Wolfhart Pannenberg – The Rehabilitation of Hegelian Theology of History
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
A New Beginning After 1945
Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014) represents a new generation. He was too young to be involved in the church struggle, but old enough to reflect on its consequences. His question: Did Barth’s turn away from Hegel throw out the baby with the bathwater?
Pannenberg argues that Barth’s radical separation of revelation and history leads into difficulties. If God reveals himself only in a word breaking in “vertically from above,” revelation becomes unhistorical, unworldly, ultimately meaningless for concrete human existence. Liberal theology was right that revelation happens in history – it erred only in understanding history as progress.[1]
Revelation as History (1961)
The programmatic work Revelation as History, which Pannenberg edited together with other theologians, marks a turning point. The central thesis: revelation does not happen against history, but as history. God reveals himself in his acts – and these acts are historical, verifiable, accessible to reason.
This is a rehabilitation of Hegel against Barth. Pannenberg adopts Hegel’s insight that truth is historical, that spirit realizes itself in history, that reason and revelation are not opposites. But he corrects Hegel on one decisive point: history is not concluded. The end of history – the completion of revelation – is still outstanding. It has appeared “proleptically” (anticipatorily) in the resurrection of Jesus, but has not yet been universally realized.[2]
Systematic Theology (1988-1993)
Pannenberg’s three-volume Systematic Theology is an attempt, after Barth, to write a rational theology once again – a theology that faces philosophical critique rather than entrenching itself behind a positivism of revelation.
The proximity to Hegel is evident: Pannenberg thinks trinitarianly (Father, Son, Spirit), historically (revelation as process), and mediatingly (faith and reason). But he avoids what he takes to be Hegel’s figure of closure: absolute knowledge has not been attained, history has not been completed, reconciliation is still outstanding. Theology remains eschatological – oriented toward the future of God.
Whether this correction actually applies to Hegel’s own position is, however, questionable. Hegel’s philosophy of history was never deterministic in the sense of a guaranteed progress. The “owl of Minerva” understands the past – it does not prognosticate the future. Reconciliation, in Hegel too, is a task, not an accomplished fact. The difference between Hegel and Pannenberg may be smaller than either side thought. (-> Ch. 8.7, Thesis 2)
—