Commentaries on Barth’s theology of
Scripture are reminiscent of what Kierkegaard says about Bible commentaries, “Every
commentary detracts, and he who sits with ten open commentaries and reads the Scripture—well he is probably
writing the eleventh.”[1]
Each commentator approaches Barth with
different emphasis; they seek to apply different themes and societal
interactions. One might say that this is the eleventh commentary on Barth’s
theology of Scripture. It will seek to show the philosophical presuppositions
and methodology in Barth’s theology of Scripture. This will be done first
through a comparison with John Calvin, then a discussion of the ontology of the
text and the reader, then a discussion of the essence of the Bible as a fallen
witness to the revelation, following this is a more concentrated study of
Barth’s twelve propositions about the word of God, finally a discussion of
Cornelius VanTil’s critique and a response to it.
Karl Barth, like many in the Reformed
Tradition, placed a high value on the Bible. Barth seems to follow Calvin on
several fronts. Calvin believed that God gave the elect special revelation of
God-self in the Holy Scriptures.[2]
Calvin argues that previous to one’s election their sight is defective, but God
provides the glasses for the elect, such that the darkness that once covered
God dissipates revealing God. Barth structures his beliefs of revelation and
its importance for right knowledge along similar lines. Calvin argued all
correct knowledge of the Scriptures originates from a posture of obedience.
This is in many respects the grounds of Barth’s ethics. Scriptures authority,
for Calvin is derived from the Spirit of God, a speech act of God and the
perfect conviction of the divine author.[3]
Because its authority and proof are based on the character of the divine
speaker, it cannot be subservient to the church. Barth would seem to agree that
the authority of the Scripture must not be subservient to the church, but have
its own authority as witness to the Revelation, which is Christ. Calvin also argues that Scripture is unique
from the writings of the heathen, in eloquence and in its internal consistency
pointing towards Christ.[4]
For Barth as well, Scripture is
something that is unique in its witness to the Christ. Barth’s presuppositions
are therefore based in the Reformed tradition.
Barth sees the Word
of God in three ways, the Revelation that is most specifically manifest in the
Christ, the Scriptures that act as witness to the Revelation and acts as the
authority for the Church, and in the Church’s proclamation. The Word of God is
not synonymous with Scripture; the Word is the free gift of God’s grace
particularly in the Incarnation.[5]
With regard to Scripture, it undergoes an ontological “change” in becoming the
Word of God. For Barth everything has its being-in-becoming, however, God’s
being-in-becoming differs from the creaturely.[6]
Scripture stands between them, all on its own, as a human text that transports
humanity to the strange new world, which is God’s world. Scripture must be
defined by the will of God to be the true Word for the church, meaning that
“where and when Scripture ‘becomes’ the Word of God it is only ‘becoming’ what
it already is.”[7] As
God’s Word, its being is distinct from other books, as canon. Canon makes it
necessarily closed from a divine standpoint but principally always open on the
human side.[8] Another
component of its being is its inspiration. The Bible’s inspiration is a dynamic
movement of the Spirit that holds the subject under divine sovereignty, thereby
making the Bible something outside of human control.
The Scriptures as
they witness to the Revelation contributes to the ontological difference of the
Church from society through the Church’s response of confession and
proclamation. Barth seeks to avoid imprisonment by either Scripture (as the
Protestant) or tradition (as the Catholics), but rather becomes freed by both.[9] For Barth tradition helps to explain the
meaning of Scripture, they act as sign post pointing towards Scripture. These
confessions and traditions must be judged by Scripture, but there exists a
burden of proof on those who depart from the confession.[10] The Church must always seek and be open to
further revelation as they seek to grow in the Word. When the Church reads and
confesses the text, its response is that of obedience through the proclamation
of the word. Hence the Church becomes
part of the Word of God, as it is a continuation of the revelation of God in
Christ Jesus, attested to in Scripture and proclaimed by the Church.
Scripture is the
Word of God in its form and content, but, it is a Word through a fallen
humanity.[11]
In order for God to reach the target audience, humanity, God had to use worldly
language, and because of this it is a Word of grace.[12]
The world and context of the audience is not some artificial grounds for the
text, that is, the text is not in an alien environment in the world.[13] Rather, God purposed this text and message
for this world, once and for all. This is why it is essential for Barth that
God’s Word comes in human form.[14]
In its human form, the events contained
within it take the form of saga, legend or pre-history. [15]
They are accounts attested to by the divine within time and space, conforming
themselves to the Other side but manifesting themselves on the human side.
Scripture is therefore only a sign pointing towards, the Christ and as such is
indispensable to the Church’s existence.[16]
For the most part scholars would
follow these three modes of God’s Word as separate, but intertwined, like the
Trinity. However, there is another way of seeing this relationship. There seems
to be a distinction between God’s direct speech in Christ, the Revelation and
Incarnation of God on earth, and the derivative speech, the witness testimony of
the prophets, apostles, and Church.[17]
There is just one specific occasion when God spoke, and that was during the
time of the Incarnation, all other speech is derived from this event. One
cannot confuse witness to the Revelation with Revelation itself.[18]
The witness uses only human speech, and does not speak with the authority of
the name of God. “{E} very time we turn the Word of God into an infallible Word
of God we resist that which we ought never to resist, i.e., the truth of the
miracle that here fallible men speak the Word of God in fallible human word
(CD: 1/2, 529).”[19]
God did not author these books, nor assemble them into a Canon; God’s speech
can only come through Jesus.[20]
God’s speech in the Bible is presentational rather than authorial. Barth
therefore seeks to find a way to honor biblical criticism challenge to
inerrancy, and the belief that in Scripture is God’s speech.[21]
In contemporary theology, Wolterstorff seeks to alleviate similar issues
through defining the Biblical authors as deputized and appropriated agents
through speech act theory, and therefore in some respect departs from Barth’s
system.
These themes will aid in the
reading and understanding of “Die Autoriat und Bedeutung der Bibel” (The
Authority and Significance of the Bible: Twelve Theses) first published in 1947
by Karl Barth. It consists of twelve propositions about the nature of the
authority of the Bible and the correct posture of the church towards it. The
following will consider each of these propositions in turn with a brief summary
and analysis.
First, there exists a pure
relationship between Scripture and the congregation.[22]
Barth likens it to asking a child why in a room full of women is this
particular woman their mother. The only logical answer is, because she is the
child’s mother, be it biologically or adoptively. It is a particular and
special relationship between the congregation and Scripture. It speaks for
itself, and therefore any illumination on the issue would only be repetition of
the question and affirmation of the relationship. The Church can therefore only
make analytical statements due to the nature of the relationship. Barth fully
admits that the authority of the Bible and its relationship to the Church is a
circular argument; it cannot be logically grounded in any philosophical
construct but is a relationship that is essential for the grounding of the Church.
Second, the Church exists between
the resurrection and return of Christ. [23]
The Church acts in accordance to the witness given by the prophets and apostles
to proclaim the victory that has already been won and the King that is
enthroned. The Church thereby exists as ambassadors of Christ and the kingdom.
The Church would not be Church if it ceased to fulfill this role. The Church,
therefore, it would seem exists as a temporal entity—seemingly a parenthesis of
the church doctrine, whom have submitted themselves to a posture of delivering
the good news of the Kingdom of God. The Church follows the prophets and the
apostles in the proclamation of the Kingdom in the in between “comings” time.
Third, the validity of the
witnesses, the prophets and disciples, is found in the bearing witness to the
Word of God as the origin, present and culmination of all things.[24]
The witnesses were fallen human beings living in particular cultures and frames
of understanding, even more limited in some respects than the current day. “They
told all sorts of sagas and legends and at least made use of all kinds of
mythological material. In many things they said—and in some important
propositions—they contradicted each other. With few exceptions they were not
remarkable theologians. They have only their election and calling to commend
them. But this counts!”[25]
What they share is a similarity in content surrounding Christ, which sets their
work apart from other works. The Bible is a human text, written with a human
audience in mind. Here is one area where Barth is trying to walk a line between
saying that the Bible is just like any other religious text by recognizing its
fallen nature and at one and the same time affirm its authority for the Church
as something that is unique. For Barth it therefore centers upon Christ, who is
the Revelation to whom the Scriptures bear witness.
The Canon’s
subject and the authors’ relationship to the subject matter are unique, and
therefore the Church acts in such a way that the Canon constitutes the single
normative form of God’s Word for the congregation.[26]
These witness testimonies are derived from God’s self-testimony in the person,
Jesus the Christ. The Church recognizes and affirms this relationship and
thereby establishes it as Canon. The Canon’s limitations are always up for
better instruction in the future; however, this does not give the church free
reign over determining the normative Word of God. God’s Word, for Barth is
something that is unique, and distinguishable. It is something that the Church
must be open to receiving but mustn’t be lord over it.
Fifth, God’s Word proves to be such through
the summoning and exhorting of the Church to proclaim freedom, direction and
fullness in the name of Jesus.[27]
The Holy Spirit gives divine meaning to the witnesses words, however, it goes
beyond an internal ramification as heralds to an external one in the summons.
The Church is therefore a participant through the external workings of the Word
providing freedom and light. The Holy Spirit that enhanced the text of the
prophets and apostles will continue that proclamation in the Church.
Sixth, the witness
of the Bible explains itself as it corresponds to human character and claim on
human explanation.[28]
True exposition has taken place if obedience follows. Scriptures interprets
itself, and is perfectly clear through its authority. Scripture interprets
itself in such a way that idleness is not possible. Interpretation remains a human task in the
response that is given. Along the same lines, seventh, the soundness of the
interpretation is based on consideration of its literary-historical form
through thankful remembrance of God’s Word in the past and eager expectation of
God’s Word in the future.[29]
The expositor must place themselves in the place of the intended audience. God
is free to move and work in accordance with the divine will, however, because
of the requirement of obedience, faithful exposition is only possible in a
congregation. Barth sees value in
exegesis, and seeking to understand the context, however, philosophical
methodology is not enough. The text was meant to affect change, transformation,
not just express some good ideas, but actually live them out.
Eighth, the
authority of the Scripture’s must be affirmed by the Church such that the
Church and its proclamation is a true confrontation between the gracious God
and sinful humanity. [30]
Roman Catholicism elevates tradition over Scripture and Modern Protestantism
the individual, each are equally guilty of not honoring the authority of the
Bible. True communion between God and humanity must involve a confrontation,
such that God might show grace to humanity. The Church must recognize this ever
anew through seeking to subordinate itself to the Scripture, placing nothing
but God above it. As was established in previous propositions, the Bible roots
its authority in its uniqueness and by the Holy Spirit; evidence of this is a
Church that submits itself to this authority in the world.
Ninth, because the
Biblical witness is authoritative, its significance lies in the Church’s
willingness to submit all of its activities into its instruction.[31]
Because the Bible is authoritative it follows that the Church is to be obedient
to this fact. The Church thereby exists, and bases its existence on its ability
to listen to and heed the testimonies given in Scripture. This means that,
tenth, the Church and its entire work is founded upon the presence and Lordship
of Christ through the Bible.[32]
For Barth this is not a proposition that can be affirmed or denied, but the
state of reality, as such. Without the
Scriptures the Church simply cannot be Church and those who are part of a
Church bear co-responsibility for upholding the authority of the Scriptures. The
significance of the authority extends, eleventh, to the way the church does
theology. [33]
Theology must be derived from the Scripture and its validity must be judged by
the Scriptures. The significance extends, finally, to the unity of the Church,
in its mutual submission and respect for Scripture.[34]
It is this ecclesial union rooted in the presupposition of the authority of the
Bible that allows a Church to come together and discuss matters of theology and
practice. The significance of the Bible overall is in the external workings of
the Holy Spirit, in the here and now, within the Church, bringing the Church
into submission and obedience.
Karl Barth’s doctrine of
Scripture has its critics. One of the most notable was Cornelius VanTil. VanTil
has his own presuppositions that are certainly at work. He seeks to keep the
text pure and free from philosophical systems, which he sees as distorting the
truth of the God revealed message in Scripture, through its accurate history of
God’s workings in the world. It is from this fundamentalist position that he
accuses Barth of imposing Modern Philosophical constructs on the text.[35]
VanTil, argues that Barth departs from Luther and Calvin’s conception of the
Word of God, mainly because Barth associates Christ with an Event, and places
this Event at the epicenter of his theology. VanTil understands Barth to be
arguing that God’s revelation to humanity is in the Event of Christ and
humanity is thereby in the event of being taken into the Christ Event, giving
rise to a process theology. Following
from this VanTil accuses Barth of falling into the Roman Catholic belief that
the Church participates in the Incarnate Christ Event. Therefore, VanTil does
not believe that Barth is really reacting against liberalism, but rather goes
beyond it in his modern philosophy to a place where liberals would not have
dreamed of going. VanTil sees this modern philosophy playing out in Barth in
his acceptance of evolutionary theory for human origins.[36]
VanTil is a strong proponent that God walked with humanity in the garden and
revealed God-self multiple times throughout the Old Testament, not only in the
Christ event. The text for VanTil must be inerrant in every part of its history;
otherwise, any part of the history could potentially be challenged. Therefore,
Barth’s departure from this perfectly inerrant and God revealed text is another
area that VanTil challenges.
What VanTil fails to consider in
Calvin’s work—that places Barth in line with Calvin—is the doctrine of
accommodation. God necessarily lowers God-self far below the true sovereignty
that is God’s alone to communicate the message. Language about God is
therefore, necessarily analogous. God accommodates God-self to humanity through
the use of human authors. Human authors that seek to relay a divine message to
a particular audience. This particular audience is not a modern audience that
is concerned with all the dates, scientific beliefs, and other matters. Rather
they are typically a Jewish audience, concerned about life and relationships.
It is out of these lenses that one must approach Scripture, not one of
Modernity. Modernity has had just as
much, if not more of an impact on VanTil as it did on Barth. It is thereby in
recognizing that God chose to reveal God-self to humanity through these fallen,
human witnesses that one really begins to see the graciousness of God. God
through the use of the fallen authors graciously enhanced the language of the
authors, giving it divine implications. From this perspective, it makes God all
the more powerful and sovereign than the traditional doctrine of inerrancy
allows. For Barth it is a message that not only impacts the Biblical author in
the writing but calls a Church to obedience. It is a text that itself undergoes
an ontological change, but if listened to properly creates an ontological
change in the reader. It is only in its fallen, and broken nature that it is
able to accommodate the Word to the given audience through the work of the Holy
Spirit. It is a Testament (old and new), a witness testimony, to the Revelation
of God through Christ, once and for all and as such has the upmost authority
over the Church.
Bibliography
Barth, Karl. "The Authority and Significance of
the Bible: Twelve Theses." In God Here and Now, by Paul M Van
Buren, 55-74. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Brown, Robert McAfee. "Scripture and Tradition
in the Theology of Karl Barth." In Thy Word is Truth: Barth on
Scripture, by George Hunsinger, 3-19. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2012.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Translated by Henry Beveridge. Orlando: Signalman Publishing, 2009.
Hughes, Phillip Edgcumbe. Creative Minds in
Contemporary Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.
Kierkegaard, Soren. "Kill the
Commentators." In Provocations: Spiritual Writings of Kierkegaard,
by Charles E Moore, 199-203. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2010.
Morrison, John D. "Barth, Barthians, and
Evangelicals: Reassessing the Question of the Relation of Holy Scripture and
the Word of God." Trinity journal, 2004: 187-213.
Runia, Klaas. Karl Barth's Doctrine of Holy
Scripture. Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962.
Sonderegger, Katherine. "The Doctrine of
Inspiration and the Reliability of Scripture." In Thy Word is Truth:
Barth on Scripture, by George Hunsinger, 20-28. Grand Rapids: William B
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.
Sykes, S.W. Karl Barth: Studies of his
Theological Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
VanTil, Cornelius. An Introduction to Systematic
Theology:Prolegomena and the Doctriens of Revelation Scripture and God,
Second Edition. Edited by Edgar William. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing
Company, 2007.
—. In Defense of the Faith: The Doctrine of
Scripture Volume 1. Ripon: den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1967.
Watson, Francis. "The Bible." In The
Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, by John Webster, 57-71. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Divine Discourse:
Philosophical Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[1]
“Kill the Commentators”, Provocations, 199
[2]
Institutes v. 1 ch 6
[3]
Institutes v. 1 ch 7
[4]
Institutes v. 1 ch 8
[5]
Morrison, 190
[6]
Morrison,192- 193
[7]
Ibid
[8]
Hughes, 36
[9]
Robert McAfee Brown. “Scripture and Tradition in the Theology of Karl Barth.”
Thy Word is Truth: Barth on Scripture.
[10]
Ibid, 17
[11]
Hughes, 36
[12]
Runia, 24
[13] Watson,
61
[14]
Brown, 5, c.f. CD 1 /2 pp 529-30
[15]
Katherine Sonderegger. “The Doctrine of Inspiration and the Reliability of
Scripture.” Thy Word Is Truth: Barth on Scripture. 27
[16]
Brown, 7
[17]
Wolterstorff, 64-66
[18]
Ibid, 67-68
[19]
Cited in Wolterstorff, 68
[20]
Ibid 70-71
[21] Wolterstorff,
73
[22]
Barth, 55-56
[23]
Ibid, 56-58
[24]
Ibid 58-59
[25]
Ibid, 59
[26]
Ibid 59-61
[27]
Ibid 61-63
[28]
Ibid 63-64
[29]
Ibid 64-66
[30]
Ibid 67-68
[31]
Ibid 68-70
[32]
Ibid 70-71
[33]
Ibid 71-72
[34]
Ibid 72-74
[35]
VanTil, In Defense of the Faith, 36
[36]
VanTil, Systematic Theology, 210
