Seminar

Professor
Lecturer
Date

: The theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg

: Dr. Dr. Hans Schwarz
: Moiss Israel Medrano Garay.
: 12/07/2014

The Reconciliation of the World

Introduction:
What is reconciliation? How does it effected? And, by whom? It can be said, that these are
the general questions which Pannenberg dealt with in chapter 11th of his Systematic Theology
(vol.2). More specifically, the author addresses the relation between reconciliation and salvation
in the Christian theological thought; the centrality of Jesus death and history, for reconciliation;
the human participation in reconciliation; and reconciliation of the world as an act of the trinity.
For Pannenberg, the meaning of reconciliation as found in Paul has undergone a shift
in the history of Christian doctrine and has become narrower in its range, and the death of Jesus
has taken on a different sense. So then, Pauls understanding of reconciliation is important to get
a right interpretation. This is stated in the following way for the author: Precisely in its original
Pauline thrust and breadthit has the potential to serve as the key to an appropriate
interpretation of the significance of Jesus and of the whole process of imparting salvation.1
In what it follows, then, I describe Pannenbergs idea of reconciliation as is to be found in
this chapter (11th). But before, it is important to know the structure of the whole section to get a
general picture about the way the author present his thoughts.

1. The structure and its main points

The chapter (11th) is divided into five sub-sections in Pannenbergs exposure, as it follows:
Firstly, Salvation and Reconciliation; secondly, The Concept and the Doctrine of Reconciliation;
thirdly, Representation as a Salvific Event; then, the Triune God as reconciling the world with
himself; and, finally, The Gospel.2

This is the chapter 11th of the Wolfhart Pannenbergs Systematic Theology (vol.2). Here I use the English
translation: Systematic Theology (vol.2). Translated from German by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids,
Michigan, Eerdmans, 1994, 397 464.
1
Ibd., 403.
2
This paper is based on pages 397 437, i.e. the three first sub-sections.

According to Pannenberg himself, the first sub-section tried to clarify the systematic function of
the Pauline concept of reconciliation3 which help to understand the meaning of Jesus death
and, through it, the whole process of salvation; in the second sub-section, he shows that, with
regard to the sense of reconciliation, the world must be reconciled to God, not God to the world,
and that Gods act in reconciling the world certainly took place in Christs passion. The concept
covers no merely the past of Jesus, but also the present apostolic ministry of reconciliation.4
In the third sub-section, he argues that the significance of the atoning death of Christ is a nonclosed event in Jesus death on the Cross, in his own words: we cannot restrict the significance
of the death of Christ as vicarious expiation to the crucifixion of Jesus as a past event but that
there is also a dimension of implicit representation that is actualized only with the bringing in of
those for whom Christ died.5 Sections 4 and 5 are not part of this presentation.
Nevertheless, in order to understand the idea of reconciliation of Pannenberg it is necessary to
unfold, but succinctly, all the related concepts of the author.
2. A brief development of Pannenbergs key concepts
It can be said that the main concepts in Pannenberg exposure are the following:
reconciliation, salvation, atonement (vicarious expiation), representation, and redemption. Let's
see how the different concepts and arguments are presented by the author in the different subsections.
2.1 Salvation and reconciliation
As indicated earlier,6 Pannenberg asserts that Pauls concept of reconciliation, in its original
situation, is the key for a systematic interpretation of the significance of the death of Jesus, and
through it, to the whole mediatory process of salvation. Pauls concept suffered a subsequent
shift in Christian doctrine, which reduced its amplitude and its reference to Jesus death.
Reconciliation in Pauls understanding, as the author put it, is linked to the history and death of
Jesus: It is in and by Jesus that future salvation is opened up for believers and can be attained
now:7 salvation is mediated by the past event of Jesus Christs death and resurrection. In other
words, reconciliation for Paul is the condition for the future salvation (stria8); it is that state of
3

bid., 437
dem.
5
dem.
6
In page 1.
7
Cf. bd., 400.
8
For the author, stria carries the sense of integrity of life: wholeness. Cf. Ibd., 399.
4

peace and justification with God that brings hope for the deliverance at the future judgment9 a
hope that rest on the fact that pardon in the coming judgment is pronounced already for those
who believe in the crucified and risen Christ.10 So, for Paul, says Pannenberg, salvation
(stria) is still a matter of hope but is yet present in Jesus Death and resurrection.
Does the concept of salvation and reconciliation in Paul correspond to the message of Jesus? For
Pannenberg, Pauls theology is in keeping with the relation between future and present of the
divine rule in the message of Jesus.11 In Jesus message, salvation which is mediated by him
consists of fellowship with God and the related life, which also embraces a renewal of
fellowship with others.12 Therefore, Jesus message of salvation is to be summarized in the
participation in the kingdom of God;13 it has an eschatological character. This eschatological
character of the salvation in the message of Jesus stands in critical opposition to all achievement
of human life in this world.14 Nevertheless, in Jesus message the salvation of the rule of God is
already present for believers.15
The same is true for the apostolic message of salvation: it has an eschatological character, and is
already present. However, here the fellowship with Jesus takes the center: fellowship with the
Crucified is the basis for the hope of participation in the new life that was manifested in his
resurrection.16 Henceforth, it was highlighted more and more the present participation in
salvation for believers, which, at some point, resulted in a shift from Pauls original conception
of reconciliation to the idea of salvation as salvation of sinful life at the present.17
In any case, there are still profound differences between the language of Jesus and the Apostle
Paul, concerning the presence of salvation in believers, warns Pannenberg. Such differences are
due to the fact of the existing separation between the public performance of the Apostle, through
Jesus crucifixion and resurrection, and the earthly manifestation of Jesus himself: in the
9

Pannenberg has affirmed that for the Apostol Paul reconciliation, justification, and deliverance in the coming
judgment form an indissoluble whole. Cf. dem. Also, the author has suggested that Paul is in correspondence with
the Jewish expectations of salvation which was understood as deliverance in the approaching world judgment. Cf.
dem.
10
dem.
11
Ibd., 400
12
Ibd., 398.
13
Here Pannenberg cite the following texts: Matt 5: 3par., 10; 19:14; Luke 6:20
14
Mark 8:35par.
15
Ibd., 398 and 401 402.
16
Ibd., 398. According to Pannenberg, for Jesus the resurrection of the dead was already a constituent part of the
salvation of Gods coming rule (Mark 12:27). dem.
17
Ibd., 402.

message of Jesus, salvation made itself already present for believers, while Paul understood the
crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as the accomplishing of reconciliation in which the hope for
salvation rests.18
Theology can connect the Pauline conception of salvation with the message and actions of Jesus,
if the concept of salvation is not linked exclusively to the future as Paul sometimes does it ,
and also if it is assumed that between the two conceptions there is a common element, that is: the
death of Jesus has occurred as a result of his message and earthly work.19
In conclusion, theological reasoning must consider, on one side, the linking of salvation with the
future of God, and on the other side, the mediatory participation in salvation through Jesus
Christs history. Yet, it is necessary to delve into the concept of reconciliation for a better
understanding of its meaning, especially in regard to the question about who is the subject of it.
This is developed in sub-section number 2, in Pannenbergs work.
2.2 The concept and doctrine of reconciliation
In this sub-section of his book, Pannenberg aims to show that the world must be reconciled to
God, not God to the world, and that Gods act in reconciling the world certainly took place in
Christs passion.20 Thus, the author dealt with these questions: Who is the subject of the
reconciliation, and in what sense? And also, does reconciliation have an objective character?
In Christian theology there has been an interpretation of the reconciliation in which God is not
its subject anymore. In that interpretation Jesus death is understood as the obedience of the Son
or as an obedient sacrifice to appease the wrath of God, and not as an act of the love of God
himself. It can be said, according to Pannenberg, that [t]he linking of the thought of
reconciliation with Christs function as Mediator contributed to the systematic consolidation of
the interpretation of the Pauline idea of reconciliation as a softening of Gods wrath at Adams
sin by offering made to him in the death of Jesus.21 This idea seems to have its origin in
Ireneus,22 but it is contrary to Pauls understanding of reconciliation.23
18

Ibd., 401.
dem.
20
Ibd., 437.
21
Ibd., 405.
22
Pannenberg affirms that this understanding seem to lie in the theory of Irenaeus of recapitulation: a repetitive
restoration an rescuing of what was original lost in Adam. Cf. Ibd., 403. Nevertheless, it is also true, thinks
Pannenberg, that Irenaeus deviated from Paul only by not seeing the Father as the subject of the work of
reconciliation. Ibd. 404.
23
In the Latin Church the idea of the death of Jesus as an expiation made to the father for the sin of humanity
became especially important after Cyprian. dem.
19

Also, in that interpretation Western Christology emphasized the human nature of Christ as
mediator. It means that Christ, in his human nature, represented us before God in his obedient
suffering. This way of thinking had his basis in Augustine and became normative for Latin
Scholasticism24
Reformers adopted the view of Jesus reconciling death in correspondence with that of the
Scholastic.25 That view was transformed only after the destruction of satisfaction theory by the
rational criticism of the Socinians and its adoption by Protestant theology of Enlightenment.26
Then, the attention began to focus more extensively in the difference between the idea of
reconciliation in the New Testament (including Paul) and later theological usage. 27 Also, the
reconciliation of the world by Christ came to be seen as an outworking of the love of God in the
face of the opposition of humans who are hostile to God, a love of God that we see operative
through Jesus Christ.28
In spite of that, there was not sufficient account of the fundamental significance of the death of
Christ for reconciliation, in the Modern Christian Protestant theology.29 This means that in the
Protestant theology of the Enlightenment the expiatory character of the Death of Jesus was not
taken into account sufficiently. For some, reconciliation was considered simply as a special
element of the redemptory work of the redeemer (Schleiermacher)30 or as something (subjective)
that take place in the consciousness of believers or the believing community (Ritschl)31
exclusively.
Martn Khler would have faced to that lack of consideration for the death of Christ for
reconciliation. According to Pannenberg, in Khler the real question is whether Christ rectifies
erroneous views concerning an unchangeable fact, namely, the love of God (), or whether
24

Ibd., 405. For Augustine, says Pannenberg, Christ cannot be the Mediator in his divine nature but only according
to his humanity. This is because he is equal to the Father as logos. Cf. dem.
25
Reformation theology did not follow the idea of the mediatorial office of Christ as related only to his human
nature, for Pannenberg. Cf. Ibd., 406. Nevertheless, it is showed that for Luther the reconciling death of Christ is
expressed in terms of the vicarious penal suffering of Christ, in Melanchthon the crucifixion of Christ is an offering
made to God to appease his anger, Calvin argued similarly (though he emphasized the divine iniciative), and the old
Protestant dogmatic stressed the basic structure of Anselms satisfaction theory. dem.
26
Ibd., 407.
27
dem.
28
dem.
29
dem.
30
Pannenberg showed that for Schleiermacher reconciliation, which run parallel to redemption, consisted in the
reconciling work of Christ that confers a sense of the forgiveness of sins. Schleiermacher was also closer to the
Pauline idea of reconciliation in which God is the origin of it. Neverteless, says the author, only very secondarily
does Schleiermachers presentation link the Redeemers reconciling work to his death and passion. Ibd., 408.
31
Ibd., 409.

Christ is the author of a changed situation.32 This is a question about the objective character of
the reconciliation; about the real effect of the death of Christ in that event. Khler insisted,
according to Pannenberg, that for Paul reconciliation rests in the death of Christ.33 This death has
a real expiatory character in which the acting subject is God himself.34 Thus, the event of
reconciliation is historically grounded, and not merely subjective. It also means that the death of
Christ cannot be seen as an achievement of the man Jesus, who appeased the wrath of God at
human sin.
Pannenber agreed with Khler, against to Barth,35 that reconciliation is an ongoing process.36 The
event of reconciliation is not a closed one in Jesus death. On the contrary, it continues through
the ministry of the apostles and the proclamation of the church.37 This is so because of the
anticipatory character of the reconciliation which is not identical to the consummation of
salvation: the consummation phase of the process transcends reconciliation.38 Thus, the event
of reconciliationincludes the whole process of the renewing of our fellowship with God that
sin had broken.39 And even more, the event of reconciliation as an act of God requires
appropriation to humanity in and through its individual members.40
Now the question about the role of humans as recipients of Gods reconciliation, and the sense of
the death of Christ as an expiatory act, arises. For both Barth and Khler, we as recipient of the
reconciling act of God have our part in reconciliation by being represented by the Son of God
who became a man.41 But in both theologians, says Pannenberg, the question about the
possibility of that representation in light of our sinner condition has not a satisfactory answer.42
These are the questions to be treated in the next sub-section in Pannenberg works.

32

Ibd., 410.
dem.
34
Ibd., 412. The crucifixion of Jesus has atoning force in light of the resurrection by God. In the act of the
resurrection God showed himself to be the Victor over the sin and death in reconciliation of the world, affirms
Pannenberg. dem.
35
In Barth, says Pannenberg, the event of reconciliation was a self-contained one. Ibd.,
36
Ibd., 413 415.
37
dem.
38
There, it is also affirmed that eschatological salvation is more than reconciliation. See footnote 51 in
Pannenbergs work. Ibid., 413.
39
dem.
40
Ibd., 414.
41
Ibd., 415.
42
Ibd., 415.
33

2.3 Representation as the Form of the Salvation Event

In what sense can we understand the death of Jesus as an expiatory act? In what sense does
he represented us before God? Are we freed in that representation or, on the contrary, our free is
lost? These are the main question that Pannenberg dealt with in this sub-section.
a. First Christian Interpretation of the Death of Jesus and the Fact of Representation
One thing to take into account from the very beginning, in Pannenberg exposure, is that there
are different views on the death of Jesus in all strata of the primitive Christian tradition.43 For
some views, that death was not seen as a salvific event: in Q, for instance, Jesus death was a
prophetic destiny. Nevertheless, among all these interpretations there is special significance
attached to the death of Jesus as expiation, though not as an expiatory sacrifice.
Did Jesus proclaim his death as an expiatory event to come? Pannenberg dont agree with it.
For this author, the assumption that Jesus did so in Mark 10:45 or at the Lords super is full of
difficulties because then the question of the meaning of his death would have been decided
authoritatively and unequivocally in advance for primitive Christianity.44 Interestingly, the
Disciples of Christ had to search the meaning of Jesus death in the Scripture.45
Furthermore, we cannot think that all statements regarding Jesus Christ dying for us are
expression of an expiatory function of his death. The expression for us could simply means in
our favor or on our behalf.46 Nonetheless, the expression for us could be easily linked to the
motif of expiation and related to the explanatory words at the Supper insofar as signs of the death
of Jesus. The motif is even more present when the expression for us is connected with that of
our sins. In Pannenbergs words: if Christ died for our sins, as in the traditional formula in
Paul (1 Cor. 15:3), then that undoubtedly means that he made expiation for our sins.
The apostle also say in some passages that in his death Christ took the place of sinners (2
Cor. 5:21). But that statement does not have to mean that he suffered in our place the death that
ought to have been ours, i.e. it does not necessarily imply the idea the person who does
something for others will in the process, and to that end, enter into the existential condition of
those others on behalf of whom it is done.

43

Ibd., 416.
417.
45
dem.
46
The bread saying
44

Pannenberg think that we must reckon with different stages in the thought of representation.47
The author point out to four stages: in first place, representation can be understood as doing
something for others, on their behalf. It does not imply to enter into the conditions of their lives;
what we have here is a co-human solidarity. This kind of representation can be found in any
social group. In second place, and as a special case of it, we can sacrifice our life to save others
or society. This is a kind of representation that it does not necessarily involve an expiatory
function. On the contrary, in Jesus death those for whom he died also must die themselves.48
Thirdly, the understanding of this death as an expiatory death for our sins seems to offer a way
out of the difficulty. It is an inclusive idea of representation (2 Cor. 5:14). In this idea, the
expiatory death does not preserve from death the earthly life of those on whose behalf Jesus died.
According to Paul, all believers are freed from sin only because and insofar as their own future
death is anticipated and linked to the death of Jesus by baptism. Finally, it is the idea of
representation as vicarious representation (Rom 8:3). Here, the preexistent Son of God was
sent in the form of human sinfulness in order that judgment upon sin might be executed on the
form of this earthly existence of his. The incarnation thus becomes an act of representation.
b. Expiation as Vicarious Penal Suffering49
In interpreting the death of Jesus we must make the nature of the event normative for the
evaluation, selection, and use of the interpretive models available. Only thus can we arrive at a
well-founded assessment of the essential justifiability of this or that interpretation. It is not a
guarantee of their truth that they found a place in primitive Christianity, indeed the oldest
interpretation may not be the most profound or the most true to the facts. 50 Nevertheless, we can
expound and support the thesis that the death of Jesus has expiatory significance for all humanity
only if we take into account the basic anthropological situation of humanity in relation to sin and
death.51
According to primitive Christian statements regarding the expiatory function of Christs
death presuppose that we cannot see in the crucifixion of Jesus a punishment for his own faults.
This presupposition was fully possible only in the light of the resurrection. If he did not die for
47

419 - 421.
420
49
In this part I almost use literarily the words of Pannenberg.
50
423.
51
Idem.
48

his own sins then he can only have died for others.52This does not mean that Jesus death for us
simply is a special instance of the solidarity with others. Jesus was first and foremost the man for
God; he was the man for others only insofar as he was sent to attest Gods coming rule to them.
In any case, we must regard the universal scope of the efficacy of the death of Jesus as an
expansion of a primary relation to the Jewish, and not vice versa. 53 At any rate, Jesus died as one
who was rejected by his people.54
However, the Easter was a reversal of the significance of the events that had led to the
crucifixion of Jesus: he literally died in the place of those who condemned him. If his death was
then understood as expiation, this interpretation could easily tie in with the actual substitution of
the death of Jesus in the place of his judges and the whole people that they represented. Here
might well have been the background of the statements of Paul in Gal 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom.
8.3.55
We must see that the expiatory efficacy of Jesus death is linked to the (at least subsequent)
conversion of the people to the God of his eschatological message, and therefore to confession of
Jesus himself along the lines of Luke 12:8par. Expiation for the people of God in the death of
Jesus means, then, that in spite of participation in the crucifixion and other sins, access to
eschatological salvation is still open on the condition of acceptance of the eschatological
message of Jesus and confession of Jesus. Roman participation in the events leading to the
execution of Jesus perhaps was the occasion for extending the understanding of the death of
Jesus as expiation to the Gentile world represented by Rome.56
Jesus bore death as the consequence of our sin, thereby effecting representation in the
concrete form of a change of place between the innocent and the guilty. This vicarious penal
suffering, which is rightly described as the vicarious suffering of the wrath of God at sin, rests on
the fellowship that Jesus Christ accepted with all of us as sinners and with our fate as such. This
link is the basis on which the death of Jesus can count as expiation for us.
Now, those whom Jesus represents have the possibility in their death, by reasons of its
linking to the death of Jesus, of attaining to the hope of participating in the new resurrection life
52

Pannenberg think that on Jewish presuppositions at any rate, the thought of an expiatory death had to be a
relatively natural one. As an expression of the mercy and saving love of God, an expiatory death was also in keeping
with the message of Jesus concerning the love of God that his own coming proclaimed. Ibd., 424.
53
Ibd., 425.
54
dem.
55
Ibid., 425 426.
56
Ibd., 426.

that already become manifest in Jesus (Rom. 6:5). At issue, then, are representation and
expiation before the eschatological judgment of God.
To this extent there is thus in fact an exchange of places between the innocent Jesus, who
was executed as a sinner, and the manifestation of the righteousness of God in those whom he
represents before him. This exchange takes place only if, for their part, the sinners for whom
Jesus died let their lives, which have fallen victim to death, be linked to the death of Jesus (Phil.
3:10f.). This takes place in baptism. (Rom. 6:3f.; Col. 2:12). Only then does the expiation that
the death of Jesus make possible actually come into force for individuals.
So then, the judgment on sin in the death of the Son is the basis of the possibility of
reconciliation. The expiatory effect of that death is not an objectively closed event, and for this
reasons it becomes fruitful for individuals only as their own deaths are linked to that of Christ. In
other words, as the offer of reconciliation made by the one side be accepted by the other if there
is to be reconciliation, so the expiation grounded in Christs vicarious death needs appropriation
by confession, baptism, and faith on the part of each individual. The inclusive sense of
representation has an anticipatory function.57

c. Representation and liberation

Representation has an exclusive and inclusive element. The satisfaction theory is an example
of an exclusive form of representation. But it does not correspond to the NT witness: the death of
Christ is not a payment that he made to God in place of others. No one can represent others as
moral subject, as Socinian criticism argued against satisfaction theory. On the other hand, the
understanding in which Christ is representative of humanity insofar he is it, representing in
himself what is the same in all individuals, is an example of an inclusive form of representation.
By the linking of our death to Christs in the act of baptism, our death takes on a new sense
that it does not have of itself. It becomes death in hope. We do not see in Jesus only what may be
said at once of all of us. What was done in his death does not apply automatically to all others. It
needs an express establishing of fellowship with him. To this extend the death of Jesus, to which
the change in the meaning of our death may be traced, still has an exclusive aspect that is true
aloin.

57

Ibd., 428 429.

10

In an inclusive way of understanding of representation Jesus is the paradigm of all humanity

in its relation to God. But he is our representative, not as we are now, but as we are to be. In
contrast the incarnation of the Son relates to the conditions of our existence as descendants of
Adams (Rom. 8.3). It aims at the overcoming of sin in the flesh of him who bore the judgment on
sin in our place.
The thought of inclusive representation might also lead, however, to a violating of the
independence as persons of those that are represented. It could imply that Jesus Christ alone is
man before God, that he has so taken our place and acted and suffered in our favor that we can
add to what he has done nothing of our own.
Against that totalitarian understanding of representation it has been argued that true
representative only temporarily takes place of the others and thus leaves open the place that is
only representatively occupied. But this argument moves on the level of exclusive
representation: it presupposes the ongoing existence of those who are represented. According to
Pauls understanding of the atoning power of the death of Jesus, however, those who are
represented can share in its atoning efficacy only through their own death.
Jesus did not represent others only temporarily. In the Christian message, he is the definitive
actualizing of our destiny as the incarnation of the son. His definitiveness leaves room, however,
for the individuality of others. They are not suppressed or eliminated. This is because the claim
to definitiveness is not linked to the individuality of Jesus. That would be so if he had arrogated
divine dignity and authority to himself.
By accepting the death of his particular existence Jesus made rooms for others. His death
became the seal of his self-distinction and therefore also the proof of his unity with God as the
Son of the heavenly father. Only in the transition through the death of his individual existence as
man is Jesus the Son. Through the death of the Son, however, God gives us room alongside
himself.
The death of Jesus, then, means that others no longer have to see themselves as excluded
from fellowship with God and therefore as enemies of God. He opens up access for them so that
in accepting their own finitude like him, and in fellowship with him, they come to share in life

11

from God and can already live this earthly life assured of the eternal fellowship with God that
overcomes the limitation of death.58
In the expiatory character of the death of Jesus the exclusive element of his vicarious death,
the death of one who is innocent for sinners, come to expression. But obedience to God, for the
sake of which Jesus accepted death, is paradigmatic for all of us. In it Jesus is the Son, the new
Adam, after whose image we are to be renewed.

Some questions to the reading:

If we only take part of the death of Jesus through baptism, and thus of reconciliation,
then, what are the implication of that for non-Christian? Should we consider baptism as a
sacrament?

Does Pannenberg show a positivistic view in his understanding of the tradition?

58

Accoding to Pannenberg, Hegel also viewed reconciliation as transcending of natural finitude. But for him,
Christs death was also a deth of God himself. Ibd., 434.

12