THE WORD OF GOD AND I'IS ANTHROPOLOCICAL IMPLICATIONS

iN TLLE, TEOUGET OF KARL BARTH AND HEIMAN FRIEDRICH KOIFnlBRUGGE

by

Meine Veldman

A thesis submitted to Conrad Grebel College

in fulfilrnent of the thesis requirements for L e degree of

Master of Theological Studies

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2000

8 Meine Veldman, 2000

National Library 1*1 of Canada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Seivices services bibliographiques 395 WeHington Street 395, nie Wdlington OItewaON K 1 A W OriawaON K1AONS Ceneda Canada

~ o u r N. vorm rdMronœ

Our iTrr hforro rdHnna

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or seU copies of this thesis in microforni, paper or electronic formats.

The author retahs ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author' s permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette Wse sous la forme de microfiche/füm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

BORROWER'S PAGE

Conrad Grebel College requires the signature of al1 pemns using or photocopying this thesis. Please sign below and give address and date.

ABSTRACT

For both Karl Barth and Hennan Friedrich Kohlbnigge the Word of God is the central tenet of

their theological thought. Both developed and posited their theological thought against the

tendency of reducing God and his Word to human concepts, constmcts, sel'righteousness and

holiness. How they perceived of the Word of God against such tendencies, however, differed.

The difference shows itself in the way Barth and Kohlbnigge see the Word of God

speaking to and about the human being. Because Barth employs Kantian and Hegelian

philosophical dynamics he lets the Word of God s p d with only one word concerning the

human king in his or her relationship to God. The Word of God becomes in Barth's theology a

source for expounding an already established state of affairs: to be human is necessanly to be

with G d Kohlbrugge, because he retains the possibility of the Word of God to speak to the

human king directly historically and so directly spirihially, lets the Word of God, as creative

and powerful, speak with two Words: either the human being is shown to be with or without

God. To be and remain with God in a historical and spiritual sense is to remain in the fulfilied

Word of G d by faith in Jesus Christ as the fulfilled law.

As conclusion, I contrnd that Barth's doctrine of the Word of G d defies the intent of

Scripture as the means by which God discems the statu and condition of human beings in the

face of His holiness, righteousness, grace, and love. Kohlbrugge fosters this discernment with

his understanding of the Word of G d

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1 see this thesis as a culmination of many years of study and living. The points of view and

arguments expressed have developed over a time in which, by the sustaining grace of Goà, 1

have prayeâ and sûuggled to gain spiritual and inteilectual discernent with respect to God and

His revelation. In this process several people have supported and endured me.

I first would like to thank my wife Esther. She has had to camp with an absent husband

even though he was physically present. Because of that she has had to attend to our home and

children, Jesse and Katie, for more than her mesure. Yet she supported me throughout and

even edited this thesis for me. 1 view the end result as the fruit of a cooperative effort.

I would also like to thank Dr. A. James Reimer for the many conversations and

stimulating exchanges of opinions and teachings. He has been my advisor and tacher for many

yean, and has provîded me with the opportunity and much of the material to cornplete this

thesis. I also thank Dr. Werner O. Packull, of Conrad Gtebel College, and Dr. Robert A. Kelly,

of the Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, for having been readea and constructive commentaton. 1

thank Dr. John Toews who was willing to be the Chair for the defence.

Also I thank my family in the Netherlands without whom 1 could not have proceeded

with the intent and the execution of the plans for this thesis. Many times I calleci on them to

provide me with crucial material on Hennan Friedrich Kohlbnigge, which they searched for and

supplied.

Finally, 1 thank God for His Word which, as the subject of this thesis, has and continues

to teach me who He is for me, on the b i s of which 1 can be with Him, in spite of myself. Soli

Deo Gloria.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

k introductory Statements About Karl Barth and Hemion Friedrich Kohlbmgge and Their Perspectives on the Word of God as Central to the Understanding of Their Theology and Anthropology

B. The Historiail and Theological Connections of Barth and Kohlbrugge as These Pertain to a Better Understanding of Both Their Perspectives on the Word of God and the Human Being

1. A Short Biographical Account of the Life of Hemiuui Friedrich Kohlbmgge

2. The Context of Barth's Discovery of Kohlbmgge Within Barth's Own Theological Development

II. BARTH'S DOCTRINE OF THE WORD OF GOD

A The HistorkUïheological Context of the Development of Barth's Doctrine of the Word of God

B. Barth's Primary Texts on the Word of God

1. Barth's lnterpretation of Anselm as it Pertains to His Doctrine of the Word of God

2. The Doctrine of the Word of God as Expressed in Church Dogmafics, Volume U I

i. The Word of G d

ii. The Trinity

iii. The Word of God as Intricately Connected to the Trinity

C. Implications for Theological Anthropology

III. KOWRUGGE'S PERCEPTION OF THE WORD OF GOD

A. The Historicoi/Theological Context Out of Which Kohlbnigge's Perspective of the Word of Ood Emerged

1. The Controversy h u n d sanctification

2. The Word of God as Answer

B. Kohlbrugge's Primnry Texts with Continual Reference to the Word of God

1. Kohlbrugge's Interpretation of Romans 7

2. Kohlbrugge's Interpretatioa of Matthew 1

C. lm pl ications for Theologifal Anthropology

IV. WHAT ïï MEANS TO BE IN THE iMAûE OF GOD W H SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO BARTH'S AND KOHLBRUGGE'S NERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1-3

A. Barth's Interpretation of the Image of God

B. Kohlbrugge's Interpretation of the Image of God

C. Concluding Remarks

vii

A. Introductory Statements About Karl Barth rad Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge rad

Tb i r Perspectives on the Word of Cod as Central to the Understanding of Their Theology

rad Aathropology

By way of intrduction 1 will consider the centrality of tk doctrine of the Word of G d for

both Barth and Kohlbrugge. Mer considering this tenet of their tbought, I will explore the

comection between their respective Mews on the Word of God and their theological

anthropologies.

in this thesis I contend that Barth's understanding of the Word of the God, and implicitly of

the hurnan being, ultimately impedes the possibility of speaking really and euly to and about the

human being, as Scnpture intends. Against Schleiemiacher, Barth posited a theology which

essentially witnesses to God's monologue with Himself as Trinity. This 1 will show by

uncovenng Barth's employment of Kantian and Hegelian philosophical dynamics. The

consequence is that Barth's understanding of the Word of God defies the possibility to speak to

and about the human king directly, historically and spiritually.

1 believe Kohlbrugge, on the otber hand, retins this possibility while accornplishing what

Barth also intended to defend: to let Goâ be Gd and His Word be His Word. He posits his

understanding of the Word of Gd against views of sanctification which propagated a false

security and subjectivity with refcrence to G d and His Word. Thenfore, Kohlbmgge's

perspective of the nature and f'unction of the Word of God can be seen as not specifically

directeci against subjectivity, but against wrong kinds of theological subjcçtivity. This, in my

view, leaves open the pwsibility of undeistanding and expenencing the Word of God directly,

historically and spiritually and so t d y and really, while at the same time letting God be God and

His Word be His Word.

It is generally acknowledged that Barth's theology is a UKology of the Word of God. The

notion of the Word of God pendes his theological writings as the leading concept. His Church

Dogrnatics begins with an extendeci treatment of the doctrine of die Word of God. In the

foreword of his Dogrnatics in O ~ l i n e Barth states that "the subject of theology is ... the Word of

Gad."' niat then is a comiection with his theological anthropology is less obvious.

The w~ection between Barth's doctrine of the Word of God and his anthropology does

however becorne apparent when one considers that in the Scripttues Jesus Christ is called the

Word of God (John 1 : 1). It is He who is the fint and final reference point in Barth's theology.

His Christological concentration implies an anthropology that takes its bearings on Christ as the

etemal Word of God.

The development of the centrality of the Word of Goâ Baxth himself notes. Mer Barth had

written his Rümerbrief he became increasingly aware that the diastusis between God and the

human being he had highlighted then could not in itself be the final subject of his theology.

Christ had to become the centre.' When Christ becarne the dtimate point of reference for Barth,

l Barth, Karl. Dognalics in O u t h e tnins. Walter M. Mosse (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1959) 5.

Barth mites about this shifi in fwus: "1 simply wdd no? hold to the theoretical and practical dïa~ssis between God and man on which 1 had insisted at the tirne of Rolluln.1, without sacrificing it . . . 1 had to understand Jesus Christ and bring him h m the periphery of my thought into the mûe." qtd Ui Eberhard B w h . Karl M h : Hïs fifefiom Letter a d Autobiogrophical Tas, trans. John Bowden (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994) 173. And with this moving to the centre, away fiom Kierkegaard, Barth

the Word of G d became the banner under which his theology took shape.

Barth's Christoiogy and his doctrine of the Word of God represent two ways of speaking

about the same reference point. Barth's threefold understanding of the Word of God illustrates

this. He starts with the affirmation that Jesus is the Eternal Word of God, most eminently. But

this Jesus is no longer on earth He now is presented to us in the Bible. The Bible is the second

form of the Word of Gd. The witness of the Church to the biblicat Jesus is the third form of the

Word of G d This is the proclamation of the Gospel by the Church as God's Word about and to

human beings.'

The Word of God as presented to us in the Bible and as proclamation of the Church i s

never directly and actwlly Gd's Word, however. Neither is a theological derstanding of, for

example the human k i n g directly God's Word. It is analogous to God's Word.' Even the

threefold form of the revelation of the Word of Gd is the "earthen vesse1 of faitfil witness

which God may freely choose to make a very word of revelation."'

The making of the Word of God a very word of revelation is an act of Gd. Revelation

happens spontaneously and at different times. These happenings occur in reference to the Word

of God and apart from such happenings "the Bible is not the Word of God, but a book like other

embraced the concept of che Word of God as the concept "on which he took his beanngs" (fbid.. 173).

' Cli fford in, Kurî Burth: Theologian of Frcedm (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1989) 25.

' If one were prrssed to describe Barth's theology and his concept of God's relation to this World and hurnans generally, one codd term his undentanding of Gd's relation to hurnans and the world as actt14Ii.~tic. Cf. Hunsinger, George. How to Reud Karl &urh. The Shape of His Thcofogy (New Yoik: Oxford University Press, 199 1 ) espcially 30,4347.

5Clif%ord in, Karî Borrh 25.

books.'" Barmen was such an event and what happened there was nothing less than an act of

Precisely this idea of the actwlizution of the Word of God, 1 contend, is conditioned by

Kantian and Hegelian philosophical dynarnics in Barth's thinking. This has a bearing on how

Barth understands the human king as well. EGod's Word, as it is pnsented to us in Scripture

and preaching, is cunditioned by the fact that i t first needs actually to becorne Gd's WorQ then

the Word of God can never be described as directly and concretely relates! to the human being.

More ptecisely, then it is Barth's perception of the indirectmss of the actual Word of God

which is controlled by Kantian and Hegelian philosophical dynarnics. In Church Dogrnutics

Vol.l/l Barth seeks to work out a doctrine of the Word of God which elucidates and e x p d s

upon this concept of acnialization by putting forth his idea of revelation.'

A Kantian point of view is inherent in Barth's conception of how Church D o p t i c s are

scientific. In his Dogmatics in Outline, Barth writes, "no act of man can daim to be more than

Barth qtd. in. Ibid. 25.

lbid. 25.

Barth positions dogrnatics exactly between exegesis and practical theology. Dogmatics concem itself with what the Church is to think or Say. Of course the Scriptures give the Church the content for her proclamation. However the pticular content of the Scriptures is to be tested by dogmatics as critical science. The content as such is itself conditioned by history and the human element in it. Dogrnatics sort out what ought to be valid in the Church prodaimhg the Word of G d The authority of dogmatics itself is relative. Nevertheless it is the closest the Church can get to the a c t d Word of G d Barth uses the analogy of parents in relation to their children "As naturai parents do not stand before us like God but nevertheless are in authority over us, so here tm we have to do with a relative authority." Karl Barth, Chwch Dogmaticr in Oufline, Trans. G.T. Thomson (Harper and Row, Publishea un., 1959) 12-13.

an attempt . . . [and sol . . . even Christian Dogrnatics is an attern~t."~ The assertion that

dogmatics is only an attempt, because it is conàitioned by the human horizon of experience and

thoughf is the reason why Barth d l s dogmatics a science. Barth's conception of science is

rooted in his own assurnption of the tadical distinction between God and the human being. This

radical distinction, is wntrolled by a Kantian point of view, as will be explained below.

The Hegelian point of view or philosophical dynarnic in Barth is &und up with his view

that the Word of G d ultimately is the Etemal Word, Jesus Christ, as will be shown later. When

Barth refers to the Etemal Word, he refers to it as beyond the conditionedness of the temporal

realm. These conditions include human imagination, sel f-righteousness, rationalism and

pietism. For this reason one can also only properly speak about the human king fiom the

etemal, that is, fiom God's perspective. This can only be done in faith.

Faith thus establishes the co~ection with the Etemal Word of God. By faith one can

begin to acknowledge the reality of the human being as revealed in God's Word. Here one can

begin to acknowledge the etemal perspective, Gd's perspective, as this is revealed in Jesus

Christ. And so, in principle, one is able to overcome the radical distinction between God and the

human being.

Plecisely the way in which Barth seeks to overcome the tadical distinction between God

and the human being by faith in the e t e d Word of God is conditioned by viewpoints and

philosophical dynamics that are Hegelian. The wodc that is the link between Barth's Kantian

and his Hegelian philosophical dynamics is his intecpretation of Anselm in Anselm: Fides

Quarem Intellectm. I will retum to this important work in chapter two.

Y Ibid., 9.

How is this all part of Barth's theological anthropology? Having pointed to the centrality

of the doctrine of the Word of G d and its integral connection with Jesus Christ as the Etemal

Word what remains to be said is huw God's perspective is the only perspective by which we cm

judge and understand the humnn, really and tnitffilly.

By faith we can enter into the tmth of God conceming the human being. This truth is

revealed only in Jesus Chnst as the tnic hum;ui. By f;Uth we can acknowledge what we are, as

Christ was and is. Barth states it this way: "the ontological determination ufhumanity is

grourded in thefict thut une humun being ammg 011 orhers is the humun Jesus. So long as we

select any other starting point for ous shidy, we shall reach only the phenomena of the human."1°

Rationalism andor pietism, and modemism in general, start with the phenomena of the human.

Christian theology should not start with the human It should start from the self-revelation of

Gocl, and so Christ is the only ûue human king of whom Christians predicate their existence in

faith.

Barth calls this human Jesus "the one Archimedean point given us beyond hurnanity, and

therefore the one possibility of discovering the ontological determination of hurnanity.

Theological anthropology has no choice in the matter."" The huw is thus answered by keeping

in perspective that Jesus Ctuist is the ontologic41 detemination ofhumunity.

Besiâes Barth's Chstological ontological point of view he employs a concept of

relationality. In co~ection wïth his udogiafide he applies the concept of undogia relutionis.

'O Barth in Clifford, d, K d k t h : the T ' o g i u n of Freedom (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 227.

l ' Ibid., 227.

Wi th reference to the anologia relutionis Barth deals with the image of God corn a Trinitarian

relational perspective. It is ultimately nom this perspective that Barth understands Christ as the

ontological detemination of hurnanity.

When spealing of Kohlbnigge's perception of the Word of Goci and its place in his

theologicai thought, what fmt needs to be said is that Kohlbrugge never articulated anything

systematic with reference to any of these doctrines. Barth himself calls Kohlbnigge an

"irregular dogmatist."12 Another theologian who has attempted a systematization of

Kohlbrugge's perception of the Word of God has made the observation that "sometimes he

understands 'the Word' to mean the creaûng Word of God, and at other times as Christ, the Son

of God or even Holy Scriptures; sometimes it is one of these t h , and at other times al1 three

meanings at the same time or none of the three but an abstract flowing or radiation from God."'"

In spite of this obsemation it is of course absurd to say that Kohlbrugge had no

understanding of the Word of God because he âid not have a systematic understanding of the

Word of God. 1 think that precisely this non-systematic, or irregular dogrnatic understanding of

the Word of God, is indicative of Kohlbnigge's overal l approach to the Word of Gd, Christ, and

l2 Barth in CD. 1/1,294. According M ' s own delineation of the position of dogmatics, Kohlbnigge's thought would faIl into the categocy of exegesis (note 8). This of course creates difficulties in ternis of cornparison since Barth envisions himself to be doing something other than strictly exegesis. However the distinction between dogmatics and exegesis is not sharp. Both disciplines stand in the semce of the Church and her proclamation of the Scriptun. Therefore Barth himself can say to his students, M o r e his departue to Switzerland, "so listen to my last piece of aivice: exegesis, exegesis, and yet more exegesis! Keep to the Word, to the Scriphur that has b e n given to us." Barth qtd. in Eberhard Busch, Kml Barth (Orand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994) 259.

l3 J. van Lonkhuyzen qtd in J. Loos, De Thedogie van Kohlbmgge, (Amsteràam: Uitgeversmaatschappy Hollad, 1 M8), 9 1 (my bans.).

the human being. Kohlbnigge avoids systematization because he believes h t it could foster an

attitude of pride in something that is not the Word of God itself. " Having pointed out the difficulty of articulating a systernatic understanding of

Kohlbrugge's perception of the Word of Go& it mnetheless can be observed that for Kohlbnigge

too, the Word of God is the central aspect of' his theological thought. Kohlbrugge's written

Iegacy testifies to his conviction that nothing but the Word of God ne& to be referred to; he

le& by and large, only expositions of the Word of G d behind For this reason Loos states that,

"the preached Word, the Word that in faith wants to be accepted, is the right point of departure

for a description of' Kohlbnigge's thaology." l5

For Barth, Jesus Christ is the ultimate and etemal manifestation of the Word of God and as

such is the ontological determination of the understanding of the hwnan being. How is Christ as

the Word of God also central to Kohlbnigge's understanding of the human being?

For Kohlbrugge the Word of God is the nom whereby G d judges the hurnan being. When

Kohlbrugge expl icates John 1 : 1 he starts by obse~ng that people have, since the beginning of

Christianity, wrestled with what Word means or refen to in this verse. In response Kohlbrugge

l4 Barth quotes Kohlbrugge on the @fis of the Holy Spirit and connects this with Kohlbrugge's advice to Johannes Wichelhaus, his fiiend and professor in Halle, Germany. "What is the right use of the @As of the Holy Spirit? When one knows that one does not have @fis but knows that one has a gracious God . . . Kohlbriigge once wrote to his pupil Wichelhaus: '1 know well what you mean when you write that you becarne a theologian as a result of many battles, but don't let on to yourself that you regard yourself as a theologian.'" Karl Barth, Prote.vtunt Thcology in the Nineteenth Cenîwy Its Background und Hisiory (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1972) 639. Literally Kohlbmgge mote, "do not let your shirt h o w that you regard yourself a theologian." Kohlbrugge, H F., Kohlbrugge ais Prediker en Pmior in zijn Brieven 2 selected by Ds. J.K. Vlasbom (Zoetemeer: Uitgeverij Bockencentrum, 1998) 3 1.

" J . Loos, De Theolugie van Kohlbngge (Amsterdam: Uitgevenmaatschappy Holland, 1948) 95 (my tram).

8

States: "the key to understanding the Scripture is in the acknowledgement of G d s Law."16

Kohlbrugge hereby acknowledges that humans should begin where God begins.

God begins. in relation to human beings. with God's own Word as nom. God begins with

his Word as Word of judgement. As such it either cornes as acquitta1 or condemnation.

Kohlbnigge goes on to state more explicitly that the point of departure and ground-

principte for ttie understanding of Scriptwe is the question of the Heidelberg Catechism,

'"whence knowest thou thy misery.' [Answer], 'out of the law of Gd' Then there will be by

that person [who asks this question in his own spirit] the need for tnith, for righteousness and

By understanding the Word of God in this manner, Kohlbmgge aims at the creating and

sustaining power of the Word of God. The law creates and sustains the awareness of ounelves as

sinners under the power of death. The law is spiritual. However the human king is not of the

Spi rit of God (Romans 7: 1 4). "As God is Spirit . .. as God is ho1 y, righteous and good, so also is

His commandment; it is not a human word, but the lively, eternally remaining Word of God."18

This same Word of God was the Word of God in which we had to remain in paradise in

order for us to remain with God. It was this mediating Word of G d that kept us in His Image.

However we did not remain in that Word of God. We fell out of that Word and so out of the

l6 Kohlbrugge qtd in W . k Hoek, H. F. Kohibrugge de Onhelige Heiiîge. (Utrecht: W. Ten Have N.V., 1964) 97 (my trans.).

l7 Kohlbrugge in Ibid.. 97 (my trans.).

" K F. Kohlbrugge, Het Z e v e d Hoof&tuk van Paulu~ ' f i e f aan de Romeinen. (Arnsterdarn:Vereeniging to Uitgave van Gmfomeerde Geschriften, 1932) 50. (Ml quotes of H. F. Kohlbrugge in this paper are my translation.)

Image of God. Thus we had to die. This is the hunan predicament.l9

But 1 said that for Kohlbrugge the Word of God is to be widentood as creating and

sustaining power. This remains tnie even if the norm of God shows us our death. In paradise

this same Word of G d as norm was our lifegrinciple. Kohlbrugge's understanding of the Word

of God as primary norm is intrinsically connecteci to his understanding of the fall as recorded in

Genesis 3. Here Kohlbnigge sees it closely connected with Chnst as the Word and Image of

God.

To be alive unto Goâ, under God, and with Goâ, is to remain in the Word of God. We

could remain with God, or even in Goâ, in paradise, as long as we obeyed His Word. However,

we did not. Yet, God provided another way to remain with Him through His Word and His

Spirit.

Genesis 3:2 1 states that God made Adam and Eve coats of skin and "clothed them." This

is, according to Kohlbrugge, the fulfilled law. God clothed them with his own made covering,

Jesus Christ. Now they were dresseci, standing before God's judgement seat in skins which

signifid the slaughtering of the Lamb that was slain From before the foundation of this World,

in His gamients whereby dl those who live by faith are c~vered.'~

After that G d drove them out of the Garden so that they would not eat from the tree of

life. Adam and Eve had to leam to live by faith, and so remain in the Word of God. Living Rom

now on under the conditions of death and sin, in themselves suffering the consequences of their

l9 H.F. Kohl brugge, Wut 2 g t Kohibrugge Over Genesis 3?('..-Gravenhage: Ui tgevery Boekencentnun B.V., 1986).

own disobedience, they were to look for salvation outside themalves in the blood of the

slaughtered Lamb, weanng the coat of God's righteousness, Jesus Christ."

What does this al1 imply for a theological anthropology? It suggests that, who we really are

is detemined by the Word of God as norm revealeâ in the law and in Christ In the face of that

norm, which is spiritual because it is God's nom, the real human king is a carnally dead sin.net.

The only way again to be with God in His Spirit is by believing in God's provision and so

remaining in the gram of His Son Jesus Christ, through whom one can be aquitted.

In these introductory rem& 1 have pointed to the centrality of the perspective of the

Word of God in Barth and Kohlbrugge and how both their perspectives relate to their theological

anthropology. The similarity in their emphasis on the Word of God as central focus, and Christ

as the One who places one necessarily outside oneself in determination of the self, is striking.

Banh as well as Kohlbnisge are thoroughly Chnstologi~al.~ Therefore, also their view on the

human being is closely related to this focus. But here also the difference becomes apparent.

We have seen that Barth sees Ciuist as the ontological determination of humanity.

Kohlbrugge, in my vicw, is altogether more historical-relational in perspective.

Kohlbrugge, understands the nature and function of the Word of G d in a more direct,

historical, and existential sense. This makes his perception of the Word of God in relation to

anthropology more historical and existential.

'' ibid ,70-83.

W.A. Hoek writes about Kohlbnigge that to "live for him was Christ. He was blessed with the same vision as the evangelist whom m un îhank for John 1 :14: ['un wir sahm seine herrlichkeit"(luther's trans.)]. Mnny have called Kohlbrugge's theology in essence 'agnology,' doctrine of thc Lamb." W. A. Hoek, H. F. Kohlbrtrgge de Heilige Onheilige (Amsterdam: W. T'en Have N.V., 1964) Ml.

I will daignate Barth 's apprwch ontologica f-relatiowl ond Kohlbrugge S opproach

historical-relut~onaI. The order of words in these terms is important taking into consideration

that the context of the meaning of these tenns is Barth's and Kohlbnigge's understanding of the

nature and f'ction of the Word of God. To these understandings we will hirn in the next two

parts of this thesis in more detail.

All t h i s is implicitly comected to the importance of the question of the historicity of the

Word of G d in relation to anthropology. in regards to this huidamental issue my daim is that

Barth's perception of the nature and hction of the Word does not allow one to undentand and

apply the Word of God directly historically and existentially. This is a result of Barth's

employment of Kantian and Hegelian philosophical dywnics. 1 believe that his one-sided,

indirect ontological approach is not according to the Word of God itself. In the end Barth only

allows the Word of God to speak one word in regards to God's relationship with human beings:

to be hurnan is necessarily to be with Gd. For Barth this king with God is a reality to be

acknowledged by faith as the only tnie and actual reality conceming human beings. This is

ontologically determined by Jesus Christ as the Etemal Incarnate Word. In con- to

Kohlbnigge's direct historical existential approach, which 1 believe more tnithfully allows the

Word of G d to speak with two words, ta be human one can either be with or without Gd. This

is a result of God spealung d i d y and personally to oneself by His Word and Spirit To this

central issue 1 will tum in the final and concluding chapter of this paper."

23 The diffemce between Barth and Kohlbrugge in regards to the historicity of the Word of G d corresponds to the difference ôetween Barth and Emanuel Hirsch. Hirsch was a wntemporary theologian of Barth who togethet with Barth taught at the University of Tübingen when Barth was just establishing himself as R e f o d k l o g i a n . Hiisch was a Luthem theologian who proveô to be a formidable critic of Bad's theologicrl molution. Barth

B. The Historiaml and Theologial Connections of Barth rad Kohlbrugge as These Pertain

to a Better Understanding of Botb Their Perspectives on the Word of God and the Ruman

king

In attempting to expase some of the histocical connections between Barth and Kohlbnigge

it is difficult to separate the historical from the theologicai. Barth's dimvery of Kohlbrugge

was historical and ttwological at the same time. Strictly speaking, these two theologians never

met. The connection therefore is, 1 would say, first and foremost theological. The theological

connection, however, aime at points in historical garb. It came in writings and through persons

contemporaneous with Barth.

Before 1 point to these connections, however, I think it is necessary to sketch a rough

outline of Kohlbnigge's life, since he is little knom to the thedogical academic world in North

Arnerica. Barth himself is largely responsible for an awareness of Kohlbrugge to the extent that

it does exist. He has given us a synopsis of his life and theology in his book Protestunt

Thcdogy in the Nineteenth Ccntwy. ''

himself records their different viewpoints in the fom of theses (Hinch) and anti-theses (Barth). For the sake of my own comparative analysis I will record two these theses and two antitheses. 'Thesis 1. The Holy Scriptus are witness to a life which should alw take shape in us. Antithesis 1. The Holy Scriptures are witness not to a life but to the etemal life which should take shape in us. But insofar as this happens to me 1 am not I but the new man in Chkt. John 3:3, Galatians 2:20. Thesis 4. From this it follows that Holy Scripttues is rightly used when a man understands it as a word directed personally to himself Antithesis 4. From this follows that Holy Scriptures is rightly used when a man understands it as the word of G d directed pe~nal ly to him which however, has always first to mate its reul addressee 1 Corinthians 2: 9-14." Karl Barth, "Corrcspndence Benmen Edwd Thurneysen and Kntl Barth, 192 1 - 1925," Revoitltionary Theology in the Muking. ûans. James D. Smart (Virginia: John Knox Press, 1 %4) 83-84,

'' Kart Barth, Prolestant Tneology in the 19th Centuty, trans. Brian Cozens (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1972) 634442. Karl Barth opns the chapter with, "KohlbrOgge is not even

1. A Short Biographical Account of the Life of Hennann Friedrich Kohlbrugge

Hermann Friedrich Kohlbnigge was bom in the year 1803 in Amsterdam. His father was a

German emigrant who had corne from Ankum, Hanover. with his family. Kohlbnigge's father

was raised in a Lutheran family. His mother was Dutch and her parents belonged to the Dutch

Refomd State Church. Kohlbnigge's father owned a soap factory in Amsterdam.

Kohlbnigge's young life was thus largdy shaped by having parents of mixed denominational

background. Socially and economically it can be observed that he belonged to the middlehpper

class.

Kohlbnigge's father's entrepreneurial attempts were not a success. Ofien times they were

hindend by bad partnerships, eventually leading to the failing of his economic enterprise. This

had an impact on Kohlbnigge, because he was ofien called upon to work many hours. A f er his

father died he desperately tried to maintain a sinking ship.

Despite these hardships, Kohlbrugge remained ddcated to studying. From 1 8 19 to 1 82 1

Kohlbrugge attended Latin school. And from 1 82 1 to 1 825 he devoted himsel f to the sîudy of

classical languages, oriental languaps, and theology. Especially the Greek languege he found

fascinating. Arnong the oriental languages he studied were Hebrew. Arabic, Chaldean.

Samaritan and Syrian. Kohlbmgge became a philologist. Aside from his studies in languages he

is descn bed as a "spin ted hwnan~st,"~~ infl uenced by several prom inent German philosophers

mentioned by name in any of the books on the history oftheology known to me. He was in fact unknown to the academic theology of his the , and even t d a y one will meet countless well-read theolo@ans who are not aware of their ignorance km" (634).

Dr. W Adden et. al., Hermun Friedrich Kohfbmgge @en HPag: J.N. Voohoeve, 1976) 284.

and theol~gians.~

At the age of twenty-two Kohlbnigge experienced the loss of his father. His father had

always had a weighty influence on Kohlbnigge. In his later life Kohlbnigge wouid refer to what

his father told him conceming the Scriptures, namely that once one understands the five books

of Moses one understands the entire Holy Scriptures. The death of his faîher rneant a temporary

break with his d e s . However he had to promise his dying father that he would pursue his

studies to become a Doctor in Theol~gy.~'

Possibly an even jyeater influence on Kohlbrugge's life was his grandmother, Anna van

der Horst. She told him many stories fiom the Old Testament to which he listened with great

intetest. Later on Kohlbrugge would declare that the meaning of the New Testament had corne

to him through the Old.**

The year after his father dieâ, 1826, Kohlbrugge underwent, what he later called, his first

conversion. This first conversion he describeci as a change to an "active life of righteousness

and holiness through the works of the la^.''^ During this year he also became the assistant

pastor at a Restored Lutheran Congregation in Amsterdam.

While assistant pastor, Kohlbrugge became entangled in a debate about one of the sermons

26 J. Loos in The Theology of Kohlbrugge, remarks that at the end of the studies which would qualif) Kohlbnigge to preach, he was "more idealist than Christian, more mystic, beset by the spirit of Jacob Bdhme, Thomas a Kempis and Tersteegen, than Reformed Theologian" J. Loos, The Theology of Kohlbmugge (Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1 948) 1 2.

*' Ibid., 12.

Ibid., 1 1.

" Dr. W. Aalders et al., Hermon Friedrich Kohlbmgge (Den Haag: J.N. Voorhoeve, 1976), 284.

of the head pastor. He judgeâ the sermon as negative neology, accusing the pastor of

promulgating a new teaching denying the fundamental tn~ths of the Holy Script~res.~ This

caused the leaden of that congregation to remove Kohlbrugge From his position and strip him of

his oflice. Kohlbnigge then decided to move to the university city of Utrecht to fulfill the

promise he had made to his father.

In 1829 he beuune Doctor in Theology. His dissertation was an exegeticd Qatment of

P d m 45. For Kohlbrugge Psalm 45 was a Psalm of Christ and the Church; he interpreted it

allegorically. He himself says about his acceptance as Doctor in Theology that it was granted

him with much resistance fiom the professon. They perceiveci Psalm 45 merel y as a Psalm about

an earthly king. It proved however that they were not schooled in the Bible enough to rebut his

argument and spiritual inte~pretation.~' This year was also the ycar of his mariage to Catherina

Louise Engelbert. They mamkd in Amsterdam where they resided till they moved back to

Utrecht in 1830.

In Utrecht he asked to be pennitted as pastor of the Dutch Refonned State Church. His

request was rejected for reasons not stated in the ofticid letter of refusal. It needs to be

remembered that at this time Kohlbrugge haâ becorne quite critical of liberdism. His

dissertation was in a way alreaây in opposition to the theology and scriptural interpretation of his

time. While he lived in Utrecht he subjected himself more and more to the study of the

Scripnires.

The year 1833 marked an important tum around in Kohlbrugge's life. His young wife

" Ibid., 284.

31 Ibid., 284-85.

died, leaving him with two chilcben. Kohlbrugge himself then became sick. The doctor advised

him to travel to Gemany for rest and recuperation. On his way back to Utrecht he stopped in

Ruhrfort and Elberfeld. Here he was invited to preach many times. Especially his sermon on

Romans 7 stands out fiom arnong al1 of hem.

On December 7,1833 he preached in Elberfeld on Romans 7:14, "For we know that the

taw is spidual: but 1 am c d , sold mder sin" (UV). This sermon was used as a b-ou&

in his own life, pefsonally and theologically. During the preparation of this xnnon Kohlbrugge

underwent a second conversion. The insight into the Word of God g'neû during this preparation

rnarked the rest of Kohlbrugge's life and theology. 1 will cite next what he and a woman of the

congregation had to say about this moment and sermon.

Kohlbrugge exclaimeâ upon the discovery of the meaning of this verse, "1 do not know

whether anything else in my life has ever moved me as much as the noticing of this comma: CI

am carnal- comma- sold under sinPJ2 The comma indicated to Kohlbnigge that to the extent

that he was camal (flesh), he was sold under sin. This was tme for Paul as a converted man, and

so it becarne tnie for Kohlbnigge. The converse of this is that I am free to the extent that 1 am

spiritually h m fiom a h , rebom by the Spirit of God. What is flesh, remains flesh, even fier

conversion, but what is Spirit must remain Spirit. In this text the law is indicated as spiritual.

Therefore the law, as such, c m never be fulfilled by flesh. In other worâs the idea of converted

flesh is a contradiction. However, in so far as one is born fiom the Spirit of Gd, one is God's

child through Jesus Christ Who is the Word kcome flesh. This at once points to the importance

'' Dr. W. Ad&n et. al., H e m Friedrich Kohlbrigge (Den Haag J.N. Voorhoeve, 1976), 286 (my tram.).

of the law and at the same time stresses the inability of the hurnan being to fulfill its

requirements; for the law is spintual, and 1 am not.

A woman, after having heard Kohlbnisge's sermon, wrote that this being sold under sin

ought to be seen and achowledged as judgement over the c m r t e d person; "The 'active life7

of righteousness and holiness of the work of the law must make place for a 'passive activity' to

then just as we are believe the Word and so rest in God and embnice Christ, even if that means

the end of ~ e l E " ~ ~ These emphases and distinctions formed and informed the pnnciples with

which Kohlbnigge explicated and exposed the tniths of God and the human being €tom then on.

He never deviated fiom these exegetical insights and personal truths for the rest of his life.

Ovemhelmed and captivated by this theological and exegetical truth, Kohlbnigge wrote a

treatise on Romans 7. At the time, Kohlbnigge was part of a movement to keep the truth of the

Reforrnation alive and influential. Even some of those in the movernent received this treatise

with much opposition. The controversy specifically focusad on the way one views sanctification

and the work of Christ in relation to it. Kohlbmgge had a intense letter exchange with Isaac Da

Costa about this matter. lsaac Da Costa was a converted and Reformed Jew who by that time

had gained much influence in the Nethedan&.

Shortly after having written the treatise on Romans 7, Kohlbrugge wrote and published a

book on Matthew 1. In it he expounded the reality of the Word becoming flesh explicating the

genealogy of Jesw Christ This was and remains a very important document for himself and

those who attempt to understand Kohlbnigge's perspective on the Word of God. Kohlbniggc:

found the content of this bodr so edifying that he requesteâ it to be reaâ at his deathbed. It is --- - --

'' Ibid., 286 (my tram.).

considered by some to be his most significant work?

Afier his first wife had die& Kohlbrugge m a n i d Ursuline Philippine Baroness van

Verscheur in 1834. The new mariage took place in Utrecht. While living in Utrecht

Kohlbnigge continued to have much correspondence with fiends and foes alike. He did not

have a congregation, but continued his stniggle to be accepted in the Dutch State Church to no

avail .

In 1 846 Kohlbmgge and his fami ly moved to Elberfeld where he resided the rest of his li fe.

He began preaching there for only a few people. In Elberfeld, Kohlbnigge became embroiled in

a major church stniggle about a proposal for unification of Protestant chwches.

The stmggle was about the introduction of a new lihugy, or agenda, by the King of Pmssia-

-an agenda to foster unity amongst the churches in Gennany. Kohlbrugee identifid himself

with the opposition to this legislation, causing much division in Elberfeld. Eventually King

Friedrich Wilhelm IV granted Kohlbrugge and his hearers an independent statu under an edict

of tolerance. in the year 1 847 the "Niedcrlhdisch-Re fomie ite Gemei nde" was established and

Kohlbrugge became the official pastor in the following year."

For L e rest of his life Kohlbnigge remained a pastor in Elberfeld. This however did not

prevent him fiom preaching in many other places and congregations, such as the Netherlands,

Y W. A. Hoek, H. F. Kohlbrugge De Onheilige Heilige (Amsterdam: W. Ten Have N.V, 1964) 149.

3S Dr. W. Aalders ad., Hernron Friedich KohIbmgge. (Den Haag: 1. N. Voohoeve, 1976), 287.

Germany, and other countries."

On March 5, 1875 Kohlbnigge breathed his last breath. The moment had corne that he had

longed for during his life: to be delivered fiom himself and to be with Christ. At Kohlbnigge's

fnends and relatives sang the song that mts deat to Kohlbnigge's heart:

Christus, der Wt mein Leben,

und sterben mein Gewinn.

Ihm hab'ich aich ergebea:

mit fried' fahr' ich dahin."

2. The Context of Barth's Discovery of Kohlbrugge mthin Barth's Own Theological

Development

Barth's discovery of Kohlbnigge was signi ficant. Barth himsel f declared that Kohlbrugge

was unique for bis time but secmingly forgotten. To have discovered him, therefore, was a

delight." Why Barth thought Kohlbrugge unique and a delight may be better undemood by

looking at the background and development of Barth's own theology.

What first needs to be observeci is that Kohlbnigge was not the first stimulus for Barth's

Jb Kohlbnigge preached more then a few times in Basel, where his son-in-law (E. BOhl) was 'privatdozent' at the university. He preached in Zücich as well during this time. When E. Bohl moved io the University of Wien in Austria, Kohlbrugge and he also attempted to revive the Refomed Churches in Bohemia and Moravia. Some of his sermons were ûanslated in Tsjechisch as well as in Bohemian, French, and English. Through his fiend and professor Johannes Wichethaus, at Hnlle Uaivenity, Kohlbmgge made many contacts with facule and students there. He even once preached in the 'Domkirche' in Halle Lic. H. K. Hesse, Herman Frieârich Kohlbnigge (Rotterdam: Van Den Berg, 1980) 326-335. (My searches for any of any English translations of Kohlbrugge's mitings were unsuccessful).

" Aalders et al., Hermon 289.

E. Busch, Korl Burth (Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994) 142.

own early theological convictions. At the tirne Barth discovered Kohlbrugge he himself had

already caused significant upheaval within the academic world of theology with his own

theological breakthrougb

Barth's own breakthrough came af?er he and his friend Thurneysen found themselves in an

impasse, theologically and pastorally. Schleiermachet, the major theological influence of their

time, had becorne unbelievable." They had corne to a point where a new foundabon for

theology needed to be establishd in order for them to be able to preach and teach within their

respective congregations.

Both Thurneysen and Barth questioned how they could continue speaking about God, if

they could do so at al1 anymore. They both began to s t d y the Bible, and Barth began to explore

the letter of Paul to the Romans. He "gradually m e ] aware of the Bible?" What Barth

came to understand was that "the collapse of our cause must demonstrate for once that G d ' s

cause is exclusively his own'"" All human attempts at constnicting anything that does not tint

of al1 start with the reality of God and His rwelation break down at the reaiization of the

breaking in of Gd's Kingdom into this world. The world of the Bible, as the revelation of Gd,

became an altogether different world than Barth had lived in so f d 2

The opening up of this new world of understanding resulted in Barth's Romerbrie$ This

work proved to be a lighting flash and a thunderclap on a cleu day. It was BPr(h's entrance into

" ibid., 97.

* Barth qtd. in Ibid., 98.

4' Baith qtd. in ibid., 100.

" Ibid., 101.

the academic theological debate of his time. AAer the second edition of this work Barth was

offered a chair in R e f o d Theology at the University of G6ttingenU

With this book Barth thought to have definitively broken with the liberal tradition in which

he had been schooled-and not only with liberal rationalism, but also with pietisrn. To Banh

both these movements represented two sides of the sarne coin." Goâ, in His revelation, could

not speak where the human had spoken already. The acknowledgernent of Gd's work and

revelation also meant an acknowledgement of the human inability, sinfulness and death. Sin

divorces humans fiom G d for it places the humans in the place of G d by robbing God of His

honour. Death is the result of sin, and death is the separation fiom Gd: a state of aEfaia

without the possibility ofa tetum to God unless God tums to us in Christ."

It was in this state of mind, as presented in his Rijmrbriej; that Barth entered the

theological academic world As professor of Reformed theology in Gottingen, the first project

he undertook was lecturing on the Heidelberg Catechism? This shows that at this point Banh

allied himself with historic Rotestantisrn of the Refonners. By studying the Refonners he

discovered that he had been more Reformed in his thinking than he had realized He found this

In his commentary Barth always denies any place for a natural point of contact with God. Rationalism and its ultimate manifestation in ideaiism, together with an attempt to reach W o r comprehend G d in a fomi of pi*, always results in some fonn of confusion: a confurion which ends up in delusion. Cf. K. BPrth, The EpWe to the Romuns (London: Oxford University Ress, 1%8) 51-54.

" K. Barth, me Epide tu the Romam (London: Oxford University Pnss, 1968) 167- 180,

" E. Busch, Karl &nth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994) 128.

a confirmation of the legitimacy of his position as professor of Reformed doctrine and thought?'

After his second semester at Gottingen, in the sumrner of 1922 Barth started to study

Calvin more seriously. He was overwhelmed by what he found" His own theological writings

a b gained more and more notoriety. This obliged him to explicate and defend his position and

direction within the theological academic world and beyond As a result he travelled much and

visited rnany places within Gemiany.

It was during this time that Barth visited North-West Germany, the Wuppertal area. What

he found there was a surprise. In Norhom, near Bentheim according to Barth's own observation

"the world ... had stood cornpletely still, no trace of liberals! ... Instead thete were resolute old

gentlemen who really md] d o p a in there bones.'" In the unfolding of this same year, 1922,

Barth met another group which impresd him very much. He met lhis group through the person

of Fritz Hom, an imposing beardeâ man who representeâ the Refomed congrqation of

Elberfeld. With them Barth established a close contact.

It was in Elberfeld that Barth ôecame aquainted with the theology of Kohlbrugge.

Elberfeld was still the stronghold of the Kohlbmggians. In fact the remarkable reformation

structure of the theology of this 'Refonned hyper-Lutheran,' as Barth later called him, becarne a

'' Ibid., 129.

" Calvin was a disoovery for him. In Barth's words Calvin was "a waterfall, a primitive forest, a demonic power, something straight down from the Hirnalayas, absolutely C hinese, strange, mythoIogical; 1 just âon't have the or-, the suctions cups, even to assimilate this phenornenon, let done to describe it poperly" Ibid., 138.

ibid., 139.

bbdelightfbl dis~overy."~ l s historical-theologid comection of Barth with the Kohlbruggians,

constituted the first aquaintance of Barth with the thought of Kohlbrugge and his legacy. It

proved to be an important and interesting dixovery for Barth. It stood at an important juncture

in his theological development.

To put it into perspective histoncally and theologically, Barth's discovery of Kohlbmgge

o c c d after he haâ written the second edition of his Romrbrief and during the time in which

he was establ ishing himself as a professor of Refomed theology at the University of Gdttingen.

At this time Barth was necessitated to becorne the defender of his 'new' thmlogical direction.

Barth's discovery of Kohlbrugge came before he started on his mugnum opus, the Church

~ a ~ m u t ic~."

Around the same time dialectical theology staried making inroads into theologicai debates.

Barth, among others, played a decisive roll in this development which caused a major shifl from

a liberal theological orientation in thought towards an orientation of a theology of crisis.

Further connections of Barth with Kohlbrugge's thought, in and through Kohlbrugge's

representatives, were precisely couched within this climate of change. Some of these

representatives became entrenched within the movement itself after fiist having provideci the

fertile soi1 as background on which this 'new' theological direction established roots.

As 1 noted, the circle of Kohlbruggians was mediated to Barth by Fritz Hom. At the time

Dialectical nKology became a movement with a distinct voice in the German theological world

Ibid.. 142. Ct CD NI1 and Barth's letter exchange with Thurneysen II, 379,213 footnote in Busch.

51 It is in this monumaitrl work that Barth started teferring to Kohlbrugge, see CD. U1, IU2, TV/ 1, IV/2.

as more and more theologians sided with Barth. Some had chosen their respective theological

positions out of their own realUation that change was necessary. Amongst them were Rudolf

Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Friedrich Gogarten, Emil Brunner, and Richard Siebeck. The medium

through which al1 of these theologians promulgated their viewpoints became the magazine

Zwischen den Zeiien. Fritz Hom was also one of the irnporiant con tribut or^.'^

After his initial encwnter with the Kohlbruggians, Barth continued to have serious contact

with the circle in Elbeneld. Every now and then he would have theological weeks there.') The

contacts were not always primanl y theological, although theology furnished the background of

these encounters.

The Reformed leadm in the congregation of Elberfeld and the sunouncihg are. were also

important figures in the time of the rise of National Socialism. Kohlbrugge had been involved in

the debate questioning the church's alliance with political or nationalistic causes. He preached

several war sermons in 1870, in which he was theologically critical of a "'confusion of

nationalism and monarchism with God's purposes for the country and her people."" These

thoughts became politically relevant agin with the rise of National Socialism. At that time

these thoughts were fonnulated more radically and applied to the situation of the 1930's. The

"Niederliindisch-Refonnierte Oemeinde in Elberfeld became one of the important supporthg

'' E. Busch, Km1 Barth., 145-146.

" Ibid., 164, 178, 188

Y A. J. Rasker, De Neder ide H e w o d e K'rk Vawf 1795 (Karnpn: J.H. Kok, 1947) 1 12 (my trans.).

posts of the confessing church in the struggle against National Socialism.""

Several people of the Elberfeld congregaiion and surroundhg area were heavil y involved

in the establishment of the Confessing Church. Pastor Hermann Albert Hesse who was

"Director of the Refomed Preaching Seminary in Elberfeld, emerged as a leading spokesman

and representative of the German Reformed Church frorn the fint days of the Hitler period. He

listend more and more to Barth; he consdted h m and used hirn 'so to speak as a theoiogical

corset' Finally he became one of the most resolute fighters in the 'Confessing Church."'"

In a more personal way Barth hod connections with relatives of Kohlbmgge. Hebelotte

Kohlbrugge srnuggled Barth's messages to other countries. This was in the time when the war

made it impossible for Barth to make such deliveries himself The messages were primarily

directed to the Dutch, encoumghg them to stand finn against National Socialism." These are

some of the most important and interesting contacts between Barth and Kohlbnigge's thought

and legacy which will suffice for my present purposes.

It has become clear that Kohlbrugge and his influence, when scen in the context of Barth's

development theologically and his involvement politically, were important reference points and

stimulants. Kohlbrugge and his influena was an important reference point in the sense that

Barth in his own theological development had a historical connection to thoughts within the

j5 Ibid., 1 12.

" E. Busch Kud Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994) 227. When in 1934 the fiat R e f o d Synod was held, which served as a coiisolidating event for the Confessing Church, most participant speakers were of the Wuppertal area. The first speaker was Hcrman Albert Hesse (ibid., 236). Albai Hesse's brother Hemann Klugkist wote an influentid biography of Kohlbrugge.

" ibid., 3 1 7.

theological realm which were undisturbed by the influence of the Enlightenment Barth's

discovery of Kohl bnigge was, therefore, a joyful discovery. In Kohlbnigge he had found a lonely

unrecognized theologian of the nineteenth century who had blown the tnimpet of the Refonners

in a consistent and thorough rnanner regardless of the general theological climate of the times.

As a professor of Refonned theology and a cntic of rationalism, idealism, and

'Schleiemiacherian piety' Barth could feel hirnself in alignent with Kohlbnigge.

Ko hlbnigge' s thoughts, influence. and legacy becarne stimulants in the sense that the

people who endeavoured to live and act in the spirit of Kohlbrugge's Refonned theology were

staunch supporten of the Confessing Church and served as leaders in the counter-movement

within Gennan Christianity.

Having said al1 this it would be too much to suggest that Kohlbrugge was a major influence

on Barth in tenns of his own theology. 1 think it more accunite to suggest that Kohlbrugge was

an important and signifiant reinforcer of Barth's own theological development and stance. As I

have tried to show, E3arth was well on his way to developing a Refomed theology by the tirne he

discovered Kohlbrugge. Nevertheless he found in Kohlbrugge a person of 'Refonned stature'

hard to be parallelled in the history of nineteenth century theol~gy.~'

In terms of correspondense of tkological outlook and content with hirnself Barth notes

that Kohlbrugge hit on the "locur claîsict~v of the Lutheran and Calvinist Reformation" and as a

K . Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Centwy (London: SCM Press Ltd 1972) 634-635. in this chapter Barth places Kohlbnigge amongst the major theologians of the nineteenth century and dong with Blumhardt, as voiccs that soundad out unique important tones of tnith.

result he had struck the central nerve of Protestantism." Barth describes Kohlbrugge as an

island in the sea of liberalism of his day. For Barth, Kohlbrugge therefore is also important for

his own days in which he hoped to see the floods ofliberalism recede. For those who share in

the delight of liberalism on retreat "it will be impossible to miss Kohlbriigge as an important

historical figure."@ "In contrast to the opinio cornmunis current from Hegel to Vilmar, [for

Kohlbnigge] Christianity was identicai with fne. continually free p c e , over against al!

Christian experience of man's self and history.'%'

In his chapter on Kohlbmgge in Protestant Thevloey in the Ninetheenth Century, Barth

furthemore notes Kohlbnigge's point view of the 'new man.' "If the old man is Adam and what

we have become, what we think., do and plan with Adam, the new man is simply Christ and what

we have becorne in and with Christ.'"

In this same chapter Barth also becornes critical of Kohlbnigge, however. His criticism of

Kohlbrugge is interesting in that it deals with an interpretation of p c e , and implicitly the

doctrine of the human being and sin. According to Barth "Calvin on the whole understd the

problem of the relationship between Goâ and man in a difTerent way fiom Kohlbrügge - and

rather better . . . For Calvin. nature does not vanish alongside grace . . . "" This basic criticism

actually points more to Barth's focus than Kohlbmgge's perspective. He interprets Kohlbmgge

59 Ibid, 635.

Ibid., 635.

6' Ibid., 634.

Ibid., 639.

" Ibid., 64 1.

h m a nature-grace (ontological) perspective whereas Kohlbnigge works pnmarily fiom a sin-

gmce (historicalexistential) perspective." In this same chapter he notes that Kohlbrugge's

approach to the Word of God is the same as the biblicists Menken, Hohann, and Beck.

Kohlbrugge seemed to adhere to a mechanical doctrine of in~piration.~'

In the subsequent paris of this thesis I will attempt to delve more deeply into these

similarities and differences between Barth and Kohlbnigge by specifically focusing on their

theological anthropology in relation to sin, nature, and grace and the nature and function of the

Word of Gd.

" G. C. Berkouwer, Km1 Burth en De Kindcrdoop (Karnpen: J.H. Kok N.V., 1947) 1 10- 135. Berkouwer delineates this distinction in reference to Barth and the Refonnation, Barth and Roman Catholic naNal theology, and his stniggles with other didectical theologians, i.e. Emil Brunnet, Friedrich G-n. 1 sa Kohlbrugge falling into the category of the scheme, sin- grace, which Berkouwer views more poperly as the Refonnation scheme against the Roman Catholic nature-gmce scheme. l3arîh octually cornes closer to the Roman Catholic perspective (Berkouwer). This is due to his r e t h on and intetpletation of Anselm. I believe. Grounded in the same obmation, Berkouwer points to a close connection beiwem Barth and the Anabaptists. fiid., 80-1 03.

65 Biuth, Protestant. .. 642.

il. BARTH'S DOCTRINE OF THE WORD OF COD

A. The Eistoriclü'ïheologierl Context of tbe Development of Barth's Doctrine of the Word

of Cod

Barth's doctrine of the Word of God emerged out of historical and theological

circumstances. These circurnstances shaped the form and content of Barth's doctrine of the

Word of God to such an axtent that what he preached and promuigated was an answer to the

problems he obsewed during his time.

The historical and theological elements are intrinsically connecteci and hard to divorce

frorn one another. Therefore in pointing to the historical-theological context of Barth's

development of the doctrine of the Word of God 1 will refer to these elements intercharigeably.

It is not understated that Barth lived in times of historical crises. He was born at the dawn

of the twentieth century. Two World Wan were fought involving most Western industnalized

countries. Gemany of course played a most influential role in these wan. It was during the

time of the war in Gemany that Barth developed his basic theological position.

Barth's theological training was by and large coloured by nineteenthtentuiy liberalism.

Starting in Beme, Switzerland Barth observeâ that the Berne masten gave him "a thomugh

foundation in the earlier fonn of the 'historical critical school' [and he] was earnestly told, and

[he] leamt, al! that can be said against 'old orthoâoxy'. . . and that al1 Gd's ways begin with

Kant and, if possible must also end there? Afier Berne, Barth moved to Berlin where he

Busch, Km1 Borth., 34. With reference to Kant, Busch descnbcs Barth's involvement with Kant as similar to a kind of conversion story. Kant's Cririque of Pruc~icul Reuson aided in the diseovery that the Gospel was simple and that the concept of the g d will was huidamental to al1 of it (Ibid, 34-35).

studied under Harnack hom whom he heard that "the dogma of the early p e n d was a self-

expression of the Greek spirit in the sphere of the Gospel." " Also at this time Barth notes that

"the possibility of undentanding the Bible in ternis of the history of religion began to dawn on

me, and alongide Kant, Schleiennacher took a cleiuer place in my thought than before.'"

While in Berlin, Barth's energetic involvement with Kant, Harnack, and Schleiemacher

culminated in his discovery of Wilhelm Hemiaru~ He bccame a devoted follower and pupil of

Hennann to such an extent that Barth said that the day he read Hermann's Elhies his personal

interest in theology began. It is from him that Barth received the Christocentric impulse."

In 1908 Barth enrollrd in the University of Marburg, his "Zion." Here he delved even

more into the thoughts of Hermann who was professor at Marburg. Marburg around that time

was a stronghold of a particular süand of Neo-Kantianism. Pmminent philosophen, such as

Hennann Cohen, and Paul Natorp, inauprated what came to be known as logical ideali~rn.'~

" ibid., 40.

"9 Ibid., 404 1. According to Barth Wilhelm Hermann was ''on the one hand . . . a Kantian . . . and on the other a pupil of the younger Schleiemacher, not the older . . . [and it was fiom him that he received] the christocentric impulse" 4445.

'O 1. M. Bocheiski, C u n t e m p r ~ y Europeon Philosophy (Califomia: University of Califomia Press, 1956) 90.93. nie Marburg s c b l proposed a kind of Kantian Socialism. It attempted to synthesize the Kantim notion of the moral sphere as opriori (Kant's strictly forma1 notion of the categorical imperative) with Marxist Socialism. Religion for Cohen was a fonn of morality, and Goâ "is no more than an ethical ideal, the goal presented as the Nfilment of one's moral task" (ibid., 94). Barih read Cohen extensively while king assistant pastor in Gencva Later on he refers to him in a speech to workers whik being pastor in Wenwil. As professor of Reformeci tbaology Bubi pesents Natorp with a copy of his Romans as he visits Marburg. Busch, Karl Bmrh., 44,56, 1 36.

Barth co~ected with these thidcers in his own activities as pastor and socialist. 7'

During his student life at Marburg and during his early activities as pastor, Barth met

Leonhard Ragw who influenced hirn much. Through Ragaz, Barth was confionted with the

radical theme "that God was meeting men today in ~ocialisrn."~~ And it was through the

influence of this person that Religious Socialism became a forthright movement in Switzerland

in 1906-a movement of which Barth was dso a member."

Hemann Kutter is another person who played an important role in Barth's Life. Kutter

was also a member of the Religious Socialist movement He stressecl the importance of the real

and living Gd. From him Barth "leamt how to speak the great word 'Gd' seriously,

responsibly and with a sense of i r n p ~ ~ c e . " ' ~

As the last and very influentid penons in Barth's early life as a pastor, I should mention

Chnstoph Blumhardt and his son Johann Chnstoph Blumhardt. Barth first met these persons in

1907. Barth's eyes were then not yet fully ~pened.~' He met hem again in 1915. At this time

messages by and long conversations with Christoph Blumhardt opened Barth's eyes to a new

direction.

Christoph Blumhardt's thought and conviction represented an interesting bridge between

knowledge of God and the Christian hop for the future. Through hirn Barth learned '70

'' See note 68.

" Busch, Kurl Barth., 44.

'3 Ibid., 77.

" Ibid., 76.

'' Ibid., 44.

understand God aksh as the tadical renewer of the world who is at the same tirne Hirnself

completely and utterly new. For Barh this wuld be-and had to be-the starting point for further

developrnent~."~~ Mer this meeting with Chnstoph Blumhardt, Barth felt a longing to "show

himself and others the e~sentials."~

Behind Barth's move into a new direction stood a historiai experience of disillusionment.

The experience of disillusionment came with the outbreak of World War 1. The outbreak was in

itsel f a horrible occurrence of which Barth says that it "shook him and disturbed him to the

debths of his However, what proved to be more influentid for Barth as a theologian

and a p t o r was a manifesto supported by ninety-three Oemm intellectuals dlying themselves

with the war policy of Kaiser Wilhelm II and his Chancellor Bethmann-Holl mg. He discovered

that most of his theological teachers including Hermann and Hamack were arnong the supporters

of the manifesto.

Barth's reaction went deep, and he drew the conclusion that "their 'ethical failure'

indicated that 'thcir exegetical and dogrnatic presuppasitions could not be in order.' Thus 'a

whole world of exegesis, ethics, dogrnatics and preaching, which I hitherto held to be essentially

tmstworthy, was shaken to the founâations, and with it , al1 the other writings of the German

theo~ogians."'~

This occurence was the catalyst which pressed Barth to look for a new direction, a new

" ibid., 85.

Ibid., 86.

Ibid., 81.

79 Ibid., 81.

foundation, and a new starting pointm What he saw as the reason for the ethical failun of his

teachers was their theological underpimings, and not only those of his own teachers, but of al1

nineteenth cenhiry theology. One theoiogian in particular began to emerge as the problem of al1

of nineteenth cenhiry theology: Schleiennacher. "He was unmasked. In a decisive way al1 the

theology express4 in the manifesto and everything that followed it (even in the Christlichc

Welt) proved to be founded and govemed by him."" The new starting point had to be in direct

opposition to that of Schleiermacher."

This, then, is the context in which Barch met Blumhardt again, and it is Blumhardt

primarily that showed him the possibility of a new direction. Over against Schleiennacher's

anthropocentrism, Blumhardt preached and acted on the premise that one must start with God

and his Kingdom. James Smart in his The Divided Mind of Mdern Theology describes

Blumhardt's influence on Barth and his fiiend Thurneysen as, "not man but God is the primary

reality, the first certainty . . . This they [niumeysen and Barth] leamed from Blwnhardf to begin

" When Barth interprets his own theological development he again acknowledges that the ethical failure of his teachers at the outbreak of WWi played a decisive role in his seeking for a new direction. Barth in Green, Kud h r t h Thedogim of Frecdom, 49.

" Busch, K d W h . 82.

In the discussion of the context of Berth's discovery of Kohlbnigge 1 n f e d to the impasse Barth found in preaching, and how he with his dilemma also pointed to Schleiennacher as the one who had becorne wibelievable. The historical events 1 refer to hen, however, precede Barth's perceiveci dilemma in pteâcbing. Barth as pastor had always been involved in and concerned himself with political anâ social issues. Ethia piayeû an important role in his proclamation of the Word The ahicai Failure of his tutors thereforeydetstandably caused Barch to doubt his own ethical klibartions anâ activities as they were grounâeà in their teachings.

with Goâ, and this was the startling reversai in their thinking . . . " Barth himself stated in a

book of devotions by Blwnhardt that for him these devotions were "the most direct Word of Goci

into the need of the world that the war years have produced so far. 1 have the impression that

here is just what we would like to say-if we could!'"

What is clear is that Barth's development of the doctrine of the Word of God

c m be seen as emerging out of hisîorical-thtologid crises. The development can be seen as a

reaction against the titan of liberdism. Schleiennacher, who was seen as the background of the

ethical failure in the historical crises Blumhardt was the one who paved the way for the

possibility of a new foundation and direction. This new foundation was stamhg with God as

Gd.

The instantiation of this new realization came in the form of an exegesis on Rornun~. To

this work 1 will turn to gain a better understanding of what was hindamentally wrong with

Schleiermacher and his iegacy, according to Barth. and observe how Barth's doctrine of the

Word of God took shape in this context.

The fundamental problem with Schleiennacher, and with dl those who took their basic

starting point with him, was his subjectivity. Even Hemann who had been Barth's main tutor

still made the hwnan subject too much the important reference point." God had to be brought to

In introduction to Barth and Blumhardt, Action in Waifing (New York: Plough Publishing House, 1969) 1 1-12.

" lbid., 19.

Prior to the break out of WWI a d Barth's major disillusionment with his teachers' alliance with the war policy of the Kaiser, Barth having koorne active in the socialist movement as a 'Hermannian' in principle still always attempted to oonstmct a bridge benVeen H e m a ~ ' s subjective individualism as point of reference and active politicai and social life. Barth did this

the centre and so serve as ultimate reference point. Ragaz as radical socialist even became

questionable. He too did not concentrate enough on the starting point God. And of Kutter's

concept of 'the living God,' Barth had becorne suspicious too." Barth tumed his attention to the

by extenàing the influence and power of Jesus as going beyond the sphere of the self to the sphere of the political and social in which the self existed. See Bmce L. McCormack, Kurl Barth 's Criticaliy Reuiistic Biafecficul Tlteology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) 86-87. This is a marvellous book which treats the development and emergence of Barth's theology historically and biographically. In this book, McConnack delineates Marburgian Neo- Kantianism (Cohen and Natorp) and exposes its connections with Hermann's theology. Barth as devoted pupil of Hermann absorbs the same presuppositions prevalent in Hermann as borrowed from Cohen and Natorp. According to McComack this lays the ground work for Barth's own special dialectic with reference to the Word of G d McConnack traces Barth's dialectic to this period and sees it as the basic strand that unites dl Bad's writings starting fiom his semons in Safenwil through his editions of Romam to his last volume of Church Dogmatics. McConnack concludes by saying, ''Che final observation: however critiral B a h may have been of nodem theology, it is of utmost importance-if we are to have a more accurate understanding of the history of theology in the last two centuries-to see that Batth was a thoroughly modern option. It was, after all, only by presupposing the legitimacy of Kantian epistemology that he was enabled to envision the dialectic of veiling and wiveiling in God's Self-revelation in the fonn he did." 1 concur in essence with what McCormack observes. His genetic approach is most illuminating, one that also I atternpt to employ with my emphasis on the context of the emergence of Barth's Doctrine of the Word of Gd. McConnack, however, overlooks the central importance of the message of Blumhardt, and later Kohlbrugge's reinforcement of his undentanding of the Word of G d About the former he speaks on pages 123-1 24. He does connect him with Barth's new direction, however he does not explore this important relationship any further. Kohlbmgge is not mentioned in this book at all. In an email conespondence with Mc Cormack 1 expressed my agreement with his thought conceming Barth's Kantianism. I made reference to Van Til who also discovered Barth to be funâamentally Kantian and thereforc: modem. However, on the basis of Barth's Modemism, Van Til found Barth to be anti-Reformed with his doctrine of the Word of God in co~ection with the cl@ and historicity of it. McComack is sympathetic to Barth in this regard and expessed that 1 work with 'wrong- headed' assumptions. The motter is finally about truth In this case it al1 depends whether one would acknowledges Kant to be a sound thinker in the line of Reformed thdogy; McComack apparently does, I do not (Personal Email Correspondence, McConnack, Bruce L, Veldman, M, Jan, 12,2000 to Febr, 0 1,2000).

In a letter to Thunreysen, Barth writes upon having rrad an article by Ragaz "that he makes very cleu what he is lacking visa-vis Blumhardt and Kutter . . . Decisive for me is . . . the starting point. . . Not a word of the "knowledge of God" or "conversion", of "waiting" on the Kingdom of G d n McCormack, 124. The concepts ofwaiting and knowledge of G d are

Bible and with the twls he had he began to interpret Romans. The Schleierrnachaian religiosity

once and for al1 had to be overcome. The letter of Paul to the Romans was the vehicle."

The fundamental premise and starting point for Barth in interpreting Romans was the

intention that God must be left to be God and the human being the human being. In liberal

nineteenth century theology Barth felt that "man was made great at the cost of G d . . . For this

reason Barth asserteâ, shouted, declareci, spelled out in a constant vanety of new dialedm1

' meanderings' that God-is

It precisely occmed in the realm of religious îhought that the human was made great at the

expense of God, according to Barth. Feuerbach was the one who had pointed to the cancer in

theology. In his andysis of religion, or thcology for that matter, he set out to b b ~ s f o r m the

theologians into anthropologists [with the thesis that] God, as the quintessence of dl realities or

perfections, is nothing else but the quintessence, comprehensively surnmarized for the assistance

of the limited individual, of the qualities of the human species, scattered among hman beings,

and manifesting themselves in the course of history."" Irnplied in this thesis is an

understanding of the Word of God "which should be understwâ as the divinity of the human

important dues to Barth's aquaintance with Blumhardt. These concepts would survive the break up with liberdism. Kutter, however, by that time had become an impossibility for the new direction. Barth had become suspicious of his concept of the 'living God' after Kutter's wartime book Reden un clie Deutsche Nat ion. Busch, Kud 97.

" Barth says abut his decision to exegete the letter of Paul to the Romans that it was "to snatch it from [his] opponents." Barth in Busch, Kud 98.

Ibid., 1 19. T h e Godness of God-that was the bedrock we came up against . . . "

" Karl Barth, Feuerbach. in Kml Burth: TheoIogian of Freedom Ed. Cliffotd Green. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 199 1 ) 92.

word, in so far as it is a true word, a self-imparting of the 1 to the Thou, and thus essential human

nature, and hence the essence of God."'

In the religious realm it was Schleiennacher pur excellence who had fed the

anthropologization of God and His Word His "'Christology and the doctrine of atonement

[were] seeming ly projected back fiom the personal experience of the human subje~t."~'

Therefore, it was precisely Schleiemachenan piety, religiosity, and the Enlightenment, that

needed once and for al1 to be countered. In philosophical ternis, God again had to be asserted as

the subject of whom we are predicated in Jesus Ct~ist.'~ And this countering is what Barth, in

principle, set out to do in his cornmentary on Romans.

1 say in principle because as far as Romans goes I contend that it merely prepares one for

the acknowledgement of this reversal. It seeks to muke roum for the Word of Goâ, faith, and the

Holy Spirit. To understand huw Barth seeks to make room is crucial for an understanding of

how Barth later seeks to bring Christ h m the periphery to the centre of his thought. Precisely in

these huws I detect Kantian and Hegelian philosophical dynamics. For an examination of these

Y" Ibid., 93.

In a later lecture, in 1933, in which Barth exarnined the history and background of Protestant theology beginning with Schleiennacher, he described Pietism and the Enlightenment as "%wo fonns of one essence, outwardly more different thnn they really wem; both wen united in t heir attempt to inwfporate God in the realm of sovenign hurnan self-awareness. [And for Barth, Schleiermacher as the Cbmh foUm of the nineteenth cenniry] was seen as the representative of a theology in which man is left master of the field in so far as he alone has b m e the subjcct, h i l e Cbrist is the pedicate." (Busch, Kud, 221). In the nineteenth century the most welcome events thai pointed îo the sore in theology and had nmained unscanneci by it, were "Feuerbach, Strauss and - Kohlbriigge . . . " ibid., 178.

hows 1 will now tum to Baith's R6merbrieJ9'

When Barth sought to find a wholly new theological foundation for preaching he wore

spectacles of particdar kinds. In the preface to the second edition Barth made no secret of the

fact that besides Paul he drew his inspiration fkom Overbeck, a critical theologian who taught at

the University of Basel fiom 1872 to 1897, as well as Plato and Kant. He was seriously

introduced to Plato and Kant again by bis brother Heinrich.' In Concluding Un~cientijc

Postcrîpi on Schleiermucher Barth outrightly states that at the time of writing this commentary

"father Kant, who had provideâ the initial spark for me once before, also spoke in a remarkably

new and direct way to me in those years.'*' One must take Barth seriously for what he wrote at

this point. How it cm be taken seriously is evident fiom the iext itself.

Baith's fint object in expounding Romans is buth, not Divinity. He agrees with

Blumhardt that "simplicity is the mark of Di~inity."~~ However, this is precisely not where one

can start. The way to this simplicity first needs to be paved. For "the simplicity which proceeds

fiom the apprehension of God in the Bible and elsewhere, the simplicity with which God himself

speaks, stands not at the beginning of our journey but at its end."* Truth is not simple. It is

93 1 use the translation of the sixth and last edition, working from the presupposition that Barth employs the same 'dialectical' approach in al1 of them. (See note 83). In the process of examining the huw, I seek to, simultaneously, expose the matenal basis for this presupposition.

" Karl BPlth, The Epide to the Romans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968) 3-4.

" Barth in Green, Kurl Barth TheoIogiun of Freeckm. 72.

% Barth, The Epi.de tu the Romans, 5 .

97 Ibid, 5.

39

complicated, for life is complicated and the relation between God and the world is

cornpli~ated.~' Therefore in truth there needs to be made room for simplicity, for God and His

Worâ, for faith and the Spirit.

The only way humans can speak about tmth ond point to the simple is with a dialectical

method." This was the way Barth sought to go to the history beyond the historical. Al1 he was

taught beforc was to be in awe of history which, however, rendered him incapable of doing

serious interpretation. In response, Barth attempted to perceive the "'inner dialectic of the

matter' in the actual words of the text"'" This inner dialectic corresponds to what Kierkegaard

called the recognition of the "infinite qualitative distinction between time and etemity."'"' This

recognition points to the ultimate relation between God in heaven and hmans on earth. This is

for Barth the "theme of the Bible and the essence of philosophy. Philosophers name this KRiSlS

of human perception-the Prime Cause: the Bible beholds at the crossroads-the figure of Jesus

Christ." It is in this manner and from this perspective that Barth clairns never to go beyond a

critical exegesis. 'O2

ibid., 5.

" "The matter in the text cannot be released save by a relentless, elastic application of the âialectical method." %id., 8.

'O0 Ibid., 10.

'O1 ibid., 10.

l m ibid., 10, 13. This phrase 'critical exegcsis' 1 believe must also be interpreted very literally. It has everything to Q with Barth's distinction between the words of the Bible and the Word of G d . The former prîain to the words of Paul which BPrth seeks to understand. and the latter to the Word of God, only to k pointd to. see Ibid., 8, in wnjunction with page 72 of ConcIuding Unscientific Postscripi un Schleierwuacher. See nonote 93. CE Karl Barth, Ethics, tram. G e o W Bromiley (New York: The Seabuig Press Inc., 198 1) 3 1 1.

As 1 pointed out, it mis the religious persons, the theologians under the influence of

Pietism and the Enlightenment, who needed to be wuntered. It was they who had not lett G d

to be G d by seeking a point of contact with Him and their own subjectivity as fint and final

point of reference. This seeking was not done critically enwgh. They had not been critical

enough about the hurnan state and condition of their being and capacities. And thus they had

failed to realize what Paul meant when he spoke of a point of contact between God and the

human in Romans: "bat which may be known of God is manifest to them." (Romans 1 : 19).

It is by interpreting this verse critically that he is concemeâ with ûuth which is not simple.

The truth conceming God as manifested to humans is "the tmth conceming the limiting and

dissolving of men by the unknown Go& which breaks forth in the resurrection."lo3 Thus, to

know G d is to know one's own boundaries, one's own limitations.

Such critical knowing is itself grounded in a phcular understanding of how the mind

perceives. Historically it was Kant who first in a definite way exposed the human

epistemological conditions of the mind. In this context Barth goes on precisely to allude to

Kant's legacy. He States, "when our limitation is apprehendeû, and when He is perceived who,

in bounding us, is also the dissolution of our limitation, the most primitive as well as the most

highly developed fom of human selfoonsciousness becorne repeatedly involveâ in a 'despairing

humilation,' in the 'irony of the intelligence' (H. Cohen)."lW In such a way the human cm know

'" Ibid., 45.

Ibid., 45. H. Cohen was the founder of the Marburg School. He was a Neo-Kantian who postulated the concept of the Ideal Epistemological Subject, a subject beyond al1 subjects as the ground and determination of dl subjectivity. Bochenski, Contemporary 90.93-94 Cf. McCormack 43-77.

and must know that which is manifated to them by God of Hirnself. This is how God is known

and can be known.

Then Barth goes on to explain that this recognition of conditions and limitations can be

amved at autonomously. He states, ''the mgnition of the absolute heteronomy under which we

stand is itself an autonomous recognition and this is precisely thut which muy bc hown of

GOJ."IOS This then corresponds to Barth's description of the essence of philosophy as the

perception of KRISIS.

The coming to the perception of this KFüSIS autonomously is what Kant achieved in his

Critique of Pure R ~ u . I o ~ . ' ~ At the crossroads stands Jesus who is the dissolution of

limitations. 'O7 Religion ôarricades a bue understanding of the relationship between G d and the

Human. It b e d d e s the human in making her believe that there is a point of contact. But this is

precisely its blindness, because it does not understand the human limitations vis-a-vis Gd.

Religion is the cause of selfdelusion and sel fkïghteousness.

So fu 1 have shown how Barth sought to make room for the Word of God and faith.

Finally and even more hdamentally there is the necessity to let the Spirit speak. After al1 it is

the Spirit who works both faith and supplies humans with the Word of God.

How can the Spirit speak in the life of a human? Only d e r he or she is stung by the

'O5 Karl Barth, The Epi.srle to the Roma11s.. 46.

la For Kant "no mode of knowledge is adequate for solving the deep problems of existence and of man's l i fe-metaphy sics is impossible." Bochensky, Contemprary 4.

l m Karl Barth, The Episfk? !O the RoHII,~., 269. "But Jesus Christ is the new ma4 standing beyond all piety, beyond ail human possibility. He is the dissolution of the man of this world in his totality."

torpedo-fish can the Spirit speak. It was Socrates who was called a torpedo-fish because of his

ability to bring his hearers to complete helple~sness.~~ This brings forth the possibility of the

new human, the creation of the Spirit, when in "agreement with Kant, we deny omelves every

aspect beyond that by which we are limited"109 Making room for the Spirit is acknowledging

that by nature we leave no room for Him. For the Spirit "is describable only in negatives, He

nevertheless exists and we must pmwe the p d o x ; . . . [therefon] ow fear of denying Him is

far greater than our fear of betaking ourselves to the arnbiguous and questionable realm of

religi~n.""~ The Spirit thus stands at the end of religiosity according to humans, and at the

begiming of God-induced religion. ' "

Conclusively then, only in these ways of making room for the Worâ, for LA, and for the

Spirit, God can remain God. God then is the "'actus punis, pure reality and occurrence,

unlimited and unconfined, without begi~ing or end, place or time."'I2 With this observation 1

'* Ibid., 271. Barth appeals here to Socrates as one who paralyses like a torpedo-fish.

la) lbid., 271. Cf. McComack in regard to what extent Barth was influenced by Kant. He States that "'Barth's theological epistemology in Romans II stands everywhere in the long shadow cast by lmmanuel Kant" Bruce L. McConnack Kurf &irlh 's Crittcdj Redistic Diuiecticu/ Theologv. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 995) 245.

'O Katl Barth, The Episrlc to the Romans. , 274.

'' ' "Though we know full ml1 that no behaviour of ours can cornspond with the Spirit, yet it is preciscly this mgnition that may occasion the Spirit to intervene on our behalf, to correspond with us, and jh fy those who are not justifed. Therefore once again, lest we should sin against the Holy Ghost [the unperdonable sin!], we choose for oursclves the behaviour of religion by which we cannot be justifid" Ibid., 274.

I l 2 ibid., 274. God thus M b e d as actus punis is exactly what stands at the back of Barth's Doctrine of the Word of God. It is this concept of Barih which Bonhoeffer criticises in Bonhoeffer, D. Act d Being: Tr~li~cendenîai Phifosophy and Onîol08y in Systemutic theology trans. H. Rumscheidt (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).

have come to Barth's methodology in his L)ogmutics as it is shapeù and detennined by his

treatment of Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of Gd.

B. Barth's Primary Texb on the Word of Cod

1. Barth's Interpretation of Anselm as it Pertains to His Doctrine of the Word of God

Barth's treatinent of Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God exemplifies the

process of thought employai in bis Church ~ o p u t i c s . " ~ 1 am interesteâ in this process of

thought as it relates to Barth's understanding of the Word of God and his anthropology.

As far as Rumam is concemeâ, Barth's intention was to point out that the anthropological

basis of al l nineteenth century theology, starting with Schleiermacher, was futile. In that sense

Romans can be seen as rnaking room for faith, the Word of God, and the Spirit. What 1 mean is

that by it Barth made room for these three fundamental necessities for theology. It was the

"consciously and consistently executed anthropological starting point"'" that needed to be

countered. Romum was the break with this starting point in so far as it pointed to the bankruptcy

of the anthropological starting point.

"' This is not a daim that others have made, but one that Barth himself acknowledges. 1 will quote in full what Barth says about this book in the preface to the second edition. "'Only a few commentators, for example HMS Ur von Balthasar, have realized (hat my interest in Anselm was never a side-issue for me-assuming I am mon or less correct in my historical interpretation of St Anselm-realized how much it has influenced me or been absorbed into rny line of thinking. Most of them have wmpletely failed to see thrt in this book on Anselm 1 am working with a vital key, if not the key, to and understanding of that wtiole process of thought that has impressed me more and more in my Church Dogmticî as the only one p p e r to theology." Karl Barth. Anoelm: Fides QUPerens Intellccnmi, (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1962) 11.

"' Karl Barth The Theology of Schieiermacher (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982) 270.

As I observed rarlier, Barth saw that he needed to overcome his continual and prima1

emphasis on the cliastasj.~ that exists between etemity and time, God and the human He did this

by bringing Christ from the periphery to the centre of his theology. He was enabled to do this by

employing a methoâology inherent in Anselm's ontological prwf for the existence of God His

C%urch Dogrnatics test@ to the centrality of Christ and the influence of his interpretation of

Anselm.

Again the question as to why Barth perceives this book to be so imporiant for the rest of his

life is paramount for an understanding of how Barth perceives the nature and iùnction of the

Word of God.

If Romcrnv was written to counter îhe anthropological siarting point of othen'

interpretation of the hurnanGod relationship, then Barth's treatment of Anselm's ontological

proof of the existence of God cannot assume this starti'ng point. In his interpretation he

understands Anselm's proof asmih seeking understanding."" The proof king a result of faith

sec king understanding precl udes the possibi lity of assuming or fi nding a common ground fiom

which one can corne to a knowledge of the existence of Gd. Barth starts his treatment by

pointing to a necessery negation which arnounts to a denial of the anthropological staiting point

"' In the preface to the second edition of Anvclm: Fiiler Quuerem Intellectum Barth himself verifes that this book was the brrokthrough to his L)ogmutics. He states: "so far as I was concerneci, afier finishing (his book I went &ght into rny Chwch Dogrnatics and it has kept me occupied ever since and will occupy me for the rest of my days." A stronger statement as to the importance of this book in Bmih's kvelopment and process of thought is hardly possible.

'16 BOith States tbat f i th does not require a poof of God's existence. "There is absolutely no qwstion at al1 ofa requimnent of faich. Anselm wants 'proof and 'joy' because he wants in~eIligere and he wants inîeilegere beause he believes." Karl Barth. Anselm: Fides Quueren.~ Inirlfectwn (Cleveland: Tbe World Pubiishing Company, 1958) 16-17.

or horizon.

For Anselrn the act of believing "does not mean simply a striving of the human will

towards God but a striving of the human will into God and so participation (albeit in a nianner

limited by creatureliness) in Gd's mode of Being and so a similar w c i p t i o n in God's aseity,

in the matchless glory of His very Self, and therefore also in God's utter absence of necessity."'"

In other words the thoi of God canot be amived at by a human will stnving towards Gd.

As a matter of fact, the thor of God should not even becorne the question. If it does then this

presupposes a comrnon ground from which al1 humans can strive towards G d as if they were

outside of Him. What precedes this question is an inquiry into the w h t of G d . This is the

question behind the human will striving into God. ' l a In this way the anthropological horizon

must vanish and make place for the theological horizon.

Faith is the means to be initiated into the theological perspective or horizon. ARer all, it is

fuith seeking undentanding that Anselm is concemed with, not undentanding seeking faith. Yet

it is faith that seeks understunding. How then can faith know God? The answer to this question

is worked out in Barth's interpretation of Anselm's process of thought.

Essentially faith knows God by piuticipating in the knowleâge that God has of Himself and

allows hurnans to share with Him. Thus, this sharing is not only possible4od as Creator has

already shared this knowledge of Himself by creating hurnans in his Image. Faith actualizes this

potential. The Word of God as peeched and heard appeals to, and encounters this potential.

"' Ibid., 17.

'la 1 owe the distinction and the priority of the ' h t ' and the 'what' to Van Til. Cornelius Van Til. The Defnse of the Faifh (New Jersey: Resbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980) apecially 9-13.1 believe in this respect Van Til connects with Briiih's methodology.

Faith then desires to know, to ~nderstmd."~

This knowing nevertheless remains within the theological horizon because fait h

acknowledges that God is the source and the cause of that knowledge of truth of Himself, and so

also of ourselves. The "God in whom we believe is the cuusu vcritutes in cogitatione. "'*O The

necessity of theology is thus inherent in the faith-acknowledgement that humans are necessarily

bound up with God. And once the will has becorne obedient in love, then faith seeks to know

and understand the One with whom he or she is bound up.

If the necessity of theology is bund up with the existence of God and His relation to the

World and humans, it still begs the question how theology is possible. This question Barth

answen by refemng to what Anselm perceives as the object of theology.

With reference to this question Barth could have easily gone back to what he stressed in

Romans, namely the diastmis between etemity and time, God and the human being. The

question pertaining to the possibility of thwlogy implies the paradox of Gd ' s relation with

humans. However, if in Romns Baith stressed the impossibility of the possible,"' then through

"' Anselm describes the image of God as potential as "the imago summue essentiue (of the holy Three-in-One-ness of God) per nuturafem ptentium impre. . . " i t is a nanually impressed image which by faith, as the change of will, "per voluntanum effectum expressa." Karl Barth, Anselm. 19-20. This is essentially the b i s for Barth's concept of Christ as the ontological determination of humanity. I work this out in the discussion on the co~ect ion with the word of God and the Tnnity.

Ibid., 21.

12' In Romam Barth annomes the theme of the Epistle as the woràs of Paul the believer test@ to us the faith ofa man who aninns îhe "'No' and [is] reaây to accept the void and to move and tany in mgationn Karl Barth. The Epistle to the Romm. Wew York: Oxford University Press, 1%8) 42. Grace, as God's Yes, is the possibility of God, recognized in the impossibility of humans. “Gras is the impibility which is possible only in Goâ, . . . Grace is man's divine possibility, and, as such, lies ôeyond al1 human possibility." Ibid., 23 1,242

Anselm: Fides Quaerens Inteffectzun he is enabled to stress the possibility of the impossible.

This, in essence, is done by bringing Christ from the periphery to the centre of His thought. lu

The proper object of theology is the revelation of G d The possibility or impossibility of

theology, however, is not so much tied to an argument that views the revelation of G d as a

possible viable alternative to other possible sources of tniths. Such an approach is precluded by

refemng back to the necessity of cheology. Rather, the difficulties one encounters in doing

theology is a result of the tension between the subjective and the objective Credo.

The objective Credo is that which the Church confesses to be tnie. This serves as the

unindictable point of reference. The objective Credo includes the Bible and the confessions of

old. The subjective credo refen to the human word of preaching as it expressa the 'Word of

Christ' as the truth faith holds it to IR.'* It is beiween these two credos that the dialectical

dynarnic plays itself out. Faith seeking understanding moves between these two poles. It moves

from the point of reference as the Godly-possi ble to the understanding as the hurnanly-

impossible. Faith grabs holdof what is possible by G d And so the possibility oftheology

depends precisely on the actualization of the Godly-possible in the sphere of the human-this-

worldly understanding.

IU One must keep in mind that even though there might be a change in emphases from Rumam to the Church Lkgmatics, the dialectic between the possible and the impossible is still maintained. The pobiem of the God-hurnan relation in the Chtach Dopmtics is highiighted fiom the positive to the negative of the dialectical poles and finally resolved in a higher dialectical inclusion with reference to the inter-Trinitarian acts of M. The Word of God serves as the medium for the acknowledgement of the acts of God. The irnpossibility is then bound up with the way one Mews the relationship between the Word of God and the words of humans.

Cf- Karl Barth. Fides Qziuerens I~ellecrian. (Cleveland: The World Publishing Company, 1958) 24.

The Godly-possible, more precisely, is the M o vcritates. 12' It is the ultimate reference

point for faith. As reference point it can be described as the objective Credo. However, the fact

that it is the Godiypossible ought to place the humm always in a position of humility. To start

properly with God is to stari continually and consistentiy with Gd. In this way humility in the

face of God is the background of theology as science and theological work as scientific. The

latter cm be descnbed as pertaining to subjective credo. Barth elucidates this in his D o m t i c s

in Outiine to which 1 refemed in the intr~duction,'~

The objective &do as reference point is the reason for and the possibility of Dogmatics.

As such the objective Credo corresponds to the Word of G d 2 ' What needs to be taken very

seriously is the fact that the Word of God is the reference point. As reference point the Absolute

Word of God lies outside the words of humans, and even outside the Bible, as relative to that

Word. In this way a point of reference is merely a reference to a point, and this must be taken

very literally. The point itself is always beyond the painting. For these reasons Barth calls

Dogmatics a critical science. 12'

The task of Dopatics characterizeâ as criticd must be taken quite literally, and should

not be divorceà from the context of Barth's own theological development. Barth States that "in

the science of Dogrnatics the Church draws up its reckoning in accordance with the state of its

lZ4 Karl Barth, Anselm., 26.

12' Karl Barth. Dogmatics in Outhe (New York: Haper and Row, Publishers, 1959) 9-14.

lZ6 bLTherc wodd be no dogmatics at dl , unless the Church's task consisted centrally in the proclamation of the Gospel in witness to the word spoken by G d " Ibid, 1 1.

In Ibid., 12.

knowledge at different times. Dogmatics will always be able to fulfil its tasks only in

accordance with the state of the Church at different times."'2g

This being so one might well ask to what extent Barth's Dogmatics is relative to the time

in which he lived, or relative to the development of his own theology. Maybe even the

conception of Dogmatics as critical might then become relative to his own theological

development and become suspicious. Barth states it very strongly: "if there exists a critical

science at all, which is constantly having to begin at the beginning, dogmatics is that science."'29

To begin at the beginning time and again, which is the description of the nature of dogmatics as

critical, corresponds thus to the dialectical movement between the objective and the subjective

credo.^, which itself is to initiate and sustain the advancement "from credere to intellegere. " I"

The characterization of Dogmatics as critical is the prkcis of the possibility of theology.

With this concept we see the transposition of the dialectic employed in Romans from a negative

into a positive one. The dialectic is catapulted into the sphere of the Word of God with faith as

its basic starting point What I mean is elucidated by Barth under the discussion of the

conditions of theology.

"in its relation to the [objective] Credo, theological science, as science of the Credo, can

only have a positive character."13' This positive character is precisely due to the transposition of

the dialectic employed in Romans. As 1 observed there, Barth moved from the impossible to the

"' bid., 10-1 1.

I" bid., 12.

Karl Barth. Amelm., 24.

lbid, 26.

possible to break through the anthropological horizon of the legacy of Schleiermacher. in

Ameim: Fides Quocrem IntelIectum. and fiom then on, Barlli moves fiom the possible, as the

assumption of faith, to the impossible, as the condition of ou. humanity. '" This positive

character goes even beyond the vertical4ialectic of the relation between God and the human, the

possible and the impossible. It has a hvofold chamter for it not only aflïrms the truth of faith

but a h , and possibly more importantly, the reol.y to which this faith clings acknowledges.

The theologian mut ask the question, '30 what extent is reality as the Christian believes it

to be?"lu This question m o t be pushed beyond the Iimits of even faithexistence. Faith cannot

go beyond the Credo. It however can seek to inderstand the content of the Credo in sofar as this

is the form of revelation as given. For example, when one spaks of the Trinity or the

incarnation, one must not seek to comprehend the possibility of the t h t of these facts. The

theologian can merel y inquire into the w h t of these facts, or what Barth al ludes to as "the imer

necessity."'" So by faith one can only acquire the derstanding of the nature of God which by

its very amibutes then also, necessarily, encompasses His existence. " 5

As far as theology is concemed. however, humans can only have inadequate conceptions of

132 'That is to Say: While I believe, I also believe that the knowledge for which 1 seek, as it is demanded and renkred possible by faith, has faith as its presupposition, and that in itself it would immediately becorne impossible werr it not the knowledge of faith." %id., 26.

'" ibid., 27.

''' This, of course, is how Anselm profeeds in his proof of the existence of God. The name, or concept of G d which we humans have anci CM have of Him defies the description and affirmation of that king ht-then-which-mthing-greatet-hthought as nonexistent Therefore God exists.

God. ''The actual Word of Christ spken to us is not an inadequate expression of its object,

though of course every attempt on our part, even the highest and the best, to reproduce that

Word in thought or in speech is inadequate . . . Al1 that we have are conceptions of objects, none

of which is identical wi th God." '" This reinforces the dialectic between objective Credo and

subjective credo. In so far as the objective Credo is only reference point, it aims at reinforcing

the distinction between Cod and the human being. God is the Wholly-other. However, because

of the necessity of theology which is grounded in the God, who is the sumnra veritus and the

couva veritutes, "' humans nonetheless can have and mut have conceptions of theii Creator and

Redeemer. These conceptions, even though they can in essence not be identical with God, can

nevertheless be appropriate and true with reference to God. Ln this sense theology is speculative

in that it approxirnates its object relative to the conditions and wntext in which it attempts to

express its tmths. lJY

The dialectic between the objective Credo and the subjective credo is M e r qualifieci by

distinctions that need to be made between our knowledge and reality, and Gd's; between the

the word of humans and the Word of God. I have noted that the objective Ckdo is to be

understood as nference point. It is a refrence point, because God is the Wholl y-other. As suc h

God is in relation to our understanding, the rutio veritutes. "Strictly undentoad the rutio

verltuts is identical with the ratio .rwnmcrc niaturue, that is with the divine Word consubstantial

'" Ibid., 29.

'" Ibid., 18.

13' "Not al1 'speculative' theology says what is trw. But even theology which does say what is hue is still 'speculative' theology." Ibid, 30.

with the Father."'" The human knowledge and the human word need to be distinguished fiom

this ultimate ratio.

When speaking of the Scriptures as Word of God a distinction needs to be made between

the outer and the imer text. Barth places Anselm, with his doctrine of Scripture, between the

liberals of his time- with his approach of faith seeking understanding and not understanding

seeking f&th- and the 'positivists,' the traditionalists of his day who would see the Scnptures

consist of outward mth statements. ''O Barth interprets Anselm as conceiving of an outward text

which is related to the inner text as witness to the tmth in the imer text, The tnith found in the

inner text can only be the result of "a distinct intention and act and also-and this is decisive-

only by virtue of special grace."14' Our faith clings to that tmth as our mind seeks to understand

it.

Can our undetstanding ever achieve the ratio veritutes? No, for then one would need to be

God. God at al1 cos& needs to remain God. He cannot become subject to our conceptions. Our

'" The tenninology Barth rises here is clearly out of his o m time. This goes along with his daim that theology is always bound by the history and conditions of the theologian himself, even with the way one sees Scriptures. Barth has no qualms about king accused of reading something into the eleventhentwy thinker. "Who can nad with eyes other than his own?" Ibid., 9.

14' Ibid., 41. Hen Barth goes beyond the Refonnen, as he interprets Anselm. The Refonners always held to a view of Scripture which stresscd its perspicuity so as to leave the unbeliever with no excuse when wnfionted with God's Word It is k r e where Barth's actwlism fin& its bearing. Berth sp& of a special act of gnce which is an act of Gd. In essence Barth's whole theology of the Word of Gd is anchond in this perspective of the Scriptwes as in need of bemming the Word of G d by a special act of grace of G d This is what 1 descnbed previously as the verticaidialectic inherent in Barth's Qcbine of the Word of God.

conceptions only approximate and are limited by the horizon of our own history and conditions.

Nonetheless, we must have an undentanding of God and the World and ourselves, for theology

necessitates it. How humans can have this understanding is related to Barth's further

distinctions between ratios as they are correlated with the distinction between the outer and the

inner text.

Barth feeis justifid making the distinction between the human "knowing ratio and . . . the

rurio that is to be known, the ratio that belongs to the object of faith itself'.""" The object of

faith must itself be understood os the active subject for faith. The ratio veritutes or the ratio Dei

is the primary object of faith. But because it is G d who is this object, and as such the Christian

God who creates, reveals, and redeems and so necessitates theology and understanding, He is at

the sarne tirne the active subject for faith. "What is meant by the human rutio with regard to the

truth can therefore in no circumstance be one that is creative and n~rmative."'~' It is the Divine

Word that is creative and normative and thus is the source and reference point for al1 human

understanding.

As far as tmtb is concemed Barth refen to the nuetic rutio. It comespnds to that which

can be known about d i t y . This is what is in the understanding. However, the redity that can

be known precedes the knowledge of it. This is temed the ontic rutio. Id5

''' Ibid., 44. M h alludes to Anselm's use of Latin cases which indicate action on the part of the knower, the abiative case of ratio, and the object of the action of the knower, the accusative case of some fonn of ratio. This is the h i s on which Barth justifies his distinction.

'" Ibid., 46-47.

Ibid., 46.

''" Ibid., 46-47.

Yet it must be kept in mind that Barth is still speaking of the human understanding. In

oiher words, one is alwûys still dealing with speculative theology. God as God is still beyond

our conceptions as the rutio vcritutis, the rutio summue nuturue. In the Credo and in the Bible

this ultirnate ratio is hidden and ow ratios only resemble the üuth and reality of God fiom time

to time. "Thus: fiom time to time in the event of knowing, it happens that the noetic rutio of the

veritas conforms to the ontic and to that extent is or is not vcru rutio- . . . Fundamentally, the

rutio, either as ontic or noetic is never higher than the truth but the tmth is itself the master of al1

rutiones beyond the contrast between ontic and noetic deciding for itself, now here now there,

what is ver rutio. . . -9 146

In conclusion as far as the Bible as Word of God is concemed it can now be said that it is

the inner text of the Bible that testifles to the truth of the outer text. It is also the inner text that

should correspond to the ontic and noetic ratios in the human understanding as faith seeks it.

Yet the dialectic between the word of hurnans and the Word of God still holds force, for even as

far as the noetic and the ontic rutios are concemed they are still subject to the act of G d by his

special Word of grace. Faith grabs hold of this Word, yet it is only from tsme to time, from

event to event, that it knows how to correspond to the Tmth. It must not despir, however,

because the necessity of theology precludcs it finding truc answen anywhere else. It is even tme

that when it finds the answer it is an answer that is hndamentally and exclusively the

actualization of a reality and tmth that has been established alteady. How this mith and d i t y is

established uireudy is only to be found out by seeking to understand the essence and nature of

God as He has revealed Himself in, by, and through His Word, Jesus Christ.

If the dialectic ôetween the Word of God and the word of humans is the verticaldialectic

as necessitated by the limitations of the hurnan and historia1 horizon, then as far as faith is

concerne4 the supersession of this dialectic is established by the inter-Trinitarian relation of

G d to be understd as the detennination of true reality. This is essentially the ground of the

necessity and possibility of theology. lmplicitly this then is rlso the ground of Christ as the

ontological detennination of humanity. To understand how this is so, 1 now turn to Barth's

(Xurch Dogrna! ics. Vol . V 1.

2. The Doctrine of the Word of God as Expressed in C.l,~urch Dogrnuîics, Vol m e i/l

i. The Word of God

If there is one fhdamental diEculty Barth seeks to overcome in his Church Dogmtics, it

is precisely the possibility of doing theology or dogmatics at all. '" ültimately humans stand

before a mystery which is at the same time the source and therefore the possibility of theology

and dogrnatics: a mystery however it rernains. For this reason prayer is the necessary condition

for doing dogmatics. '" The question after the possibility of dogrnatics cannot however centre on the distinction or

opposition between reason and faith. The question is not how human knowledge can be possible

in the face of revelation, but what is real human knowledge of Godly revelation. It is ultimately

Chnst Himself Who speaks tu and is the king for human beings in this way. The question how

"' Karl Barth, Church Dogmcrtics Vol. 1. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955) 22- 23.

'" Ibid., 25.

the Word of God is related to human beings, and their actions and thoughts, is treated in the

doctrine of the Word of God.

In the Introduction 1 referred to Barth's doctrine of the Word of G d in three-fold form. A

review is not necessary here. It is necessary to highlight and expose Barth's understanding of

the relationship of the fom in which the Word of God cornes and the content of this Word as

they are related to the human being in reaiity. nie question behind this investigation is an

understanding of Barth's conception of the possibility of the experience of the Word of God.

1 am convinceû that Barth's concept of revelation stands or falls with his perception of the

experience of the Word of God. niis investigation has in turn everything to do with Barth's

conception of the Trinity in relation CO his doctrine of the Word of God.

Barth's insistence to continudly and consistently start with God and His revelation is

conditioned by his understanding of the possibility of the Triune G d to provide the occasion of

human participation and experience of His Word. The possibility of the experience of the Word

of God. however, must at al1 costs be articulated so as also to maintain the definite and etemal

qualitative distinction between God and the human king Barth's doctrine of the Word of God

and his Doctrine of the Trinity in relation to it precisely attempt to accomplish this.

How Barth perceives this possibility will be the focus of my interpretation in order to

contrast his doctrine of the Word of ûoâ and its anthropological implication with Kohlbrugge.

There are thus three foms of the Word of God: the oral, the written, and the revealed. The

designation of them a s f i m must be taken note oc As foms they cannot be at this point

equateâ with the content. What Barth described earlier with the distinction between the

objective Credo and the subjective credo, ôetween the inner and the outer text of the Scriptures,

and between the Rutio Dei and the hurnan ratio, pertains also to the difference between the form

and the content of the Word of God, to a lesser or greater extent. The dialectic between God and

human beings, between the unveiled and the veiled, between God's Word and the hurnan word,

here plays iiself out as the dialectic between fom and content. Let me expand on this.

When Barth speaks of the three forms of the Word of G d he always refers to them as

standing in a relation to sornething which informs them. With respect to the preached Word of

God that which infomis it is the actual event of the Word of God causing the preached word to

becorne the actual Word of God, from time to time. la

The written Word of God testifies also to events that p i nt beyond itsel f. As canonized

Scnpture, it is a recording of events that have already happeneâ, of words

that have already been spoken. The Scriptures, however, maintain authority, and priority over the

preached word today because the Church's rrxollection of revelation of God in the past has

ascertained the canonized Scriptures as her object. This is so because at the same tirne the Bible

contains the promise for future revelation for which the Church longs and upon which it depends

'" Ibid., 98-99. As Barth notes himself in this context, it is not merely coincidental that with his notion of the Word of God becoming the actual Word of God a discussion of the Lord's Supper is connected. 1 contend that, in fact, this wnnection is pertinent on al1 accounts. Barth allied himself with the Zwinglian-calvinistic interpretation of the elements of the Lord's Supper, which strongly proposed that the finite is not capable of the infinite. One can see that Barth's Doctrine of the Word of God, against al1 the Luthenuis of his day is a woiking out of this 'Refonned' view. C t Bonhoeffer's criticism of Barth's notion of revelation as pure act of G d in, Act und Being Trunsc%ndentc~l Philarophy and Ortlolo~ in Systematic TheoIogy. Trans. K Rumscheidt (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 19%). In essence the difference between Barth and Bonhoeffer is rooted in the difference between R e f o d and Lutherans on this point. Barth's abundant refennces to Luther in this chapter of his Chu& Dogmaticr with refetence to the Word of God 1 think are misleading ~arth's appmach is mostly fonnul, whereas Luther spke of the Word of God appropriated in a existential, muterial way. Lutherans held that the finite was capable of the infinite.

for her existence. However, the mitten word shares with the preached word that it too must fkom

time to time become God's Word to us in virtue of the act of Godw

The etemi or revealed Word of God is the form of the Word of God as the actual event to

which the preached and the h t t e n Word point. It is that Word to which the biblical figures

witness. John the Baptist as the prophet standing between the Old and New testament is the

prototype of this witnessing. Here Barth refers to his beloved painting of Grünenwald in which

John is depicted with an elongated finger pointing to Christ on the cross. Yet Barth again

cautions that even the most faithful witness is not the event itself. In facf this witnessing is

purely fonnally different fiom the event. In so far as it is the revealed Word it actually is the

Word to which the preached and written word testify. As such it is the unconditoned and at the

same time the conditioning form ofthe Word of God. It is the ground of all possible self-

realizations. 15'

Pertaining to the content of the Word of God, Barth discusses the nature o f the Word of

God under the Word of God as God's Language, God's Language as God's Act, and God's

Language as GGod My~tery. '~~ The emphasis mut lie on God to prevent any point of connection

IW bid., 1 1 1 - 1 24. At this point Bartb refers to the doctrines of the Lutherans of the power of the Word of G d and agrees with them, but not fully. This 'not fully' is precisely due to the fact that Hollaz, whom Barth speaks about in this context, thought of the Word of God not as act but as potentiol and as such needed no new act to make it God's Word. God's Word is Gd's Word even e x ~ u uwm %id

"' Ibid., 124- 135. In this context, speaking of the unity of the Word of God, Barth draws the attention to the Trinity. The three foms can k seen as analogy of the three-in-oneness of the Fathet (revelation), the Son (Scripture), and Holy Spirit (pnaching).

'" Barth star& this paragraph by comting his prwious dogrnatics in which he spdre at this point of the move fiom the phemenological to the existentid. He regrets this teminology for it feeck the miswiderstanding that he again atternpts to existentidize and so anthropologize

with the human realm of self-indueed possibilities.

The fint important differentiation is that the Word of Cod comes to us as act of God in

speech. This speech is preeminently spiritual. As such it is not natural or human. Yet it is also

not not human, for in the fonn it cornes to us it must be natural and human as well othenvise it

wuld not be understd As speech of God it is thus pnmarily spiritual, and subordinately

human and natural.

Secondly, the act of God is p r s o ~ l : it is personal speech with which we are concemed,

because it is speech of a Person. As such it is concrete, and has objective content. However this

personal concreteness and objectivity is something that neither can be foreseen nor duplicated.

Here Barth is actually refemng to the Word of God, as the unconditioned and at the same time,

the conditioning form. Ultimately it is, as God's revelation, identical with Jesus Christ His

S~n.'~%owever, it can only be this indirectly for us, namely as that which informs the fonn. By

virtue of the act of God it can become Jesus Christ for us.

Thirdly, when G d acts He acts pwposefu~fy. His acts mediated through His Words have

an address and intentions. And as it is G d who speaks, who is personal and addresses us, His

Word is something that comes to us as free and sovereip. It is wholly and only detennined by

the revelation of God. In this context he speaks of Gogarten's endeavour to seek a point of contact in the human king with revelation. He wam Gogarten, even with reference to the War, that it is possibly not m'se to follow in Schleiemcber's tracks. ibid., 143-144.

'j3 Ibid., 155. Here Barth refers to John 1. There God's Word is not different fiom God's Son. However at the same time God's Word is not more then a signification for us. We can only know and experiemr it through this name, this word It is fint self-referential and then also a reference for us. In other words the distinction must be made between the Word signified and the signification of the Word. Or, and let me be suggestive, between dos Wort and d a Wort-un- Sich. Ibid., 1 56-1 57.

God when He addresses and acts towards M.'" This only may occur from time to time. It is a

particular event that needs to be repeated without us king able to anticipate, or duplicate it.

Even the Bible as such, or the proclamation, camot be equated or identified with it.

Nevertheless the Word, thus occumng, aims at our existence. because it is God Our Creator Who

speaks as He spoke when we were created And so it aims at establishing the renewal of our

relationship with G d He again sets up His covenant with us by His Word as Reconciler and

finally will show Himself to be the content of His Word at the end of tirne. This is the final and

most appropnate image of God as the content and fulfiller of His own Word As such, He is the

One who is always coming to us from the outside and fiom the future, and so remains Lord of

His own revelation. 155

The Word of God as Gd's speech is the sarne as God's act, understd from God's side.

For Go4 Word und Act are one. In history, that is in the realm of human existence, we must

differentiate between word and action, promise and hl filment. From Gd's side, that is from

etemity, this distinction cannot be made. When God speaks, it is. Gd's Word strictly and

formally speaking is God's original utterance in His revelation: it i s the time of Jesus Christ. '" This is the revealed Word of the God that stands at the back of ail human utterances in so far as

these utterances attempt to point to Christ. Jesus Christ as the Etemal Word of God is the final

lY lbid., 159. On this page Barth sets up his appraach against those who place the Doctrine of the Word of God within an anthropological fnunework. Barth places his Doctrine of the Word of God within the hamework of God's freedom, His sovereign good pleasure, and His purposeful acting towarâs human beings.

Is' ibid., 162.

'" ibid., 164.

and ultimate reference point in whom act and word are one. Therefore the historical, as such, is

never the dlrect bearer of revelation.

Lessing's big ditch, the dictum that the accidental truths of history are never the necessary

t ~ t h s of reason. cannot be overcome in the way Lessing himsel f attempted to overcome it, Le.,

with an appeal to the Spirit and Power, with an appeal to an inner relationship between us and

Christ. This would again amount to an anthropololjzing of God and His Word. All those who

followed in Lessing's tracks never found it dificult to view history as revelational. This was,

however in contrast to Kant. lJ' He essential l y denied this p s i bi l i ty.

Revelation as God's act is directly in itself not subject to the problem of the historicity of

the Word of Gd."' 1 ask, how could it be otherwise? God as God knows Hirnself and His acts

directly, and perfectly. He is identical with Hirnself and so is His Word identical with Him. It is

Is7 Ibid., 166-167. Barth does not side with Lessing's solution of the 'big ditch' problem. He, however, does acknowledge the observed dif'fïculty. It is in fact precisely with his own doctrine of the Word of God as his view of revelation that Barth attempts to circumscribe the observed difficulty. Jesus Christ, as the Eternal Word and ultimate reference point, circumscribes this difficulty in principle. In the en4 for Barth too revelation is always historical, but history is never revelational. In this he thus sides with Kant and the Enlightenment. The knowableness and the experience of the Word of God must overcome this distinction, in my view, in order for it to be mie knowledge and experience of the Word of G d Cf. Peter Halman Monsma, Kurf &irthgs ldeo of Revelulion. (New York, Somerville: Somenet Press, Inc., 1937) esp. 147-200. 1 am indebted to Monsma for indicating the incommensurability between fom and content in Barth's idea of revelation. In my email cornpondence with McCormack, McCormack acknowledged an aquaintance with Monsma's thougbt. He however disavowed of Monsma's inteptation even though Monsma's approach is comparable to his own genetic approach. Monsma puts Barth's idea of revelation also in the context of Barth's theological development referring even to private conversations he had with Barth when he attended his lectures and spoke to Barth pemnally. I contend that Monsma's Nein to Barth is just as legitimate and justifiable as Barth thought his Nein to Emil Brunner was. This in part acçounts for the 'wrong-headed' asswnptions McConnack accuseci me of(see note 85).

'" Ibid, 168.

therefore only contingently that the Word of God may be established as Word of God and only

by virtue of an act of G d

Saying al1 this amounts in essence to a tautology. Philosophically al1 problems of logic are

only problems till they can be brought back to an original truthful relation of propositions. In

Barth's analysis Goci can only be truly related to and with Himself In the way of history, God

and human beings, cannot be brought back to an original, mithfui relation. Oniy in revelation in

Christ as the Etemal Word of Goâ, can human beings be brought to an original tmthful relation

with God. The problem of the historical i s circumscribed by Barth with continual reference to

the Etemal Word of God, Jesus Ctuist. This is the only possibility arnidst all human

impossibilities because it is the Gody possible.

With respect to the Word of G d as the act of God it must finally be understood as God's

mystery. If Barth has noi already said enough about the human, natural, and historical incapacity

for the Word of Gd, here Barth emphasizes it again. The Act and Word of God as rnystery is

beyond any possible or even imaginable description or reflection in tens of and with reference

to the natural, historical, human realm of limitations.

What is involved here is not merely a peradox. That in and of itsdf would only point to a

vertical dialectic. The vertical dialectic is supeneded by another kind of dialectic. A dialectic

which takes place in Goâ, as Rune Gad, Himself.lY> Making rwm for the acknowledgement of

15' McLean in his book, Hwnonity in the Thuglit of KarI Barth, also notes a continuity in Barth's dialectical methodology. For hirn there are five interpetive keys to the understanding of Barth's anthropology. I record three as they directly relate to my claims. Mclean asserts that, 'y 1) the object generates the method, (2) fom and content need to be understood together, and (3) dialogical-dialectical thought is based on the mode1 of conversation." Mclean, Stuart D. Humanity in the Thought of Kurl Barth. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark LTD. 1981). 13-14. On the whole, Mclean interprets Barth with the purpose of making him accessible to social scientists

Gd's own inner dialectic, Barth defines the mystery of the act of God as "the veiling of God in

which he mats us by actually unveiling Himself to us: because he cannot unveil Himself to us in

any other way than by veiling Himself " l M This way of describing the mystery of the act of God

is to prevent any possible identification with the anthropological horizon. It is a way of

describing the form of the Word of God in a double indirect way: even when Goâ is thought to

have revealed himself in spiie of the human, natunl, and historical f o m (first indirect way)

then it still remains mie that revelation remains veiled (second indirect way). The rending of

this unrendable veil is the miracle of God's revelation as mystery.

This double indirect way always accounts for the one-sidedness of the revelation of God. In

His veiling in unveiling and His unveiling in veiling G d remains beyond anything that

(vii). Therefore in my view he horimntalizes Barth's Christological anthropology. I contend that Barth supersedes the verticaldialectic with reference to what takes and took place within the Trinity. Mclean interprets and applies what has taken place within the Tnnity in terms of an interactional and relational model of conversation. In essence he too, there fore, loses the possibility of referring to real experience of the Word of God. The Word of G d merely becornes an analogy, in his hands. Fundarnentally Mclean highlights the converse of what 1 am trying to Say. He absorbs God in a human model of understanding. I contend that Barth absorbs the human in God (see vii).

'" Karl Barth, CD VI ., 1 88.

'" Ibid., 19 1. In the section of eluciâation on this concept of revelation, Barth States that above al1 he seeks to protect revelation, that is Jesus Chnst, fiom any direct or relatively indirect proof of Christianity's superiority to al1 other religions. What seems in the long run to be most effective is to treai ChRstianity expressly, and unadulteratedly historicai, and so not much mix the categories of revelation and history. As WC saw, for Barth history is never revelational. From his Kantian point of view Barth treats history, and so also the historical Word of Goâ, as incapable of the infinite. For this reason we mut treat Christianity unadulteratedly historical and never mix history as such with melation. From his Hegelian dynarnic point of view melation is always in need of be~oming historicai. The Word of God therefore must also fiom time to time become actual Word of ûoâ. I contend that Barth, because of his ontologicalielationd approach, makes this kcoming impossible and his view of the Word of God, conditioned in this way, unme.

acquiesces with us. His revelation cannot even be tra~posed into an intuition of our own or into

an attitude of correspondence. It is only in faith that wr acknowledge the limitations of human

beings and simultaneously acknowledge the mystery of God in His revelation. In faith therefore

we are lead through fom to the content of the Word of God respectively, and vice versa. 16'

Barth also speaks in different tenns of this dialectic of veiling and unveiling. "The Word

of God in its veiling-its fomi- is God's demand upon man The Word of God in its unveiling-

its content-is God's tuming to man"'" Or simply put, the veiling, the fonn of the Word of

God is the Law, and the unveiling, the content is the Gospel. The former Barth interprets as the

u p s ulilieum of Gd's gace, and the latter as the opus Dei pruprium.

Barth time and time again cites Luther in this context. His quoting of Luther, in the way

Barth does it, is misleading. Barth collapses the law and the Gospel, whereas Luther saw it as

his obligation to, at al1 costs, distinguish between them. '" If the actual content of the Word of

God is the Gospel, and for Barth this is so because Christ is the actual Word of God

preeminently, and if the fonn is always and only that which is not actually the Word of Goâ,

then the Law cannot be actually the Word of G d and so collapses in the ultimate and only

actuality of the Word of God, the Gospel.

The importance of this issue will resurface again with treamient of Kohlbrugge's

''' Ibid., 201.

16' Ibid., 204.

la Werner Elert, The Christh Ethos. trans. Schindler Carl. J. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957) 302-303, see also 297-330. Elert refers to Barth's Evangelium und Gesetz Over against it he posits Luther's understanding who wrote "'A law that does not condemn is a fictitious and pinted law like a chimem or a tregelaphus' (a frightening beast of medieval mythology), . . . " (303).

perception of the Word of Gd. Kohlbrugge understood the Word primarily as Law, and then

also as fulfilled Law.

Although we are led in faith through fonn to content, and through content to form the one-

sidedness of the Word of God as mystery is prirnarily detennined by the fact that i t is God '.Y

Word. Therefore, at d l times, if and when we grasp the Word of God in faith, it is actually the

Word of God grasping us. This is the work of the Spirit. The possibility of grasping, or rather,

of king graspeâ, lies entirely in the hands of the Holy Spirit Who is the Lord over the Word of

God and the Lord over our reception of it. This is ultimately how the Word of God cornes to

human beings and is relateâ to our natural and historical existence.

The possibilities lie entirely in the hand of God and His Word and to tliese we cling in

faith. However 1 ask, how then is the Word effectuai for us and in us? How is it possible to

know and experience the Word of God if al1 Barth has established so far is that humans can

know and experience the form which is not the content? How i s it possible that human beings

do know and experience the content if it is ultimately and only describeci as miracle, as act of

God in His veiled unveiledness and His unveiled veiledness, as mystery? The answen to these

questions will be definitively important for an understanding of Barth's doctrine of the Word of

God and its implication for a theological anthropology in corn parison and contrast with

Kohlbrugge's perception of the Word of G d and anthropology, and *Il be discussed at the end

of this chapier.

Barth points to the relation between the Word of G d and anthropology by asking whether

hurnan beings can be the bearers of the Word. In the context of this question he delineates the

shift horn an essentially theoretical science (Thomas Aquinas) to an essentially practical one

(Duns Scotus) which culrninated in a anthropological theology (Schleinnacher). 16'

As 1 pointed out, this is the historical-theological context in which and against which Barth

wrote his theology, first in Romuns, then in the Church Dqmutics. As I also pointed out, it is

during the time of his shift fiom Rumuns to his Church L)ogma~ics, that Barth discovered

Kohlbnigge. Furthermore, 1 observed that Barth's own theology during this time was already

shapd by his own studies so that Kohlbnigge was for him a rnere confirmation of w hat he

already thought. He acknowledgeâ that Kohlbnigge seemed untainted by l iberal

Schleiemachenan theology.

Having said al1 this it follows that the answer Barth posits with his theology of the Word of

God is altogether detemined by the question he sees himself answering with the tools he had

acquired in his own liberal training. Therefore. his answer is necessarily diffetent than

Kohlbrugge's, even though he sees Kohlbrugge's perception as an affirmation of what he was

saying already.

Retuming to Barth's answer, the context against which he posits his doctrine of the Word

of God, is clear. ClariSing the answer Barth secs as necessary, mie, and ml, he defines the

problem more narrowly as pertaining to the pmupposition of a pneral capacity of religious

experience in human beings, which in turn can atîain the critical significance of a nom. I M Al1

this, however, must be tuned into the pmupposition that there exists something outside of the

self which has the partjcular capacity. and it done, for religious knowledge and experience and

is the cause and nom of al1 that is human. As such this something exists to such an extent that it

16' Karl Barth, CD Vl. , 218-219.

ibid., 220.

cannot not exist by the very definition of its tnith and reality. This sornething is Gd, who exists

as mysterion in Jesus Christ as His revelation.lo7 In other words, God in His Word is and must

become the object and the deterrnining subject of human reality.

What Barth counters here in the final analysis is an anthropological starting point. looking

at it from the perspective of the history of philosophy and thmlogy, it is the Cartesian tum to the

subjective, that Barth counters here. instead of presupposing the human king as the ultimate

determining subject, God is pnsupposed as both the object and determining subject for human

beings. This is the core of Barth's theological methodology. He begins with Godcertainty and

so "in the red knowledge of the Word of God in which thai beginning alone will be made, there

is also the event that it is possible, that that beginning can be made."168

Barth contends that this is f'undamentally a positive finding. 1 contend it is positive only in

so far as having established a reference point. To be sure, for Barth this reference point has its

own power, for it establishes its own harem in obedience. Yet even as self-authenticating

reference point it must still be known and experienced as actually authentic for a tnie and r d

self-understanding. The content of the Word of God as the mystery of the wisdom of Christ,

however, never actually touches the natml, historical horizon of hurnan knowledge. Thus I

conclude as critique that the Word-in-Itself remains mystery in the phenomenal world.

When Barth speaks of experience of the Word of God, he describes a way of experiencing

the Word which amounts to experiencing God as the One who determines human self-

determination. The question still before us in the context of this concept, is, how does the

'" Ibid., 222.

'" Ibid., 223.

determination of the human king's selfdetermination amount to experience of the Word of

God? Somewhere these two determinations must overlap to make experience of the word of

God real experiencr. Such overlapping Barth says cornes in the fonn of the hurnan king's

detemining self standing in ''the secret judgement of grace" or disfavour of God, who alone

judges even this ~elfdeterminatioa'~~ How does this amount to expenence of the Word of God?

It amounts to the experience of king directed, of king determined by the Word of Gd. '"

Again, however, Barth never gives an answer to the question, what is it to experience

determination. Pointing to expenencing king directed is again avoiding the real question for

the character, nature of the experience. Essentially Barth still only points to the fom in which

Gd's Word comes to human beings. The how of Gd's Word coming to us in this way

excludes an actual positive affirmation of the content of the Word of G d in relation to the

human subjrct.

Ultimately for Barth, al1 that human beings can ever experience is what is only human.

Even the experience of the Word of God by humans is questionable as soon it becomes

experience understood existentially. Then, according to Barth it would necessarily cease to be

experience of the Word of God. Therefore Barth answers the question what the experience of

the Word might consist of, a question so decisive for the whole problem of this section,"' finally

with the concept of acknowledgement.

- -

'" ibid., 229.

''O Ibid., 230.

17' Ibid., 233.

In acknowledgement the content of the Word of God becomes content for me. 17*

Acknowledgement is the human side of standing before God's Word as knowledp, person,

power, as contingent contemporaneous revelation, as power of disposal to a necessity, as

decision of God in fieedom, as enigrna (twofold indirectness Le, mystery), as one-sided (painting

to the necessity of continued occurrences of the Word of God, Le., the experience of mystery),

and as spirituai (as the Wholly 0 t h ) . All these designations of the Word of God i treated in the

discussion of Barth's perception of the nature of Gd's Word.

Especially with respect to spiritual nature of God, acknowledgement must be undentood as

p r e acknowledgement. This means that it must point to the fact of acknowledging something

which is what it is solely on accowit of itsel f'. nierefore experience as acknowledgement must

not be understood as acknowledgement of experience otherwise the Word of God as such would

again be subsumed wder and within the human subjective histoncal horizon. As soon as that

occurs i t ceases to be genuine experience of the Word of God, according to Barth. 17'

In this context Barth retums to the question regarding a capacity hurnan beings have for

religious experience: a question which he sees at the back of al1 inquiries after experience of

Gd. Barth emphatically counters such an affinnation of such a capacity. Therefore and finally,

it must be said that the possibility of experience of the Word of G d is rot a predicate of hwnan

beings. Such a predicate belongs only to God and his Word. Logically this rnust be so if we

remember that a iogicai problem i s no longer a problem if and only if it can be brought back to

"' ibid., 234.

L73 Ibid.. 235-238.

an original truthful relation."' This falls perfectly in place with the core of Barth's theological

method, namely the revenal of the Cartesian tum to the subjective. Not self-certainty, but God-

certainty must be sought afier. 17' Acknowledgement, the concept that incorporates the

experience of the Word of God, therefore is acknowledgement of that which is certain in and

with God.

Jesus Christ is the content of the Word of God. However, Jcsus Christ who is God-

incarnate is as such always beyond this or that human experience for as such He is Gd's Word

as mystery. Therefore, al1 we can assert about the possibility of experiencing the Word are

vague descriptions, which are still dubious, in and of themselves. It is even possibly true that

when we encounter an event of God's Word as an act of God, the nature of this event precludes

the possibility of even pointing to it.'" Precisely and only in this fashion of speaking of the

knowledge and experience of the Word of God, Barth sees his point of view as properly

17' BcadShaw refers to the inter-Trinitarian rnovements of God as in se and ud extra ln se refers to God as He is in himself, necessitated by nothing or nwne, existing in freedom. Ad extra refen to God in himself as He is related to creation and humanity in Jesus Christ. This is so fiom etemity as he has "determined -ad by taking temporal manhood into God before creation. . . . In Jesus Christ [as rejected and elected human being] God determines Himself as creaturely reality. . . . The election of Jesus Christ, in Barth, approximates such [an identity ] princi ple." Timothy Bradshaw, Triniîy a d Ontulogy A Compuru~ive St ut& ofthe Theoiogies of Kuri Borrh und Wolhurf Punnenberg. (Eâinburgh: Rutherford House Books, 1988) 50,52,56. Cf. Cornelius Van Til, Chrisriunity and &Y(hiani.rm, (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Refonned Publishing Co. 1977) "...,the 'diolectic of gmx' that [Barth] seeks to vindicate over against Kant and Hegel is one that lives by the memy of what is virtually an identity philosophy." Ibid., 4 14.

Karl Barth, CD, Vl . , 224.

ibid., 247-248.

countenng philosophical Cariesiankm in whatever way the latter is disguised. '" Being

determ ined by the Word of God is therefore at the same time king founded upon "this mystery

that lies upon his hither ide.""^

Ultimately Barth says that "homo pcccator non c u p - -...verhi Domini. It is this real

experience [of king not capable] of the man claimed by the Word of God, which decides and

ml79 t r provcs that what maices it possible lies beyond it. This Beyond claims consideration as the

genuine irremovable Beyond that can not be brought to this side, claims consideration as the

Beyond of God the Lord, the Creator the Reconciler, the Redeemer." l"

This brings Barth's whole discussion of the experience of the Word of God back to the

original tnrthful relation that inheres in and with the Word itself The necessity, üuth and reality

of the Word of God, is fint and foremost that which it is in and by itself . Even the fact that one

has become a new beiny must be included in the necessity, tnith and reality of the Word of God

i tsel f. There 1s no humn subjective correspondence to tnrth of the Word of (iod (cm phasis

mine).18' Even if there is ever experience it must îake place as a miracle. And when we speak

of miracle wve must speak of God's unveiling in His veiling and His veiling in His unveiling.

This is ever beyond the gmp of human beings because it is God's grasping of human beings in

ksus Christ, the necessary, mie, and real human k i n g , the ontological determination of

ln Ibid., 249.

'" Ibid., 250.

'79 ibid., 252.

la Ibid., 254.

"' ibid., 255.

hurnanity.

In this context, Barth quotes Kohlbrugge, and his son-in-law, Eduard Bbhl, who also wrote

Dogmatics. He quotes them and then closes with the remark, 'Wus speaks tme Christian

experience."'" The ob~ect of thb Iesis is tu show thut Barth, un the bmis of his own concept of

the Word of God. cunnot u$%m erperience of the Word of God as Kohlbmggc perceives of il.

There are distinct fahires of Kohlbmgge's Mew of the Word of G d and the possibility of

its experience that stand in direct opposition to Barth's approach. I will describe these features in

the next section of this thesis. For now it suffices to say that Kohlbrugge held that revelation is

penpicuous, that the Word of God ought to be understood primarily as Law and fulfilled Law,

that grace is grace only as answer to human beings who continually experience themselves to be

sinners, which is itself an effect of the Word of God as Law and fulfilled Law, and that Christ

can be experienced by human beings as the Bridegroom, as the Lover of beings who are

unworthy of His love. On the basis of al1 this I contend that Kohlbrugge implicitly admits to the

possibility of experience of the Word of God as an histoncal-existential-spiritual-

correspondence to the content of the words of Scripture.

As the conclusion of the section on the expenence of the Word of God Barth retums to a

discussion of faith and the Word of God. It is faith which made possible the possibility of the

experience of God in the fint place. The same thing can be said about faith as

acknowledgement. Faith is experience, as acknowledgement was described as experience.

At this point one can observe how closely Barth allies himself with Anselm's treatment of

the concept of faith. However, as 1 obsewed, Barth interprets Anselm in light of his own

'" Ibid., 255.

problematic, i.e., in light of his seeking to overcome the anthropological horizon and ultimately

the Cartesian tum to the human subjective. It is against this background that Barth posits His

concept of God and Word of God as that which in mystery is both determining object and

subject of the faith necessity, truth, and reality of human beings.

Faith does not corne in a vacuum. It is as faith of a human king connected to God,

because God is connected to human beings. Here we can speak of a point of contact. '" However, it now has become clear that this point of contact is not a creational- historical,

natuntl, human one, but a revelational-historical, above natural, G d l y one. As such it is the

image of G d as it comes to human beings in the Word of God. Faith connects to that lost

image, to that lost point of contact. This is the starting point for a theological anthropology. In

essence it is again the affirming of divine possibility. LU It is at this point then that Barth movcs

into his discussion of the Trinity.

In conclusion, fiom the discussion of the Word of G d in Barth three important

observations can be made. Fint, Barth never moves beyond an analysis of the forms of the

Word of Gd. He presupposes an absolute irnpossibility on the part of human beings for the

Word of God. (Homo pcccutor non cupcu: vcrbt Domini). The reverse of which implies that

actually the foms are al1 human beings can ever speak of. Second, in so far as Barth speaks of

the content of the Word of Gd, which in effect is that which ultimately constitutes God's Word,

Barth never moves beyond it as a description as mystery. I antend that it is paramount to

concede to the knowableness and experience of the Word of God, in order to propose a concept -

la Ibid, 273. Cf. my discussion on the necessity of theology.

lu Ibid., 273-278.

74

of revelation that is necessary. tnie, ml, and relevant for human beings. Third, on the basis of

one and two, Barth can actually never speak of knowledge and expenence of the Word of God

concretely, and directly. ''' This brings me to Barth's treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity in relation to his

treatment of the Word of God. In Goà alone the Word of G d for human beings has certainty; it

hos Godcertainty.

At this point, the Kantian philosophical dynarnics in Barth, as 1 referred to them with the

notion of the actual Word of God as the miracle in the phenomenal world as the Word-in-

Itselj 'Y" are complemented by Hegelian philosophical dynamics which are expressed with

reference to the innar-Trinitarian acts and relations of Gd. One might say of Barth, that as a

theologian he moved beyond the Kantian critical stance on the coat tail of Hegelian

philosophical dynamics. Barth overcomes the turn to the subjective, and grounds the objective

ontological determinotion of humanity with his doctrine of the Trinity, as it is rooted in his

concept of revelation.

lBS Cf. Peter Halman Monsma, KurI Burth 's IJerc of Revclution. (Some~lle, N. J.: Somerset Press, 1937) especially 198-20 1.

'* Frans Rosenzweig speaks of Kant's concept of the miracle in the phenomenal world, as the miracle of fieedom. With Hegel, he says, this miracle sank back into the phenomenal world, and in this way Kant served as the godfather to Hegel's concept of universal history. Frans Rosenzweig, The S~rrr u/Redemptiun. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985) 10. Hegelian philosophy overcame an absolute dichotomy by asserting an 'i~ermost interwnnection.' This innemost interconnection was the law which uniteâ thinking and k i n g which stood at the apex of his dialectiral system and was first announced "on the sale of world history in revelation" (Ibid., 6-7). 1 term Barth's concept of the Word of God as miracle in the phenomenal world With Hegel's notion of the innermost intercorneetion, as Rozenzweig relates if Barth's doctrine of the Trinity in connection with his doctrine of the Word of God overcomes Kant in a similar manner. 1 will return to this relation,

ii. The Trinity

Speaking of the doctrine of the Trinity Barth bridges the Word of God and Trinity with

his idea of revelation. Revelation he sees as the root of the Doctrine of the Trinity. 18' Was his

doctrine of the Word of God not already primarily concemed with revelation? Barth says that it

was concemed with revelation indirect&. There he was concerned witb the becoming of

revelation. In ihis section he is c o n e n d with the being of it. In revelation "reposes and lives

the fulness of the original being of the Word of G d in i t~elf ." '~ Barth thus wants to deal with

revelation and so start with God, and not with the three forms of the Word of God as these

always relate to human being~. '~

How does God relate to humans as He is in himself? What needs to be made clear is that

God as "Revealer is identical with His act in revelation, identical also with its effect."lYO So

even if we are looking for the effect, speaking now of the Trinity, we must observe how even the

effect of God's act is accomplished in Godself first.

In this context Barth says, "Logically the questions are simply about the Subject, predicate,

and object of the short sentence, 'God speaks,' 'Deav dixit. * " IY In this way Barth seeks to start

'" Karl Barth, CD 1/ 1 ., 349.

Ibid., 35 1.

I N Ibid., 335.

Ibid., 340.

Ig1 ibid., 340. Barth points out that Lis statement has been rnisconstnieded Many hught that it referred to some kind of implicit prwf for W ' s existence fiom the bottom up. This is not what Barth haâ in mind The existence of God is pcesupposed so that it also may be umlerstoodOOd Barth still holds to the tnith of this mernent and npeots it 'in al1 fonnality.'

with God proper. "In God's revelation, God's Word is identical with God Hirn~elf"'~ I pointed

out that this cannot be said about the foms of the Word of God, in so far as they are forms.

But Barth goes M e r then moving between fom and content. When he speaks of

revelation strictly fiom God's side. he maintains that then he cannot make the distinction

between form and content. The statement, "Gd reveals Himself as the Lord" is an analytical

judgement. '" With reference to this statement 1 go back to what 1 observed when Barth made this

distinction in the treatment of the Doctrine of God. I contended that on the basis of Barth's

analysis and description of the content of the Word of God in co~ection with knowledge and

experience of the Word of God, he still did and could only speak of content in terms of fom.

The content of the Word of God proper is Jesus Christ as act of G d in the event of revelation.

So when Barth here points out that revelation proper defies the distinction between form and

content, 1 contend that the content as previously distinguished from form, is actually that which

Barth designates here as revelation. The characteristics are the sarne. Both the content spoken

of earlier and the revelation spoken of here as the Word of God is what it is on account of itself

in fieedom.

It is precisely at this point that 1 contend ihat Barth's Kantian philosophical dynamics are

complemented by Hegelian philosophical dynamics. The statemenf God reveals Himself as

Lord, described as analytic, points to the superseding of the dichotomy between the Word of G d

and human beings in Godself. - - - - - - -

'* Ibid., 349.

'" Ibid., 351.

in Kantian t ens an analytic judgement is a judgement not subject to the problematic of the

possibility of a priori synthetic judgements. An analytic judgement amrding to its content is

merely explicative, meaning that nothing needs to be added to its content in order for it to be

necessary and mie. As such "the predicate of an affirmative analytic judgernent is already

thought in the concept of the subject, of which it cannot be denied without contradictio~"'~ A

priori synthetic judgements, in Kant's philosophy, deal with the aming to tems with the

empirical and the rational in the understanding.

Barth utilizes Kant's formal distinctions with nference to his own problematic of relating

the Word of God to human beings. Barth's description of our knowledge of God could be

described in Kantian terminology as a posteriori analytic. This terni fomlly implies that, that

which of itself is an analytic judgement can be known or experienced by a particular process of

empirical a~quisition.'~' The a posteriori must be left out in rhis contexi for Barth is dealing

with God as God is in Himself as Word and act. For that reason there is no need to make the

distinction between fom and content, for strictly from Gd's perspective His Word and Act are

one, i.e., God is not subject to a temporal working out of His Word as promise to be fulfilled.

This last obsewation relates to my daim that Barth employs Hegelian philosophical

dyhamics. If Kant had thought to disprove Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of

Goâ, Hegel deemed the existence of God to be a necessary outcome of the description of God as

"that which can be thuught of only us existing. that is, that whose concept includes within itself

'" Imrnanuel Kant., Prolegomena fo Any Future Metiphyb~icr. (Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1977) 1 3.

'" Ibid, 26.

being."'% For that reason Hegel thought of Anselm's proof as the "first properly metaphysical

proof of the existence of God."'"

Kant had seen it wrongly, according to Hegel. Existence with respect to God is not a

predicate. Kant thought it was so. Hegel on the other hand conceived of God as "spirit itself in

its inner most li fe, the 'wholly concrete totality' of al1 possible determinations."

Barth does not share Hegel's material conclusions, i.e., his histoncal dialectics. He

however does overcome the Kantian dichotomy between God and human beings, between

fieedom and nature, between the noumenal and the phenomenal with Hegel, f o d l y . This he

does by way of his interpretation of Anselm.

The formal similarity is Barth's own description of the sentence 'God speaks' as including

subject and predicate, and his narning of the sentence 'God reveals Himself as Lord,' an analytic

judgement. In both, the subject and predicate are presupposed to be included.

This is precisely how Hegel formally overcomes Kant's cnticai philosophy. For Hegel

with reference to God the concept of existence properly belongs to the analysis of His being.

Hegel started to think fiom the unity of thought and being. Historically this was so with

reference to Parmenides. Then he investigated how this unity appears in becoming. Historical ly

'% Etienne Gilson, Being and Sanre Phi1osopher.v. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1 952) 1 35.

'" Gemld J. Galgan, G d and Subjectivity. (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1990) 221.

Etienne Gilson, Being a d Sonw Philatophers. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1925) 135.

this was the core of the philosophy of Heraclitus. '* The history of philosophy and the

philosophy of history exemplifies the dialectic of the becoming of king and the search for the

king of becoming.

Hegel's dialectic which synthesizes the core problematic of the philosophy of king is

analogous to Barth's positive answer to the dialectic of the Word of God and human beings.

The Word of God is fmt what it is in itself. As revelation of God it is identical with the act of

God and its effect As such it already incorporates the outcome of its intended purpose. Yet,

and therefore 1 say that Hegel's philosophical dynamics only relate formc~h'y to Barth's concepts

of revelation and Trinity, because God's Word stands in relation with human beings who are not

God in ternis of the three fonns of the Word of Gd, it continually needs to becom through

these fom~s.~@' The Word of God in relation to hurnan beings, is al ways the Word of God in

becoming.

In faith, human beings must be ever aware of what this means for their own k ing . For

Barth this meant that hurnan beings in acknowledgement of the Word of God are subject to its

detemination as they are confronted by it. The hurnan king in the act of acknowledgement

clings to that which is in God, necessary, mie, and real, and so becomes aware of that which

'" Ibid., 137-140.

'00 Hegel essentially horizontalim revelation with his concept of universal reason. For that reason Barth can obsewe thst "Hegel's living God-he saw Gd's aliveness as well and saw it better than many theologians-is actuaily the living man." Karl Barth, Protestunt Theology in the Nineleenth Centwy, 419. For this reeson I rnake the distinction between the vertical- dialectic, which Hegel oveawmes with refemice to the vertical-dialectic itself. and the supersession of it, which Berih does with reference to the Trinity. Barth's idea of revelation is fundamentally opposed to Hegel's, for ultimately Hegel also still moved within the realm of hurnan subjectivity. Cf Kart Barth, Ethia. Trans. Geoffrry. W. Bromiley. (New York: The Seabury Press Inc., 1981) especially 3 1 1-3 18.

already is and therefore ne& to become. In this way, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, is the

ontological determination of humanity.

My rnaintainiog that Barth employs Kantian und Hegelian philosophical @namies is

because Barth saw himself as a theologian, not a philosopher. Therefore he did not necessarily

share their matenal presuppositions nor mnclusions. However fomally he adopted their

diaiectic dynarnic. From Kant he adopted the dialectical dynarnic which stress4 the iimitations,

the impossibility of the human king wrning to God to become who he ought to be. From Hegel

Barth adopted the dialectical dynamic which fonnally illustrated the concept of the possibility of

the hurnan king becoming what in God's Word already is (see fmtnote 20 1 ). As a theologian

Barth unites the former with the latter with his own concept of the analogy of faith. By faith

human beings know who and what they are, because by faith they are wmected with God who is

both the subject and object of faith in His Word which is always a word in becming.

iii. The Word of God as Intricately Connected to the Trinity

In connection with the Doctrine of the Word of Goâ, the Trinity must be understood as the

ultimate Subject of revelati~n.~~ For Barth the stress must lie on the "final and decisive

confirmation of the insight that God is one."2o2 That means that faith does not have three objects

but one, namely God as He is in Himself. The sentence "God reveals Himself as the Lord"

testities to the oneness of God, for precisely in His Lordship God's essence is expresseci. God as

Lord over His revelation indicates God' s sovereignty and fieedorn over His own act with regard

"' Karl Barth, CD VI., 409.

20' Ibid., 409.

to His own Word. This wnstitutes the unity of God in His three-ness."'

This emphasis of G d as Lord over His revelation guards the distinction between Creator

and creature. It reemphasizes the infinite qualitative distinction between God and the human

being, against modern naturalism and panthei~m.~"

Barth sees al1 anti-Trinitarianism either denying the tnie actual revelation of God, or the

unity of Gd; either they deny mie Godl y revelation by emphasizing the unity of Gd, or they

deny the unity of God by emphasizing the revelation of God. Against these tendencies Barth

seeks to posits his own description of a unity of God in revelation He refea to Schleiermacher

as an example of over emphasizing the unity of God at the cost of his revelation. This was

expressai by Schleiennacher in his modalism. Revelation viewed only as mode of Gd's

essence, which is itself beyond this revelation, is reducing revelation to a mere phenornenon.

Faith in such a concept of revelation then amounts to idolatry. Against this the unity in the

three-ness of God and His revelation m u t be affinned so that revelation really shows forth God

as G d and not as mere phenornenon."' CWst is really G d and is the revelation of God in His

Word.

Viewing the essence of God as Lord of His Revelation includes the possibility of God

manifesthg Himself as three. This guards against emphasizing the threeness of G d at the

expense of His unity. G d is capable of distinction in revealednes~.~~ In His revelation G d

- - - - -

20' ibid., 40 1.

'w Ibid-, 403.

"' Ibid, 404405.

'O6 Ibid., 407.

gives Himsel f as three persons. His essence is thereby not annulleci but *rmed. In this way

Barth seeks to maintain the unity of God in His revelation.

With the concept of revelation we become aware of the fonal relation of Father, Son, and

Holy Spirit as individual existences. As Far as content is concerned, which actually relates to the

unity of God, Barth found it inexpressible. This is because revelation as we have if know if and

experience it acwrding to its formal characteristics does not explicitly express this content-

Barth says it this way. He applies a temary of 1) Revealer, 2) Revelation, and 3) Revealedness.

1)The Revealer is the ground of revelation as mystery. 2)"Revelation signifies something utterly

new over against the mystery of the ~evealer."~' As such it is the event of revelation as hidden.

3)The Revealedness is the purpose of the first two. The unity of God essentially relates to the

inexpressible content of even the individual modes of existences. "For everything here distinct

in content must be thought of as being in its varîety sublimated once more in the unity of the

Divine essence. "*O8

As far as hurnan beings are concemed the proper and possible reference to God must be

made with regards to "the three indntiduol m d e s o/c*istencc of the one Goâ, consisting in their

mut& rcl~t ionvhips."~ "Al1 we can know of God according to Scripture testimony is His

a c t ~ . " ~ ' ~ We do not know His essence which was defined as God's Lordship over His revelation,

" Ibid., 4 1 7.

Ibid., 4 18.

2m iôid., 421.

2i0 Ibid., 426.

which as such is God's fieedom in de~ision.~"

Essentiall y therefore, God's essence can be described as God' s k d o m . This corresponds

with Barth's defini tion of God's essence as God's Lordship over His revelation. "On this

freedom rests the inconcentobiMy of God, the inadequacy of al1 knowledge of the revealed

GO^."^'^ If there were any conceivability it is due to a fiee act of God's gace. This

conceivability is absolutely separate from who God is in Himself first.

In revelation the three-inanenes, the essence of God, becornes conceivable. It h o m e s

conceivable only in inconceivability."' Here we are back at God's unveiling in veiling and His

veiling in unveiling. In essence Barth repeats here what he said in the context of the discussion

of the Word of God, but now with reference to the Trinity.

In the context of the discussion of the Wotd of God, 1 pointed out that Barth fùndamentally

sought to counter Cartesianism. Barth countered Descartes' self-certainty principle his

own principle of G o d - ~ e ~ n t y , and so denied any vestiges of capacity for the revelation of God

in human beings. Here this concept or principle rehuns with the emphatic statements: "The

Subject of revelation is the Subject that remains ind~ssolubly Subject. We cannot get behind the

Subject. It cannot become an abject.""'

These statements essentially indicote a reversal of the subject-object scheme of the

-- -

2" Ibid., 426.

"' Ibid., 426.

*'' Ibid., 427.

2'4 Ibid., 438.

Renaissance and the Enlightenment.*15 In the Renaissance and the Enlightenrnent the human

king became the subject of determination and God the object detennined. For Barth, God is

understood as the ultimate and indissoluble Subject of determination and the human king the

determined 'object.' This 1 regard as the ground motif and the core of Barth's theology and

theological rnethod.

lïre greut question urtuched tu ~his nrotrfconcww dte funclion u/lhe WorJ qf(;uJ. As

Word of Cod it rnust spuk concrctely ar reul speech to us. about uu. for us. u d ultimuteiy in w

Barth's theology tends. to bc rcduccd to G d i monoiogue. When he speuks of'(;& both being

subject und objcct of his own revelat ion. (LÎ prducer a d product of His own uct ivity it test ifies

to the trulh of my observation. Gruce must not be undcrstod in such u wuy. Gruce is

inhcrcntly Jiuiogicul. 2'6

'15 Dr. De Graaff sees in the doctrine of predestination of Calvin a manifestation of a countering of the subject-object scheme, a scheme so pervasive in the Renaissance which later became absolutely conscious in Descartes. Calvin understood the spirit of his times as an incipient manifestation of the autonomous human being. The human subject gained more and more centre stage. Against this manifestation he posited the reversa1 of this scheme and understood God to be the ultimate Subject and the human king the object. His doctrine of predestination evidences the result of chis consistent eitherlor thinking. I see Burth/ollowing Cùlvin on this matter, but now afrrr the occurrence cf Descartes und (~urtesiunisrn. Dr. F. de Graaff, Als Goden Stewen (Rotterdam: SC. van Wieringen & Zoon, Alphen ad. Rijn, 1970) 190-215.

"" Ibid., 192. Cf. The Stur cf Rcdemptiun In this book Rosenzweig develops his notion of speech-thought. By doing this he bmke through the grip of ontological categones in which he saw western philosophy entangied. nie fidamental notion in speech-thought is the replacement of the copula is with the conjunction ad. Revelation must be understood as meâiating between God and the hman being and the World apart from Greek philosophical categories of k i n g That grace is in this sense diaiogical and not ontological corresponds to Berkouwen' daim that Barth falls into the nature-grace scheme, whereas the Refonners ernployed a sin-grace scheme (cf. note 64). In the latter scheme the dialogical is not detemined, and I would say underminecl, by primarily ontological considerations.

1 observed so far that for Barth the essence of God can be described as God king the Lord

over His own revelation, that this statement is an analytic judgement, that the statement Deus

duril includes subject, predicate, and object, that Goci is prducer and product of His own

activity, and that in al1 this God exists in freedom, and as such is only unveiled in His veiledness

and veiled in His unveiledness. The rest of Barth's tceatment of the Trinity proceeds with these

established presuppositions in mind.

God as Creator and Etemal Father is always these as Lord. As Creator, God is Lord over

our existence as the One who has overcome this existence of ours. Death is the event of

recognition that God is our Creator. Our existence is "our will und ubility to lnte in ifs limitation

by d e ~ t h ' ' ~ ' ~ God is Lord of OUT existence as the power superior to life and death. As such He

really is the Lord of our existence as our Creator. "Our existence is held by Him, and only by

Him, over the abyss of n~nexistence."~'~

G d as Creator and Etemal Father is interpreted Chnstologically. Barth does not start with

referring to the Creation account in Genesis, but starts with Golgotha and the Resurrection. In

these two events God shows Hirnself Lord of our existence. 1s the phrase, 'Lord of our

existence,' not equivalent to creator?"' God is the Creator as the One who trîumphed over

king as experienced and interpreted by us in Christ. Christ as the Victor over k ing and non-

king indicates that God the Father is Lord over our existence as Creator.

Having established God as Creator in this way, He i s our Father, also and only fint, with

'" Karl Barth, CD V1 ., 446.

Ibid, 446.

2'Y Ibid., 446.

reference to Christ as the Eternal Somrn So Gd is first what He is for Himself That includes

His relationship to us as Etemal Father. The adjective Etemal indicates this implicitly. Here

again we see the verticaldialectic s u p e d e d by the imer-Trinitarian relations. In this way

Barth speaks of the indistinguishability of form and content.

In the supersession or sublimation of the veitical4dectic one can speak of God as He is in

himself as Subject of revelation, indissoluble, and free. As such, existing in Trinity, Cod is both

content and form of His revelation. "There is here no question of any possibility of

distingishing content and form, and regarding the content as Divine and necessary, the form as

human and accidental, the former as the essence, the latter as the historical appearance of

re~elation."~'

It is exactly in this way that Barth seeks to counter natwal theology and Cartesianism. At

this point of the discussion Barth's pervasive Christology shines through most explicitly. It is

"in Jesus and oniy in Jesus [that Gd] becomes manifest as the Creator and so as our Father, it

follows that He is already what corresponds thereto, anteceâently and in Himself, namely in his

relation to Him by whom He becomes manifest in his relation to Christ.""

This is God's "revelotion of creation." 1 say it is for Lis reason that, for Barth, the

historical can never be revelational, but tbat revelation neeûs to become historical-ûod's word

for us is always God's Word in becoming in the events of grace. It becomes what it already is,

anteceâently. With respect to G d as our Father, Goâ needs to becorne what He is for us in

iôid., 448.

Ibid., 448.

lbid*, 449.

Jesus ChristW This closes the door to any affirmation of God's Word as having any natunl

point of connection with the human being as he or she exists historically. Gd's Word is

circumscribed as first and exclusively speech to Himsel F. The mystery of G d is seukd in the

monologue of G d with Himielfus Trinity.

Retuming for a moment to Barth's interpretation of Anselm, what we have here is an

affirmation of the necessity oFUleology. As, I note4 Barth conceived of faith as a desire to

participate in God's mode of k ing and so participate in God's aseity. Goâ's mode of king in

God's aseity was further connected to Anselm's anthropology. God's mode of king enwunters

us in the Word which in tum enwunters in us apestuî , a potentiality which Anselm described

as ' Wie imago summae essent iue (of the hol y Three-inaneness of Gd) per nat uraiem potentiam

irnpres.~~. It is in fait h t hat this potential ity is actual ized.

Faith, and knowledge, and experience of the Word of G d is essentially acknowledgement

of the necessity, mith, and reality of who God is in Himsrlf. This is what faith seeks to

understand. and only in this way can the human being understand the self.

It is thus that the inner-divine truth and reality establishes cerîainty. This is the God-

certainty as opposed to selfertainty. ln this way G d is Goâ. "It is-everything to be regarded

as an inmiaivine relation of movement as the repititiu ueternitutis in aeternitatu!-the copy of a

type, the outcome of an origin, the word of a knowldge, the decision of a will.""

Jesus Christ as God is also b r d over His own revelation. As revelation He recapitulates or

" Ibid., 450.

=' See note 1 19.

" Karl Banh, CD M., 452.

sums up the originality of divinity in His relation to the Father as Creator and Eternal Father. In

this way He is original creation revealed; He is Gd's Word spoken to Himself fiom al1 eternity.

From this perspective "creation then means just divinity in its originality, above and beyond al1

creat~reliness."~ As Word for us Jesus Christ is the original human king as divinity in its

originality. And so He is the ontological determination of al1 humanity.

The Holy Spirit as Lord is the one who sets free. "His operation mnsists in frcedom,

fieedom to have a Lord, this Lord, God as ~ord?' In the application of the operation of the

Holy Spirit is it then yet true that homo peccufor cupcrx verbi divini? Far from it, it is more true

that the Word of G d is, and has bcen, capable of sinful humanity. This is and was shown in the

revelation of Christ. Tkrefore the Holy Spirit is the actualiser of the potential which exists in

the fieedom of Gd. The Human king is a child of God in order to becorne one.nm

It ts in faith that this occurs; faith in what already is fiom Gd's side. The Word of God

has already been spoken to Gd Himself fint, because it was God who spoke it. It is thus faith

in God's monologue. God only speaks one Word, Jesus Christ. All other words are non-words,

are shadows, and ultimately pertain to that which is nothing in itselE

C. Implications for Theotogical Antbropology

When one speaks of Christian theological anthropology fiom a revelational perspective the

primary concem involves a cornparison and contrast between the first Adam and the second

2z6 Iôid, 5 12.

" Ibid., 523.

" Ibid-, 522-523.

Adam, Cluist The interpretation of Adam and Christ is important for an identification of the

selE The question revolves around the issue of representation of equals or non-equals. For the

human king in this world, faced with the revelation of God in the Scriptures, the question is,

how is Adam andor Christ representative of me? For Barth the answer to this question is that

Christ is the red representative of the human being, and that Adam is the unreal representative

of Christ.

1 have refened nwnerous times already to Barth's statement that Christ is the ontological

determination of humanity. On the basis of what 1 have observed so far, this statement is in line

with the general direction and methodology of Barth's doctrine's of the Word of God and the

Trinity. With reference to these doctrines the piausibility of this statement is implicit.

M y observation that the Word of God in tems of its achial content is not experienceable or

knowable directly but only in a double indirect sense-in the unveiled veiledness and the veiled

wiveiledness of God in Christ, connected with the observation that Barth supersedes or supplants

the vertical-dialectic between the Word of God and hurnan beings with a grounding of reality in

l e inner-Trinitarian relations of act and Word, shows hot Barth is bound to treat anthropology

from an ontological-relational perspective. Reveiation is the ground of detemination for

creation with the result that creation must be understd as be only the unreal reflection of the

ultimate will of God. This implies that Christ is the reul, the ovrw ov. human k i n g for human

beings. Human beings as they experience and know themselves as sinners, only experience and

know that which is ultirnately nothing in itser/: ûnly in faith they cm acknowledge what is. and

as such, what is to corne.

The confirmation of these observations is Barth's treatment of Romans 5. Pauck says in

his introduction to this book that Barth "erects his theology on the doctrinal foundations of the

Word of God, the Trinity, and the Incamati~n."~ Besides that, he sees Barth developing the

"doctrine of creation on the basis of soteriology [CD I I V I ] . " ~ Soteriology having become the

basis of the doctrine of creation (1 observed this implicitly in the discussion of God the Etemal

Father as Creator), Christ, as the one who saves, becomes the ontological determination for

humanity. Christ who "is the reveding Word of God, is the source of our knowledge of the

human nature God has made.""' This is a radical departure of al1 traditional theological

anthropologie^?^ The traditional anthropologies had always taken the hurnan subjective

historical horizon as point of depamire and ultimate reference.

Coming to Barth's interpretation of Adam and Christ in the context of Romans 5, he says

that the primary anthropological truth and ordering principle is Christ, the secondary one is

Adam. Barth interprets Paul's r6xw 706 péAAovrq, the type of Him who was to corne, as

Adam foreshadowing Christ.u3 This means literally that the primary anthropologicai tnith and

ordering principle is a supra-temporal ontology secured and established in Jesus Christ as the

human king in our stead. kt ter said, Jesus Christ is the nal human king in its real and

desired form. Human beings are to be understd as the type of the anti-type, Christ. "Adam

Pauck in. Karl Barth, Christ and Adam: Mun and Htlmnify in Rornanv 5. trans. T. A. Small. (New York: Collier Books, 1962) 1 4.

2x1 Pauck in. Ibid., 15.

"' Ibid., 15. Here Pauck quotes Barth in his introduction to this book.

*2 Pauck in Ibid., 15.

Karl Barth, Christ and Adurnr, 39.

can therefore only be interpreted in the light of Christ and not the other way a r o ~ n d " ~

Human existence as this is constituted by the human beings' relationship with Adam, is

only to be seen as an indirect testimony to the reality of Jesus Christ. On its own, human

existence has no important independent statusu' Formally the relationship of hurnan beings

with Adam and Christ are fiom the start closely comected. The question is, is Christ the Master

of Adam, or Adam the master of Christ?= This of course refen bûck to Barth's description of

the essence of the Trinity as God king Lord over His own revelation.

1 noted that as Lord over his own revelation God has already spoken and thus established

what is necessacy, real, and mie. Christ as the mie representative of humanity from a

revelational perspective is actually the master of Adam as the ontological detemination of

humanity. However from a human perspective the representative identity of Christ for humans,

is couched in a greatest possible di~sirnilarity.~~ Nevertheless, "it is Christ who vouches for the

authenticity of Adam . . . . Al1 humanity of Adam is only real and genuine in so Far as it reflects

and corresponds to the humanity of Christ. Our relationship to Christ has an essential priority

and superionty over our relationship to Adam. He is the Victor and we in Him are those who are

awaiting the ~ictory."~' Al1 we human beings are, are 'provisional copies' of what is real in

ibid., 40.

ibid., 4 1.

2M Ibid-, 44.

" Ibid., 44.

Ibid., 45-46.

Christug In this way, Barth grounds creation in soteriology and implicitly history in revelation.

Christ as Victor over sin, death and history is the reference for people existing in history. As

such Christ has overcome that which tends to non-king in i(se1f.

How has Christ overcome this? He has overcome this as the real content of the Word of

Go& as the message of God proclaimed in the Gospel. God has overcome the impossibility of

the human beings with His own Etemal possibility. God cannot not exist, and so Jesus as God

and human cannot not exid as the hue and real detemination of humanity, from etemity. Evil

and sin and the sinful human king are faced by the impossible possibility of self-annulment,

when confronted with the Word of Go& Jesus Christ, the true and real human. The self-

annulment is possible from their side, but etemally impossible from God's ~ i d e . ~ ~ ' Therefore the

Word of God spoken to Himself first in Trinity, established the impossible possibility. The

Gospel is the one and tinal true Word G d spke, and therefore still speaks, because He spoke it

from Etemity to Himself.

The Law as Word of G d only points to the u n r d in itself, for it points to the human king

who in üuth is noj by virtue of Christ having overcome that which tends to nothingness. This is

not to say that nothingness is not something to be taken as real, far from it. But we cannot take

it as real wiless we view it from God's perspective who took it for real in overcoming it. Hwnan

beings do not even know what real nothingness is unless they are confronted by G d and His

Word. Barth contends that by outseIves we might view nothingness as ultimate. In God. God has

')9 Ibid., 4546.

" Karl Barth, Kud Barth 's Church Dogrnatics Selectiuh~ by Helmut Gollwitzer. trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark 1961) 134-1 35.

really overcome it in Christ, from etemity. He has overcome it in election for in His election He

rejects what he does not elect. Nothingness is rejected by Goâ's No as the shadow side of His

Yes. G d in His essence is Lod, and as such also Lord over nothingness However he is Lord

over nothingness, because He chose being."' That choice is represented by Christ in revelation

as the Word of God.

This is the opuspropriwn of God. It is what was designated as the Gospel. What God

does not decide and therefore nullifies can only be the aim of His opu~ u l t e n ~ m . ~ ~ ~ This is what

was designated as Goâ's Law. And thus God only speaks with one Word in his Monologue. The

object of the Word of G d as Law is ultimately unreal. It follows that when human k i n g are

addressed by Gd's Law, the Law addresses that in them that which is ultimately not. Even if

their knowledge and experience says th ing to the conbary, they should not fret but only believe

in that which is real.

What does this imply for theological anthropology? Ii implies that when human beings are

confionted by the Word of God they are confionted with an actuality that cannot in essence

correspond to what is experïenced and known in the face of God's holiness as expessed in His

2" iôid., 136-40. It goes too fat to compare and con- Hegel's philosophy of king and nothingness in this point It suftices to say that here again one is confionted with Hegelian phi losophical dynarnics. With reference to the sbi ct law of non-contradiction, in Hegel's dialectic of becoming, 'givenness' is ultimate, for in the dialectic of being in kcoming, nothingness is sublated and results in givemes Etjeme Gilson, Being mrd S m e Philosophers (Toronto: Pontifical Instihite of Mediaeval Studies, 1952) 139. Hegel's nothingness is a link in the necessary dialectical movement of thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis and thus detennined, Barth's nothingness is 'lorded' over. Cf. Karl Barth, Ethico 3 1 1-3 1 8.

law and in His ~ o r d . ~ ~ When the Word of God points out that human beings are sinners in

themselves it can only mean that they, in so far as they expertence themselves as simers in the

face of Gd's holiness, should diswd it as ultimately unred. This must also be so since I

observed tbat Goci's Word as Law only pertains to fom and not to the ultimate content of God's

Word. The ultimate content is God in Himself. Even as pertaining to this ultimate content

however, 1 observed that ihis we can neither expr~ence nor know. Only faith remains. Faith in

the mystery of God's own f reed~rn .~~

'53 Here Emanuel Hirsch's views are relevant. The rest of Hirsch's theses L alluded earlier (see note 23) precisely deal with this observation. He afirms, over against Barth that: Scripture calls for radical obedience to so appropriate a life under God in accordance with God (thesis 2), the life to which Scripture bean witness consist of a life of surrender to God of the whole human being (thesis 3), the persondities in the Bible testify to a reaJ relationship with God to which our lives should conespond and so see clearly how we are rightly related to God (thesis S), the Bible is basically a book which contains real life stories which can be our guide in ceriain circumstances and so clane@ the "concrete aspect of divine activity and relation." Barth in. Revolutionury Theulqy in ~ h e Making (Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1 964) 83-87. Barth's understanding of Law and Gospel fosters, according to Dr. W. Aalden 'Evangelical anarchy.' "Whœver disavows creation and the law with the Gospel. falls with his faith into bottomlessness, into anarchy . . . It is not an unfouncleâ accusation to say that the theology of Barth has fostered the present &y politicai and moral anarchy, rather tban prevented it." Dr. W. Aalders in. W h KohIbrugge Mucot: Ontw ikkeling of Breuk? (m y tram.) (Kam pen : Ui tpversmaatschappij I H. Kok, 1984), 32.

2J1 "But in his desire to acknowledge without qualification the absolutenes of the divine fteedom is Barth not in his own thought limiting that fieedom? In forbidding God to allow us to make valid inferences about him is not Barth in e f b t legislating for the Deiiy? For he is saying that in order to be sovereignly f k e God mwt remain, in relation to us, arbitmy and unpredictable. But in that case the Lod of the universe is not free to nveal his love to man so definitively that we can rest upon it and âraw inferences fiom it; not f k e to make promises upon whic h he means us to rely; not fra to act consistently and therefore predictably in relation to his creation. Swely in insisting that m cannot presume to know, from the self-revelation in Christ, what God is like and whnt he wili do, Bsrth is overpotecting the Creator's fradom. He is apply ing to God an anthropomorphic conception of hedorn which denies to the Creator the ultimate fieedom to commit Himself to man in a revelation of divine love which is to be taken seriously . . . " John Hick, Deorh md EternuILàfe. (Son Francisco: Harpr & Row Publishers, 1980) 260-26 1.

This finally al1 accowits for his definition of sin as "itself not a possibility but an

ontological impossibility for hurnanity. To be in sin, in godlessness, is a mode of king contrary

to our h~rnanity."~~"l This is the outcome of Barth's concept of the Word of God as 1 have

delineated it. This i s the final anthropological implication of his idea of the Word of G d in its

relation to the human being. Precisely in light of, and against this outcome 1 posit Kohlbrugge's

perspective of the Word of God and its anthropological implication.

For Kohlbnigge to be in sin and without God is a real possibility. Kohlbrugge's perception

of the Word of God encloses the possibility of speaking about two realities; out being with or

without Gd, in grace or in sin.

''' Karl Barth, in Kurl Burth Theoiogiun oj'Freedom. Ed. Clifford Green (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 199 1 ) 23 1.

'16 Hunsinger's book, How to Reud Kurl Burth discusses the motifs in Barth's theology with his actualism as leit-motif; hts concept ofreveletion as comected to his Doctrine of God. To expound on al1 motifs goes beyond the intent of this thais. I highlight what he says in comection with the motif of objectivism and quote: "it was G d who set the ternis for what was real . . . .Anything opposed, hostile, or conbary to the reaiity o f God was ' weal' by defini tion. Therefore for Barth, the 'impossible possibility' was not love but sin. Sin (and sinful human beings) existed in a netherworld of wueality. Sin's origin was inexplicable, its status was deeply conflicted, and its destiny was to vanish . . . . Since God's love in Jesus Christ established Barth's concept of the real, his anthropolow of sin had to be articulated in terms of the shadowy, conflicted, the meal." George Hinisinger, How to Reud Kuri f3arth: The Shcpe of His Theoiogy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) 39. CE Barth in CD M l .

In. KOHLBRUGGE~S PERCEPTION OF THE WORD OF COD

A. The HistoricaWbeologieiII Context Out of Wbich Kohlbrugge's Perspective of the

Word of Cod Emerged

In this chapter I will draw attention primarily to theological issues around which

Kohlbrugge's perspective of the Word of God took shape.

Philosophically, Kohlbnigge was farniliar with much of Greek philosophy and became

involved somewhat with the mysticism of Jacob Boehme. Besides that, he was familiar with the

impact of rationalism on the interpretation of Scnpture and theology. His branding of the head

pstor of the Restored Lutheran Chwch as a 'negative neoiogist,' indicated Kohlbrugge's

familiarity with the rational-ethicrl influences of the Geman Enlightenment. The term neology

in those times stood for a new way of thinking connected with the thought of Kant which

strongly advocated a separation between revelation and reason. The interpretation of Scnpture

became subservient to a rationalistic and ethical outlook for most of the neol~gists?~'

When Kohlbrugge wroie his dissertation on Psalm 45 he was confionted with the effects of

the historical-critical school of interpretation. His profasors narrowly allowed him to obtain his

doctorate degree. His interpretation of this Psalm was dl but in line with historical-critical

thinking. Kohlbrugge interpreted this Psalm spiritually and allegorically as exclusively speaking

247 For more on how the Dutch in Kohlbnigge's time viewed the character and influence of the Enlightenment see Dr. L. Engel fiet, Bîkderdijk en hef JoJenJom BîlderdiJ'ks Wuurdering van hct J d e Denken in Confro~utîe met Zi@ Tijd (Zoetenneer: Uitgevenj Boekencentnim, 1995). Bilderdijk was a Messianic Jew with whom Kohlbrugge spoke and conesponded. He shared many of his o m poems with Bilderdijk who also was a pet.

about Christ and the Chur~h.'~' This was certainly an exception in the acadernic world of the

nineteenth century which was dominated by rationalism and histoncal criticism.

What surfaces as an important concentration of Kohlbnigge, in light of the spirit of the

tirnes, is his continual reference to the Word of God. His whole stniggle in the congregation and

university f o c u d on a parhcular understanding of the Scripttues, on its implication for a

perception of God and the hurnan king. In this regard Kohlbrugge and Barth shared the same

concern. As 1 pointed out Barth sought to counter nineteenth century rationalism, subjectivism

and sought to overcome the historicalcritical deteminations of the Word with his i nterpretation

of Romans and his concentration on the Word of God as point of depanure.

There is, however, one fundamental dityerence between Barth and Kohlbmgp and that is

their stance towards pietism on which 1 will focus.

As we saw, Barth understd pietism to be on the same line as rationalism under the

general categoory of subjectivism. Schleiennacher was the exemplar of theological subjectivism.

Kohl brugge also saw a danger in pietism. However, he sought to overcome the danger within a

different hmework of perceived problematics. He too sought to 'mnke room' for the Word of

God at the expense of hwnan selfcertainty. Yet this problematic selfcertainty did not, for

Kohl bnigge, primarily manifest itsel f in terms of philosophical, historicalcritical, or speci tic

Schleiennacherian theological viewpoints. It manifested itself in false securities in light of

Gd's holiness. The theological issue of sanctification ôecame the centrifuga1 point around

which Kohlbrugge's perspective of the Word of God took shape.

*'' Ds. P. J. Stm, @ ~ i e k Gelooj Tuuier Luther Kohibmgge (Kampen: Ui tgeverij De Grmt Goudriaan) 10-1 5.

For Kuhlbmgge the que.vtion. therefure, wus not whether io br pietistic. und in thut sense

subjectivistic, but whut kind ufpietism ts the right kind. busel on the Word uj'î;oJ.

Kohlbnigge's upbringing and personal life inflwnced this perspective.

Kohlbnigge's upbringing could be tenned pietistic. His father was a religious man who

spoke to his son much about biblical subjects and lived what he confessed. His father made

sure that Kohlbrugge was thoroughly trained in the catechism and together with his mother they

sang many a hymn?'

His love for the Scriptures, however, was mainly fostered by his grandmother. She told

Kohlbrugge bi blical scories using the tiles which decornted her house. She spoke to hirn about

the heavenly Jerusalem, about the city of mysery and desolation, and about tnie and falsc

convenions. in this al1 she taught him that the Word of God should serve as the criterion for

true and false conversions, for in it you could read of these conversions, and exhorted him to

examine himself in light of the Scr ipt~res .~~

As a student of langages and philosophy, Kohlbrugge confessed that he had moved far

away fiom his childhd piety and faith. He became an enthusiastic pet and enjoyed expanding

the horizons of worldly knowledge. He later realized he had succumbed to the temptntions of

this world and trampelled on the holy law of G a s 1 because he did not yet understand that the

" Dr. K. De Grooî, Kohibmgge und Kqpcr in Hm. WederziJ'dv Contuc~ (Baam: Bosch & Keuning N.V.) 2 1-22.

2" Ibid., 22.

"' Ibid., 23.

Gospel is against human nature." He had many preswnptions which were according to his

human nature.

In light of the above one can see the reason why Kohlbruggr! appreciated pietism. Yet he

also understood the danger of a false pietism which manifesteâ itself in sel f-maintenance,

preswnption, and a sense of a false security in the face of God. The latter he had indulged in

when he Iivcd a life before G d on the basis of works righteousness. We refened to this pend

as the p e n d before his second conversion.

He discovered this life to rest on false assurances once he understood that the law was

spiritual and that he himself was sold under sin. True piety thus must be rooted in a right

cxperience and understanding of the Word of God as law. the holiness of God

ought to determine one's relationship with Him. Around this question and out of these earl y

experiences, Kohtbrugge's perspective of the Word of God emerged.

In contrast to Barth, Kohlbnigge was not concemed with ridding the Word of Gad of any

pietistic or subjective interpretation to counter a kind of Feuerbachian anthropocentrism. He was

trying to distinguish between tme and false pietism, between right and wrong experiences of the

Word of Go& and so between the tnithful and deceptive interpretation of Scripture. This

implicitly involved the struggle for a proper view of Christ as the Word of G d in relation to

human k i n g . What is the revelation of God in the flesh and how dms or should it effect an

understanding of the self in view of the Word of God as that revelaiion?

in light of this observation, the query after how one knows or experiences the Word of G d

becomes paramount. But before 1 launch into that inquiry with reference to Kohlbnigge, I ~ i l l

first deal more specifically with the issue of sanctification and the controversy connected with it.

How the Word of God is perceived as answer in this controversy will be becorne clear.

As intermezzo let me clarify what 1 mean by 'right kind of subjectivity.' 1 realize that this

phraseology could foster wrong interpretations. The primary focus 1s not human subjectivity as

an alement in biblical interpretation or theology in any determinaiive sense. Hrre Kohlbrugge's

perspective corresponds to that of Barth who stressed that the Word of God must be central and

determinative. The Word of God as determinative object has as its subject the human being.

What is important to observe here is that Kohlbnigge, 1 beliew, breaks through the

rat ional istic subject-object dichotomy. which fostered the kind of subjective determination Barth

also countertd. Barth sought to do this by directly opposing the Cartesian tum to the subjective

with his doctrine of the Word of God. Kohlbrugge does implicitly the same thing with his

perspective of the nature and function of the Word of Gd. The answer to the question as to

how I see Kohlbmgg doing this is foundational for the distinction between Kohlbrugge's and

Barth's perspective of the Word of God.

I observed that Barth with his doctrine of the Word of God in connection with his doctrine

of the Trinity reversed the subject-object dichotomy in the direction of Gd: not selLcertainty

but God-certainty. Kohlbrugge overcomes this dichotomous thinking by maintnihing a kind of

subjectivity which is rooted in the Word of G d as it confronts the human king in its totality.

The analogy for this perspective is Christ Himself.

Christ as the Word of God was completely filled with the Holy Spirit. That is to say, the

centre of Christ's existence effecting His whole being, was the Holy Spirit. So likewise human

beings ought to have the Holy Spirit as the centre of their existence, as the breath of their life.

while they remain in the Word of G d by faith, that is, while they remain in Christ by faith.

For Kohlbrugge, in light of this comprison, the better question would be, what kind of

piety is congruent with God's Word and Spirit? With this question in mind 1 retum to the

controversy around sanctification.

1. The Controversy Around Sanctification

In his early yean as pastor and doctor in theology Kohlbrugp was stimulatrd and

influenced by a group of intluential Christians and theologians. These intluential prrsons

belonged to a movemant called the Reveil. The Reveil was a Europe-widr movemcnt which

reacted against the rationalism of the Enlightenment, had r romantic interest in history, and

reemphasized the value of emotion (gefuhl) and religious experience.'" Christian piety was

fostered by coming together in conventicles where views were exchanged, the Scripture was

studied, and prayer exercised. To these groups Kohl brugge ini tially fel t drawn.

Within these groups one person in particular kcamc: an important figwehed, the

converted Jew, Isaac Da Costa. ln him Kohlbrugge initially found a kindred spirit. They shared

poems and points of view. However, aAer Kohlbrugge had writîen his commentary on Romans

7, a controversy on sanctification arose with Da Costa. The controversy focused on the penon

and work of Jesus Christ with regards to the sanctification of the bliever.

In this controversy Kohlbrugge proveâ to be of a different pietistic bend, specifically with

253 A. I. Rasker, Dc Neiierlund~e Henonnde Kerk Vunuf 1795: Huur Geschiedenis en Theoiogie in de Negentienlle en Twintigste Eeuw (Kampen: J . H . Kok, 1974) 7 1.

reference to the nature and function of the Word of God He became more and more aware of

the radical ness of human sinFulness and so became more and more aware of the necessity of the

substitutionary person and work of Jesus Christ. Holiness too, for Kohlbrugge, -me a gifl.,

not a work.

Kohlbmgge's commentary on Romans 7 touched the central nerve of the hitherto implicit

differences between Da Costa and Kohlbrugge. In this published sermon Kohlbrugge exposed

the radicalness of hurnan depravity still present &er conversion. The dixovery Kohlbrugge

exposed in this work came to be called his second conversion. In this verse of Romans, Paul's

description of the law as spiritual and himself as sold under sin opened the doon to paradise for

Kohlbrugge. It could be compared to Luther's discovery of the spiritual meaning of Romans

1:16-17.'"

What Kohlbnigge discovered was that Paul d d not speak here of some kind of double ego

within the Christian. Paul does not witness to a new 1 in the self which wars against the old 1 in

the self. As a regenerated person one does not house in the self a good part which needs

stimulation over against an evil part which is to be smiggled against. No, the person by Christ's

blood made righteous and holy is wholly righteous and entirely holy. However, as far as the

natwal self is concemed it is sold under sin and will remain so: no part becomes more holy or

righte~us.'~'

The whole controversy needs to be understood within a fiamework determined by the

ZY Hermann Klugkist Hesse, Hermcmn Friedrich Kohibrtigge. translated out of Gennan by i. Van den Haar (Rotterdam: Uitgevery Van den Berg, 1980) 144.

255 Ibid., 144.

question. how can one again live with G d and for God? For Kohlbrugge the answer implies

that one must live in holiness and righteousness. This can only be the case ifone is married to

the fulfilled law, Jesus Christ. The reverse must also be true, however. One must have died to

the law by the body of Christ.

For Kohlbrugge this did not mean death to the law. Far from it. The law as spiritual

remains, for as the Word of God it remains. Kohlbnigge exclaims, "1 have to thank the law that

1 got to know rny~elt"~" In trying to maintain the law, Kohlbnigge discovered that he was a

God denier. For in trying to maintain the law acwrding to his own nature, he tned to becorne

who he could not be and tried to make God who He could not become. He did not leave God to

be God. He did not accept God's judgement over him as camal and therefore also could not

accept Gd's judgement of grace over hirn as king holy and righteous in Christ. This was not

the fault of the law. The law taught him God and His righteousness. Had the law not shown hirn

that he was carnally sold under sin, the love of Christ would not have constrained him to

witness "that grace reigns in etemal life by righteousness, by Jesus Christ our Lord."257

For Kohlbnigge the p c e of Christ has actually the same effect on the Christian in his or

her carnality, as the spi ritual law. He writes, "as soon as I was called by the grace of Christ

myself, my [ came along. 1 myself pretended to be somebody else; not satisfied with the fact that

God held me to be somebody else in Christ."258

H. F. Kohlbrugge, Het &ende Hoo/Juk Vun Puulur ' Brief uun dc Romeinen (Amsterdam: Vereeniging tot Uitgave van Gereformeerde Geschritlen, 1932) 25.

257 Ibid., 25.

ibid., 39.

Both law and grace, therefore, show hurnan beings that in themselves they ive ungodly,

that is, they are in their natural state without God: miss His glory and His righteousness. Time

and time again hurnans forget who they really are, and so their "ideas of holiness are only fruits

of [their] unbelief conceming [God's] mercy and t r ~ t h . " ~ ~

Answering the question, how can one then live agah with God and for God, Kohlbrugge

exhorts the believer to rernain in the Word of Gd. To remain in the Word of G d i s to remain

in Christ as the fblfilled law and so remain by faith in His righteousness and holiness. Does this

annul the law? Not at dl, it establishes it by recognizing God as God. To live in this way by

faith is to live piously in conpence with the Word of God.

To this way of Gd's holiness Isaac Da Costa objccted. Kohlbrugge's perspective on

sanctification and the law was not in harmony with the Word of Gd, according to Da C ~ s t a . ' ~

Da Costa made the distinction between justification and sanctification with reference to Christ

for us and Christ in us, respectively. Thereby, he held to a view of the human being after p c e

and faith as essentially consisting of two natures. For Da Costa there was a new part in us after

conversion that strives with the old part. Sanctitication refen to this strife within us. One

becomes more sancti fied the more the new part- that is Cbst in us- gains the upper hand. This

i s altogether the work of the Holy Spirit to be sure.26'

The law as the Word of God becomes for Da Costa the law of freedom and as such the Iaw

259 iôid., 42.

2a Da Costa in W. A. Hoek, H. E KohIbrtlgge ck Heifige Onheilige. (Amsterdam: W . Ten Have N.V., 1964) 38.

"' lbid., 38-39.

of Christ the King. Da Costa distinguished between the law of Sinai, as the law which

condemns, and as law required for sanctification. So afier grace and justification one can again

take the law in the hand in the striving for holiness. Da Costa thereby made a distinction

between God's righteousness and holiness as administered to the believen. and between Christ's

priestly and kingly otfice. respcxtively. It is Christ as King who rules over us by His Spirit and

leads us in the way of holiness which is the smiggle between the Christ in us and our old

nature.262

2. The Word ofGod as Answer

In the context of this controversy around sanctification, Kohlbrugge answeted that the

distinctions Da Costa made were not according to the Word of God. It is not tnie that the Bible

anywhere means to s p k of Christ as a new part in us. Christ is not in us, but fint we are in

Christ by faith. In so far as Christ is said to live in me, 1 am not my own anymore but I am

Christ's; 1 now live as new creature in Christ by His Spirit?

According to Kohlbnigge, Da Costa was in danger of lwking for something in the self and

on the buis of that finding G d in the sel[ This is what Kohlbrugge did before his second

conversion. Now he can only look up towards heaven, believing God's Word that He has made

him a new creature in Jesus Christ and so live in the Spint according to God's Word? The

hurnan k ing remains in the Word, in Christ, and so in the holiness and glory of God, by faith.

262 bid, 39-40.

2a Kohlbrugge in Ibid., 4 1 .

2u ibid., 4 1.

One cannot be with God and not be holy. In this way the Spirit of God becomes the centre of

one's existence, as He was the centre of Christ's existence.

The distinctions between the offices of Chnst and His work for and in the Christian i s also

unscriptural according to Kohlbrugge. Christ's kingly offce not only pertains to sanctification.

The Bible teaches differently. In Hebrews sanctification is mainly seen as the work of Christ as

hiyh priest. Christ k i n g after the order o f Melchidek i s also called the king of righteousness

as Melchizedek was the king of righteousness. "In the Scripture the Lord appars as He works

out of al1 His offices ~irnultaneously,"~' Kohlbrugge vaites; the Scripture is not to be interpreted

in order to fit it into a humanly contrived system or idea.

Kohlbrugge sees the Word of God cutting the human k i n g off from any false security

which rests on something other than Christ or the Word of God itself. God's way of holiness is

His own way of holiness revealed in His son Jesus Christ The Spirit o f God rules us entirely,

that is Our whole new k i n g in Christ, or not at ail. There is no part in us that becomes more

holy; we are antirely sold under sin. There is no way other than the way of faith, the Word. and

the Spirit.

Our old nature is what we are outside of Christ. In Christ our old nature is no more. In

both cases the law and grace, as judgements of God over us, do not lose their effect. Both show

forth the holiness and righteousness of God and our own wretchedness outside of God's

righteousness and ho1 iness.

It is in this way that Kohlbrugge breaks through the rationalistic a d o r the ethical subject-

object scheme. Not by inverting it and then superseding it with reference to the Tnnity as Barth

does, but by making the Word of God confiont us in Our totality or not at all. For Kohlbnigge

there is no part in us that somehow subjectively, i.e. pertaining to our mind, kart or will in a

special way aside fiom, or over and above the rest of our being, responds or is linked to God. If

that were the case, then human beings could seek for God as the ground of their soul, as the

mystics did. Kohlbrugge wams that Da Costa with his understanding of Christ in sanctification

as k ing the new part in us, steea in this dire~tion.*~

It is precisely with viewing the Word of God as law which is spiritual, and the human

being as camally sold under sin, that Kohlbnigge leaves no room for subjectivism or piety in this

way. At the same tirne, viewing Christ as the fulfilled law and the Christian as by faith existing

in Him, Kohlbnigge honours the fact îhat believers are also new matures. As such they have

died to their first husband. the law, and now live with God in Christ. This also leaves no room

for a subjectivity, pÎety, and spintuality from the bottom up. The Word of G d teaches us this

over and over again.

How does the Word of God teach us this over and over again, according to Kohlbmgge? It

teaches the human king this by king law, and spiritual. To show how Kohlbnigge understands

the Word of God in this way and therefore the human king in a particular way, 1 ~ i l l take a

closer look ai his commentary on Romans 7.

B. Kohlbrugge's Primary Tests with Coatinual Reference to the Word of God

1 . Kohl bnigp's Interpretation of Romans 7

The main thmst of Kohlbrugge's commentary on Romans 7 is the acknowledgement of the

utter sinfulness of the human king in the face of the Holiness and othemess of God with the

purpose of only resting in the finisheâ work of Jesus Christ, who becomes the believer's fint

love. In this acknowledgement G d mut remain God and the human being, human being.

This motif also sustained Barth's treatment of Romans. 1 observai that Barih primarily

sou& to leave God to be God 267as the outcome of the acknowledgement of the human k i n g

own limitations as matures. 1 showed this in particular with reference to Barth's interpretation

of Romans 1 : 19. There he understd the acknowledgement of G d as God to be the result of a

tme undentanding of the timely, historical, and natural boundaries of human existence. This

resulted in the involvement of the intellect in sheer irony. It was in this way that God was to be

acknowledged as God, and lefl to be God. The resurrection of Christ then stood as signpost of

Godness as the event in which God in Christ triumphs over the ultimate manifestation of human

creatureliness.

Sornething different, however, occurs in Kohlbrugge's interpretation of Romans 7.

Kohlbnigge does not seek to leave or acknowledge G d as God as a result of an undentanding of

hurnan limitations. Rather, Kohlbnigge knows the human to be merely human in the sight of

God's holiness. In regard to God's holiness, it is that humans do not lave God to be Gd. Time

and again humans seek to appropriate that which belongs to God alone; they seek to appropriate

267 Edgar Thaidigsman states, "Es ist die entsc hiedende >>Annatune<< und Voraussetzung von Barihs Auslegung des pulinische Romerbriefs, daD >>Go# Goa und &B Paulus wirklich von Gott sprechen wollte. In dieser »Annahmei<, . . ., ist die ganze Eigentümlichkeit der Barthschen Auslegung des zweiten »Romerbriefs<c begrilndet. . . . Gott als Gott begreifen heiDt ihn begreifen, daB er jenxits aller Zeit und Geschichte und mgleich Hem aller Zeit und Gexhichte ist" Edgar Thaidigsman Identitüt.werlangen und Widerspruch Krercestheologie &ci Luther. Hegel d Barth (Mainz: MatthaisGrtinenwald-Verlag, 1 983) 1 40- 14 1.

God's holiness by thinking to maintain Gd's law, before and after conversion Kohlbnigge

speaks about this, cornmenting on Romans 7: 1. He States, "deep in your heart still remains the

thuught that to maintain, keep the Iaw a little, will not bnng death and damnation over you, . .

For Kohlbrugge this is seeking security where it can not be found, because it is a false

subjective appropriation of that which only belongs to God.

What stands over against this false security, subjectivity, and piety? A lifc out of faith is

what stands over against it. Before faith our life was nothing but sin and death. By faith we are

however dead to ourselves as we have died with Christ, but live with God, as we have k e n

resurrected with Christ.""

In this prelimi nary corn prison between Barth's and Kohl bnigge's treatments of Romans

as Gd's Word for humans three things should be noted. First, the Word of God is the central

point of reference for an understanding of the human predicarnent, this is shown by the fact that

both Barth's and Kohlbrugge's understanding of God and the human king are grounded in their

interpretation of Scripture; second, Barth also sought to leave God to b<: God and the hurnan

being to be human king; third, how Kohlbrugge and Barth see the Word functioning in the

determination of an understanding of Godand hurnan nature is markedly different. I have

shown how Bartb employs and understands the Word of God in this regard. Next I will explicate

Kohlbrugge's understanding.

Paul expressed the Iife of faith using the analogy of mamiage in Romans 7: 1-4, specifically

applying it to the law of God and Christ as, both relating to the believer. The Word of G d does

- - . -. .

H. F. Kohlbnigge, Het Zevende HwJJsruk van Paulus ' Brief, 8.

Ibid., 9.

110

not die. The law remains, as well as does Christ. The believer dies to the law and gets mamed

to Christ. The one who believes in Christ is a dead person to him or herself, because he or she

has "become dead to the law through the body of Christ" (7:4a). At the same time, however,

that person is mam'ed to the one who was raised fiom the dead to bear fmit to God (4b).

Kohlbnigge wams the reader not to think that the law has been violated. The Iaw remains, but

he or she is dead to it in him or herseif and by faith it stands as acknowledged for what i t is.'"

Romans 7% shows that even though we are dead wder the law we are alive in Christ.

What does that imply for God's Word as law? It implies that the law is spiritual and humans am

not. However, in Christ we are God's new creature according to the cnteria of that same law. In

this way human beings cm serve God in newness of spirit."' Precisely this sem'ng means king

mamed to Christ, king possessed by Him to do the will of His Father in the Spirit, as He did.

Kohlbnigge stresses that one who has faith is not half the possession of Christ, and not just

a part is possessed by Christ, but is wholly so possesseô: "Nothing has remained from you, not a

hair that He hasn't bought. God alone shall you serve, you shall cleave to your Lord, as flesh of

His flesh and bone of His bone, because you are one Spirit in Him, in the G~spel.""~

For Kohlbnigge the law is thereby not made sinful. "No the law is not sin, but I owe her al1

thanks for letting me know my sin^."^^' We would not have known what it meant for Christ to

Save sinners if Gd 's law had not pointed out that 1 am a sinner. God's Word as law points out

270 ibid., 1 1-12.

"' Ibid., 19.

" Ibid., 2 1.

*" Ibid.. 23.

who 1 really am, and makes sin sinfuLn4 The law remains as Word of God. If it would not 1

would from time and again think myselfto be somebosy I am really not and would not be able to

acknowledge God as God. I also would not know that the grace of God reigns in Jesus Christ in

etemity .

Living without the law fosten false certainty. Thinking that one is able to perform what

God demands in His holiness creates a fdse piety: piety after the flesh, not aficr thc Spirit.

By the Word of God as law the nature of sin was taught to Kohlbrugge. He came to know

that sin is being-loose-from-God, that is, rnissing His glory. God wants the human being to be

holy and glorious as He is, but how is that possible if the hurnan king is loose-from-God? The

fall in paradise brought this king-loose-fiom4od about. To be with God meant to be holy.

The trespass of the law made the human king unholy. Mer that humans were no longer with

God, but against God. The human king imaginai him or herself god and so she robbed God of

His Godhood. This to her own destr~ction.~'"

According to Kohlbnigge, it was by means of the law that God wanted the human king

after the image and likeness of Himself. As Word of God the law was the rneans for humans to

remain with God in His Image. The law asked perfection; she asked the holiness of God. The

whole human k i n g should be after the heart of God in hem, disposition, inclination, and desire.

The entire hurnan k i n g should fonn a perfect king before the face of God: a human k i n g

whose actions, handling, and walking is God's doing. The law in this light is spiritual because

she is afier the Spirit of God in whom the human being was and ought to be with his or her -- ---

"' Ibid., 23.

"' ibid., 41-43.

whole life. Any human king who does not love the law is not hlly in the love of God and so

cannot remain with Gd. To remain with God was and is, therefore, to remain in the Word of

God as law of God and so remain in the image of God.

For Kohlbrugge to be and remain in the image of God, which rneans to be and remain

with God in His Word and Spirit, must be understood as king and remaining in God's law as

the expression of God's holiness, rightcousnrss, honour, and might. This is how Adam and Eve

were with God before their disobedience. They were in God's element that is, in His Spirit, in

His Word and law. For them al1 things were righteous, holy. light, life, freedom, rest for the

soui, joyful, and hono~rablc.~~" In this way they were in the image of God, but oniy as long as

they remained in obediencc to God's Word would they remain with God in His image. As soon

as they disobeyed they were out of Gd's image, they were loose-from-ûod. The signi ficance of

this observation is that Kohlbrugge understood king in the image of G d in tenns of the human,

being in Gd's Word as Iaw.

However, after the fall Kohlbrugge considen the human king as fallen out of the image of

God. This is the transition from having been in God7s Spirit to king in the tlesh, or being

carnally sold under sin. By disobedience the human king could not remain with God in His

image because the law is spiritual. This is expresd, according to Kohbrugge, in Romans 7: 14,

"for we know that the law is spintual, but 1 am camal, sold under sin." The law as spiritual does

not 'Yolerate [an] explanation of her words according to the thoughts which human beings

cherish conceming hits of Gd, and Godliness, wnceming works in regard to doing and

bearing fniits."" On the other hand it also does not tolerate false humility. This expresses itself

in an attitude in the face of God's law which acknowledges the holiness of God and the

incapacity to keep the law because of sinfulness and so opts not to honour it. Kohlbnigge

understands the latter as maintaining the self in a Satanic manner.nP Both ways rob God of His

hono ur.

The law remains by itsctf cterna! and untouchable. Therefon it i s one of the two, "either

entirely loose fiom the law in the body of Chnst and wholly with Christ-there will be life as the

law is life, or entirely loose from Christ and wholly with the law-there will be what is

deserved. """ In the fall the human king "lost-not the image of God, but [the human being] lost- God; .

. . . **2w This manifested itself in human k i n g availing themselves of light, of life, of tnith, of

knowledge of good and evil, to rob God of His crown. They did not want to go lost as they were

"so futile, so unrighteousness, so unholy, so unfit and powerless, so miserable and cast out, so

wholly loose-frorn-God"' In response, Kohlbnigge says, human beings also tday theologize

themselves a Jesus, a Spirit, a faith, a religion to gain back a lost image of God. To be sure they

do this al1 to the honour of God, and of coruse they realize that in this life it is not perfect, but

after this life it will be perfect. And so secretly they think themselves to have something, to be

" Ibid., 47.

" Ibid., 48.

279 Ibid., 49.

2m Ibid., 54.

28' ibid., 55.

better than they are, to be like God in His image. In effect they steal what belongs to God

a l ~ n e . ~ ' ~ Human beings do not have God's image if they are not with G d . When they are with

God, that is, when they are again with God in His Word and Spirit, they are in His image alsa

Human beings aAer the fall are flesh and sold under sin (Romans 7: 14b). What this

implies for Kohl bnigge is that they are placed within the boundaries of a land which is only

sin.2" This is precisely how G d remained Cod. There is no one good but Cod alone.

One rnight well ask the question with Da Costa, is there surely not a part in me that longs

afier God, that long to be with God? 1s Chnst not in me as that part which connects me to G d

again in and through His Spirit? In other words, is there not a point of contact, even noi afier

faith, between God and the human being?

Insofar as this contact is not grounded in God's Word there cannot be such a point of

contact. Conceming this affirmation Barth and Kohlbnigge agree in principle. For Barth a

natural point of contact was excluded on the grounds that unless God is acknowledged to have

estnblished a connection with the human king in and through His Word, the human king only

knows the boundaries and limitations of his or her existence. The necessity of theology as the

context of faith seeking understanding points to the need to see oneself connected to God in

ways which God has established Himself through His Word. For Kohlbnigge too there needs to

be an acknowledgement of not having a point of contact with God in the flesh. The God

established connection is against the flesh. The righteousness and holiness of God necessitate the

acknowledgement that G d alone can bridge the gap between Himself and hurnan beings.

Ibid., 55-56.

ibid., 57.

There, however, remain important di fferences. Barth sought to make room for the Word of

G d in the acknowledgement of the necessity of God for our king as bound to the conditions

and limitations of this worldly existence. From the human perspective the Word of God must

become God's Word at the expense of the human word This is so because God is Lord over His

own Word. Furthermore the reality of God's king for humans in Jesus Christ i s the ontological

determination for the human king. And so any word about the human king that proceeds from

an understanding of reality not determined by God stands in contradiction to an established and

unders td reality by the Word of God. Only that which proceeds from G d is real, true, and

good. Kohlbnigge seeks to makr r o m for the Word of G d with the acloiowledgement o h lost

relationship with God. The condition for this relationship is the Word of God itself The ternis

on which this relationship ought to and can exist are established by God Himself in His law.

God's law must be acknowledpd for what it is, and so the human king acknowledges who he

or she is. Furthermore it is God who is the reestablisher of the lost relationship by Him having

fulfilled the ternis for that relationship. Therefore any attempt to establish this lost relationship

on ternis determined by the human self, in spite of God's terms, necessariiy faits in king

condemned by G d on the basis of His law. Only God's fulfilmcnt of His own terms can form

the basis of a love relationship between humans and Him~elf.'~

ZH 1 stress the importance of relationship in reference to Kohlbrugge because, as 1 have pointed out, for him the basic question is anchored in an acknowledged reality of beingwith, or loose-fiom-(iod. Barth applies relational language in the context of an established ontology. 1 pointed out that the Tnnity occupies an dl-important place in Barth's theology in regard to this issue. The observation made here reiterates to a large extent what Barth himself acknowledges. P. J. Stam quotes Barth's Church Dogmaticr. pointing out that Barth judges Kohlbrugge as not employing "Augustinische Seinskategorien," but "mystische Existentialen." P. S. Stam. Mjmiek Geloufi Tuulcr Luther Kohlbrugge (Kampen: Uitgeverij De Groot Goudnaan, 1990) 16. Barth and E. Wendel-Moltman accuse Kohlbrugge of psychologizing faith in this way, and so making

Tu sum up, in u short unuiysi.~, one cun say t h Barth is primuriiy theulogizing within the

cotegories of thoughi und being whereas Kohlbmgge is mody concerncd with experience and

relutiunship. ïïwrefure, for Rurth the Wurd of G a i u.î uliimutely munifsted in the person und

will return to this observation in chapter IV of this thesis in the context of the discussion of the

historicity of the Word of God and Barth's and Kohlbrugge's respective interpretations of

Genesis.

The real nature of the human king confronted by the Word of God proves to be totaily

determined by his or her being-without-ûod. This means that the human king by nature is

totally ungodly. In us thcre is nothing good, Kohlbrugge maintains. We have not the slightest

notion of whai is good or evil in the eyes of God, because we are without ~irn."' There is not a

particular part of me that is in tune with Gd's Word. This is the unchangeable human

predicament. This Kohbrugp never tires of reitenting. "O wretched man who shall deliver

from the body of this dath'?" (Romans 7:24).

The way back to God is the way of faith. Only if one remains in the Word of God by faith

can the human king again be with God. The Word of Goci is, d e r the fall, the ful filled law, the

promise of siilvation, in which the hwnan being is to remain. This, at the same time means being

it again too subjective. This observation wmects with my affimation thst Kohlbnigge in regard to his understanding of the Word of God, is not seeking to annul al1 subjectivity, only wrong kinds.

2ss H- F. Kohlbnigge, Het Zevende Hwfcistuk vun Puultllp ' Briej; 62.

in the Spirit; not walking after the tlesh nor theologizing after the flesh, but king in the Spirit

as a new creature in Chri~t. '~

Before 1 tum to Kohlbrugge's perspective on the Word of God becoming flesh, three

important and uniting elements in Kohlbrugge's perspective on the Word of God need to be

noted. in his treatment of Romans 7 Kohlbrugge maintains the central importance of the Word

of God as reference point for a mie understanding of God and the human king. Kohlbrugge

perceives that the Word of God accornplishes such understandings, fint of all, by king spiritual

and law.*" This shows the holiness and image of God in which the human being existed and

again ought to exist. Second, by understanding the nature and function of the Word of God in

this way, Kohlbrugge stresses that it thereby teaches the human beings chat they are without-

God, not in the image of God, and not spiritual. It teaches tbem that they are carnally sold under

sin. And third, perceiving the nature and function of the Word of God this way, Kohlbrugge

interprets Christ primarily as the fulfilled law in Whom the hwnan king again cm be with God

in al1 holiness and righteousness, by faith and the Spirit.

'" Ibid., 128- 129.

287 Loos in his book refers to Th. Staisny who wrote, Die Thcoolgiu Kuhlbrügga, as rnaintaining that Kohlbrugge was a theologian of the la*. Loos himself states that thk is right but it misses the importance Kohlbnigge connects to the concept of the Word of God as central. 1 contend that the understanding that law and Word of God are for Kohlbrugge fundamentally and centrally the sarne. This is shown in the way he uses the law as the expression of God's righteousness and holiness as the image of G d in which the human king was created and in which, by faith, the hman king is recreated in Christ as the hiIfiller of the law. This was and i s the way for humans to be and nmain with G d J. Loos, De Theologie van Kohlbrugge. (Amsterdam: Uitgeveijmaatschappij, 1948) 88-9 1. h, in connection with this observation, puts Kohlbrugge more in line with Barth with reference to the centrality of the Word. 1 contend that that line can be drawn but the question how the Word of God is perceived as reference point for a human self-understanding shows t hat Kohlbrugge indeed does maintain the Word of G d as spiritual and law as fiindamental.

Kohlbrugge himself has expressed three subjects which accordingly comprise the most

elernental, and necessary assertions of theology: "1. that 1 am human king and nothing more. 2.

that God is God, 3. that He fulfills His promise also for me."2" Assertions one and two point to

the necessity of acknowledging that the Word of G d is law and spiritual. Assertion three

focuses on God as the fulfiller of His own promise. This is in fact the way in which the Word

h m e s k h . How this has occumd and continues to happen is exposed by Kohlbrugge in his

book on Matthew 1.

2. Kohlbrugge's Interpretation of Matthew 1

Matthew I is the genealogy of Jesus. It is the becoming. or the genesis of the Word in the

flesh. It relays the history of the fulfilment of the promise of God for the people of God.

Matthew I testifies to Jesus' coming in the flesh as the fulfilment of the promise for those who

rested in Goci's Word by faith. It therefore is more properly understood as a faith-genesis.'"

Understanding this chapter as faith-genesis implies that if Jesus is acknowledged to have

come in the tlash, it is always connected to how Jesus has come in the tlesh for those who

klieved. This time, in wmpanson to Kohlbtugge's trmtment of Romans 7, where I focused on

how the nature and function of the Word of God-and by implication the human being-is

understood by Kohlbrugge. the question what it means to believe in the Word is central. This

believing too has implications for a human selfiunderstanding. Acknowiedging the Word of

" Ibid., 90.

2w FI. F. Kohlbnigge, Overdenking van het Eerste Hwfd~tuk van het Evungeik van Muttheiiu (Amsterdam: Vereeniging tot Uitgave van Gerefonneerde Geschrifien, 1939) 4.

God fulfilled means for Kohlbrugge a disavowal of dl the strength, the art, suspicions,

expectations, and honour of the flesh? Therefore one could say that the fùlfilment of the

promise, the Word of Gd having become flesh, shows itself to have the same function as the

Word king law and spiritual?'

The question then is, how is flesh to be perceived in light of God's Word as promise to be

fulfilleù? Or in other words, how did Jesus Christ come in the flesh to redeem it from its sinfûl

humanness? From the genealogy of Jesus it is then show that the Word becarne flesh as an

annulment of that which manifested itself as flesh. In becoming flesh in this way G d remained

God. This is the comfort of believen who understand thernselves to be nothing but camal, that

is not spiritual.

Kohlbmgge emphasizcs that the genealogy in Matthew testifies to a becoming of Jesus in

the flesh. It testifies to how Jesus came, hm come, and is corning in the flesh for those who are

by faith in the Word?*

It must be kept in mind that Levi wrote this genealogy. Levi was the sinner who knew by

experience what it was to acknowledge that Jesus came also in his flesh. To him, the tax

NU Ibid., 4.

"' Loos refers to LonMiuyzen saying that Kohlbnigge's interpretation of Matthew 1 is an 'image' of his commentary of Romans 7. J. Loos, Dc Theofogie vrrn Kohi&n+ge (Amsterdam: Uitgeverîjmaatschappij, 1948) 50. The similarity lies in the stress on the ' fleshness' of the human king. Cf. Herman Klugkist Hesse, Hermunn Friedrch Kohlbriigge ûans. J van Den Haar (Rotterdam: Uitgeverij Van den &rg, 1980) 184. And D-Kalmijn, in Dr. W. Aaldcn et. al Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge (14103-1875) Zijn Leven. Zijn prediking, Zijn Geschr#en ((Den Haag: J. N. Voorhoeve, 1976) 90-9 1.

rn H. F. Kohlbrugge, ûverdenking vun Iirl Eerste Hoofdstuk van het EvungeIie van Muttheik, i.

collecter, the traitor of his nation, grace was displayed That is how Jesus came in the flesh And

Levi in this way saw that Jesus was the Messiah out of the house of David. This was the faith-

genesis of Jesus in Levi's flesh, and so he wrote this g e n e a l ~ g y . ~ ~

Matthew begins with 'Jesus Christ a son of David." Kohlbrugge comments, "conti nually

per clt.rpcratu." There was not a king, anoi nted of God, so attacked from al1 sides. And yet he

was the man afler Gd's hart, the king of the promise. This is how Jesus Chnst was

proclaimed King; he was proclaimed King on the cross? Faith in the promise is faith in G d ' s

fulfilment of the promises in the midst of human impossibilities and contraâictions.

in the following i will illustrate how Kohlbrugge sees the Word becoming flesh in

reference to specific examples fiom the genealogy of Jesus. The implications of Kohlbmgge's

intcrpretation will be noted in light of some important issues referred to in my analysis of

Barth's understanding of the Word of God.

"And Abraham begat Isaac." What a history! For Sarah t h case becama laughable (Gen

1 8: 1 1 - 12), and yet the promise came. Then after it Abraham %ad to go the road to Moria" to

sacrifice his son. This is jtow the genesis began."'

"And Jacob begat Judah." Judah was bom in the way of Leah's desperation for k ing

loved and recognized. Precisely at that point she gave it over to G d . Judah means, 'this time I

will praise the Lord.' With the first three sons she had hoped to win Jacob's favour. The names

of the first three sons reflect her expectations. She had sought to secure her acceptame of Jacob

N%id., 3 (see note 4).

2w bid., 5.

'" Ibid., 7.

by fleshly means, to no avail. Having corne to the end of herself, with the fourth son she praised

God. She fell into God's amis, not Jacob's. Jacob by the Spirit had to recognize this and

blessed Judah as the one who would be praised by his brethren? In this way, the Word became

flesh, God was ieA to be God and it was testified to by the Spirit through Jacob.

Kohlbnigge deals with the story of Tamar in a surprising way. By playing the harlot,

Tamar begets Jesus Chnst according to the promise. She gives up her status and honour and

gives henei f as a sinner and so realizes the promise o f G d God did not spare any tlesh. That

which is bon out of God is holy and in light of that, flesh needs to be acknowledged as flesh.*'"

But the history o f Tamar goes on. Not only in the way she conceived the child did she

show what flesh was, but also in the way she thought and proved to be who she was as flesh.

Just like Eve before her, she thought the fiist bom to be the inheritor of the promise. But

unexpectedly the designated second-bm broke through. This Tamar thought to be wrong and

not according to her tradition and calculation. God thought it right: out of the second child Christ

was Imm.

In this context Kohlbnigge alludes to Paul's assertion that he too found this law in him:

"For the good that 1 will to do, 1 do not; but the evil 1 will not, that I practice" (Rom. 7:19

NKJV).m Time and time again the human k i n g has to be shown that God does not save flesh.

He condemns it and shows it to be condemned, so that He will remain God who has the Image in

which fleshly human beings can take refuge and rat. Everyone who is bom out of God by his

Ibid., 13.

2U7 Ibid., 16-17.

2M tbid, 18.

Spirit can be one with Tamar the prostit~te.~~

Interpreting the Word of God requires the implicit experience of it. Without that

experience one always seeks to interpret according to the flesh and not acwrding to the Spirit.

The latter Kohlbnigge observes with reference to Rahab. She was a heathen harlot. Many

attempt to interpret the Hebrew word for harlot as innkeeper. However, this merely shows that

such interpretrrs desire to Save Rahab's honour and portray her as a quasi-holy p e r ~ o n : ~

Kohlbnigge proves that al1 other occurrences of this word in Scripture, in Aramaic, Arabic, and

Penian, refer to someone king a harlot. In this context Kohlbnigge speaks of Pythagorism and

Christian Platonism, viewpoints which according to him have not understood the righteousness

of Cod revealed in Jesus Christ and thereby show the truth of Romans 1 : 25-32?

In the history of David the king, Kohlbnigge observes the Word of God as being David's

son and David's Lord. Jesus is David's son according to lineage. How he is David's son is,

however, more important to the believer. He is David's son as Lord, that is as the One who

David could not be: etemal and holy. Precisely as Lord over that which is utterly hurnan, Christ

\vas David's son. Christ was and is God's Word in which David too existed in al1 his bittemess

and anxiety. As such he existed in Christ believing that which was still to corne as already

ibid., 17-20.

ibid., 23. Kohlbnigge does not expand on this comment here. It shows thaî to expose Kohlbnigge's perspective in a systematic way is impossible due to the way he presents his points of view. Barth's designation of him as 'irregular dogmatist' is certainly justifid. For that reason 1 find it necessary to go to the primary sources and so let hem speak for themselves. Barth in his chapter on Kohlbrugge in Protestant Theulw in the Ninetheenth Cenrury also followed this way of explicating Kohlbrugge by devoting most of the chapter to quotes fiom Kohlbru~e' s works.

existent in the promise. Here Kohlbrugge alludes to Paul's exclamation, "1 live, but no more ï,

but Christ lives in me."Yn And so David's kinghip existed in the Word of God.

David manifested himself to be merely flesh indeed He became a murderer and an

adulterer. He gave up his relationship with God for immediate gratification of the flesh and

remained in this condition until God showed him who he W. Here David was in a state of

being-withoutûod, ried to a wornan in s i a Kohlbnigge points to the saying: nomino mututo. de

te cun~uf urfphuiu, meaning, "O human, who art tho y here thou hast thine own hi~tory."~' In

this way God's grace is to be seen and magnified. Christ took on such flesh and remained true to

His own word, and was bom out of this relationship.

With reference to Kohlbrugge's interpretation of the story of David. again a similarity and

difference emergr? between Barth's and Kohlbrugge's understanding of the Word of God. The

similarity and difference are both rooted in their conception of the nature, or essence of God in

relation to his Word and human beings. When Kohlbrugge in this context emphasizes the

Lordship of G d over his own Word, he expresses the same as what Barth says about the essence

of God and how God's essence is manifested in relation to His Word and human beings, which

precisely establishes Christ's king in and for Daviâ, formally. The difference lies in the

realization and application of this relationship with reference to the nature and function of the

Word of God as it is to be acknowledged and understood historically.

Barth described the essence of God as king the Lord over His own revelation; as king

free in regard to His own Word and work. Kohlbrugge also refen to the Lordship of Christ over

His own Word from an etemal perspective. David existed in the Word instead of the Word

king conditioned by existing in David. David existed in the Word as the Word existed in him

according to the promise. David also existed in the Word as he could not be that Word himself

He existed in that Word by grace. In this sense Solomon, David's son according to the flesh,

also existed in the Word. As n a d son he merely was the fonn of that which he was by faith,

namely Jesus Christ.3a

Kohlbrugge's emphasis does not lie on the etemality of the Word of God as promise, but

on the realization of the promise for the believer in the believer. As God's promise it realizes

itself in such a way that the fulfilment of it is to be acknowledged as pure gace. This gace is

not in the f i n t place to be understood as God's fieedom over against our determinations, but as

grace, and fulfilment of promise, in the context of suffering and death. God's Word becomes

flesh by sharing in the sufFering and death of that Word on this earth. Chnst was in David as

David was in Christ; they are one in the suffenng of the Word. He suffered on behalf of the

Word in which he was, and in that way he "prophesid of the coming One, as the coming One

penonified, in al1 his P~alms.""~

Kohlbrugge thus lays the stress on the historical realization of the Word becoming flesh as

it is testified to in Scripture. Kohlbnigge's exclamation, "O human king who art thou, here

thou hast thinc: own history," shows that he seeks to emphasize the importance of an existential,

historical reaiization of the Word becoming flesh in the application of the Word of God. Christ

needs to come in our flesh as determinid by the tmth of Scnpture. The Word of God is

" Ibid., 34-35.

ibid., 35.

therefore to be taken as historical testimony to the mith established h m eternity. In the

believer, therefore, there ne& to ôe experience, historically and spiritually corresponding to

that which cornes to him or her in the Word of G d In this way God is leA to be Cod in al1 the

aspects of His king, and the human being is lefi to be human k i n g in al1 the aspects o f his or

her histoncally and sinfully detemined existence. In Christ, Gd's being is spoken to and

vindicated historicaiiy, so that the beiiever can again be with God in His Word and Spirit; now

on this side of the grave, in suffenng and hop, then, through death, in etemal bliss and love.

As 1 pointed out, Barth's approach to the Word of God in this respect is radically different.

As a beliaver he understands God and His Worâ, thinking out of etemity for the . God is left to

be Goci, as God was, and is, and ever will be. G d is etemally the same and therefore presently

in time He is who He is as detemined by Hirnself. In this determination He has detemined

Himself to bc: for human beings in Jesus Christ, in the etemal council o f the Trinity. Precimly

this is what is related to human beings in the Word of Gd. The actualization of whai already is,

occurs in the event of His revelation over which God reigns sovereignly in freedom. In the act of

acknowledgement by the believer he becomes aware of who he really is and therefore ought to

be.

The main cornparison and contrast lies in the question of who the human king really is as

detennined by the Word of God. In other words. how dws the tn~th of the Word of God

correspond and determine how the self is to be understood?

Having treated both Barth's and Kohlbrugge's perspective of the Word of Gd, one of the

most important issues emerges. This is the issue of historicity. In what way is the Word of God

to be understood, interpreted, and applied as historical? The answer to this question is of

Fundamental importance in the determination of human self-understanding. A theological

anthropology therefore needs a tnithful understanding of the nature and function of the Word of

GO^. 3M

C. Implications for Tbeological Anthropdogy

Kohlbnigge's perspective of the Word of G d irnpties an undcrstanding of the human

king as radically sinfùl. nie nature and fùnction of the Word of God in Kohlbrugge with

respect to an understanding of the human being actually proves to have the opposite conclusion

to Barth's understanding of the Word of God and his anthropology. nie most fundamental

reason for this is that Kohlbnigge did acknowleâge a fonn of Christian piety which corresponds

to his understanding of the Word of God as law and spiritual and so as directly personal and

historical.

Kohlbnigge's particdar fom of Christian piety is rootrd in bis experience of the Word of

Goâ as law and spiritual. The issue of sanctification h i s h e d the background for his

understanding and application of the Word of God. When Barth cried at the beginning of his

'M I will retum to this more specifically in the next chapter. In note number 24 1 allude to a debate between Hirsch and Barth on this issue. The theses and anti-theses there noted in principle set the guidelines also for my discussion. On the relation of history and anthropology see also K. Runia, De TheoIogische Tïjd Bu Kud Barth met Nume in Zijn AnthropIogie (Franeker: T. Wever). This is an unpublishd dissertation about the relationship of thedogical time in Karl Barth and his anthtopology. One of Runia's main conclusions is, "that the radion against historicizing of revelation causes Barth to undenate the tmly historical character of revelation, which appears, among other things, h m his conception of the history of the Creation as 'unhistorical time' and fiom his definition of the time of revelation as 'eternal time.'. . . Al1 this detracts fiom the ûue temporarimss of the revelational events such as we find it in the Bible (John 1 : 14). ibid., 252. Barth expresses the relationship of time, the human being, and the Word of God is this way, T h e man whose temporality is the subject ofour investigation is the creature whose relation to God is revealeâ to us in His WorQ . . . " Karl Barth, CD W2.438.

antithetical theological development, veni Creator Spirifur, Kohl brugge could have called out,

veni Sunct i Spiritta.

Viewing the Word of God primarily as law and spiritual, and Christ as the fulfilment

thereof, Kohlbrugge saw the Word of God teaching the human king to be flesh, and nothing

more than that. In the proclamation of the Word of God, human beings time and again, must be

made aware of who they really are before God in thernselves. The true nature of the human

beings is characterized and determined by their king-loose-fiornûod because of their

unholiness. This defines king flesh.

Only in Christ can a human king again be with God by His Word and Spirit. Christ as the

fùlfiller of the law of God, legally and ceremonially, is the substitute for hwnan beings who

acknowledge their sickness unto death in king without God. The Holy Spirit then becomes the

new breath of life, so that human beings again can be with God.

A faith relationship with the Word of Gad, therefore, causes the hurnan king to

acknowledge two realities. These realities are not both existent in the human k i n g as Da Costa

understood the believers' relationship to Christ. For Kohlbrugge, curnuliy, human beings are

sold under sin. As such, human beings need to die to the Word of G d as law and spiritual. In

this way faith in the Word teaches us who we really are. However, faith in the Word of God as

promise teaches us also that God in Jesus has overcome and will overcome that which is human.

The Word has becorne and becomes flesh showing the hurnanness of humans and the Godness of

Gd. In the fleshness of the Word, Christ recapitulates the tint Adam as substitute, overcoming

the disobedience and death of the first and subsequent human beings in His life, death. and

resurrection. In Him those who ôelieve have also recapitdated the fitst Adam, and continue in

their lives to be one with that Word in suffering, hoping for their final day of deliverance. For

Kohlbrugge, therefore, spiri&A'y humans are new matures by remaining in the Word of God

by faith. By remaining in the Word of God they also remain in the Spirit which both become the

new principle and source of their existence.

Barth's concepts of the upusprupriunz and the opus ulienum of the Word of God merge

for Kohlbnigge. The propcr function and the alien function of the Word of God unite in

teaching the human king two realities: the one reality of our king in Christ and the other of our

king in ourselves, with and without Cod respectively. The Word of God is one and etemal. lt

is one as Gd's law and promise, and as such it is one as God's creative power through His

Spirit However, the human king is not eternal, and truly spiritual in him or heaelf. In time

and in history the human k i n g is carnal. However by faith in Christ, that is in fulfilled law and

promise, the human king is with God in His Spirit As such he or she exists in time by faith, in

hop and love, for etemity.

1 said that Kohlbrugge's perspective on the Word of God effects an opposite understanding

of the human being. This is clear from my discussion of Barth's ultimate daims with regards to

the human being. Jesus Christ as the ontological determination of human nature made Adam the

provisional copy. It made sin the ontological impossibility and made history subordinate to the

etemality of revelation. Kohlbrugge's perspective of the Word of God implies that sin is the

actual reality of the human king as beingOwithout-God. Remaining in the Word and Spirit by

faith effects an understanding of the human self as sinful, and as righteous and holy. Both

realities are equally me at al1 times here on earth, as long as one remains in the Word and Spirit.

1 described Barth's understanding of the human k ing as an ontological-relationai and

Kohlbmgge's an existentid-relational one. In essence the difference lies in the understanding of

the Word of God as detemiined by the context in which it emerged.

In principle the perspectives for a cornparison between Barth's and Kohlbmgge's

understanding of the nature and function of Word of G d were already laid out in a discussion of

Barth with Emanuel Hirsch. The hart of that discussion was determined by the question in what

way the Word of God s w s to the human king . In what way is the Word of G d historical or

does it need to become historical for us human beings?

1 listed two theses (Hirsch) and anti-theses (Barth) as recorded by Barth hirnsel f. In

principle these two theses and anti-theses sum up the difference between Barth's and

Kohlbmgge's perspectives and application of the Word of God. Thesis and anti-thesis 1 concern

the historical correspondence of the believer's Iife to the Word of God. Hirsch says that the

Scripture testifies to a life that should iake shape in us, thereby presuming the historicity of the

truth of the Word of God which therefore possibly can correspond to the believer's own

historical existence in the presence. Barth's anti-thesis shows him speaking out of eterni ty for

tims. The historicity of the truth of the Word of God is conditioned by an etemal perspective.

Christ as the etemal Word of God is the One who is witnessed to in the Scripture. His life

should take shape in us. And in sofar as the latter happens the 1 is not the directly expenenced 1,

but the I as acknowledged as new creature in Christ. Thesis and anti-thesis 4 concem the

directness or inâirectness of the way God's Word speaks, or confronts the hurnan being. Hinch

says that Scriphire is rightly understood if it is understooâ as a word directed personally to the

human being. Barth's anti-thesis shows that Barth understands the Word of God as working in

an indirect way. As such the Word of God has fint to create its reol adâressee as not a word but

the Word of G d M 7

IV. WHAT IT MEANS TO BE iN THE MAGE OF COD WTH SPECIFIC

WFERENCE TO BARTH'S AND KOHLBRUGGE'S INTERPRETATION OF

GENESIS 1-3

In this chapter I will conclude my investigation of B d ' s and Kohlbrugge's understanding

of the nature and function of the Word of God and their anthropoiogical implication. 1 will do

this with reference to their understandmg of the Word of God as it is recorded in Genesis 1-3.

The issues of historicity and directness venus etemal ity and indirectness will surface as the

focal points around which an understanding of the hwnan king in light of the Word of God

Ends its bearing.

1 have noted that Barth understands Christ to be the ontological determination of humanity.

This daim is intricateiy related to his interpretation of the concept of the image of God as it is

found in the Word of God. What needs to be said h m the start is that Barth with this daim

ultirnatel y and fundamental ly speaks with one Word about one real ity whereas Kohlbrugge

speaks with one Word and about two realities in reference to the hman being.

For both, the crucial point i s the question whether one is with or without Gd. Barth's

interpretation of the Word of Cod, seeing it witnessing to one redity, shows that %asically and

comprehmsively, therefore, to be man is to be with G d w r n Kohlbrugge, because he sees the

Word wibiessing to two realities in the face of God and His Word, understands the human bei ng

307 See note 22.

"Karl Barth, CD IIV2, 135.

131

either to be with or without God. For Barth this relationship to God is ontologically determined.

The Bible witnesses to this ontological determination: Christ king the image of God in whorn

God looks upon al1 hurnanity. For Kohlbrugge the human relationship to God is existentially and

spiritually determined with continual reference to the Word of God as portrayal of God's image.

A. Barth's Xntcrpretation of the Xmage of God

1 will discuss Bath's interpretation of the image of God as found in Genesis in the context

of what he has said about Christ and creation, and the Holy Spirit and creation. This is the

soteriological framework which elucidates the interpretation of the human king in the image of

God. Barth also has a specific section on history, myth and saga. 1 will also incorporate this in

rny discussion as it pertains to the question of the historicity of the Word of God in relation to

theological anthrop~Iogy.~*

Barth's overarching framework is the fact that God created out of nothing. It illustrates

that God is the Subject, totally and exclusively, of al1 that is."1°

'%ad Barth in. Kurl Burth Preuching ïhruugh the Christion Yecrr A Seicction (4' Likegeticul Pussuges/ron the Church Dugmu~ics trans. G. W. Bromiley and T.F. Tonance. selected John Mc Tavish and Harold Wells (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978). 1 chose to use this selcction because in it Barth is portrayed as exegete. Kohlbrugge was only an exegete. My final cornparison between Barth and Kohlbrugge is properly exegetical in this way.

"O ibid, 49. At the same time that which is not is simply that which is not willed by God. God, by creating ovemmes what is not by not willing what He does not create. God creates on the basis of what He has willed in His etemal council. God has willed to be a covenant-partner with the hurnan being in Jesus Christ. Essentially the creation of humankind was an act of Goâ's grace which human beings rejected in the fall. They did not want to remain in the grace of God which is His proper work, but instead chose that which God positively willed not, which describes Gd's alien work Evil, and sin therefore pertain to uncreated reality. Ln actuality creation and grace merge fiom the perspective of the eternal, in Jesus Christ See CD

Speaking about Christ and creation, Barth exegetically puts this therne in the context of

other biblical texts, like: Col. 1 :17, Jn. 1 : 1, and 1 JR 2: 13. Al1 these passages Barth sees as

testifying to "the ontological connexion between Christ and creation.""' in these passages

Christ as the Word of God is said to exist before al1 things, that is, in the begi~ing."' The Word

of G d was with God who created out of nothing. In fact God was the Word."' Col. 1 : 15

specifialty refea to Christ as the image of the invisible G d who together ;ire one. Through

Him al1 was created. Chnst "is the beginning as God Himself is the beginning."""

Besides that Christ existed in the beginning, Barth points to the fact that he existed as Lord

over al1 things. By Him and through Him al1 t h i n g were made. Passages such as Heb. 112, Jn.

1 :3, Jn 1: 10, Col. 1 : 16 "make it clear that the Son or Word of G d or concretely Jesus Christ,

does not just become but is Lord of al1 things. For He is as G d and with God, instituted as such

by God and by Himself in full divine dipity and power Creator of al1 thing~.""~

And finally in regards to Christ's' ontological cornation with creation Barth emphasizes

the fact that Christ existed as mediator. He was already in the eternal decree of G d the

" ' Karl Barth in Kuri Burrh Prcuching.. 5 1 .

"' For a broader exegetical Reatment on the fact that the Word was in the beginning see also Karl Barth. Wime.s., to the Word Kur/ Burth: A Cbmmentury On John (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986) 19-20.

31' Ibid., I 1. This is how Barth prefers to translate the first verse; "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with G d and God was the Word."

"' Karl Barth in Kud Burth Prcuching . 52.

3 15 Ibid., 52.

mediator; the bearer of human nature, the hwniliated and exalted as the bearer of our flesh; a

mature and precisely as such loved by God; and in this way the motivating basis of ~reation."~

On the basis of these three fundamental ontological connections between Christ and

creation Barth speaks of the Holy Spirit In his comments on the work of the Holy Spirit it is to

be noted that his pneumatology is rooted in the established ontological connection between the

Word and creation. In the Old Testament, Barth observes that the Holy Spirit is the "conditio

sine quu non of the creation and preservation of the ~reature.""~ As such the Holy Spirit is the

actualiser and sustainer of that which "on the basis of its creation it was destined to be?'* In the

New Testament Barth notes chat the Spirit's work is interpreted within a soterioeschatologica!

Framework. This is so with specific reference to Christ's death and resurrection. The last Adam,

Christ, is life-giving Spirit by vimie of His resurrection from the dead. In relation to the fint

Adam He is the one who makes living souk. The life-giving work of the Spirit is Lus rooted in

the work and king of Christ to which it points and on the basis of which it creates anew. This

makes the work of the Spirit indirect, for the Spirit is life-giving only on the basis of what is

already initiated in the resurrection of Jesus Christ."" In this sense the Holy Spirit is again or

rather still the conrlirio sine q u non of that which exists or is to exist. This is how ultimately

Banh sees the Word relateâ to the Spirit, and the Spirit related to the Word.

With regards to the intradivine economy, Barth calls the Holy Spirit "the innerdivine

ibid., 56.

"' Ibid., 57.

'lu ibid., 57.

'IY Ibid., 57.

guarantee of the ~reature."~" What is accomplished €rom etemity in Jesus Christ is in some

sense "a matter of the self-justification and selGsanctification of God without which He could

not have loved the creature nor willed or actuatised its exi~tence."~" The creature here

rnentioned is first of al1 Christ, on the b a i s of which God loves the hwnan being. This al1 is

actwlised by the Holy Spirit.

The references to the indirectness of the work of the Spirit and the work accomplished by

G d in His eternd counci t in His Word, Jesus Christ, have a direct relation to the discussion on

the historicity of the Word of God. Under this heading Barth makes the distinction between

what is etemal or what is fiom God's side, and what is temporal, or what is fiom the human side.

in essence what I observed in reference to the Word of God, as that which ne& to become

actual Word of God, cm in some sense be repeated in the discussion of what purports to be

historical in the Scriptures. The nature of revelation is subject to the nature of the Revealer.

G d is not as humans are, bound to the temporal horizon of this earthly existence. This is also

tue with respect to the history ncorded in the Bible.

For Barth the history of immediacy with God is non-histori~al.'~ 'The history of creation

is 'non-historical,' or to be more precise, pre-historical history . . . . In it Creator and creature

confiont each other only in irnrnedia~y."'~ As such it is genuine history because it is a history

with Gd.

"O ibid., 58.

''' Ibid., 58.

" ibid., 6 1.

Ibid., 6 1.

The history depicted in the Bible however is only a reference, a pointer to genuine histoty

as understd by Barth. It is a pointer to something that has taken place once. It is a referent to

events that have occuned in immediacy with God and as such are beyond anything that is

reducible to other events as experienced within the temporal horizon of our own human

existence.

Turning now to Barth's specific exposition of the image of Gocl, the relevance of the

context which 1 ehcidated will becorne clear.

Barth perceives the image of God as intrinsically connecteci to the Trinity. The Bible

speaks of God's specific act of the creation of humans as preceded by, "Let us make man in our

image, afler our likeness." (Gen 1 :26). The nference to plurality in God indicates that G d

intended to mate the human king in a special relation to Himself as plural.32'

Barth in his exposition of the image of God, sides with Vischer and Bonhoeffer but goes

beyond both in terms of inner-Trinitarian ontological detenninations.

Vischer has shown him that the image of God is expresd in reference to the fact that

"God created the real counter part to whom He would reveal Himself" 325 This is tnie even to

the extent that "al1 creation aims at the confrontation of God and man and the incontrovertible 1-

Thou relationship between Creator and creature . . . which is the true and sole motive of the

cosmic pro ces^."^^ This implies that the image of God is most properly expressed in regards to

UI lbid., 71.

'*' Vischer in Md, 71. Barth together witb Vischer asserts not only that the image of God with respect to the hurnan king is e x p r d in t e m of encouter, but also that the hurnan king is 'the d e motive of the cosmic process,' which Vnplies that theological anthropology

God's specific relation to the human being. In creation God's relation to the human being is the

central focus and establishes a personal link to His own work

This approach is remarkably different than the usual discoune about the image of G d

Barth does not start with an analysis of the human king to determine which part of his or her

king corresponds to the king of G d No, the "bblical creation story is . . . not interested in

man in o b s l r u ~ ~ , in his sou1 or spirituality, in his body or even in the superiority over al1 the

creatures," but the creation story is interested in "the future partner of the covenant, the kingdom

and the glory of God, in the earthl y subject, addressecl and treated by God as a 'Thou" of a

history which begins with creation and continues right up to the end of tirne."" The image of

G d thus is expressed in the human king having been created as covenant prtner, as a being-in-

relation.

This being-in-relation is therefore first of al1 a being-in-relation-to-God, but not only that.

Vischer might have expressed it clearly up to this point, Bonhoeffer explicates it further. Being-

in-relation in the context of the Genesis stocy has brader implications. The human king is said

to have been created in relation to other hurnan beings as well, especially to his or her mamage

partner. The image of G d is especially reflected in the way one human king is related to the

other. The creatwe is created in M o m as reflection of Goâ's freedom for the mature. This

creahuely fieedom manifests itself in king freely related to other humans. "It is express4 in a

strands at the centre of Barth's theology. This is mie of course in conjunction with His overall Christological focus. Barth states that the Word of God is pimarily concemed with God and the human being. "Goâ alone and man alone are its theme." Barth, Karl. CD [IY2 (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1960) 19. cf. Ibid 3-54.

" Karl Barth in Kurl Barth Preuching, 771.

confrontation, conjunction, and interrelatedness of man as male and female which cannot be

defined as an existing quality, or intrinsic capacity, possibility or structure of his k i n g but

which simply occurs."'~

Essentially this is the awlogia relorionis. The human king is created as freely related to

othen as God is related in &dom to him or her. As such and in this way the hwnan king is

created in ''free di rerentiation and relationshi

However Bonhoeffer's concept of the umlogiu relutionis does not go far enough. Barth

extends i t to the relation God has with Himself in the Trini ty and so also with the creaturely

world. The human being, created in 'free di fferentiation and relationship,' is actunlly a

reflection of what "first takes place in God Himself"" God fieely differentiated within

Himself first: "let us make man." and so is and was first related to Hirnself. One couid speak

here of the anulogio relutionis in etemity of which the human king in relation to other human

being is a refleçtion in time. More precisely in Christ we have a reflection of how God is

related to Himself in etemity for time, for in Christ God's love to the creature is manifesteci,

Christ king both human king and God. In other words. Gd 's i ~ e r king "takes [. . .] form ud

extra in the humanity of Jesus . . . . The divine original creates for itself a copy in the creaturely

Ibid., 72.

'" Ibid., 72. This is specifidly reflected in a marriage relationship between male and female. In support of a high, and dignifying view of mamage, Barth quotes Kohlbmgge as saying, "both [male and female] are created in the divine image . . . . filled by God and in God with mutual divine love, fkom which we may understand and conclude the high àignity of mamage." Ibid., 72.

'" ibid., 73.

In summary, starting from my 1st observation, the image of Gad is to be understood fiat

of al1 as Godas image. That which is reflected in time with reference to the hurnan king is

established in etemity and then also in time, Jesesus Christ being the actual 1-0 Dei in

rciutionis. The image of God with respect to the human king is expressd in the fact that he or

she is freely related in differcntiation to and fiom other human beings. This, king fieely related

in differentiat~on, resembles God's tiee relation to the human being. The fact that God is related

to the human king in a special way. as covenant partner in Christ, for the rest of creation,

establishes that the image of God is to be understood as a being-inielation, first to G d and on

the basis of that, in a reflective manner, also t~ others.

With respect to the historicity of the Word of God it is precisely in regard to God's relation

to Himself that Barth spke of genuine history. This is the history of immediacy with God,

which fiom the human perspective was terrned non-historical. From this it follows that if and

when hurnans speak of their nature in their own historicity they must speak about it and

understand it only in ligbt of, and with reference to genuine history in which their k ing is

necessarily, truthfully, and really expressed in irnmediacy with Gd. Genuinely historical, as

Banh understands this, therefore one cannot speak of a state of being without G d since the

human king's state is ontologically, etemally detennined by God Himself in Jesus Christ. The

Word and the Spirit point to this d i t y indirectly.

"' Karl Barth CD. m/2. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1960) 220-22 1. The latter part of the quote is taken fiom his exegesis of John 1 7:20-2 1, Jesus' High Riestly prayer, of which he furthemore says, "The Father and the son are reflected in the man Jesus. There wuld be no plainer reference to the uMlOgi4 reiutionis and therefore the imugo Dei in the most central, i.e. the Cbristological sense of the e n "

Speaking thus with one etemal Word about the reality of hurnans in their relation to God,

what does the Word of God mean when it speaks of the fdl and sin? 1s the fa11 real with respect

to hurnan beings in the sarne sense as the etemal Word is really real with respect to them? The

answers to these questions will point to the major and f'undamental âifferences between Barch's

and Kohlbmgge's perspectives of the Word of God and their understanding of the human being.

According to Barth, in the fall the h m m king listend to the serpent who promised the

impossible possibility." Sin is therefore to be understood as engaging oneself in something that

tends towarâs that which is notJU The fall is a record of a hurnan aflïmation, instigated by the

serpent, of that which is not. "The result i s that-by the action of the g d creatures of Gd-

chaos in al1 iis nothingness is brought into creation, and creation iiself is given the character of

the chaotic and that which is not."'"

By not truly acknowledging that which is with Gd, the hurnan king sins. The Word of

God shows us what sin is and it pichires "human nature in al1 its corruption and depravity.""' It

shows the human k i n g that in his or her autonomy he or she is not acknowledging the boundary

of hurnan creaturely existence vis-a-vis God. (See my discussion on Barth's interpretation of

Romans 1 : 1 9).

However, the Word of God shows us more. It taches that "in the radical depravity of man

332 Karl Barth in Km1 Barrh Prcuching, 170.

333 Ibid., 170.

Ibid., 170.

Karl Bsrth. CD IW2 (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1960)

140

there is necessady hiciden his true nature; in his total degeneracy his original f~rm." '~ To be

sure "this cannot be grasped directly. Every supposed direct apprehension [of either Our

sinfulness or blessedness] turns out to be faIse."'" It is the Word of God that teaches us this

indirectly, and as such it is above and beyond even our dialectical philosophical meandering. 33B

What is direct is established in G d in the genuine history with f is Son and Holy Spirit.

The Word of God teaches this indirectly, confronting the human king in his or b r self-

contradiction. This is another description of what sin is; it is essentially self'ntradiction.

"The fact of his [the human beings'] fall cannot mean that what he is eternally before and from

God, His Creator and Lord, has been ~hanged."'~~ Thetefore "the knowledge of the real man

depends on the recognition that he shares in divine gace.""

The principle and presupposition with which theological anthropology must always start

and to which it must retum is "that God the Creator is gracious to man His creat~re."~' The

" ibid., 29.

'" ibid., 29.

"' ibid., 30. The king of the Word of God as above and beyond dialectical philosophical meanderings conesponds to my observation in regard to Barth's understanding of the Word of God as that which cornes to us ftom outside and as such confronts us in our totality as the means of nlating God's subjectivity to us. Gd's movement itself is still expressed in Kantian and Hegelian philosophical dynarnics which relate to such an extent to the form and content of Barth's theology that ultimately G d only speaks with one Word which as such is beyond and above direct human experience.

'j9 ibid., 3 1.

-UO Ibid., 32.

"' Ibid, 34. cf. G. C. Berkouwer. De Triomf der G e d e in de Thedogie von Kurf Barth. (Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1954) esp.209-257. In this work Berkouwer emphasises that Barth speaks one-sidedly of the grace of God and so widerscores the reality of sin. As a nsult Berkouwer

Word of God as Word of grace in Christ is the first and last Word to, and, about the human

king. As such it testifies and witnesses to one realtiy, that is our reality with God, whether we

humans wish to acloiowledge this or not

The implication for the interpretation ofGenesis 1-3 is that the creation and the fall are

essentially two sides of one coin. The coin is Gd's reconciliation with the hwnan king and so

with the world, in Jesus Chnst The fall, however, is on the shadow side of îhe coin and only

serves to indicate what it means to choose that which is really not. The light must fa11 on what is

really, and therefore actually, real with God. Being without God is really, ontologically

impossible.

B. Kohlbrugge's lnterprctation of the Image of G d

Kohlbnigge places his interpretation of the Genesis' accowit of the image of God and the

faIl in a particular conte~t."~ He introduces his exegesis with the words, '&the main condition

notices that for Barth there is no real transition fiom wrath to grace in the history of humanity. Besides that Berkouwer observes that Barth places the triumph of gram before sin and so makes sin the ontological impossibility. Gnre is thus the general framework in which Barth places the rest of the Christian doctrines. Grace precedes nature, becaw gace was already fiom etemity established. see also Van Til, Cornelius. Christiuniây und Burthiunism (New Jersey: Presbyterian and Refomed Publishing Co. 1977) esp. 134-135. Van Ti1 quotes Berkouwer: '"Our king in Adam stands in advance (,wt vomherein) in the light of the fact that we are in Christ Only upprent& can we recognize Adam as our head.' The triumph of -ce is therefore of an opriori nature. It is correlative to the ontological impossibility of sin. 'This impossibility is ruked above al1 doubt in the prc-figuration of the creation triumph ' Agin the nerve W e e n revelation and history is cut. 'We are confionted with ideas that lie on a totally different plane from that of the Scripture when it tells us w h t God is not' On Barth's view of impossibility 'there is no transition from wrath to gmce in historical reality."'

To explicate how Kohlbnigge thought and interpreted the image of God and the fall, 1 will use one sermon in pPrticular. In his sennon about Genesis 3 Kohlbnigge States tbat the ''tint three chapters of Genesis contain the entire Scripture; the prophets and apostles have

around which everything tums is that the heart has experienced that which is Godly, of the love

deed G d has p e r f o d by giving His only begotten Son so that we might have life through

Him."Y' Kohl bmgge thus appeals to knowledge of the Word of G d that is experiential h a r t

knowledge. "Where there is only knowledge, there is continudly the doubt whether God's Word

is really Gd's Word or n ~ t . " ~ nie panacea against this doubt is: "tnie conversion to God [and

a coming] to a faith in God: keeping Gd's law for God's law and owselves bound in duty to this

law, accepting God's Word entirely as God's Word and so have the working of the entire council

of God for our salvation; this is the working of His free and sovereign p c e , an experience

which is ~alvatory."~'

In light of this context it must be observed that Kohlbruggr: approaches the Word of God

pietistically. His emphasis on the necessity to know the Word of G d exprientially shows that

Kohlbmgge is not advenely disposed towds subjectivity. For him, in contrast to Barth, one

must be sure that one has the right kind of subjectivity, but a subjectivity nonetheless. This

right kind of subjectivity is bound to the way Kohlbrugge understands the Word of God in nature

and application.

It is the Word of God that must be the first and final reference point. How can and does it

disclosed the entire doctrine of salvation out of these three chapters by the Spirit, and continually have corne back to w h t is implicit in this part of Scripture."H. F. Kohlbrugge, Genesis 3 vuor L Gemeente UitgeIegd. 15.

F. Kohlbrugge, Genesis 3 v w r de Gemeente Uitgefegd, 13.

MI Ibid., 14. Kohlbnigge hem makes a distinction between only head knowledge and h a r t howledge: experiential knowledge of the Word of G d

ibid., 14.

infonn one's subjectivity rightly? Kohlbrugge seeks to do this by not making a separation

between Word and Spirit, and so viewing and applying the Word historically. In this way

Kohlbrugge aspires to confiont the human king directly with an understanding of the self in the

face of God."

Here a significant difference surfaces with reference to the Word and the Spirit between

Barth and Kohlbrugge. It reinforces the distinctions observed. Now in regard to the work of the

Holy Spirit as connected to the Word of God, Kohlbrugge shows afresh a historical. existential,

and spiritual relational approach, whereas Barth grounded the work of the Spirit in comection

with the Word in the ontological relational determination of the Tnnity.

This observation is intnnsically co~ected to my observation that the Word of God as law

and spiritual seeks to confront the human king in her or his entirety. In this sense Kohlbrugge,

like ~ a r t h , ~ ' moves away fiom understanding the Word of God as appealing to specific parts of

our human existence. By not willing to separate the Spirit fiom the Word, Kohlbrugge implicitly

also refuses to start fiom an analysis of the constitution of the human king in the face of ~ o d . ~ '

" Dr. A. De Reuver remarks about Kohlbrugge's understanding of the relationship between Word and Spirit and regenenition, or rebirth, that the latter are a fîuit of a strong working together of "Word and Spirit in which they can be disringuished but not separateci." A de Reuver, Bedelen bij de Bron Kohfbrugge 's Geloofiopvutting vergeleken met Reformatie en Nadere Rejormtic. (Zoetemew. Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1992) 80. He furthemore observes that Kohlbrugge perceives the Word and the Spirit as so closely connected that the work thought to be accomplished by either is ascn'bed to both. As such Word and Spirit both recreate. The Spirit is the breath of the Word, and in this dynamic relationship it confronts the human king at and in the centre of his or her king, the heart

Barth does it by making G d the ultimate Subject and so also Object of predication in the reveiaîion of Christ, the eternal Word of God (see above).

A. De Reuver, Be<lelen bu de Bron, 79-90.

He refuses to do this by drawing the human king into the Word of God by the Spirit, instead of

seeing the Word of God and God's Spirit entering into the human being first The latter move

can never be accomplished in the hurnan being as he or she is by nature. Yet in his or her

entirety the human being can be with God by believing to be wholly in the Word, Jesus Christ,

and in this way to be wholly in the Spirit.

In this way Kohlbrugge's view is also rin ni tari an? "Gd grips the heart, the Spirit of God

shines iight in the heart and fiom there in the understanding, regenerates through faith and so He

ignites the whole human k i n g , honours the Father and the Son, and so honoun Himself in Him

[them?]: this is how the Father and the Son, and the Spirit create dwellings with us who are dust,

earth and ash."jW Connecting this with Kohlbrugge's perception of the inseparabieness of Word

and Spirit, the Word of God in Kohlbrugge's exegesis becomes directly confrontational in a real

historicai sense.

The result is that the Word of God as one Word can speak of and separate two realities in

regards to the hurnan being; she or he is either with or without God. The fa11 and sin are then

considered real. They are expenenced as real.

As final cornpankm between Barth and Kohlbrugge, 1 will expose how Kohlbrugge

perceives of the possibility of the Word of God creating and sustaining two realities in relation

to humm beings.

Kohlbrugge starts his sermon on Genesis 3 by stating, "the Holy Spirit does not

Kohlbnigge in Ibid, 82. De Reuver notes in this context that Kohlbrugge is not only relational in his anthropology, but, because of his emphasis on the working of Word and Spirit on the heart and so on the whole human person, also existential and qualitative. lbid., 83.

' ~ 0 Kohlbrugge in Ibid., 82.

communicate history to us simply and only as history, but so that we may read and recognize our

history in it. I have to press this history upon your h a r t . . . .Thetefore everyone of you read and

hear this history in this way, that every woman with hue repentance say to herself: '1 am that

Eve!' - every man: 'that is my trespass, I am that ~darn!""~' Thor one should say this is because

all humans inherited the guilt of their forefather Adam. Death is the greatest witness to this. we

all have to die. But furthemore hurnans should say this because they should reçognize this sarne

quilt in their heart being continually confionted with their obstinacy against God and His service

and law.352

God has not made the human k ing this way. He created the human king in ûue

righteousness and holiness. This is the Image of God in which He created us. Therefore humans

should not seek the pil t in the dust out of which we were fomed, or in the skin, or in the

members of our body."3 Kohlbnigge understands the human king in terms of the state which

his or het kart is in. The image of Goà is a reflection of a state of being in an element in the

sense of domain. "The imer haut, the i ~ e r '1' lives, thinks, feels, and moves itself either in

God's element, in His Spirit, In His Word and law-and then dl is righteousness, holinea. light,

life, fieedom, rest of soul, joy, honour, or it is out of it, - and then all is death, darkness, slavery,

mouming, unrighteousness, and uncleanness, shame, scandal, and sinfd remor~e."'~

The state and condition of the human king in paradise wss characterized by the fact that

- - -

351 H. F. Kohl bmgge, Cenesis 3 vwr ~ h e Gemeente Uitgekgd, 1 7. (See notes 24,263)

'" Ibid., 18.

'" ibid., 19.

IbiJ., 19-20.

the human king knew his or her state and condition and maintained it in the face of God's

commandment In this way Adam and Eve remained in God's element. The state outside of

paradise is characterized by being out of God's element unless one lives by faith in the hl 6lled

Word of Gd. The latter cm only be a result of king born out of God, that is, bom 'fiom above'

( 1 Jn. 5: 1 8)."5 For the human king it thus depends on whether one remains in the Word of God,

that is, before the fa11 in the Word as law, and after the fall in the Word as ‘grace- la^.'.'^"

One's perspective of the Word of God today still determines whether one really is in the

Word of G d or not. Kohlbrugge's insistence on the insepbleness of Word and Spirit is an

integral aspect of his view of remaining in the Word of God.

Kohlbrugge is not particularly interested in historical criticism, although he is not unaware

of it."' What he is concemed with is that the Word of God, as inspired by the Holy Spirit,

speaks to the tempted person, and so speaks a word of cornfort in amiction. For that purpose "in

every word of this Holy Scripture, blows a breath [steckt ein Hauch] of life (. . . . ) It is not

something human that cornes to the human being, but something ~ o d l y . " ' ~ ~

Understanding that Kohlbrugge views the hwnan king as essentially determined by the

state and condition of the heart as the centre of his or her existence, and that the Word of God is

insepmbly connected with the Spirit and as such confronts the hurnan king, it follows that

Kohlbnigge seeks to interpret and apply the Word as a direct means to again make the human

'" ibid., 20.

'" Ibid., 19.

" A. de Reuver, Bedekn bu cle Bron, 25.

''' Kohlbnigge in Lbid, 25.

147

king aware of his or her state and condition with or without God. This observation, in the

context of Kohl brugge's wri tings 1 have considereâ, grounds my daim that Kohlbnigge's

understanding of the human king, based on his interpretation and application of the Word of

God, is existential-relational.

The way Kohlbrugge interprets Genesis 3: 1 illustrates this observation. He asks the

question, "is this truth or invention?" He answen it by saying, "whoever wants to be a Christian

and not a Musiim or an unbeliever first proves this by keeping al1 of God's Word for God's

Word." Keeping al1 of God's Word for God's Word is keeping it directly and actually God's

Word in its entirety as it cornes to us toàay. He then adds "it is entirely clear that here we have

history before us."35') What he means by history is qualified by the statement that it does not tit

a human king to consider what is written by the Holy Spirit as "fictitious or invented." It is

the Tempter who is satisfied if he can make the human being believe that he/she has not been in

pradise, or that paradise never existed'"'

Kohlbrugge goes on to explain that it is precisely because Adam and Eve did not take

Gd's Word seriously that they came in a state of king-without-ûod. The serpent removed

them fiom the simplicity of God's Word by questioning it and so making Eve doubt it. "This is

how he plays magic with the Word of God and removes the human king fiom the letter to take

him out of the Spirit, from whom the Word is.""

' j 9 H. F. Kohl bnigge, Genesis 3 vuor de Gemeente tlitgeiegd, 20.

Ibid., 20.

"' Ibid., 21.

3a lbid., 25.

The answer of Eve to the Serpent question illustrates that she began listening to a word

other than the Word, which resulted in making her heart shunble. Once her heart stwnbled, also

her understanding and memory. with respect to the comrnandment, were brought to

onf fusion."^^ Eve added to God's commandment that she could also not touch it. At this point

she âid not remain in the Word of Gd. She doubteâ and nMsted the truth, the Word of Gd,

and so did not remain in the Spirit with God. This is how Eve and Adam lost the image of God.

"She took fiom the tree and ate." With this statement Kohlbnigge exclaims,. "Behold. in a

few words all our life-histones, life histones which alas! repeat themselves many times . . . "M

They repeats themselves, according to Kohlbrugge, when people do not follow "God's holy law

and His gospel which point to the only sacrifice by m a s of which it is true for a second tirne

but now in grace; God has createâ the hwnan king afler His own likene~s."~"

"Then their eyes were opened and they saw that they were naked." "That is the short

summary of the history of hwnanity of your and my history in our faIl away ftom G d the

highest g d , ow only light of life; fiom God whose grace and image is actually our only

clothing for heart and disposition. for sou1 and body."

Barth interprets the feeling of shame of nakedness prirnarily horizontally. He interprets it

on the b i s of God's establisheâ work, of our actual being with Gd. "The Work of God is

without spot, pure, holy and innocent . . . . [As such therefore] to be a creature of God is self-

ibid.. 26.

Ibid.. 32.

365 Ibid., 32.

" Ibid., 33.

justification."" The result of sin, feeling ashamed for nakedness, is not in the tint place an

awareness or acknowledgment of not king covered by the presence of Goâ, of king or knowing

oneself unholy, but a denial and suppression of how God has created the human being, Le., a

denial of what really is?'

With his specifically ontological approach, Barth loses the necessity for a direct

relationship with G d through His Word and Spirit. The direct vertical relationship with God is

superseded in reference to the etemal ontological establishment of the hwnan king with God. in

Jesus Christ. To this the Word of Goci, as we have it in Scripture, can only be indirect by way of

denying a direct historical relation of the hurnan king with the Word of God as deteminative of

his or her king in the face of God. There is then also no room for a direct correspondence of

expenence between the figures of the Bible and today's hurnan being. The Bible itself too must

necessarily point beyond itself?

J67 Karl Barth in Kurl Barth Preuching, 75.

ibid., 75. Barth can appeal to receni psychology in support of his delineation of the human king in relatedness and differentiation. Of course, according to Barth, the theologian would Say it differently and add many t hings, nevertheless recent psychology 's analyses of being, specifically with respect to sex and identity, differentiation and relatedness, corne close to the mith. "There is even reason to rejoice that a modem doctor can say what he has to say in such parallelism to Christian buth almost as though he had taken his bedngs fiorn Eph. 5 and 1 Cor. 6, . . . " Ibid., 8 1.

J69 Karl Barth, The Word of G d and the Word of M a (United States: Zondervan Publishing House, 1935) Barth thinks that he must "keep bis sure distance from the Lutheran est and the Lutheran type of a~swunce of sulvution. Can thedogy, should thcology, p s beyond pmlegomena to Christology? It may be that everything is said in the polegomena." Ibid., 2 17. Barth of course is thinking here specifically about the Lutberan doctrine of the Euchankt and possiMy about the Lutheran idea of baptismal regeneration. Because Barth thinks in ontological categories his perception of the Word of God is caught in his own fomi of argumentation. He identifies the problem around the Eucharist with the problem of the Word of God being the Word of God by stating that homo peccutor non verbi h i n i . However, faith worked by Word

Afier Adam and Eve lost the image of Gd. They covered and hid themselves. But God

did not let go of His creation. He came to them in love. He called them. He, by His Word,

came to them again and so made them acknowledge who they are without His covenng.

What the effect of God's coming with His Word is illustrates again that for Kohlbrugge the

Word is insepable from the Spirit. As such it must hit the centre of our being, out heart, our

conscience. God calls Adam and Eve in love which confiants them at the centre of their

existence so that they must acknowledge their king without Gocl, that they "lie arnong the

dead. "''O

The human king shows his or her state and condition by hiding. In this way human beings

show that they are against Gd's Word. They would rather banish from the e h . " ' Being naked

they poriray their true state. "Depart fiom me, because 1 have no desire for the knowledge of Thy

~ a y s . ' ' ' ~

God did not Men to their explanation of how they came to know that they were naked.

Adam and Eve had their excuses and self-made answen which did not correspond to the truth.

They were naked before and did no< know it! "Did you not eat fiom the tree . . . 7" God carne

with His law. "Blessed are we if God cornes to us with His Holy law."'" It is His love that

and Spirit is experience, because a true Christian faith unites the believer and Christ genuinely. Therefore the est in Luther's estimation is not ontological.

ni ibid., 49.

" Ibid., 43.

" ibid., 48.

constrains God to show us our state of Godlessness. He does not mi~mize His law as His Worâ.

He maintains it to show the human being that he or she cannot live without GO CI.^'^

However the human king is still defiant; Adam accused God and his wife, Eve accused

the Serpent-

However, God persisted to fulfill His own plan. He came to them with the etemal gospel.

He tmk up the stniggle against Satan Himself (Gen 3: 15). He promiseû the Seed to the Womm.

The channel of temptation becarne the channel of salvation. The seed of Adam is from now on

under wrath, devil and death, under condeinnation."* No, only that which is of God Himself

through the woman will and can bring salvation. It is a genuine h i t of the Spirit and not of

man's flesh. This is the incarnation of the Word in the perspective of promise and faith. The

Word's death and resurrection is also already promised in Genesis 3. Satan shall bruise the heel,

which pointed and points to Christ's death, according to Kohlbrugge. But the Word shall also

destroy the head of Satan. This points to the resunection, the conquenng of death.""

Then God sent them out of the garden. Kohlbnigge a i l s this "fatherly chasti~ernent."~~ It

is fatherly chastisement, because in this way God taught hem and still teaches us that flesh is

flesh and G d is God. The law remains in effect. The curse co~ec ted to the law, namely death,

remains in effect. Now these facts, however, teach the human k i n g to live by faith and the

Spirit.

"' iôid., 49.

3'S Ibid., 55.

'" ibid., 57.

" Ibid., 59.

The Word of God directly relates and shows the historical situation. It shows and

reinforces Our natural state of being with out God, so that we might cling to God's promise of

the incarnated Word God's Word connects "with the blessing [to Eve] chastisement, so that the

human king will never forget his sin and misery; the father does this so that His child will

become more and more desirous for his redemption""* This at the same time will teach the

human king to hate sin and strive to live according to Gd's will." This is sanctification,

according to Kohlbrugge. "This is how we are driven to the cross of Golgotha by the crosses of

our homes, and wntinually conquer much harm and grief, with

God made a covering. As God was persistent to show his love, by coming to Adam and

Eve with His law. He is now also detennined to again bring them ôack to hirnself in His image.

That is God's grace. "There they stand, Adam and Eve, in a wedding gannent given to them and

put on them for free.""'

Kohlbrugge takes very seriously the fact that God said that Adam and Eve had become like

" At this point a further correspondence can be noted between Hirsch and Kohlbrugge. The Word here teaches us our natural state and the necessity of faith and the Spirit. Reimer observes in his dissertation on Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich, that "the law is the path through which, not by which, man cornes to the Gospel" citation fiom the PhD dissertation of A. James Reimer, submitted to University of St. Michaels College, Toronto, 1983, published as, The Emanuel Hirsch and Paul Tillich Debute: A Sludy in the Political Rami$imio~ts of Theology. (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press 1989,) 119. Reimer explicates, "ParaQxiatlly, the gospel, precisely by k i n g us fiom the law as fat as pemnal salvation and justification is concemed, binds us to the law as far as the temporal and d l y reality is concemed" %id, 1 19. Hirsch states, ''the fieedom of the conscience fiom the law in one's relation to God, is the unconditional sanctification [Heiligung] of the service in the hilfilment of the law." (Hirsch in ibid., 1 19)

Hennan Friedrich Kohlbrugge, Cenesis 3,6465.

Thern, ufir He had covered them. He sees in it the human king's restoration into the image of

God, which is Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity. The human being became like God

in Jesus Christ. He or she is "in justification as the second person in the Godhead, as Christ, not

by the 'pouring in' of inward similitude, but by gracious imputation and the giving of the gifi of

~ighteousness."~~ It is by the Spirit and by faith that we can also remain in the Word of Goâ,

and so with G d "Blessai are they who keep the commandments of Him, who is the Alpha and

Omega, so that this way they will be entitled to the tree of life and will be able to go through the

gates into the city."'"

C. Concludàng Remaria

Considering the historical-theologid connections between Barth and Kohibmgge, 1 have show

that Kohlbnigge was a welcome discovery for Barth and that Kohlbnigge's legacy provided a

fertile soi1 for Barth's theological revolution.

For both Barth and Kohlbrugge, the Word of God is the central point of reference. in the

discussion of boih their interpretations of Romans, I have show that both Barth and Kohlbrugge

sought to let God be God as their aim. The differences surfaced when 1 endeavouied to show

how they conceived of the Word of God as central and sought to let God be God. 1 have shown

this how to have been determincd by the context in and against which their respective doctrines

of the Word emerged.

Barth mainly sought to counter theological Schleiermacherian subjectivity. The

'* ibid., 71.

'83 Ibid., 83.

manifestation of this subjectivity for Barth were both Enlightenrnent rationalism and pietism.

Kohlbrugge also sought to oppose subjectivity . However, at the same time he desired to cultivate

a right kind of subjectivity or piety. The manifestation of the wrong kind of subjectivity or piety

occurreâ, according to Kohlbrugge, in the context of a seeking for righteousness and holiness.

In light of these contextual observations 1 tumed to an examination of primary texts

pcrtaining to Barth's and Kohlbmgge's doctrines of the Word of God.

Barth, 1 have endeavoured to show, employs Kantian and Hegelian philosophical dynamics

in his answer to Schleiermacherian subjectivity with his doctrine of the Word of God. In his

exposition of Romans, Barth applies a Kantian diustusis between faith and reason, God and the

hurnan king. This discontinuity he maintains with nference to the direct historical hurnan

horizon throughout his early and late theology. He, however, moves beyond it, or supersedes it,

through his interpretation of Anselm. by coming to an understanding of a continuity that exists

with reference to etemity and God Himself. The consequence is that the Word of God becomes

only an indirect wimess to a mith and a reality which is ontologicdly detennined from eternity

and thus is unable to speak to and about human beings directly and historically. The Word of

God in Barth's doctrine ultimately is only a witness to Gd's monologue and so to a reality in

which the human king cannot be perceived as lost or without God. The law as Word of God

and revealer of human existential and spiritual sinfulness, has essentially lost, in Barth's doctrine

of the Word of God, its power to uncover a real and truc human aspect of reality in the face of

God.

Kohlbrugge in his answer to wrong kinds of subjectivity or piety perceived of the Word of

God as direct, historical, and inseparably spirituai. He too emphasized a diastasis between God

and the human being. However, for him this diustasis was not a philosophical assumption, but

an effect of the Word of God directly applicable as law and spiritual. For Kohlbnigge, therefore,

the Word of God as ultimate reference point in teaching, preaching, and application twtifies to a

reality, and subjectivity or piety, of king with or without Gd.

Finally, I contend that Barth's doctrine of the Word of God-and implied in it his

understanding of the human being in the face of God-as essentially presupposing God's

monologue, destroys the intention of God's Word as direct, historical, and spiritual dialogue

with and about human beings. Kohlbrugge mainîains the possibility of such dialogue with his

perspective of the Word of God and thus remains tmer to reality as expressrd in and experienced

with reference to the Word of G d .

Bibliography

Aalden, Dr. W. De Grote Onispwing Over de Verhouding van de Reformutie en de Muderne Wologie. Den Haag: J.N. Voohoeve.

Aalders, Dr. W., C. den Boer, and A. de Reuver. Barth. KohIbmgge, Miskotte: Onlwikkeiing of Breuk? Karnpen: Uitgevemaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1 984.

Aalders, Dr. W and Rev. D. Van Heyst. Hermunn Friedrich Kddblugge (1803-1875): Zijn Leven, Zun Prediking, Zijn Geschri/lenn Den Haag: J. N. Voorhoeve, 1 976.

Barth, Karl. Anselrn: Fides Quuerem IntelIectum. Trans. lan W . Robertson. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1960.

- Christ und A h : Mun und Humunity in Romuns 5. Trans. T A Smail. New York: Collier Books, 1962.

-. (Xurch Dogmutics. Trans. G. T . Thomson. Vol. 1. The Doctrine ofthe Word of Gd. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955.

-. Church Dogmutics. Trans. J . W . Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey. and Rev. Harold Knight. Vol. III. The Doctrine of Creation. Eds. Rev. G. W. Bromiley and Rev. Prof. T. F. Torrance. Edinbuqh: T. & T. Clark 1958.

-. C'hirrcli Dogmutics. Tram G. W. Bromiley. Vol. IV. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. 2 Parts. Eds. Rev. G. W. Bromiley and Rev. Prof. T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958.

-. CY~urch L)ogmuticv. selections by Helmut Gollwitzer, Trans. Bromiley G.W., Edinburgh T&T Clark 1961.

-. D«gmu!ics in OutIinc. Trans. G. T . Thomson. New York: Harper & Row, Publishen, 1959.

-. The Fuirh of the Church: A Commentury on the Apustles Creed. Ed. Jean-Louis Leuba. Trans. Gabriel Vahanian London: Fontana b k s , 1960.

-. Ethics. Ed. Dietrich Braun. Trans. Geofiey W. Bromiley. New York: The Seabwy Press, 1981,

-. Euungel icul Theology: An In~rductiion. Trans. Grover Foley. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

-. How I Changed My M i d Richmond, Virginia : John Knox Press, 1966.

- The Humanity of G d . Trans. W ieser, Thomas. Richmond Virginia: John Knox Press, 1960.

-. Leurning Jesur Christ Thruugh the Heidelberg Catechism. Trans. Shirley C. Guttuie, Jr. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964.

-. Preaching 'firough the Christian Ycar. Eds. John Mc Tavish and Harold Wells. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdsrnans Publishing Company, 1978.

-. Protestant Theoiogy in the Nineteenth Century: Ils Buckpund und Hïstury. Trans. Brian Cozens and John Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd.

- . "Part II: The Living Put." Revolutionary Theology in the Making. Trans. James D. Smart. Virginia: John Knox Press, 1964.

- l'he ï'heololy of Schieiermucher: M u r e s ut (iottingen, Winter Semester of l923O-L Ed. Dietrich Ritschl, tram. Geofiey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B-Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

- Witness to the W d : Commenfury on John I . Ed Walther Fürst, Trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986.

- The WorJ of Cod und the Wurd of Mun. Tmns. Douglas Horton. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1935.

Berkouwer, Dr. G. C . Lk 7iiotnfder Genude in de Tltcologie van Kurl Burth. Kampen: J. H. Kok N. V., 1954.

Berkouwer, Dr. G. C. Kuri Burfh en h Kinderkoop. Kampen: J.H. Kok, 1947.

Blumhardt, C. and Karl Barth, Action in Wuiting, New York 1969. Plough Publishing House, 1949.

Bdhl, Eduard. Brieven vun Dr. MF. Kohlbmgge. Veenendaal: Uitgeverij Kool B.V., n.d.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. A d und Beit~g: Trunscendentul Philosophy und Ontohm in Systemutic ThedoW. Trans. H. Martin Rumscheidt. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 19%.

Bradshaw, Timothy. Trinity und Ontolugy: A Cornpurative Bu@ ofthe Thcologies ofKar1 Burth und Wulfiurt Punnenberg. Wnbwgh: Rutherford Houe Books, 1988.

Busch. Eberhard Kurf Burth: His L fi frum Ler ters und Auto biographical Textris. T m . JO hn Bowden. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

Dijk, Dr. K. De Dienst Der PrrJiking. Kampen: J. H Kok N. V., 1955.

Elert, Werner. The Christian Ethos. Trans. Car1 J. Schindler. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957.

Enplfriet, Dr. L. Bilderdijk en Hei Jdendom. htermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1995.

Fisher, Simon. Revelutory Pusitivism? Barth '.Y Eudiest theoluly and the Marburg Schwl. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Galgan J. Gerald tiod und Subykctiviry. New York: Peterland Publishing, Inc., 1990.

Gilson, Etienne. Being and Some Philosophers. 2nd e d Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1949.

Green, Clifford. Kuri Burth: Theoiogim of Frcedum. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Groot, Dr. K. Kuhlbrugge en Kuyper: in Hun Wedecijds Contuct. Baam: Bosch & Keuning N. V., 1956.

Hick, John H. Deuth und Eternui Life. San Fancisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1976.

Ho& W. A. H. F. Kohibrugge: de Onheilige Heilige. Arnsierdarn: W . Ten Have N. V., 1964.

Hunsinpr, George. How tu ReudKarl Burth: 'The Shupe ofHis Theology. New York: Oxford University Press, 199 1.

Kant, Immanucl. Prolegomenu to Any Future Metuphy.sicv. Trans. Paul Carus, revised by James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hacken Publishing Company, 1977.

Klugkist Hesse, Lic. Hermann. Hermun Friedrich Kuhlbnigge. Trans. J. Van der Haar. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij Van den Berg, 1980.

Kohlbicigge, Hermann Friedrich. "Bepmeft Uzelf" Sermon.

-. De Bron &.r Levem Trans. D. Van Heyst. Amersfoort: Uitgeverij Boekencenmim B. V., 1990.

- Wut Zkgt KohIbmgge over Gcnesis 3?. Amsterdam: Vereening tot Uitgave van Gerefonneerde GescMAen., 1986.

-. Hei Zrvende Hwfd~tuk vun Paul. ' Briefaun de Runeinen Amsterdam: Vereeniging tot Uitgave van Gerefonneerde GeschriAen, 1932.

-. Leer en Vermaun Reze Dingen. Dordrecht: J . P . V. d Tol Jr., 1951.

-. Mattheus 1. Amsterdam:Vereeniging tot Uitgave van Gerefonneerde Geschrifien, 1939.

-. O God, Wees Mij Genudig. Trans. D. Van Heyst. Kampen: Uitgeverij De Groot Goudiiaan, 1993.

-. Opleiding Tot Recht Verstund Der Schrifi. 4th ed. Houten: Den Hertog B. V. 1985.

-. Op WQ NUUI <le HtrneI. Bameveld: Dnikkerij Blok en Zonen b. v., Dieren, 198 1.

- Over Psdm I . Trans. S. Gerssen. Amsterdam: Vereeniging tot Uitgave van Gerefonneerde Gesc hri fien, 1 994.

-. Van Oorhg en Vr&. Trans. P. A. A. Klbener. Amsterdam: Vereeniging Tot Uitgave Van Gereformeerde Geschn'fien, 1940.

- . " Wuurtoc? Hct Oude Te.~turnent? " 2 nd ed. Amsterdam: Vereeniging tot Uitgave van Gereformeerde Geschri fien, 1929.

- and Mana de Clerq. Is Her Ongelofil~k Dut G d de l eden Opwekr? Zoetetmeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentnim, 1996.

Lejeune, R. Christoph Blumhurdt und hi.$ Message. Trans. Hela Ehrlich and Nicoline Maas New York: Lansing-Broas Pinting Company, Inc. 1963.

Loder, James E. The h g i c of the Spirit Hurnan DeveIupmrnt in Theoiogicui Perspective. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1998.

Loos, J. De Tlteologie vun Kohlbrugge. Amsterdam: Uitgevenmaatsc happij Holland, 1948.

McLean, Stuart D. Humanity in the Thoughr of Kurl Ilurrh. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark Ltd., 198 1.

McCormack, Bruce L. Kurl Burth 's Criricuîiy Realistic Diuiecticul i?keulogy [ts Gertesis und Developncnf 1909-1 936. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Monsma, Peter Halrnan. Kurl B u h '.Y ldea u/Revelutiun. SomeMlle, N.J.: Somerset Press, Inc., 1937.

Oosterbaan, J. k HegeIs Phuenomoenohgie Des Geisres en de Theolt@sclie Kenleer. Haarlem: HD. Tjeenk Willink & Zoon N.V.

Pannenberg, Wol fhart. Anthropdogy in Thcologiicol Perspective. Trans. Matthew J. O'Connel 1. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1985.

-. Systemotic Thcology. Vol. 1. Tmns. Geofhy W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Compny, 199 1.

Pugh, Je fiey , C. The Anselmie Sl@: Chris~ofogy and Method in Kurl Burth's Theo Iogy. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Compny, Inc., 1990.

Reimer, Dr. A. James. PhD Disserîation submitted to University of St.Michaels College, Toronto, 1983. Published as The Emmtcel Himch and Paul Tillich Debute: A Audy in the I>oliticul Hum~fkutions ofiPheoiogy. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

Rasker, Dr. A. J. De Nederlundre ~ e ~ o r m d e Kerk Vunuf * 1795. Kampen: Uitgevenmaaischappij J. H Kok, 1974.

Reuver, Dr. A. 'BedeIen Bij de Bron ' Kohlbnrgge '.r GeIoojsopvutting Vergeleken met Re/omutie en Nadere kft~rmatie. Zoetermeer: Uitgevenj ~oeken&ntrum, 1 992.

Rosenzweig, Frans. The SturofRedentprion. Tms. William W. Hallo. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1 985.

Runia, Klaas. De Deheologischc Tgd Bij Kurl Rurth: Met Name in Zijn Anthropiogie. Franeker. T. Wever, n.d.

Schippers, Dr. R. ed. Vun Den Dienst Des W0orJ.v. Goes: Uitgave Van Oosterbaan & Le Cointre N. V., 1944.

Stam, P. J. jr. Mysriek <icloo$ ïuuler+ Luther. Kohlbrugge. Kampen: Uitgevenj de Groot Goudnaan, 1990.

Thaidi gsmann, Edgar. ident rtuts-verlangcn d Wider-spruch: Krcu~estheohgie bci Luther. Hegel und Barth. M a i a MatthiasGrùnewald-Vetlag, 1983.

Van Der Haar, Ds. J. EnkeIe Hoofdpnten Ut de Leer vun Kurî Burth. 2nd ed. Huizen: J. Bout*

Van Til, Cornelius. Burih 's Chri.vtology. Biblical and Theological Studies. Ed. Marcellus J. K i k Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Refonned Publishing Co., 1%2.

-, Christiunity und Burthiunisnt. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1962.

-, Cummon Grace and the Gospel. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972.

--, The Defense 4 t h e Faith. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Re formed Publishing Co., 1980.

Vlasblorn, J. K., ed Kohibrügge ois Prediker en Pa.sior in Zijn Brirven 1. Dr. H. F. Kohlbrugge Series. Eds. W. Balke and J. K. Vlasblom. Vol. 3. Zoetenneer: Uitgeverij Boekenccntrum, 1998.

--, ed. Koidbrügge ufs Prdiker en Putor in Zijn Brieven 2. Dr. H. F. Kohlbrugge Series. Eds. W. Balke and J. K. Vlasblom. Vol. 4. Zoetenneer: Uitgevenj Boekencentrum, 1998.