Election, Atonement, and the Holy Spirit: Through and Beyond Barth’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture

By Matthias Grebe and David F. Ford

This book examines the doctrines of election and atonement in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, taking up Barth's own challenge to his reader to surpass his argument and offer a better typological interpretation of the cultic texts. Barth's radical re-working of Calvin's doctrine of election is one of the most important developments in twentieth-century theology. Christ synthesizes for Barth a particular dialectic: the binary structure of God's Yes of election and God's No of rejection. The book's central question--how can Jesus simultaneously be both the elected and the rejected (CD II/2), acting as both the judge and the judged (CD IV/1)?--is followed by an exploration of the roles of the Holy Spirit and human freedom in God's electing and saving action. Commentators both acknowledge Barth's innovation in this area and identify problems with his approach, but few have offered what David Ford has called a correction "from within" Barth, using Barth's own method. Using the concept of Existenzstellvertretung, this critique of Barth's exegetical justification for the doctrines offers an alternative exegesis that not only provides this much-needed correction, but also immerses the reader in a fresh engagement with Scripture itself.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Nov 6, 2014
• ISBN: 9781498226905

Matthias Grebe

Revd Dr Matthias Grebe studied theology at Tubingen, Cambridge, and Princeton. He is currently a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Bonn.

Book preview

9781625642042.kindle.jpg

Election, Atonement, and the Holy Spirit

Through and Beyond Barth’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Matthias Grebe

Foreword by

David F. Ford

26433.png

Election, Atonement, and the Holy Spirit

Through and Beyond Barth’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Princeton Theological Monograph Series 214

Copyright © 2014 Matthias Grebe. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-204-2

EISBN 13: 978-1-4982-2690-5

Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Grebe, Matthias.

Election, atonement, and the Holy Spirit : through and beyond Bath’s theological interpretation of Scripture / Matthias Grebe, with a foreword by David F. Ford.

Princeton Theological Monogaphs series 214

xxii + 290 p. ; 23 cm. Includes bibliographical references and indices.

ISBN 13: 978-1-62564-204-2

1. Barth, Karl, 1886–1968. 2. Election (Theology)—History of doctrines—20th century. 3. Atonement. 4. Holy Spirit. 5. Bible—Hermeneutics. I. Ford, David, 1948–. II. Series. III. Title.

BT111.3 G822 2014

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 07/20/2015

Princeton Theological Monograph Series

K. C. Hanson, Charles M. Collier, D. Christopher Spinks, and Robin A. Parry, Series Editors

Recent volumes in the series:

Koo Dong Yun

The Holy Spirit and Ch’i (Qi): A Chiological Approach to Pneumatology

Stanley S. MacLean

Resurrection, Apocalypse, and the Kingdom of Christ: The Eschatology of Thomas F. Torrance

Brian Neil Peterson

Ezekiel in Context: Ezekiel’s Message Understood in Its Historical Setting of Covenant Curses and Ancient Near Eastern Mythological Motifs

Amy E. Richter

Enoch and the Gospel of Matthew

Maeve Louise Heaney

Music as Theology: What Music Says about the Word

Eric M. Vail

Creation and Chaos Talk: Charting a Way Forward

David L. Reinhart

Prayer as Memory: Toward the Comparative Study of Prayer as Apocalyptic Language and Thought

Peter D. Neumann

Pentecostal Experience: An Ecumenical Encounter

Ashish J. Naidu

Transformed in Christ: Christology and the Christian Life in John Chrysostom

To my Fathers

neque enim Pater iudicat quemquam sed iudicium omne dedit Filio

—St John 5:22

Foreword

Karl Barth’s doctrines of election and atonement are surely among the greatest achievements of Christian theology. They also contain some of the deepest and most daring biblical interpretation ever written. And throughout his works Barth challenges his readers to explore, test, and if possible improve on how he understands Scripture. Matthias Grebe has taken up this challenge.

Dr Grebe both appreciatively sounds the depths of Barth’s doctrines of election (or predestination) and atonement (or reconciliation) and also perceptively examines biblical passages that are central to them. The result is a fascinating variation on Barth’s understanding of salvation that is based on Dr Grebe’s own fresh interpretation of Scripture.

Nor is that all. In chapter five he goes beyond his Cambridge doctoral dissertation, that I had the privilege of supervising, to extend his discussion by relating it to the Holy Spirit and to ordinary life. Here Barth’s radical (and rather neglected) theology of the Holy Spirit is drawn upon to face squarely such difficult issues as human freedom and the possibility of salvation for all. The distinctiveness in being Christian lies, as in Barth, not in Christians being the only ones to be saved but in the specificity of the gift of the Spirit to them.

This is a book that immerses readers in good theology and invites them further and deeper into theological, biblical wisdom on some of the most demanding issues in Christian thought.

David F. Ford

Regius Professor of Divinity and Director of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme

Lent 2014

Preface

Mache die Dinge so einfach wie möglich—aber nicht einfacher.

Albert Einstein

Es ist schwieriger eine vorgefasste Meinung zu zertrümmern, als ein Atom.

Albert Einstein

Tradition has it that in 1770 when Mozart was fourteen years old, he went to Rome and listened to Allegri’s Miserere in the Sistine Chapel during Holy Week. It was forbidden under threat of excommunication to make a copy of the papal music, but after the service the young Mozart was able to transcribe the piece entirely from memory.¹ Some time later, Mozart met Charles Burney, a British historian of music, who bought the manuscript from him and took it back to London. When the piece was published the following year, the Pope ordered the young musician to appear before him, but rather than excommunicating him, he praised him for his accomplishment.

Regardless of this story’s historicity, and whether or not Mozart truly possessed an eidetic memory, this anecdote illuminates something of the task of the theologian. For a musician to hear a piece of music and transcribe it can be thought to be analogous to a theologian’s ‘hearing’ the Word of God by reading Scripture and writing down the interpretation for teaching and preaching. Though these two tasks share certain outward similarities like transcription, they are also deeply divided by inner dissimilarities when it comes to the method of interpretation. Whereas it might be possible for a musical genius like Mozart to transcribe a piece of music accurately having only heard it once, the task of theology is a somewhat impossible, limited, and paradoxical one. Impossible, because the theologian is wrestling with Scripture, the subject matter of which is the transcendent God, and the task of theology is to interpret his self-revelation, which depends on God and is only possible ubi et quando Deo visum est. Limited, because the theologian is bound by certain restrictions. The Word of God is dynamic, constantly exceeding human capacities. Even if God chooses to unveil himself in Scripture, with our limited minds and our human words it is never fully possible to comprehend or encapsulate what we hear and read about God in his Word. Paradoxical, because, as Karl Barth famously said: As ministers we ought to speak of God. We are human, however, so we cannot speak of God. We ought therefore to recognize both our obligation and our inability, and by that very recognition give God the glory.² Therefore, "all theological thought and utterance is theologia viatorum and thus ‘broken’ [gebrochen] and ‘piece-work’ [Stückwerk]."³

Furthermore, theology has to be reapplied to the situation of the day if it is to give life.⁴ It is not the words of the Bible that have changed but the situations in which they are heard. Some may wish to repeat a past theology, but this is not possible. The context has changed, and what is actually communicated and understood today can be very far from the original meaning.⁵ Therefore, every generation has to grapple anew with the great theological questions and re-interpret pivotal Christian doctrines. Unlike a musical transcription therefore, theology does not simply involve restating a received body of knowledge. It also needs to be re-contextualised for every generation and reconfigured through ever-new expressions across time. Thus every theologian must apply the Reformation principle of a return ad fontes—to the text—to avoid remaining in a static tradition and instead to continue the Church’s dynamic message of Jesus Christ. Theology is a constant process of re-examination and re-engagement with Scripture.

As David Ford observes, it should be the purpose of basic theological Christian academic theology to describe the world in the light of a scripturally-informed picture of God that has been painted anew for every generation and culture.⁶ Barth reminds us that we have to return constantly to Scripture because critical scholarship of theology itself stands in constant need of criticism, correction and reform.⁷ Theology is not only an academic discipline, but, as Barth points out, a function of the Church,⁸ providing ecclesiastical self-examination and interpretation of the Bible for the Church today. The continued life of the Church depends on her ability and willingness to hear the voice of Scripture [. . .] and on whether Scripture compels the Church continually to return to it.⁹

However, if theology has an obligation to inform the Church, it appears to be falling short in its delineation of two crucial doctrines: election and the atonement. These two doctrines, which together Barth claims are the sum of the Gospel,¹⁰ should unite Christians. But the dominant mainstream views on both election and the atonement split believers and have triggered bitter divisions, with parties questioning each other’s commitment and even faith.

Furthermore, in order for theology to be life-giving there are two challenges for every ‘new’ theological idea explored and endorsed, particularly in the academy. First, academic theology is always at risk of being only fully understood within an academic setting. Thus the first challenge for theologians, if their ideas are to be useful and give life to the Church, is to ensure that those ideas are communicated as comprehensibly as possible. At the same time, it is vital to avoid the opposite error—that of oversimplifying simply to give quick answers to difficult questions.

Secondly, as Bruce Chilton warns, any progress in theology is difficult to attain. One might imagine that one should build directly on the foundations of consensus, and extend our knowledge in that manner. But the foundation of theology is the study of texts, and the understanding of texts is prone to change. Theologians must therefore keep a wary eye on the foundations upon which they build, lest their castles be left in the air; every act of theological thinking should grow from the bottom up.¹¹

The varied understandings of key texts can obstruct consensus in theology. And yet, theology is best done in conversation. When this dialogue does not take place, the stronghold of various doctrines and opinions (often safeguarded by a small minority who thereby position themselves as the ‘gatekeepers of orthodoxy’) becomes a difficult one to penetrate with new ideas. This has both positive and negative implications. Though it means that certain doctrines are retained and defended in order to maintain orthodoxy, this might also mean that in some circles there is almost no scope for revision, correction, or challenge. Once a particular doctrine is perceived as being scripturally informed (and is thus widely embraced as ‘orthodox’), it can become a pillar of a certain theological framework, even if the scriptural foundation is disputed. By this point, however, the doctrine might be established so strongly in the tradition that it eludes all challenge simply because such questioning is immediately interpreted as a direct attack on the integrity of Scripture. The result of this approach is that, within the particular tradition, self-examination, critical engagement with outside opinion, and genuine re-engagement with Scripture are sometimes forgotten. As we shall see, this has occurred with the doctrines of election and the atonement.

However, if we are to acknowledge, as Barth tells us, that all theological thought is Stückwerk, then theology would benefit from the example of the history of science. Einstein’s new insights required him to leave some (though not all) of Newton’s thoughts behind.¹² In order to achieve progress in theology, we need to remember that the key to understanding a hermeneutical circle may sometimes require leaving older, less accurate biblical interpretations behind.

Karl Barth was aware of the difficulties of attaining progress in theology as well as the reality that any life-giving theology needs to rest on a biblical foundation. When reading Scripture, he was confronted with a ‘strange new world’ which caused him to change his theological starting point to one focused on the text of the Bible itself. This new engagement with Scripture was therefore the main impetus behind Barth’s reconstruction of the doctrine of election, and though Barth was aware that he had radically departed from his Reformed tradition and was criticized for his new approach, he felt that the authority of Scripture compelled him to do so.

Likewise, the following study, driven by that same authority, will also say No to certain prevailing understanding of the doctrines of election and atonement. The No that is uttered must ultimately be viewed as a positive Yes to a challenging but hopeful new perspective. As Karl Barth said when interviewed late in his life for a documentary: Actually, by nature I’m not spoiling for a fight. [. . .] Someone who forcefully says ‘yes’ also needs to say ‘no’ with the same vigor.¹³ It is important to emphasize, however, that the Yes that this present project offers does not intend to boastfully promote itself at the expense of others. Another prominent churchman has perfectly expressed the spirit in which this study is intended to be read when he wrote, winning is a word not about succeeding so that other people lose, but about succeeding in connecting others with life-giving reality.¹⁴

It is by following Barth’s example and applying the method exemplified in the Church Dogmatics that we can re-examine the doctrines of election and the atonement for a new generation and culture.

Matthias Grebe

Bonn, Lent 2014

1. See Vetter, Mozarts Nachschrift,

144

–

47

.

2. Barth, The Word of God and the Task of Ministry,

186

.

3. Barth, Church Dogmatics III/

3

,

294

. Volumes of the Church Dogmatics will hereafter be cited as CD.

4. Hooker, From Adam to Christ,

10

.

5. Ford, Introduction to Modern Christian Theology,

1

.

6. See Ford, Epilogue,

761

.

7. CD IV/

3

,

881

.

8. CD I/

1

,

3

.

9. CD I/

2

,

691

f.

10. CD II/

2

,

3

.

11. Chilton, Isaiah Targum, xi.

12. For the paradigm shift in science and the implications for and impact on theology, particularly contemporary pneumatology, see Wolfgang Vondey, The Holy Spirit and the Physical Universe. Vondey argues in the abstract of his article that "a methodological shift occurred in the sciences in the

20

th century that has irreversible repercussions for a contemporary theology of the Holy Spirit. Newton and Einstein followed fundamentally different trajectories that provide radically dissimilar frameworks for the pneumatological endeavor. Pneumatology after Einstein is located in a different cosmological framework constituted by the notions of order, rationality, relationality, symmetry, and movement. These notions provide the immediate challenges to a contemporary understanding of the Spirit in the physical universe."

13. Barth, JA und NEIN–Karl Barth zum Gedächtnis, video.

14. Williams, Silence and Honey Cakes,

32

.

Acknowledgements

This book would not have been possible without the great assistance of a number of individuals and institutions, all of which require special thanks and acknowledgement for their generosity, encouragement and kind support.

In a break with tradition (which for some reason nearly always places the author’s spouse at the very end of a long list of acknowledgements) first and very much foremost I would like to thank my wife, Victoria. Her ceaseless encouragement and constructive criticism, and her indefatigable spirit and willingness to take risks have made me a better theologian, a better Christian and a better man. I must also say thank you to my parents, Wolfgang and Ellen Grebe, and to my parents-in-law, the Revd Andrew and Ann Corke—sources of endless inspiration, critique, love, prayer, and support both in and out of the academic process.

To my Doktorvater, Professor David Ford, I owe a special debt of gratitude. For his time, encouragement, and wise counsel I am exceedingly thankful. I will always be grateful that at the beginning stages of my doctoral studies he redirected me back to my early interest in the atonement, encouraged me to include more exegesis, and finally supervised a thesis that evolved in ways that neither of us could have anticipated. David’s pedagogical method is almost Socratic—like a ‘spiritual midwife’ he has guided me through the labor pains of first finding my Thesis and finally giving birth to the Überthese (thesis of the thesis). In introducing me to Scriptural Reasoning, his contagious desire to remain in constant dialogue with the Scriptures has undoubtedly finessed the blending of systematic theology and exegesis in this work.

The book was written alongside training for ordination in the Church of England at Ridley Hall, Cambridge, where my pastoral tutors Revd Dr Philip Jenson and Revd Dr Paul Weston, and principal, Revd Canon Andrew Norman were a constant support. Revd Dr Mark Scarlata and Revd Dr Rob McDonald are two men of great faith, intellect, and friendship who served as a constant reminder that these qualities need not be opposed. The same is true of Revd Nabil Shehadi, to whom I am deeply grateful for letting me preach on the atonement during my placement at All Saints Church, Beirut, and for encouraging me to combine a life in the academy and in Church ministry. The community at St Barnabas Church, Cambridge, and particularly the great fellowship at Cluster 2, never let me forget that theology should be both informative and formative.

Indeed, it has often been said that it is outside the library that the ‘real theology’ occurs. This has manifestly been the case in Cambridge, and my gratitude is extended to members of the Ford Home Seminar and the community at Tyndale House for their willingness to engage with numerous contentious questions. Attending and delivering papers at the annual conferences of the Society for Biblical Literature and the Society for the Study of Theology has also allowed me to test out various ideas.

Some journeys go back much further than is initially obvious, and more people have contributed to this book than they know. Revd Fred Ritzhaupt first encouraged me to study theology and it was his sermons that taught me what it really means to be co-heirs of Christ and know God as Abba. During my time at Tübingen, Professor Bernd Janowski introduced me to the Old Testament cultic atonement and Professor Otfried Hofius taught me about how this became the background for the Pauline understanding of the death of Christ. Not only has their exegesis on the atonement manifestly influenced the content of a thesis on the cultic atonement, but their approach towards a gesamtbiblische Theologie also underlies the biblical hermeneutics of the cultic texts here. I was also fortunate enough during my studies to discuss my work with Professor Peter Stuhlmacher and Professor Hartmut Gese, who in some ways might be said to have started the Tübingen School of the atonement with his essays on biblical theology.

A number of people were instrumental in me coming over to Cambridge in 2007. Early plans to apply to Cambridge were fostered through a chance meeting with Revd Dr Greg Seach and Professor Tom Greggs at Tübingen. Thanks too to Professor Christoph Schwöbel and Dr Jens Adam for their support at this time. During my early years in Cambridge I was fortunate enough to have my MPhil dissertation supervised by Dr Simon Gathercole, and I would also like to thank Professor Sarah Coakley for her guidance during the first year of my doctoral studies

A major part of this research was undertaken during a semester at Princeton Theological Seminary in 2011, where I received a very warm welcome from Professor Iain Torrance and was able to mine the excellent library at the Center for Barth Studies. I benefited greatly from informal supervision by Professor Bruce McCormack and a lecture series on Barth (as well as numerous post-lecture chats) from Professor George Hunsinger, who also encouraged me to write about Barth’s understanding of the cultic atonement. No list of acknowledgements of those inspiring individuals at PTS would be complete without my mentioning Ronald Chicken—conversation with this exceptional friend continues to be extremely formative.

In December 2011, it was my pleasure to introduce my formidable dialogue partners Dr Ashley Cocksworth and Dr Robert Leigh to ‘Tübingen hospitality’ when we visited Professors Eberhard Jüngel and Jürgen Moltmann and had an opportunity to discuss our work with both. Our earlier visit to the Barth-Archiv in Basel afforded us the chance to hear some first-hand anecdotes about Barth from Dr Hans-Anton Drewes, and our further correspondence has proved extremely fruitful. Not only was I able to look through the collection of Leviticus commentaries housed at the archive, but Dr Drewes kindly sent me various sections with Barth’s own annotations.

Further sincere appreciation is reserved for those who assisted throughout the project. Dr Matthias Gockel’s feedback and suggestions have been invaluable over the years. Michael Bigg and Revd Dr Mark Scarlata scrutinized various exegetical sections, and I am grateful to Dr Ashley Cocksworth, Revd Andrew Corke and Dr Richard McLauchlan for proofreading the entire piece. It need not be said that any remaining errors of style or content are entirely my own.

Financially, this research would not have been possible without the support of the Master and Fellows of Christ’s College and the Faculty of Divinity in Cambridge, and particularly the trustees of the Levy-Plumb Fund for the Humanities and the Hedley-Lucas Fund. The Cambridge European Trust and the Kurt Hahn Trust (also at Cambridge), the Sarum St Michael Educational Charity and the Foundation of St Matthias, and the generosity of the former Bishop of Salisbury, Rt Revd David Stancliffe, also deserve special mention.

The conversion of my doctoral thesis into a final book manuscript would not have been possible without support from the DAAD, and during this stage I was also very fortunate to begin my post-doctoral research at the University of Bonn under Professor Andreas Pangritz. Final thanks to Pickwick Publications for accepting the title into their Princeton Theological Monograph Series, and especially to Dr Robin Parry for his exceptional editing eye.

Abbreviations

Works of Karl Barth

I/1 Church Dogmatics, vol. I, part 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2nd ed., 1975)

I/2 Church Dogmatics, vol. I, part 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956)

II/l Church Dogmatics, vol. II, part 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957)

II/2 Church Dogmatics, vol. II, part 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957)

III/1 Church Dogmatics, vol. III, part 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958)

III/2 Church Dogmatics, vol. III, part 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960)

III/3 Church Dogmatics, vol. III, part 3 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960)

III/4 Church Dogmatics, vol. III, part 4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961)

IV/1 Church Dogmatics, vol. IV, part 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956)

IV/2 Church Dogmatics, vol. IV, part 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958)

IV/3 Church Dogmatics, vol. IV, part 3: first half (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961) and vol. IV, part 3: second half (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962)

IV/4 Church Dogmatics, vol. IV, part 4 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969)

CD Church Dogmatics. Karl Barth. Translated by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, 4 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956–75.

KD Die Kirchliche Dogmatik. Karl Barth, 13 vols; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1932 and thereafter Zürich: EVZ, 1938–65. Individual volume abbreviations as above.

Others

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

CCEL Christian Classics Etherial Library

CNTC Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries. 12 vols. Edited by D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959–72.

CO Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt Omnia. 59 vols. Edited by Wilhelm Braum, Edward Cunitz and Edward Reuss. Corpus Reformatorum: vols 29–87; Brunswick: C. A. Schwetchke and Son, 1863–1900.

DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

DTIB Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer et al. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

EKK Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament

EncChr The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Volume 1: A–D. Edited by Erwin Fahlbusch et al. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1999.

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

HThR Harvard Theological Review

IJST International Journal of Systematic Theology

Inst. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JR The Journal of Religion

JRTh Journal of Reformed Theology

JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman period

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JThS The Journal of Theological Studies

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Edited by William A. VanGemeren. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NTS New Testament Studies

NZSTh Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie

PTR The Princeton Theological Review

SJTh Scottish Journal of Theology

SP Sacra Pagina

SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Edited Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translaed by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76.

TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 15 vols. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green and Douglas W. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975–2011.

TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Edited by Ernst Jenni and Klaus Westermann. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie. 36 vols. Edited by Gerhard Krause and Gerhard Müller. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1976–2004.

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUANT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Alten und Neuen Testament

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

VT Vetus Testamentum

ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZDTh Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie

Introduction

Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures.

(Luke 24:27)

The relationship between the doctrines of election and atonement is key to understanding the Christian faith, and the person and saving work of Jesus Christ. However, despite their centrality, these doctrines are not undisputed in the history of the Church, nor is there a unanimous view regarding the Church’s teaching of them.

1. The Pastoral Motivations of this Study and the Nature of the Problem

The teaching and preaching of the cross has always played a central role in the life and growth of the Church. The question ‘Am I one of the elect?’ strikes at the heart of the issue of personal salvation and captures the essence of what is means to be a human being made in the image of God. However, when it comes to the issues of how Jesus achieved salvation and who gains from his death (‘Who did Christ die for?’) believers disagree amongst themselves, as do academics. Questions such as ‘What do these doctrines say?’ ‘What is their biblical justification?’ ‘What is their relationship?’ and ‘What do they mean to me?’ are often raised by scholars, clergy, and laity alike.

The doctrine of election (or rather, the concept of predestination) has always been a point of disagreement in the history of the Church from the Reformation onwards. Those who espouse a limited atonement must wrestle with the implication of the Calvinist theory of double predestination, that a God who loves all humankind predestines some of his creatures to hell. On the other hand, those who espouse a universal atonement must explain the apparently clear statements by Jesus in the Gospels that, for some, hell and the gnashing of teeth¹ will be a reality.

These two ways of viewing the doctrine of election are linked with two particular views on the atonement: rather than asking ‘Why or for whom did Jesus die?’ a more specific question is raised—‘Did Jesus die for the sins of the entire world or only for the sins of certain chosen individuals?’ This is the question of universal or limited atonement. The questions of election and atonement thus seem to be very closely related to each other and are in fact interdependent.

The doctrine of double predestination is linked with limited atonement and the doctrine of universal election with universal salvation (universalism). The argument is as follows: if Christ died for the sins of the entire world then it logically follows that all people must be saved. Many people seem to be content with this answer. God loves the whole world—the Bible even indicates that God wants all to be saved (see 1 Tim 2:4). So, if God loves the whole world, Christ must surely have died for the sins of the whole world and hence all are saved. Others, however, question this, saying that this is not in accord with the New Testament account of the afterlife. Since, they argue, the Bible clearly talks about a punishment of the sinner in hell, then Christ can only have died for the sins of the elect. Only those people who were predestined for heaven are the ones for whom Jesus bore the sins on the cross. Otherwise the cross would be rendered insufficient (because, as they argue, some people do go to hell) and the logical conclusion of this would be that God wanted to save all people but was defeated in his objective, which seems an absurd proposition. They therefore argue for a ‘limited atonement,’ a doctrine that explains that on the cross Christ bore the sins only of the elect. In this way they try to safeguard the 100 percent effectiveness of the cross. They argue that although this does not indicate any limitation of the infinite value and power of Christ’s atonement, nevertheless while the value of the atonement was sufficient to save all mankind, it was efficient to save only the elect.² All the sins Jesus bore were for those who would definitely go to heaven and thus none of his sin bearing was in vain.

2. The Task of the Study

This book is tasked with resolving the logical problem of the relationship between election and atonement. In doing so, three principal themes will emerge: (1) sin bearing; (2) the relationship between God’s being ad intra and God’s works ad extra (the relationship between the immanent and economic Trinity); and (3) divine sovereignty and human responsibility.

1. Those understandings of election and atonement that advance double predestination or universalism would benefit from a fresh exegesis on cultic Old Testament texts. I seek to demonstrate that these understandings both rest on a false premise, that is, a wrong understanding of sin bearing. Following Barth’s typological approach but not his conclusions, it will be shown that Christ did not bear sins in the way the Azazel-goat did (by bearing them upon itself and thus taking divine punishment). Instead, we will see that Christ was a sin offering and did not, therefore, bear sin on the cross. This understanding will offer a doctrine of universal atonement that frees the doctrine of limited atonement from its otherwise logical conclusion, that some of the sins that Christ bore on the cross were borne in vain. I will show that it is possible to argue for a universal atonement (Christ died for the entire world) without it logically having to conclude with a universal salvation (not all are saved) and that it is possible to take seriously the passages about God desiring all of humanity to be saved without rejecting the passages about the judgment upon sinners.

2. The dissatisfaction many people have with certain atonement models raises questions such as ‘How can a loving God pour out his wrath upon the sinless Jesus?’ and ‘How can a loving Father punish his Son?’ In the Gospel of John, Jesus says, Whoever has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9). If Jesus in person reveals the Father then his actions must unveil the being-in-act of the veiled God. Therefore, the immanent and economic Trinity must be congruent, and God’s being ad intra must match his works ad extra. This raises the questions of how we should interpret the death of Jesus in history and what this reveals about the nature of God. This book asks how God is being revealed through his being and actions and will demonstrate that the death of Jesus on the cross must be seen as God’s most loving act. It is on the cross that the love of the Father for humanity is most fully revealed as that of the Deus pro nobis.

3. My re-examination of the relationship between election and atonement, in relation to Christ’s obedience and suffering and his cross and resurrection,³ seeks to emphasize both divine sovereignty and human responsibility. This examination looks to avoid falling into the extremes of either limited atonement or universalism. By distinguishing between a penultimate and ultimate Word of God, one risks creating another kind of a Deus absconditus, which is what Karl Barth so fervently tried to avoid and correct in his reading of Calvin. Though God has to have the final word in salvation, I shall seek to show that the final decision over humanity is seen on the cross, in the Deus revelatus. God is love, and human responsibility demands a corresponding human decision in faith and obedience, to accept the offer achieved by Christ in order to participate in the triune God by the mediated presence of the Spirit.

3. The Method of Study

Our primary dialogue partner in this book is Karl Barth. Although not always agreeing with Barth and at places challenging some of his biblical interpretations, this book engages with his Church Dogmatics (hereafter CD) in order to reflect on the doctrines of election and atonement. It looks at how these doctrines appear in the CD and examines them systematically and exegetically. For Barth, the doctrine of election is the sum of the Gospel—it reveals God’s love for humanity and in this way, reveals who God is.⁴ In addition, the doctrine of atonement tells us what God does, the outcome of God’s love for humanity, since in his works He is Himself revealed as the One He is.⁵ What Barth is essentially describing is the unity of Christ’s person (being) and work (activity) and he therefore sees the doctrines of election and atonement as intimately related.

Barth’s re-working of the doctrine of election is considered to be one of the most important innovations in twentieth-century theology. However, as Bruce McCormack has argued, in Barth’s theology the doctrine of election has replaced the traditional Protestant notion of double imputation and because of this, forensicism has become the frame of reference that is basic to the whole of his soteriology.⁶ Barth’s doctrine of the atonement (expressed predominantly through judicial terminology) is therefore more forensic than the traditional understanding due to the character and role of his doctrine of election. Barth was responsible for initiating a unique christological revision in theology and his CD opened up a new understanding of the doctrine of election, avoiding the dilemma of the ‘horrible decree’ of God selecting some people for heaven and others for hell. Nevertheless, I seek to show that Barth did not draw some of the implications of his ideas about election and atonement through to their logical conclusions.

Barth understands exegesis to be superordinate [vorgeordnet] to dogmatics and he therefore emphasizes that "die Exegese, die Norm ist für die Dogmatik."⁷ This study is grounded in Barth’s own insistence that "Dogmatik daher beständig durch die Exegese zu korrigieren [ist]"⁸ and takes up Barth’s challenge in the small-print of §35.2, where he encourages his readers to test his systematic thought through a close engagement with his exegesis rather than simply criticizing his doctrinal claims.⁹ I will argue that Barth’s version of forensicism creates a number of problems. This book will deal with these problems with particular reference to CD II/2 and CD IV/1, and offer an alternative exegesis of cultic texts (Lev 14 and 16) to test Barth’s claims. While many commentators acknowledge Barth’s innovation in this area, few have attempted to offer a correction from within Barth by using his own method.¹⁰ This book aims to build upon Barth’s method and apply a ‘correction’ to some of his thought, working through and moving beyond Barth. These exegetical adjustments to his doctrine of atonement will be predominately developed with the help of the atonement theory of the Tübingen School and the interpretation of Jewish scholars of these cultic texts. This re-working of Barth’s thought will seek to demonstrate that the ‘sum of the Gospel’ does not merely comprise the doctrine of election but requires election to be taken together with the doctrine of atonement; both doctrines communicate that from eternity and in history God is the loving deus pro nobis.

Barth’s CD has been compared to a musical composition resting on the leitmotif of the story of the God-man Jesus Christ and the covenantal fellowship between God and humanity in and through his atoning work on the cross. Hans Urs von Balthasar famously likened Karl Barth’s entire CD to a theological symphony.¹¹ Mirroring much eighteenth-century symphonic structure, the Church Dogmatics is permeated by the binary of God’s Yes and God’s No. In fact, Barth’s entire doctrine of election can be seen to follow a sonata form of introduction, exposition, development and recapitulation:¹² §32 introduces the doctrine of election; §33 gives an exposition of the basic theme and content of the doctrine in a binary structure, election (Dur/major) and rejection (Moll/minor) in Jesus Christ; §34 develops this further with the help of new examples (Israel and Church); and §35 recapitulates this in the light of what has already been said about the binary theme of election and rejection with regards the individual. Where the composer uses counterpoint, changes in harmony, key, rhythm to keep the movement interesting, the theological composer uses references to the same theme in older treatments, arguments with contemporaries, surprising implications, ethical consequences, all to the same end, developing the themes while sustaining interest.¹³ This is particularly evident in the exegetical small-print of §34 and §35. Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation shows a similar binary structure, though this might initially seem elusive due to the length and detail of the section in the CD dealing with this. §57–58 introduce the doctrine; §59–63 (CD IV/1) and §64–68 (CD IV/2) represent a long section in which exposition (humiliation and exaltation) and development (Holy Spirit and the community) are intertwined; and finally §69–73 (CD IV/3) brings together and recapitulates the basic themes of humiliation and exaltation from the middle perspective of the Mediator, united in Jesus Christ.

Like Schubert’s eighth symphony, however, Barth’s CD remains ‘unfinished’: at Barth’s death only a fragment of CD