Karl Barth and Revelation

REVELATION IN A TRANSCENDENT, OPERATIVE, AND TRIUNE GOD

INTRODUCTION

Karl Barth is considered by many to be the most important theologian of the twentieth century. Numerous attempts at labeling Barth’s theology exist, but a “Word of God theology” may best exemplify the totality of Barth’s enormous output. Although Barthian theology has often been domesticated and even contorted, the fractionalized nature of contemporary theology is causing a second look at potential applications of Barth’s perspectives.[1] This particular research paper will attempt to contribute to the conversation by showing that Barthian revelation is manifested in a transcendent, operative, and triune God.

The forthcoming study will first show how God exists in Barthian revelation by exploring God’s transcendence. Second, the question of how God is known in revelation will be investigated by exploring the specific forms of God’s operative work. Third, the topic of how God is present within revelation will be addressed by exploring the triune nature of God. Finally, an analysis of two notable critiques will be provided followed by a brief defense of each accusation.

THE POSSIBILITY OF REVELATION

It will be shown that Barth’s view of revelation is built on a foundation of God’s transcendent nature. According to Barth, the starting point of all theological activity is God revealing himself to humanity by the communication of his Word – the Word of God.[2] Theology is not simply the science of God but a theanthropology, a study of God as God relates to man and the study of man as a man of God.[3] Accordingly, a brief review of Barth’s view of natural theology will be provided as a backdrop to Barth’s perspective of God’s transcendence in his theology of revelation. Once a basic understanding of Barth’s opposition to natural theology is obtained, the impossibility of humanity’s knowledge of God will be addressed. Next, the paradoxical possibility of humanity’s knowledge of God through the agency of miracles will be considered. Finally, the requirement that miraculous events must live in perpetuity for revelatory communication to be sustained will be discussed.

It was difficult to imagine a reputable theologian completely abandoning natural theology until Barth.[4] However, in Barth’s exposition of Romans he emphatically states that God’s existence “is distinguished qualitatively from men and from everything human, and must never be identified with anything which we name, or experience, or conceive, or worship, as God.”[5] Barth continues by explaining that God is the “‘Yes’ in our ‘No’ and the ‘No’ in our ‘Yes’, the First and the Last, and, consequently, the Unknown, who is never a known thing in the midst of other known things.”[6] Barth’s language eliminates any possibility of an inherent human faculty to know God.[7] One may appropriately acknowledge that Barth’s repudiation of natural theology was because of his theology of revelation, but more convincingly, it appears his theology of revelation already denied natural theology from inception.[8] In other words, any form of natural theology would significantly undermine Barth’s theology of revelation.

There are two primary reasons for Barth’s assertion that humanity’s knowledge of God is impossible. First, sinful humanity is not capable of comprehending God’s holiness.[9] Barth even contends that “it is quite impossible to interpret human talk as such as talk about God.”[10] Talking about God is not intended to be a reference to spiritual experience any more than the talk about an explosive taste of a ripe strawberry is meant to speak of taste receptor cells sending information from ion channels to the gustatory area of the brain; the intent of the focus is directed toward the source of the explosion, not the anthropological minutia.[11] Second, when humanity experiences the God of the universe, a completely transcendent God is encountered in a shroud of mystery.[12] Accordingly, Barth concludes that “we have no organ or capacity for God.”[13] However, to stop at this juncture would be an egregious mistake.

A vast divide must be bridged in order to overcome the impossibility of humanity’s ability to know God. In other words, reconciliation and revelation both must occur prior to God pulling humanity into his circle of knowledge.[14] According to Barth, revelation means “the knowledge of God through God and from God,” more specifically, “it means that the object becomes the subject” and to the extent “we receive God’s address…it is God’s work in us.”[15] Humanity’s faith and obedience are created in a God initiated revelatory moment when a person responds to God’s self-disclosure.[16] Barth identifies the moment when God speaks as a “Moment of Miracle.”[17] Accordingly, humanity’s objective knowledge of God, which is quite certainly anthropologically impossible, is also divinely possible through miraculously created revelatory events initiated by a transcendent God.

Critical to Barth’s theology of revelation is the dynamic nature of the revelatory events.[18] In particular, a significant and distinctive motif of all Barthian theology is actualism.[19] Actualism means that Barth’s theological thought is conveyed through events and relationships that stress the sovereignty of grace, incapacity of humanity, and miraculous collision of grace with humanity’s incapacity, for the purpose of love and freedom.[20] Barth’s actualism suggests that revelation can never be initiated by humanity; instead, it always originates from God.[21] Specifically, the Church is not “that which they want to be and should be, as theologically relevant entities, as realities of revelation and faith,” thus they must continually “come into being as this.”[22] In other words, even as recipients of revelation who perpetually encounter God’s self-disclosure, God continues to exist as a wholly other transcendent God upon which dependence is required.[23]

The impact of God’s transcendent nature on Barth’s view of revelation is momentous. First, natural theology is completely denied, which highlights the significant gulf between the limitations of humanity and a transcendent God. Second, any potential capacity inherent within humanity to know a wholly other God is deemed an impossibility. Third, the only possibility of knowing God is initiated entirely by the object who becomes the subject – God. Finally, even the perpetually miraculous events necessary to know God are completely outside the scope of humanity and rest entirely upon a transcendent God. It is clear that God’s transcendence is the foundation upon which Barthian revelation sits. The question of how God exists in Barth’s theology of revelation has been answered, now the question of how God comes to be known may be considered.

THE FORM OF REVELATION

It will be shown that Barth’s theology of revelation is based on an operative God who manifests himself in three distinct forms. The forms are the bridge by which humanity comes to know God. The three forms that Barthian revelation takes will be introduced followed by an exploration of the form’s synergistic relationships. Finally, an explanation of the reasonableness of their synergistic reality will be developed utilizing a thoughtful analysis of the forms’ distinctions.

God’s revelation, the Word of God, appears in three forms in Barthian theology.[24] First, the Word of God appears in the form of Jesus Christ, the ‘revealed’ Word of God as spoken by the prophets and apostles.[25] Second, the Word of God appears in the form of the Holy Scriptures, the ‘written’ Word of God as a witness to Jesus Christ.[26] Finally, the Word of God appears in the form of Christian preaching, the ‘proclaimed’ Word of God as an attestation to the Holy Scriptures.[27] The nature of Barth’s revelation as manifested in the revealed, written, and proclaimed forms is deeply personal, exemplifying an ongoing motif of personalism noted throughout Barthian theology.[28] Barth explains the profoundly intimate nature of God’s revelation, especially when contrasted with God’s transcendence, by stating that “God always has something specific to say to each man, something that applies to him and to him alone.”[29] However, to conclude that the words in Scripture or the words in Christian preaching that result from human activity are necessarily the Word of God would be a serious mistake.[30] Accordingly, an investigation of the dialectical relationships between the three forms is required in order to determine exactly when these forms are operative as the Word of God.

The synergistic relationship of the threefold form of God’s revelation should not be underestimated. Barth asserts that there is absolutely no difference in the qualitative nature of the revealed, written, and proclaimed forms of the Word of God.[31] In other words, to the extent the proclaimed word is a God ordained revelatory event, it is no less the Word of God than the written form, that of the Holy Scriptures.[32] Furthermore, to the extent the written word is a God ordained revelatory event, it is no less the Word of God than the revealed form, that of Jesus Christ.[33] In each case the speakers are different in that Christ is the speaker in the revealed form, the biblical writers are the speakers in the written form, and an unlimited number of speakers in the proclaimed form may exist, but in each of the three forms the Word of God is one and the same.[34] Barth refers to the synergy of the relationship as an analogical perichoretic reality in that it is possible to replace the words revealed, written, and proclaimed with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and vice versa, so “that in the one case as in the other we shall encounter the same basic determinations and mutual relationships.”[35] The synergies between the revelatory forms in Barthian theology are evident. However, it would seem prudent to question the assertion that the proclaimed form of Christian preaching occurs on the same level as the revealed form of Jesus Christ, thus their synergies must be further analyzed.[36]

The veracity of Barth’s synergetic relationship between the revealed, written, and proclaimed forms may be supported with the bifurcation of their human and potentially divine aspects. First, all three forms have a duality in unity; in other words, they contain humanity while inhabiting the potentiality of becoming fully divine.[37] Each one of the forms of revelation has a completely human aspect: the revealed form has a Chalcedonic human aspect in Christ, the written form has a human aspect in the biblical writers, and the proclaimed form has a human aspect in the preacher.[38] However, it is impossible for these human forms to reveal God; an infused activity of God is required in each form in order for a revelatory encounter to exist.[39] Barth’s polemic explains that as the forms “become God’s Word in the actuality of revelation they are God’s Word.”[40] Accordingly, when God acts the forms may be considered divine as they all incorporate God’s initiative and simultaneously maintain their synergy because the revelatory event is the same regardless of the form.[41] However, an important clarification is required at this time regarding the distinctive way in which the form’s become divine. The revealed form ‘becomes’ God’s Word because it already is permanently God’s Word, the Word Incarnate, while the written and proclaimed forms become God’s Word because the same Word that is in Christ enters them in a temporary revelatory encounter.[42] Now, in order to completely address whether the proclaimed form of Christian preaching can be considered equivalent to the revealed form of Christ, their distinctive order of authority requires examination.

The reasonableness of Barth’s synergetic relationship of the forms can be further supported by recognizing the forms’ distinctive order. Although the three forms of revelation are not separable, a clear authoritarian order exists.[43] The forms can be viewed as three concentric circles with the revealed form, Christ, in the center, the written form, Scripture, in the middle ring, and the proclaimed form, Christian preaching, in the outermost ring.[44] The proclaimed form is subordinate to the written form, the written form is subordinate to the revealed form, but in no way does the subordination diminish their effectiveness as they are all the synergistic Word of God.[45] However, the distinctive nature of the revelatory forms actually runs deeper than the overly simplified concentric circle metaphor. In Barth’s language, “The first, revelation, [the revealed form] is the form that underlies the other two,” but then he adds that the revealed form “is the very one that never meets us anywhere in abstract form.”[46]  In other words, we only know the revealed form indirectly through the written and proclaimed form.[47] In contrast to the method of revealing, the method of knowing begins with proclaimed revelation, through preaching, and behind it lies the written form, which must be based on the revealed form, that of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.[48] Hart succinctly characterizes the relational order by suggesting that “the ontic order, the order of being, is the precise reverse of the noetic.”[49]

It has been unequivocally shown that an operative God is absolutely critical to Barth’s perspective of revelation. First, the forms of God’s operative revelation become the bridge by which God’s activity has the potential to traverse. Second, the synergistic nature of the forms allows an operative God to reveal himself wholly and completely through all manifestations of the forms. Third, the duality of the revelatory forms provides the potential for the human aspects of the forms to be transformed by God into their divine aspects. Finally, the distinctive order of the forms provides guidance for both the ontic and noetic direction of God’s pipeline of activity. It may not be an overstatement to suggest that without Barth’s operative God, his transcendent God may be eternally concealed from the humanity he dearly loves. With the importance of a transcendent and operative God established, the questions of how God exists and how God is known have been answered. The final and possibly most complex aspect of Barth’s revelatory theology pertains to how God is present in revelation, thus God’s Triunity must now be explored.

THE TRIUNITY OF REVELATION

It will be shown that Barth’s view of revelation hinges on the Triunity of God. A brief account of the Trinity’s relationship to Barth’s theology of revelation will be provided followed by an exploration of Barth’s understanding of the objective nature of revelation within the Trinity. Also, Barth’s complex dialectical perspective of God’s indirect identity manifested within revelation will be introduced in light of God’s subjective revelation within the Trinity.

The Trinity is how God is present in Barth’s revelation.[50] More specifically, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are not considered attributes of God, but instead, by staying true to his actualistic motif, Barth suggests the triune nature of God is that of Revealer, Revelation, and Revealedness.[51] God the Father is the Revealer who decided to reveal himself to His Son.[52] The Father does not take form.[53] God the Son objectifies the Revelation in His person.[54] The Son does take form.[55] God the Holy Spirit is the Revealedness who consummates Revelation by opening humanity to receive it.[56] The Spirit “enables our recognition and response.”[57] In order to launch into an expanded discourse of Barthian revelation in light of the Trinity it is crucial to realize that the wholly transcendent Revealer is “identical with the act in revelation and also with its effect.”[58] It is based on this fact that “we must begin the doctrine of revelation with the doctrine of the triune God.”[59] By establishing this very basic triune foundation, a discussion of Barth’s objective and subjective aspect of revelation may commence.

Barth’s trinitarian structure is first based on revelation proceeding from God, the Revealer, and then being fulfilled objectively in the Son, the Revelation.[60] Since it is not possible for a wholly transcendent Revealer to inhabit the world of ‘objects’, it would also be impossible for God to be known in the world since he is not a part of it.[61] However, if God’s Word, his Revelation, became an object, then a point of contact with humanity would exist, which is why Barth insists that “revelation takes place in the fact that God’s Word became a man and that this man has become God’s Word.”[62] Accordingly, the Second Person holds the key-position in Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity as the objective reality of revelation and explains why Barth claims that “the incarnation of the eternal Word, Jesus Christ, is God’s revelation.”[63] Once the objective reality is established, a revelatory encounter between the Revealer and humanity embodied by the Revelation, Jesus Christ, is now an “objective possibility.”[64] T. H. L. Parker provides some helpful insights by providing three aspects of Christ’s objective revelation. First, “it is in Jesus Christ that God reveals Himself;” it is here the focus is on God’s revelatory activity ‘in’ the world.[65] Second, “God reveals His genuine Self in Jesus Christ;” it is here the focus changes to God’s ‘Self’ being revealed.[66] Finally, “in Jesus Christ God genuinely reveals Himself;” it is here the focus shifts to a concern with the word ‘reveals’ in the sense that something veiled becomes unveiled.[67] Once God’s objective revelation is a reality, his subjective revelation is emancipated, and its complex application to Barth’s theology may be considered.

Although Christ Incarnate encompasses the objective revelation of  God, revelatory events for humanity remain only an objective possibility, thus Barth concludes that theology must not become too Christocentric.[68] Across the span of Barth’s career he maintained a dialectical methodology within God’s revelatory nature.[69] More specifically, Barth conveys the idea of “indirect identity” whereby God becomes indirectly identical with the human forms of revelation.[70] To clarify, the indirectness is a requirement in order to eliminate any possible “divinization” of the human forms.[71] Although the indirect identity is consummated within the human forms by an infusion of God’s complete Self-revelation, paradoxically the “whole being of God” is also “hidden in a creaturely veil” and nothing is known directly.[72]  Barth puts an exclamation mark on this concept by stating that “to deny the hiddenness of revelation even in scripture is to deny revelation itself, and with it the Word of God.”[73] However, in a miracle of subjective revelation by the work of the Holy Spirit the veil is tore away in a revelatory event that makes the opaque transparent.[74] Thus, through the activity of the Holy Spirit, which “straddles objectivity and subjectivity,” a miraculous revelatory event is initiated within the revealed, written, and proclaimed forms whereby the creaturely veil is lifted and the words become the recognizable Word of God.[75]

It is without question that Barth’s view of revelation is significantly influenced by his doctrine of the Trinity. First, the actualistic nature of the Revealer, the Revelation, and the Revealedness lays the framework for the Trinity’s revelatory influence. Second, the objective revelation realized in the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, creates the point of contact between the Revealer and humanity. Finally, the subjective revelation powered by the Holy Spirit lifts the creaturely veil to allow the Word of God to be comprehensible. It is within the inner sanctum of God’s trinitarian structure that Barth’s revelation is present, where humanity is drawn to know “God as Father through the sharing of the Son” and is “empowered and sustained by the anointing Spirit.”[76]

THE CRITIQUES OF REVELATION

Karl Barth may have had the greatest single impact on theological thought since the Reformation, and though his influence is certainly considered monumental by many, others have been highly critical. A very brief exploration of two rather famous critiques of Barthian revelation by will be discussed followed by short rebuttals. The first analysis will address Gustaf Wingren’s and Alister McGrath’s similar critiques of Barth’s revelatory theology. Second, will be an examination of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s charge of revelatory positivism.

An entire chapter in Wingren’s book asserts that Barth neglects an adequate exploration of salvation.[77] In particular, Wingren accuses Barth of shifting his theology away from the cross and resurrection to the incarnation, thus communicating that humanity’s problem is ignorance rather than alienation.[78] In a similar vein, Alister McGrath accuses Barth of regarding “humanity’s predicament as being ignorance of the true situation.”[79]

The Christological emphasis of Barth’s theology is not to be argued. However, two additional observations may add value to the conversation. First, suggesting a shift from the resurrection to the incarnation appears to ignore the fact that Barth’s revelation theology is not limited to the incarnation of Christ, but also includes the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ as well.[80] Second, to suggest Barth underestimates the reality of the human predicament is to ignore the graphic depiction of the doctrine of the Fall exemplified in Barth’s work, The Epistle to the Romans.[81]

The more famous critique was Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s accusation of ‘revelatory positivism’ against Barth in a letter from prison.[82] Although scholars do not appear to agree on the specific interpretation of the accusation, the language used by Bonhoeffer proposed that Barthian doctrine was a “Like it or lump it” approach to theology. Specifically, Barth is accused of overemphasizing the positivity or controlling nature of divine revelation and applying unnecessary equal weight to parts of theology that “must be swallowed whole or not at all.”[83]

It must first be conceded that Bonhoeffer’s observations were not systematically developed, but instead, were fragmentary.[84] However, it does not appear that Barth fell into an “unimpeachable given” that one could take or leave.[85] Although Barth did eliminate a metaphysically-based religion, he replaced it with an “actualistic (divine and human) ontology” that allowed meaning to be acquired “in a new and different way.”[86]

CONCLUSION

The influence of Barth’s theology cannot be underestimated in its scope or impact on the theology of revelation. It has been shown how God exists in Barth’s view of revelation – God exists first and foremost in his transcendence, which lays the foundation for Barth’s doctrine. It has also been shown how God is known in revelation – God’s operative nature manifests itself in three distinct yet synergistic forms that provide a bridge for God to be comprehended. Furthermore, it has been shown how God is present in Barthian revelation – God’s trinitarian structure draws humanity to God, the Revealer, through the connection of Christ, the Revelation, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Revealedness. Finally, two notable critiques have been analyzed and defended. Although certainly not all aspects of Barth’s view of revelation could possibly be elucidated in a short work, the evidence clearly supports the position that Barthian revelation is manifested in a transcendent, operative, and triune God. For further study, valuable works by Hans Urs von Balthasar and Thomas F. Torrance emphasize the motifs of Barth’s thought development, while strong reinterpretations are provided by the efforts of Bruce L. McCormack and George Hunsinger.[87]