it’s best not to place gravel, stones, pebbles, scoria, terracotta pot shards or any other materials at the bottoms of pots below the growing medium.

Give plants as much space to spread their roots out, relative to what they can use or need. The more moisture retentive growing medium/potting mix available, the less often a plant will need to be watered, as long as the pot is not too big. Nearly all plants prefer a natural wet-dry cycle, as that’s what they experience in nature.

Most people will place a stone or pebble over drainage holes in pots, especially the large central ones at the base of terracotta pots, to prevent the potting mix falling out and making a mess. The point is not to block the hole, but to simply create a loose-fitting barrier to prevent the loss of growing medium while still allowing water to freely drain out.

As a final thought worth pondering, it’s curious how gardening has as its foundations the applied sciences of horticulture and agriculture, yet it’s filled with so much dogma and myths, very strange indeed…

To learn how to improve drainage in pots, please see my article – How to Improve Drainage in Plant Pots, The Proper Way to Do It!

 

 

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD

Share this:

• Facebook
• Pinterest25
• Reddit
• Twitter
• Tumblr
• WhatsApp
• Email
• Print

Related

How to Improve Drainage in Plant Pots, The Proper Way to Do It!

October 6, 2020

In "Gardening for Beginners"

Gardening Questions #004 – Can You Use Shells for Drainage in Houseplant Pots?

January 15, 2021

In "Gardening Information"

How To Plant a Fruit Tree, Step by Step

July 1, 2019

In "DIY instructions"

Posted byAngelo (admin)September 6, 2019Posted inGardening for Beginners, Gardening Information, PermacultureTags:capillary action, container gardening, drainage in pots and containers, explaining capillary action, garden mythbusting, gravel in bottom of plant pots for drainage, growing in pots, how did the tradition of putting gravel at the bottom of pots originate, how to increase drainage in pots and containers, perched water table, perlite, the correct way to increase drainage in pots and containers, vermiculite

Published byAngelo (admin)

Angelo Eliades is a presenter, trainer, writer, permaculture consultant, urban permaculture pioneer and food forest specialist.View all posts by Angelo (admin)

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious post:
Gardening Calendar (Australian Temperate Climate) – September

Next PostNext post:
Garden Arches, Vertical Gardening for More Growing Area in Small Spaces

Type search here

Search for:

Recent Posts

• How to Make an Earwig Bait Trap Using Oil, Water and Soy Sauce
• Book Review – Safer Gardens: Plant Flammability & Planning For Fire by Lesley Corbett
• How to Plant Two or More Trees in the Same Hole for High Density Tree Planting
• Gardening Calendar (Australian Temperate Climate) – June
• How Many Straw Bales Do I Need to Mulch My Garden?
• What Are the Real Health Benefits of Himalayan Salt Lamps?
• A Better Way to Stake Up and Support Vegetables in Pots
• Gardening Calendar (Australian Temperate Climate) – May
• Product Review – ViparSpectra VA600 Dimmable 600W LED Plant Grow Light
• How to Neutralise Glyphosate (Roundup) Herbicide Contamination in Soil

Categories

• Book Reviews
• DIY instructions
• Gardening Calendar
• Gardening for Beginners
• Gardening Information
• Gardening Questions
• Guest Posts
• Health & Wellbeing
• Indoor plants
• My Garden
• Permaculture
• Pests & Diseases
• Plant Propagation
• Product Reviews
• Pruning
• Soils
• Uncategorized
• Upcoming Events
• Videos

Archives

Archives  Select Month   June 2021    May 2021    April 2021    March 2021    February 2021    January 2021    December 2020    November 2020    October 2020    September 2020    August 2020    July 2020    June 2020    May 2020    April 2020    March 2020    February 2020    January 2020    December 2019    November 2019    October 2019    September 2019    August 2019    July 2019    June 2019    May 2019    April 2019    March 2019    February 2019    December 2018    November 2018    October 2018    September 2018    August 2018    July 2018    June 2018    April 2018    March 2018    February 2018    December 2017    November 2017    August 2017    July 2017    June 2017    May 2017    April 2017    March 2017    February 2017    January 2017    December 2016    November 2016    October 2016    September 2016    August 2016    June 2016    May 2016    April 2016    March 2016    February 2016    January 2016    November 2015    October 2015    July 2015    June 2015    May 2015    April 2015    March 2015    February 2015    January 2015    December 2014    September 2014    July 2014    June 2014    March 2014    February 2014    January 2014    October 2013    October 2012    August 2012    May 2012    March 2012    February 2012    January 2012    December 2011    November 2011    September 2011    August 2011    May 2011    April 2011  

Blog Stats

• 7,001,658 hits

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 5,923 other followers

Email Address:

Follow Us

• Facebook
 
• Instagram
 
• Twitter

Instagram

This vivid pink flower is a Anisodontea, also known as a Cape Mallow or African Mallow. The plant grows 1m high x 60cm wide and the flowers are quite large, around 5cm (2") across, and are attractive to bees and butterflies.

Some of this winter's harvest of turmeric rhizomes. When the lower leaves and stem of the plants turn brown, turmeric is ready to harvest.  

This vivid red and yellow flower is a Bidens 'Firelight', and it flowers profusely from spring to autumn. What's more impressive is how much the bees love it, and that's no surprise considering the rich honey aroma of the flowers. Must be a good nectar source too! 

These bright colourful beans are Lima Beans or Madagascar Beans (Phaseolus lunatus}.

A fistful of feijoas! Also known as pineapple guavas, these fruit fall to the ground when they're ready to harvest and are usually left for a few days till they become soft enough to eat.

Photographing one of my small fruit trees, I noticed what looked like a smallish black ant, around 4mm long, running very fast up and down the branches in a frantic search for something. When it flew to another branch I realised it was tiny beneficial wasp, looking for pest insects! 

Top Posts & Pages

• Should You Put Gravel or Rocks at the Bottom of Plant Pots for Drainage?
• Identifying and Growing Edible Aloe Vera
• Why Is My Aloe Vera Plant Turning Yellow and Brown?
• How to Make Compost in 18 Days Using the Berkeley Hot Composting Method
• How to Improve Drainage in Plant Pots, The Proper Way to Do It!
• The Complete Guide to Worm Farming, Vermicomposting Made Easy
• Which Variety of Grape Vine Has Edible Leaves for Making Dolmades?
• Citrus Problems – Why Is My Citrus Tree Dying?
• Wicking Bed Construction, How to Build a Self-Watering Wicking Bed
• No Dig Gardening, Sustainable Gardening With Less Effort

Copyright notice

Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Wolfhart Pannenberg

Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology: Wolfhart Pannenberg

Pannenberg, Wolfhart Contents Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928- ) (Peter Heltzel, 1999) Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928- ) Peter Heltzel, 1999   Formation of a Philosophical Theologian Recovering essential philosophical tools and concepts in a post-Ritshclian German Lutheran confessional context, Pannenberg was able to reestablish the public platform of the discipline of theology in the broader cross-disciplinary conversation of our day. He was prepared to take on a project of this magnitude through a variety of personal and educational experiences in his youth. Wolfhart Pannenberg was born in 1928 in Stettin, Germany (modern day Poland). Although baptized a Lutheran as an infant, during his childhood he had almost no contact with the church. However, during his youth he did have an intense religious experience which he refers to as his "light experience." Placed in the categories of his later theology, his religious experience would be classified as an unthematic experience of God very similar to Rahner’s understanding of religious experience (Pannenberg 1981: 260). A curious lad, Pannenberg sought to understand his experience through reading the great philosophers and religious thinkers. Moreover, one of his teachers proved to be an important influence in Pannenberg’s conversion to the Christian worldview. He encountered this literature teacher, who had been a member of the Confessing Church during the Third Reich, during his final years of high school. This instructor convinced him to take a long hard look at Christianity, a thoughtful period of Pannenberg’s life when he concluded that Christianity was the best philosophy. This "intellectual conversion" launched him into a vocation as a Christian theologian (Pannenberg 1981: 261). Pannenberg began his theological studies after the Second World War at the University of Berlin, studying and teaching throughout his life at some of the greatest institutions in Germany. He would continue his theological investigations at the Universities of Gh ttingen and Basle. At the University of Heidelberg he completed his doctoral dissertation on the doctrine of predestination of the noted medieval scholastic theologian John Duns Scotus (published in 1954) under the supervision of the Lutheran Barthian Edmund Schlink, and in 1955 completed his Habilitationsschrift with an analysis of the role of analogy in Western thought up to Thomas Aquinas (Tupper 1974 :19-44). While Pannenberg was at Basle he studied under Karl Barth, the leading Protestant theologian of his day. Pannenberg appreciated Barth’s Word of God theology which was a post-Kantian renewal of the Reformation theologies of John Calvin and Martin Luther. However, even as a student, Pannenberg sensed that Barth’s stringent critique of natural theology was too radical. Pannenberg’s study of the Medievals made him more sympathetic to God’s general revelation through creation. He was able to work this idea out first in the field of history, through a neo-Hegelian philosophy of history, and later in his work in religion and science. Eventually he was able to draw these two threads together in his life work: a three volume systematic theology. Philosophy of History Pannenberg was able to explore his interest in philosophy of history during his first teaching appointment at the University of Heidelberg, where he remained until called to a vacant chair of systematic theology at the Kirchliche Hochschule at Wuppertal (1958-61) as a colleague of Jh rgen Moltmann. After a period at the University of Mainz (1961-8), he moved to and would retire at the University of Munich, where he was also director of the Ecumenical Institute until 1993 (Pannenberg 1981: 260-263). Throughout his academic career Pannenberg was able to continue to refine a very sophisticated philosophy of history. Universal history was of great theological importance for Pannenberg because it was there in the great acts of God in history that Pannenberg argued that God was known indirectly. For Pannenberg God conducts his self-disclosure through his decisive divine deeds, primarily those in the history of Israel and in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This focus and language of the "act of God" is straight out of the Barthian corpus. Like Barth, Pannenberg emphasizes that the content of revelation is God himself. Barth and Pannenberg agree on that basic Athanasian assertion that God reveals his being through his act, and these two are in a certain sense inseparable. However, for Barth the act of God is a direct a-temporal gift of grace in Jesus Christ, while for Panneberg God’s acts throughout history indirectly reveal himself, supremely in the resurrection. In Barth’s theology the pre-temporal election of the church willed by God before the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:19, 20: but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world) is the a-temporal decisive act of God which fully manifests to humanity in the incarnate Jesus Christ through the graceful illumination of the Holy Spirit. The distinctively Christian understanding of revelation for Pannenberg lies in the way in which publicly available events are interpreted. Pannenberg reasserts the importance of historicity in revelation of God. The resurrection of Jesus is a publicly accessible, objective event in history for Pannenberg. Through the resurrection all people have indirect knowledge of God. Part of the reason for the indirection in Pannenberg’s historical program is his eschatological orientation which asserts that the church will not know God directly until the consummation. For Pannenberg "history" is revelation, while "dialectical presence" is revelation for Barth. Both Pannenberg and Barth provide constructive alternatives to the two revelatory options of their day. The most recent understanding of revelation was "inner experience" as expressed in Schleiermacher’s focus on God-consciousness. Doctrine as revelation is the more traditional model, whether they be the "timeless truths" of only the Scripture (traditional Lutheran theology) or of church doctrine (the Catholic theology of Trent) or a blend of the two (as in Vatican 2). Pannenberg’s proposal is interesting because he is truly doing constructive theology trying to get beyond the impasse of Schleiermacher’s subjective pietism and Barth’s "revelational positivism". The question is does he succeed? This is an open question; however, his acceptance by both conservative and liberal theologians demonstrates that his synthesis has succeeded on the level of theological reconciliation. He is embraced by the liberals because he does not run from the problems of philosophy of history pointed out by Troeltsch like relativismus, while he is likewise embraced by the conservatives because of his orthodox Christology and Soteriology. However one evaluates Pannenberg’s project, contemporary theologians have much to learn through a dialogue with his method, epistemology and philosophy of history and science. Philosophy of Science During the 1970s Pannenberg began to express an interest in the way in which theology relates to the natural sciences. Two papers dating from the period 1971-2 focus on the approach of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and show a clear interest in the general issue of the formulation of a "theology of nature." In one sense, this can be seen as a direct extension of his earlier interest in history. Just as he appealed to the publicly observable sphere of history in his theological analysis of the 1960s, so he appeals to another publicly observable sphere, the world of nature, from the 1970s onwards. Both history and the natural world are available to scrutiny by anyone; the critical question concerns how they are to be understood. Pannenberg sees a necessary connection and interplay between scientific and religious accounts of the world. Pannenberg is clear that the natural sciences and theology are distinct disciplines, with their own understanding of how information is gained and assessed. Nevertheless, both relate to the same publicly observable reality, and they therefore have potentially complementary insights to bring. The area of the "laws of nature" is a case in point, in that Pannenberg believes that the provisional explanations for such laws offered by natural scientist have a purely provisional status, until they are placed on a firmer theoretical foundation by theological analysis. There is thus a clear case to be made for a creative and productive dialogue between the natural sciences and religion; indeed, had this taken place in the past, much confusion and tension could have avoided. Philosophy of Theology: Systematic Theology In the Spring of 1988 Pannenberg published the first volume of his Systematic Theology, comprising the prolegomena to dogmatics and the doctrine of God. The six chapters of volume one explore: How truth is the foundation of systematic theology How the concept of God relates to this truth (natural theology) How the reality of God is understood in relation to other religions How to understand revelation The Trinity The unity and attributes of God. In this work we see a mature Pannenberg who has been able to fulfill his programmatic reflections in Revelation as History. In 1991 and 1993 followed the second and third volumes on christology and the church. The primary theme of his systematic theology is truth. In order to externally verify the truth claims of Christianity, a reflective framework must be established philosophically. For Pannenberg, neither repetition of biblical axioms nor an existential leap of faith go far enough to prove the truth of Christianity. Theological discourse about God requires a relationship to metaphysical reflection if its claim to truth is to be valid. (1990: 6). Metaphysics provides an ideational superstructure in which to assert and evaluate truth claims. These claims are necessary in establishing theological discourse, because in Christian theology everything depends on the reality of God (1991:5). For example, since Pannenberg believes in the truth of the biblical narratives he prefers to refer to them as history, instead of mere "stories" as has become fashionable among contemporary narrative theologians. By centering his project on the primacy and possibility of the norm of truth, Pannenberg stands against much of the anti-realist, subjectivist postmodernists like Richard Rorty. Although Pannenberg is a realist, he is a realist of a particular stripe, namely an eschatological realist. He believes that there really is a capital T truth out there, but that we will not know it completely until consummation of the ages, the end of the eschaton. Since all any human knower including a theologian ever has is a provisional perception of truth, all theological statements are tentative, not fully revealing and in that sense hypothetical. For Pannenberg, "History, in all its totality, can only be understood when it is viewed from its endpoint. This point alone provides the perspective from which the historical process can be seen in its totality, and thus properly understood….The end of history is disclosed proleptically in the history of Jesus Christ. In other words, the end of history, which has yet to take place, has been disclosed in advance of the event in the person and work of Christ" (McGrath, 1998, 303).  Reality finds its ground in a rapidly approaching future.  It is in this future that Christian hope finds its epicenter.  Pannenberg’s eschatological realism offers a dynamic sense of the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom coming from the future is what is unique to the Christian apocalypse—unveiling--of God’s reign, a righteous rule of love and justice. Conclusion Pannenberg is well situated among the great contemporary Protestant theologians. On the one hand, he is clearly a confessional Lutheran "Word of God" theologian. Yet, on the other hand, from a methodological point of view he is a post-Enlightenment liberal. His attempt to bring together Lutheran tradition with a contemporary method is what makes his theology so interesting and compelling. One important legacy that Panneberg will leave for young theologians at the turn of the century is an interdisciplinary paradigm for constructing theology. Pannenberg’s Systematic Theology is a brilliant presentation of an authentically Christian and intellectually plausible view of reality, developed in intradisciplinary theological cooperation and tested in interdisciplinary dialogue with other sciences. Philosophy plays a critical, muli-faceted role in theology which is conducted in this paradigm. It provides a metaphysical reflection to describe the world which is an independent locus of revelation of God. However, one variable that Pannenberg has not fully operationalized in his systematic theology is comparative theology, seeing Christian theology from the outside perspective of other theologies. Nonetheless, Pannenberg, by taking Troeltsch’s philosophical criticisms to heart, staying true to Lutheran Orthodoxy, and establishing the credibility of the Christian belief through the cannons of probable reasoning, Pannenberg has produced a post-Enlightenment Christian system which is comprehensive, credible and compelling.   Bibliography Primary Works of Pannenberg Anthropology in Theological Perspective. 1985. trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Philadelphia: Westminster. Basic Questions in Theology. 1971. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Trans. George H. Kelm of Grundfragen systematischer Theologie, Gesammelte Aufs@ tze. G` ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1967. "The Doctrine of Creation and Modern Science." Zygon 23 (1988):3-21. "God’s Presence in History." 1981. Christian Century. 98:3/11:260-3. Introduction to Systematic Theology. 1991. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans. Jesus—God and Man. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968. Trans. by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe of Grundzh ge der Christologie. Gh tersloh: Gh tersloher Verlagshaus G. Mohn, 1964. Metaphysics and the Idea of God. Trans. by Philip Clayton. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Revelation as History. 1968. coauthored with Rolf Rendtorff, Trutz Rendtorff, and Ulrich Wilkens. New York: Macmillan. Trans. David Granskow of Offenbarung als Geschichte. G` ttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1963. Systematic Theology. 1991. Vol.1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Trans. Geoffrey Bromiley from Systematische Theologie. 1988. Band 1. Guttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Theology and the Philosophy of Science. 1976. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Trans. Francis McDonagh of Wissenschaftstheorie und Theologie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1973. Secondary Works Barth, Karl. 1962. Church Dogmatics, III/1, trans. G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Braaten, C.E., and Clayton, P. 1988. The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press. Hefner, P. 1989. "The Role of Science in Pannenberg’s Theological Thinking." Zygon 24: 135-51. McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Russell, R.J. 1988. "Contingency in Physics and Cosmology: A Critique of the Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg." Zygon 23:23-43. Tupper, E.F. 1974. The Theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. London. Wildman, Wesley J. 1998. Fidelity with Plausibility. New York: SUNY. The information on this page is copyright ©1994-2008, Wesley Wildman (basic information here), unless otherwise noted. If you want to use ideas that you find here, please be careful to acknowledge this site as your source, and remember also to credit the original author of what you use, where that is applicable. If you want to use text or stories from these pages, please contact me at the feedback address for permission.

 

Historicity of Nature: Essays on Science and Theology - by Pannenberg, Wolfhart.

Historicity of Nature: Essays on Science and Theology - Kindle edition by Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Historicity of Nature: Essays on Science and Theology Kindle Edition

by Wolfhart Pannenberg  (Author)  Format: Kindle Edition

4.5 out of 5 stars    3 ratings

----

232 pages

November 1, 2007

---

Known as one of the most outstanding theologians of the twentieth century, Wolfhart Pannenberg is also considered a great interdisciplinary thinker. Now, essays and articles on science and theology that are central to understanding Pannenberg's theories have been collected into one volume.

Niels Henrik Gregersen, a former student of Pannenberg and now professor of systematic theology at Copenhagen University, has compiled the writings in four sections: Methodology, Creation and Nature's Historicity, Religion and Anthropology, and Meaning and Metaphysics. 

Included in this volume are:

•Translations of Pannenberg's principled argument for the consonance between science and religion, including contingency and laws of nature, field theories and space-time, and divine action

•Translations of Pannenberg's theory of theology as a rational hypothetical science, including his discussions with leading British and American scholars such as A. N. Whitehead, John Cobb, and Langdon Gilkey

•Previously unpublished articles on the problems between science and theology in the course of modern history, explaining why chance may be more important for theology than design

•Translations of seminal articles that articulate Pannenberg's understanding of the role of religion in human nature

•One of the few theological articles on aggression as a psychological and social phenomenon

With this collection, the essays of this important contemporary theologian and his illuminating views are presented in one convenient volume.

-----

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Thanks to Niels Gregersen as editor and Linda Maloney as translator, The Historicity of Nature brings to the English-speaking world a collection of some of Wolfhart Pannenberg's finest essays on the cutting edge of the dialogue between theology and science, many of which were previously available only in German. I enthusiastically recommend this work to all scholars seriously engaged in this dialogue." -- Robert John Russell --This text refers to the paperback edition.

--------------------

About the Author

Niels Henrik Gregersen is professor of systematic theology, University of Copenhagen. Dr. Gregersen holds his PhD from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. His two primary research fields are systematic theology and science and religion. He is cofounder and since 2002, executive committee member of the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR). Since 2003, he has served as chairperson of the Ecumenical Institute in Strasbourg, France, and as a member of the Council of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF). He is author of four books and has edited a dozen volumes in the fields of theology and science and religion.

Wolfhart Pannenberg is emeritus professor of systematic theology at the University of Munich. One of the best-known German theologians, Pannenberg was born in Stettin, Germany, in 1928. He began his theological studies at the University of Berlin after World War II and completed two doctoral dissertations as early as 1953 and 1955. He studied philosophy with Nicolai Hartman, Karl Jaspers, and Karl Loewith, and theology with Karl Barth, Gerhard von Rad, and Edmund Schlink. He lives in Grafeling, Germany.

--This text refers to the paperback edition.

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Templeton Press; First edition (November 1, 2007)

Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 1, 2007

Print length ‏ : ‎ 232 pages

---------------------

Customer reviews

4.5 out of 5 stars

Top reviews from the United States

foggybottom

5.0 out of 5 stars More Pannenberg on Kindle, please...

Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2013

Verified Purchase

Great theological thought for our time. Finally, someone who takes modernity seriously and thinks the Christian theology can engage it authentically without retreating into unquestionable realms.

5 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Jesus: God and Man (SCM Classics) - Kindle edition by Pannenberg, Wolfhard, Grenz, Stanley J., Priebe, D. A., Wilkins, L. L.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Jesus: God and Man (SCM Classics) - Kindle edition by Pannenberg, Wolfhard, Grenz, Stanley J., Priebe, D. A., Wilkins, L. L.. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Jesus: God and Man (SCM Classics) Kindle Edition

by Wolfhard Pannenberg (Author), Stanley J. Grenz (Preface), D. A. Priebe (Translator), & 1 more  Format: Kindle Edition

4.2 out of 5 stars    24 ratings

Part of: SCM Classics (12 Books)

Wolfhart Pannenberg is one of the giants of twentieth century German systematic theology, and all serious students of Christian doctrine are obliged to take account of his work. In particular, his weighty but succinct single-volume systematics, "Jesus - God and Man" - which was first published in English in 1968, and which has since formed the basis of countless courses and seminars in the field (as well as the inspiration behind many dissertations) - is perhaps the single publication by Pannenberg that might be called indispensible and unmissable. For Pannenberg one can only talk about God when one at the same time talks about Jesus. Theology and Christology, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Jesus as the Christ, are therefore bound together. This book develops the connection systematically, through a careful mode of biblical, dogmatic and philosophical exposition. Preface By Stanley J Grenz 'A model of how doctrine should be done.' Theology 'A masterpiece from one of the seminal minds of our era ... This monograph will, I predict, prove itself to be one of the finest books written in theology in our time.' Methodist Recorder

Editorial Reviews

Review

In compiling an excellent bibliography of sources on the female diaconate, Wijngaards has done a fine service to the non-European reader. (...) While this book is replete with interesting and valuable citations and references for the scholarm it continues the popular style of Wijngaards's The Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church (2001), and is more suitable for the general reader. Phyllis Zagano, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y. THEOLOGICAL STUDIES, December 2004.

'This book is a "must" for all serious students of contemporary theology.'

Expository Times

'A model of how doctrine should be done.'

Theology

'A masterpiece from one of the seminal minds of our era… One of the finest books written in theology in our time.'

Methodist Recorder

--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

About the Author

Wolfhart Pannenberg is Professor of Systematic Theology Emeritus at the University of Munich. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Product details

ASIN ‏ : ‎ B00653OWFK

Publisher ‏ : ‎ SCM Press (November 9, 2011)

Print length ‏ : ‎ 432 pages

Customer reviews

4.2 out of 5 stars

Top reviews

Top reviews

Top reviews from the United States

Denny Flowers

5.0 out of 5 stars What's next?

Reviewed in the United States on August 31, 2016

Verified Purchase

As an armchair theologian who has spend a considerable amount of time understanding Rudolf Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament, Pannenberg's Jesus-God and Man is the answer to my first question after Bultmann, "What's next?". Now I have to ask again, "What next?"

I found this book much harder to digest and read then Bultmann's TTNT. It is very systematic and for me has become much more of a reference work as I continue to come across questions in my own understanding of Christian origins and contemporary faith. Because of the nature of this systematic work, it is very difficult to point out any one chapter that does justice to the whole. However, for me the effort has been worth it. I have come back to this book several times after beginning to read it all the way through and decided to take it much more piecemeal. I believe unless you brain works like Pannenberg, which mine does not, you will benefit from the same approach.

4 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Derrick A. Peterson

5.0 out of 5 stars An astounding piece of scholarship!

Reviewed in the United States on February 21, 2007

Verified Purchase

I have been a reader of Pannenberg for some time now, but it was not until recently that I finished Jesus: God and Man, and I must say that I was left, after finishing this book on a second read-through, simply amazed. Pannenberg is, in my opinion, one of the most profound theologians of the 20th century, though, unfortunately (especially at conservative Bible-colleges like the one I attend) there is a surprising reticence on the one hand, and an unfortunate ignorance on the other, that truncates any viable discussion of Pannenberg. The same could, of course, be said about Moltmann, or Jenson or (as my friend Halden would undoubtedly champion) about von Balthazar's theology (of which I myself am admittedly fairly ignorant).

Reviewing a book of this scope always makes me pensively deliberate with myself how I could possible isolate key parts of the text to present a viable synopsis. This book is no different. One of the additional difficulties with Pannenberg is due to his systematic nature: it is hard to "isolate" pieces of his work, say a quote or an idea, without running the enormous risk of completely misrepresenting moments of Pannenberg's systematic flourish. Hence, and this is very important for those of you who stumble across this review: it is probably going to be long. So, without reading the whole thing, here: Buy this book! I wholly and totally recommend it for reading in Christology. It is a classic that should be in every theologians library. No one will agree fully with Pannenberg, but this book will nonetheless stimulate converstation and thought! With that disclaimer then, I begin.

As one can easily ascertain from the title, this monograph by Pannenberg is on Christology. Though to speak of this as "Christology proper," would be to overstate what Pannenberg is attempting to do. This is really a book of Christological methodology, rather than material conclusions (though, of course, these are present as well.) Pannenberg is attempting to put forth the program he hinted at in his very first publication Revelation as History, which runs decidedly obverse to the anti-historical leanings of Bultmann's demythologization, and the so called "neo-orthodoxy" of Pannenberg's mentor, Barth. Though the term is frequently misunderstood, especially in reference to Pannenberg's use of it (to which we shall return) one could roughly describe the program as "from below." Whereas in theology "from above," Jesus' divinity and the doctrine of the incarnation stand at the center, Pannenberg's is an attempt to show why the confession of Jesus as divinity is materially legitimated by Jesus' own life and from within the horizon of Jewish apocalyptic expectation. Indeed, one of the repeating themes that resonates throughout this book is a tireless drumbeat evaluating the evolution of Christian belief in Jesus through the history of traditions. If a belief in Jesus (say, Divinity) can be shown to be a foreign addition of Greek metaphysics (ala Harnack's thesis), or say, the idea of a descending and ascending redeemer to be a Gnosticizing tendency of the tradition, then the basis of authentic proclamation has been defeated.

This leads to another central theme of the book, in dialogue with the concern for material legitimation: the Resurrection as the center of theology. This is perhaps the most misunderstood part of the book, in my opinion, and so garners the largest portion of this review. What occurs here is a wholly unique and (at least in my opinion,) convincing "demonstration" of the hypothesis of Jesus' divinity, centered around his Resurrection. To understand the importance of the Resurrection, we must understand 3 things: 1.) Jesus' pre-Easter proclamation, activity, and commission 2.) What exactly was entailed in so called "apocalyptic eschatology" of the Jewish tradition(s) and 3.) how the Resurrection ties these first two together:

Jesus' pre-Easter proclamation, according to Pannenberg, was to proclaim that the Kingdom of God was near, and that the fate of men in relation to this coming kingdom was decided in relation to Jesus (e.g. the Son of Man sayings in Luke 12:8 and parallels) where people's current community with Jesus would determine their relationship to the coming Son of Man who would stand as Judge. On top of this, of course, Jesus also freely interpreted the law, which implicitly gave him authority higher than that of Moses. Jesus placed his "but I say to you..." (e.g. Mt. 5) in the center of the proclamations. Since in Jewish tradition the only authority that was higher than Moses was God, this is a claim to equality with God. Related to all this is Jesus' claim to forgive sin, which is an important part, but doesn't stand as an "isolated" or "immediate" claim to divinity as many conservatives have supposed, but stands in a meaningful relationship to the proclamation of the kingdom of God (which will be explained in a moment).

This brings us to the Jewish apocalyptic expectation. Only at the end of history, according to such expectation, could God be fully revealed: "In the Old and New testaments do speak of the subject matter (revelation) as a self-revelation of God, although it is not terminologically so designated. In the Old testatment this involves especially the so-called erweiswort ("word of demonstration") formulas that designate knowledge of YWHW's divinity as the purpose of the divine activity in history. The more all happenings were perceived in Israel as a single great historical unity, the more the full knowledge of YHWH became an event that would be possible only at the end of all happenings. YWHW would complete the entire course of world events, world history, in order that man might thereby know his divnity. Only at the end of history is he ultimately revealed from his deeds as the one God who accomplishes everything...correspondingly, Jewish apocalyptic expected God's full revelation as an event of the end of time." (p.128)

This sets up the relation of Jesus' proclamation of the coming kingdom (essentially the end of time) and his ability to forgive sins. What is salvation (i.e. forgiveness of sins)? Pannenberg defines it at its core as "openness to God," being open to God's future. This is in line with the Jewish apocalyptic understanding where salvation, and the ultimate "forgiveness of sins" in the judgement of God, is not only an "immediate, vertical" reality, but precisely is immediate because of the promise of God's coming at the end. Only in this way is it present: because it was beleived that God would judge justly *at the end*, already then his servants stand justified because God is Lord of the entirety of history, not the other way around. The presence of salvation has a proleptic, anticipatory structure: it is "now" because the "it will be" is present through the promise---the fulfillment being what retroactively confirms the presence of salvific reality "already" present. Hence in the proclamation of the kingdom, in Jesus' immanent expectation, because salvation, the fulfilled destiny of man, consists in the fulfillment of openness for God, it is already present for those who accept Jesus' message, and so are placed in a relation of immediacy and openness to the God-who-is-coming. For this reason Jesus could grant salvation directly: "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see!" (Lk 10:23) Jesus' claim to forgive sins is an *eschatological* concept that stands related to the proclamation of the kingdom (an insight lost to many evangelicals), and is an intimate effect or conclusion from Christ's eschatological consciousness. Moreover, stated in another way: "the nearness of the immanent Kingdom of God [calls men to repentance and obedience, and] puts all things into that relation to God which belonged to them as God's creatures from the very beginning. It is just this that demonstrates the universal truth of Jesus' eschatological message: it reveaals the 'natural' essence of men and things with an urgency nowhere achieved outside the eschatological light." (p.231)

Yet, as Pannenberg notes critically regarding several theologians, if we leave it here, what have we really "shown?" All of this up to now has remained at the level of assertion. How are Jesus' claims, his immanent expectation, verified? Indeed, as has been pointed out, the kingdom did not come, at least not in the way perhaps expected. This is where Pannenberg really shines. Jesus' immanent expectation was fulfilled in his own resurrection. We have to understand the the resurrection is not just an isolated or individual occurence, but one that stands in relation to the end of history, according to the apocalytpic expectation (e.g. Is. 26:7, Dan. 12:1-3 etc...) Pannenberg, from this, puts forward several thesis, a couple of which I will touch upon: If Jesus has been resurrected, then the end of the world has begun in him. This is the first closely related to a second: If Jesus has been raised, in the Jewish mind this could be nothing else than a verification by YHWH of Jesus' past life. No Jew would have thought such an occurance as happening outside the jurisdiction of their God. These two thesis interact: If Jesus' past life has been validated, not only through the validation of his immanent expectation of the end in his own resurrection, but also since Jesus' claim to forgive sins (an eschatological concept, remember) has been retroactively validated, this means that *the end is present proleptically in Jesus*. Jesus' resurrection verified his claim to authority, and hence it is also a confirmation of his proclamation that the kingdom of God is near. This is the basic structure of salvation, that Jesus proclaims the nearing kingdom and hence places everything in its `natural' relation to God, because at the end of all events in the eschaton the essence of things will be revealed to be what they are because of their standing in relation to the totality of all other things in light of God's revelation. Because the resurrection is a validation of this basic expectation, and also a validation of Jesus' understanding that he himself was inaugurating that kingdom and able as such to present salvation as already present, that it was present in himself, the material fulfillment of Jesus own expectation in the eschatologically significant event of the resurrection indicates that the kingdom actually IS present in Jesus' proclamation of the coming kingdom, that is, salvation is already occurring (proleptically) in the form of men's relation and belief in Jesus because this reorients them wholly to the kingdom.

But as such, since the kingdom can now be seen as actually present in Jesus' proclamation, that the eschaton is proleptically present in him, because the resurrection (given the apocalyptic connotations) is a material fulfillment of Jesus' basic expectations, then *God has been revealed in Jesus because in him the end has occurred*. Hence it is not JUST that Jesus has been resurrected that we can say the end has begun in him (though this is the epistemological and ontological locus of the decision) but the retroactive verification of Jesus' individuality through the apocalyptic act of God indicates that that Jesus was correct in his placement of himself as executor of the end, as able to eschatologically forgive sins in the immedate present and hence the end is present in Jesus. Just so, because the end is present in Jesus, Jesus is God's revelation as God can and will only be revealed at the end of all events. Hence Jesus' own claims to know God as father and to reveal him (e.g. Matt. 11:27) are related to this basic eschatological horizon which understood God as "near." God can no longer be thought without Jesus, in whom the end is proleptically present: Jesus is God's revelation of Himself.

Pannenberg then follows a line started by Barth: If Jesus is God's revelation, if God now, because He would only be revealed in total at the end of all events, is now revealed in Jesus then the following occurs: "Jesus' resurrection from the dead, in which the end that stands before all men has happened before its time, is the actual event of revelation. Only because of Jesus' resurrection, namely, because this event is the beginning of the end facing all men, can one speak of God's self-revelation in jesus Christ...The concept of self-revelation includes the fact that there can only be one single such revelation...When someone has disclosed himself ultimately in a definite particular event, he cannot again disclose himself in the same sense in another event different from the first...thus either there is always only a partial self-disclosure of God that is perceived under one-sided aspects, or there is in one instance a revelation that certainly is unique by definition, because a plurality again would abrogate its character as revelation...[and] the concept of God's self-revelation contains the idea the the Revealer and what is Revealed are identical...If this were not so, then the human event of Jesus' life would veilthe God who is active therein and thus excluse His full revelation...If God is revealed in Jesus Christ, who or what God is becomes defined only by the Christ event. Thus Jesus belongs to the definition of God, and thus to his divinity, his essence. The essence of God is not accessible at all without Jesus Christ." (p.129-130) "And in view of God's eternity, the revelatory character of Jesus' resurrection means that God was always one with Jesus even before his earthly birth. Were it otherwise, Jesus would not be in person the one revelation of the eternal God." (p.153) Hence "The representation of the Christ event as the descent and reascent of the redeemer hardly involves a Gnosticizing reinterpretation that misconstrued the Jewish tradition and that would be explained as a lack of understanding for the original...Christian message...Rather the resurrected Lord's essential unity with God leads to the idea of preexistence through its own intrinsic logic." (p.153-154). The fullest statement of this comes at the end of the book, and combines the various ideas here presented: "The transition from Jesus' announcement of the imminent Kingdom of God to the confession by his community of Jesus' own kingly rule is to be understood as a materially established step in the primitive Christian history of traditions, not to be judged as an arbitrary leap or even as falling away from Jesus' proclamation. Because Jesus' resurrection confirmed his earthyl claim to authority by the fulfillment of the eschatological future in his own person, he no longer just anticipated the judgement of Him with whom the eschatological reality begins as he did in his earhtly activity, but he himself has now become in person the reality of the future eschatological salvation...Differently expressed, through the resurrection, the revealer of God's eschatological will became the incarnation of the eschatological realit itself; the ultimate realization of God's will for humanity and for the whole of creation could therefore be expected from Him. Moreover, because Jesus' claim was eschatological in character, no other could be conceived alongside Him to bring in the eschatological consummation..." (p.367)

PHEW! Well that was a long winded explanation, and this is only a SMALL portion of the entire book (though I would argue the entire book is essentially an unpacking of this basic concept.) The book itself is longer than the pagination would have you believe due to the incredibly small print used. If one were to use the font size in Pannenberg's Systematics for this book, it would swell another 100 pages (give or take)! There need to be some disclaimers on Pannenberg's method as well, the first is short, the second long (ya I know, roll your eyes...well you don't have to read it): The first is that Pannenberg has often been criticized for his "from below " approach. There are many who argue that Pannenberg needed to supplement also a "from above" approach, a criticism that Pannenberg wholly agrees with. He never intended for this book to be read by itself, but in light of his entire project. The Systematic THeology represents more the "from above movement" (for an appraisal and summary of methodology, see: F. LeRon Shult's The Postfoundationalist Task of Theology)

The second disclaimer: , Pannenberg has occasionally been accused as being an Adoptionist. (See: Donald Bloesch, Jesus Christ Lord and Savior p.142, who accuses Pannenberg of seeing Christ as adopted at the time of His Resurrection). But this is simply not the case. Those like Bloesch (and others) that say Pannenberg believes Christ to have been adopted at the Resurrection have both 1.) missed explicit statements to the contrary (e.g. JGM pp.127-141, esp. p.135) but have also, in general, misunderstood Pannenberg's metaphysical philosophy. See: Wolfhart Pannenberg, Metaphysics and the Idea of God (Grand Rapids, Eerdman's Publishing, 2001)

Metaphysically speaking, any perception of finite parts, or the finite parts themselves (which Pannenberg terms "noetic" and "ontic" conceptions of the limit respectively) can only be understood in relationship to other parts. So to speak parts are parts only in their relationship to other parts. Every time we draw a border, says Pannenberg, we have thought, however vaguely, of something that lie beyond that border. This leads to the dialectical concept of "whole," because parts are parts, almost tautologically, in relation to a whole of the parts.

Every finite thought, then, borrowing from Descartes formulation, presupposes the infinite "unifying unity" that lay behind the whole. This Pannenberg calls a "nonthematic perception" or intuition of the infinite contained in every finite content of consciousness. So to speak, every finite content, both in our understanding of it (noetic) and in itself (ontic) has (to borrow Gadamer's expression) an expressed and unexpressed association to the rest of the totality of reality. What this does then, is to point to the future as the source of completion or totality, because only when (if) the future is completed (which Pannenberg later draws affinities to the Christian understanding of the eschaton) will objects be given to themselves their totality, and hence their essence.

This breeds a specific problem, however: if the preceding is true, then can it be really so that everything is not "what it is" yet? Pannenberg answers the affirmative while circumventing relativism or skepticism. He says that everything that is, exists in a mode of anticipation of its potential completion, and as such, everything's essence exists in relationship to a potential future completion, the future being the source of the wholeness of finite being. Pannenberg ends chapter 5 of Metaphysics with a particularly mind-bending statement: "the essence of events and forms within the natural world changes over the course of time; that is, what they are changes...only at the end of their movement through time, or at the end of more complex series of events, could anyone actually decide what makes up their distinctive character, their essence. At that time, one would have to maintain however that this [final state] had been the essence of the thing in question all along [emphasis mine]...the decision concerning the being that stands at the end of the process has retroactive power...if motion is understood as goal directed becoming, then the goal at which it aims, which will be 'completely' reached at its end, must somehow be already present and efficacious during the motion...if one allows this description (strange as it may seem) to sink it a bit, holding back the overused metaphor of seedlike predisposition and developement, it becomes clear that the presence of the entelecheia in the process of becoming has an anticipatory structure: it implies an anticipatory realization of the eidos before actual realization." (pp.105-106)

Pannenberg points to Jesus as a particular elucidation of this structure: Jesus Resurrection points to a general future resurrection from the dead, but in essence "the eschatological resurrection is viewed as already having broken into history as an anticipation of its final state. The final reality of the eschaton is present proleptically in Jesus as anticipation of its final consummation." (Ibid). But, more importantly, in JGM, Pannenberg writes "Nevertheless the idea that Jesus had received divinity only as a consequence of his resurrection is not tenable. We have seen in our discussion of the meaning of the resurrection event that the character of the confirmation of Jesus' pre-Easter claim is connected with the resurrection. To this extent the resurrection event has retroactive power. Jesus did not simply become something that he previously had not been, but his pre-Easter claim was confirmed by God. This confirmation, the manifestation of Jesus' `divine Sonship' by God, is the new thing brought by the Easter event. However, as confirmation, the resurrection has retroactive force for Jesus' pre-Easter activity, which taken by itself was not yet recognizable as being divinely authorized and its authorization was also not yet definitively settled. However, this has been revealed in its divine legitimation in the light of Jesus' resurrection." (p.135) He goes on to write that "Had Jesus not been raised from the dead, it would have been decided that he also had not been one with God previously. But through his resurrection, it is decided, not only so far as our knowledge is concerned, but with respect to reality, that Jesus is one with God and retroactively that he was also already one with God previously." (p.136) Hence this isn't just an epistemological retroaction, where Jesus is now just SEEN as always having been one with God, but Pannenberg would argue that the ontological state of the event is inseperable from any epistemology we derive from it. Hence Pannenberg is attempting to take seriously the actual course of history.

Well, for anyone who read the whole review, bravo! I recommend this book to anyone interested either in Pannenberg or Christology. Just be prepared for an intense read!

Read more

43 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

Wallace Fred Hammond

5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars

Reviewed in the United States on October 23, 2017

Verified Purchase

This book was purchased as a textbook for classes I am taking

Helpful

Report abuse

John Hunter

1.0 out of 5 stars What???

Reviewed in the United States on December 12, 2017

Verified Purchase

Completely unintelligible. Steeped in German theology, the author jumps around so quickly, one cannot keep track o f the conversation

Helpful

Report abuse

Bob and MaX

5.0 out of 5 stars good

Reviewed in the United States on October 11, 2014

Verified Purchase

good

Helpful

Report abuse

Greg

5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars

Reviewed in the United States on August 14, 2015

Verified Purchase

Great book.

Helpful

Report abuse

Nancy W

4.0 out of 5 stars Four Stars

Reviewed in the United States on September 21, 2014

Verified Purchase

Academic

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse

John Tripi

1.0 out of 5 stars A WOLFHART WITH NO HEART FOR JESUS

Reviewed in the United States on March 17, 2015

Verified Purchase

Before purchasing this book I researched the author. People have boasted about his great scholarly works. The title interested me as it seems to imply the two natures of Christ: as God in His divinity and as Man in His humanity. Upon merely scanning the index and thumbing through random pages I immediately came upon things that seriously disturbed me. Overlooking the stale writing style, the author had some phrases that appeared rather anti Christ, to this fundamental believer. I was so shocked and dismayed, having read so much positive about Wolfhart, that I didn't have the heart to go on. He actually denied Christ in many segments. I rarely do this but I had to throw the book away. It didn't even qualify for my cultic pile of books for future reference. I do not recommend this book and would be leery whatever other books he has authored.

3 people found this helpful

Helpful

Report abuse