Who Do You Say that I Am?--Exegesis of Mark 9:2-13

Mark’s core statement that that Jesus is the Son-of-God (Mark1:1) shapes the rest of the work. This theme is manifested throughout the narrative, beginning with the baptism of Jesus.  John’s baptism is followed by an apocalyptic opening of the heavens (Mark1:10) and a divine locution stating Jesus to be “my beloved Son” (Mark1:11). Jesus spends time in the wilderness (Mark1:12-13) arising from that temptation to begin the proclamation that the Kingdom of God is at hand (Mark1:15). A kingdom that the disciples behold in the transfiguration (Mk9:1). Overall the journeys are structured thematically rather than chronologically. Mark has a block specifically dedicated to religious purity (Mark2:18-3:6) and a block specifically dedicated to the kingdom (Mark3:20-4:34). These teachings are broken up with miracles. Themes change with healing of the blind in Bethsaida. Starting in Caesarea Philippi (Mark8:27) the theme is the nature and purpose of the Son-of-Man.

2) Mark’s use of six-days later connects the transfiguration with the Caesarea Philippi narrative. These stories connect grammatically with the use of “and,” as is found in the KJV, ASV, and ESV.  The question of the nature of Jesus (Mark8:27) is further considered in the transfiguration narrative.   The temporal connection, the grammatical connection and the thematic connection, establishes it as a literary unit for teaching about the Son-of-Man. Nevertheless, Marcus argues the time referent operates analogically, connecting the story to the six-days Moses was on the mountain (Exodus24:16).[1] While the theophany connection is certainly present, Mark does not establish Jesus as a new-Moses, as Marcus would indicate. As Tarrech, notes, Jesus does not descend with a glowing face, as the face is not even mentioned in Mark’s redaction, and unlike Moses (Exodus34:29), Jesus does not talk with God or anyone until the descent, among other dissimilarities.[2]

Jesus brought Peter, James and John. This group functions as the witnesses necessary to corroborate a story (Deuteronomy19:15). While many of the other disciples become static characters, these three are more dynamic. The group was selected for an intimate relationship (Mark5:37, 14:33) but they repeatedly transgressed (Mark8:32-33, 10:35, 14:29-31, 14:37, 14:66-72). Despite their faults, Jesus brought them up, by themselves, to witness the transfigured Son-of-Man. These are the righteous witnesses in contrast to the false witnesses at the trial (Mk14:56-59).

The group goes up on a high mountain. Evans argues, that the high mountain indicates a nearness to the heavens.[3] Mark used mountains for the selection of the twelve (Mark3:13), and as a place for prayer (Mark6:46), therefore mountains are not always about the relative proximity to heaven. In inter-testament writings, the use of mountains vary from military purposes (J.W. 1: 134-135), obstacles removed in the return from exile (TMos10:1-5, Bar5:4-9), a place of tranquility (SibOr3:786-793), a place of victory for God over Satan (Wis17:18-21), the place where Moses receives the divine commandments (SibOr3:253-260, Jub1:22-28), where the ark of the Covenant rests (2Mac2:3-9), where the Messiah establishes eternal rule (2Bar40:1-4) and where the arrogant individual that saw themselves like God rots (2Mac9:7-9). Of these inter-testament connotations the Mosaic connotation has the most latitude here, particularly given the appearance of Moses later in the narrative. The transfiguration narrative would function as an archetype, with Jesus either as the Mosaic Law or a renewed form of the Mosaic Law. However, none of these inter-testament connotations fit with the theme (Mark1:1). The best correspondence is with the Old Testament. On Mount Horeb, Moses and Elijah had intimate encounters with God (Exodus3:1, 1Kings19:8-14). If we equate Mount Sinai with Mount Horeb more could be added (Exodus19-34). Mount Horeb at least figuratively connects the transfiguration theophany with the previous ones.   

            3) The conjunction “and” connects this verse with, and elaborates upon, the statement that Jesus was transfigured before the disciples. The use of “and” throughout this verse connects the details that are revealed to the transfigured garments of Christ. While other Gospels give attention to the face of Jesus (Luke9:29, Matthew17:2), Mark is entirely focused on the garments. The dependent clause, stipulating a super-natural occurrence, connects the verse with the overall theme. It is a portrayal of the fully glorified, resurrected Son-of-Man. The KJV tries to harmonize the account with Matthew, by making the garments “white as snow.” However, the ESV, NIV, and the NASB, all translate it white. Mark’s emphasis on the garments, establishes a contrast between Jesus’s transfigured garments and the garmentless Jesus on the cross (Mark15:24-26).[4] This illustrates the apparent contradiction between the glorified Jesus and the crucified Jesus.

            4) Verse four begins with the appearance of Moses and Elijah. Appearance ὤφθη (Strongs#3708) is primarily defined as the use of the optical sense to witness a particular person, people group, phenomenon or object(Mark1:2, 1:16, 2:5, 2:12, 2:16, 2:24, 3:32, 4:3, 4:12, 5:6, 5:22, 5:32, 6:34, 6:48,  7:2,  8:33, 9:1, 9:8, 11:20, 12:15). Other times it is used to check on the availability of something (Mark6:38), to make certain that a particular task is accomplished (Mark1:44), to be cautionary of a particular group (Mark8:15), or to take notice of a particular situation for consideration (Mark10:28, 15:4).  Because the direct object of the appearance is Moses and Elijah, it makes the optical the most probable in this case. The emphasis is therefore on the witnessing by the disciples.

In Mark’s redaction, Moses and Elijah spoke with Jesus. Luke’s redaction has them talking about the departure (Luke9:31). Mark’s emphasis therefore is to convey the divinity of Jesus; the suffering piece will come later. In putting it later, the contrast between the Jesus that is talking with Moses and Elijah, and the Jesus on the cross, being mocked by the criminals (Mark15:32) is more apparent.[5]

5) Peter directs a statement to ‘Rabbi’, about building three tabernacles. In other Gospels, Peter directs it to “Lord” (Matthew17:4) and “Master” (Luke9:33). Mark uses Rabbi at targeted points to emphasize teaching moments in Jesus ministry, the resurrection in the transfiguration, prayer in the fig tree (Mark11:21), and fulfillment of mission in the arrest narrative (Mark14:45). Peter goes on to state that it was good for them to be there and expresses a desire to build tabernacles for Jesus, Moses and Elijah that they might be able to stay in the glory. However, this question is not answered by Rabbi, but by the cloud, who corrects this faulty understanding.

6) Peter did not know how to respond to this saturated phenomenon, and the entire group was terrified by the phenomena. Peter did not understand what it meant to be the Son-of-Man, as was the case at Caesarea Philippi. A similar portrayal is given in Gethsemane (Mark14:40).[6] This connects these stories by establishing the transfiguration as a foreshadowing of the resurrected Son-of-Man. Out of fear, Peter operated from understanding the Son-of-Man, as one who is glorified (Daniel7:13) and expresses a desire to stay in that glory. Mark places the terror after the transfiguration itself, whereas in other Gospels, it occurs when the cloud comes (Luke9:34) and after the cloud has come (Matthew17:6). The terror comes from seeing God; Mark establishes that Jesus is God by placing it before the appearance of the cloud. It is not the God in the cloud that is causing the fear, but the God incarnate that is transfigured before the disciples.

7) A cloud is formed, it overshadows them and it voices a statement. Mark personifies the cloud, having a voice come out of it. Implied within this is that God is the one speaking through the cloud. This divine locution distinguishes itself from the former (Mark1:10-11) in several ways. Instead of the sky opening up, a cloud forms. The Spirit does not descend, in this account and everyone, not just Jesus, is able to behold it.  Both have the voice confirming that Jesus is the beloved Son. Luke uses “chosen one” instead of “Son” illustrating Mark’s emphasis of Jesus being the Son-of-God (Mark1:1).  The baptismal account has the voice expresses being ‘well-pleased’ with the Son (a sentiment picked up in Matthew’s transfiguration (Matthew17:5)), whereas in the transfiguration account the voice issues a command, to listen to the Son. Listen ἀκούετε (Strongs#191) has three primary uses with some degree of overlap between them, first the receiving of an auditory transmission of information (Mark2:1, 3:8, 3:21, 4:9,  4:33, 5:27, 6:20, 6:55, 7:16, 10:47, 11:18, 12:28, 14:58, 15:35) second, to give consideration to an auditory transmission of information (Mark4:3, 6:2, 6:16, 7:14, 10:41) and third, to understand an auditory transmission of information (Mark4:9, 4:15, 7:16, 8:18, 12:29, 14:11). Listen is used, here in a context of discussing the nature of the Son-of-Man to which the disciples cannot understand. Therefore, the cloud is beckoning the disciples to understand the mission of the Son-of-Man. However, Marcus believes there is an element of praxis to the clouds statement, relating it to taking up one’s cross and following Jesus from prominence to disgrace (Mark8:34).[7] However, this section is not about the disciples, this section is about the Son-of-Man and listen used in this fashion elsewhere in Mark.

            There is a noticeable contrast between the Jesus that here is confirmed and glorified by God as a beloved Son, and the Jesus on the cross that asks why God has forsaken him (Mark15:34).[8] These contrasts point to a proper understanding of the Son-of-Man as encompassing glory and suffering. The one that wishes to be the greatest must be the slave of all (Mark10:43-45). It is a rejection and reversal of human conceptions of glory and righteousness. 

8) Suddenly, occurring simultaneously, everything went away. As the disciples witnessed what was around them, they saw no one. Grammar excludes Jesus from the statement, Jesus remained, but Moses, Elijah and the cloud had departed.

Because the glory did not last, Stein suggests, that this was not a pre-Marcan resurrection account.[9] Stein points to several dissimilar elements using the common depictions of the resurrected Jesus. Ultimately, it is an empty exercise in source criticism, on both sides, speculating about narrative origins. Mark uses this story as a foreshadowing of the crucifixion and resurrection as is seen in the many contrasts and linguistic connections being implemented. Beyond, this Mark is not organized chronologically, but topically. The empty tomb is only properly understood in the light of the discussion in this section. Mark is linking this narrative with the cross and resurrection. Giving merit to the claim that this is Mark’s depiction of the resurrected Son-of-Man.

9) On the way down the mountain, Jesus instructs the disciples not to convey what they witnessed to anyone. However, there are conditions attached to it. The information may be divulged only after the Son-of-Man rose from the dead. The Son-of-Man reference connects it explicitly with the Caesarea Philippi discussion. Rise ἀνίστημι (Strongs#450) is defined primarily as an ascent of a human being, typically from a seated position to a standing position(Mark1:35, 2:14, 5:42, 7:24, 9:27, 10:1; Matthew9:9; Luke1:39, 4:16, 4:38). Second, it is taking an adversarial position against another (Mark3:26, 14:57, 14:60; Matthew26:62; Luke4:29, 10:25, 23:1). Third, it is the ascent from Sheol of a being or principality into a restored, renewed and resurrected existence (Mark8:31, 9:9, 9:10, 9:31, 10:34, 12:23, 12:25, Matthew12:41).  Because it is rising from the dead, the ascent from Sheol, best addresses its meaning.

Because the glorified, transfigured Son-of-Man is only properly understood in the light of the completion of the Son-of-Man’s mission, the disciples must not reveal the phenomenon. Beyond this, the disciples did not understand the mission of the Son-of-Man (Mark9:22), without this proper understanding they were incapable of relating the nature of the Son-of-Man in its proper context.[10]

10) The disciples seized upon Jesus statement about rising from the dead. Mark also used “seized” with the arrest narrative (Mark14:46) connecting these stories. The disciples seized upon the thought of the Son-of-Man dying and being resurrected only to see later guards seize the Son-of-Man to carry out that death and resurrection. The disciples discussed the concept of the Son-of-Man dying and rising, not necessarily as part of the dead in the general resurrection, but rather from among the dead in a particular resurrection.[11] Hence, the following verses are eschatologically driven.

11) They, the group of disciples that were present, then formulate a question related to their understanding of the Son-of-Man. They ask Jesus why the scribes say that Elijah must come first. Here the disciples have in mind Malachi 4:5-6 where Malachi prophesies that before the day-of-the-LORD comes, Elijah would come and convert the people. Essentially, the disciples are having troubles with believing it is the day-of-the-LORD when Elijah has not returned.

12) Jesus response is two-fold, first Jesus affirms that Elijah does come first, but second directs their attention away from Elijah’s part in the day-of-the-LORD to the Son-of-Man, who ultimately plays the commanding role. Jesus affirms that Elijah does first come and that Elijah’s role is to restore all things. Elijah does participate in the restoration of all things and that restoration occurs before the day-of-the-LORD. And yet, Elijah is not the One that will bring forth the day-of-the-LORD, rather the Son-of-Man. The pathway to the day-of-the-LORD is not a glorious path, but a path of suffering and contempt. While it is written that Elijah will restore all things it is also written that the Son-of-Man must suffer. The glory that the disciples had just seen only comes about after the suffering and contempt being shown to the Son-of-Man. Mark therefore is emphasizing the contrast between the glorified Son-of-Man with the pathway to that glorification being suffering and contempt.

13 Jesus returns to the question of Elijah. The Son-of-Man has to suffer like Elijah. As the disciples understanding of the Son-of-Man required some adjustments, so did their understanding of Elijah.  Mark has established John the Baptist as an archetypal Elijah (Mark1:6, 2Kings1:8) and the one that came before the day-of-the-LORD (Malachi4:5-6, Mark1:2-3) pointing to Jesus who would surpass him (Mark1:7). Matthew’s redaction establishes Elijah as John the Baptist (Matthew17:13). John the Baptist was imprisoned and eventually beheaded (Mark6:14-29) illustrating the suffering that the Elijah-archetype endured. They did to John the Baptist what was written about Ahab’s intentions for Elijah, death (1Kings19:1-2).  The claim is that only through the suffering of the archetypal Son-of-Man and Elijah, does the day-of-the-LORD come.

Conclusion) After the descent, the disciples re-unite and a crowd gathers around (Mark9:14). There is an argument between the scribes and the disciples over the inability to cast out a spirit (Mark9:18). The boy is brought to Jesus and immediately has a convulsion (Mark9:20). Jesus rebuked the spirit (Mark9:25). The boy became like a corpse with those around thinking he was dead (Mark9:26). However, foreshadowing the raising of the Son-of-Man, Jesus raised this boy (Mark9:27). The central point is re-emphasized that the Son-of-Man must be delivered and killed, but will rise (Mark9:31). However, the disciples were unable to understand (Mark9:32). The theme then shifts to discipleship.    

Bibliography

Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27-16:20. WBC 34b. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.

Marcus, Joel. Mark 9--16. Anchor Bible Commentary 27a. New York: Doubleday, 2009.

Stein, Robert H. "Is the Transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8) a Misplaced Resurrection Account." Journal of Biblical Literature, 1976: 79-96.

Tàrrech, Armand Puig i. "The glory on the mountain: the episode of the transfiguration of Jesus." Translated by John F Elwolde, & Roberto Martinez. New Testament Studies, April 2012: 151-172.

---

[1] Marcus,631

[2] Tarrech,155-156

[3] Evans, 35

[4] Ibid,641

[5] Marcus,641

[6] Ibid,633

[7] Ibid,639

[8] Ibid,641

[9] Stein,91-92

[10] Evans,42

[11] Marcus,643

The Authority of the Witness to the Revelation--Karl Barth's Philosophy of Scripture

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