A Critique of Karl Barth’s Dialectical Understanding

of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ

Byung Ho Moon
(Chongshin University Theological Seminary)

1. Introduction: The Work and Person of Christ—A Problem of

History and Revelation

The theme of Barth’s theology is God.1) He is the God as God-man

who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ according to the evidence of
Scripture.2) Barth regards Jesus Christ as the reality(Wirklichkeit) of God’s
word or revelation(Offenbarung). He also regards the
Incarnation(Fleischwerdung) as its actualization(Verwirklichung) or the event
of revelation(das Ereignis der Offenbarung, Offenbarungsereignis).3)
Therefore, he made the following statement about the thesis of his
theology: “The Word or Son of God became a Man and was called Jesus of
Nazareth; therefore this Man Jesus of Nazareth was God’s Word or God’s
Son.”4)
George Hunsinger and Bruce L. McCormark, who can be called the
representatives of Barthian theology in the United States today, took notice
of the Barth’s view of the Chalcedonian Creed as they summed up his
Christology in their latest paper.5) While shedding light on how Barth went
beyond the four negative formula of the Chalcedonian Creed—without
confusion(inconfuse), without change(immutabiliter), without
division(indivise), and without separation(inseparabiliter)—and set forth the
Incarnation event of Jesus Christ, Hunsinger praises Barth as the first
theologian who took both the Alexandrian school, whose blind spot is

1) Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: A Selection with Introduction, ed. Helmut Gollwitzer, tr. G.
W. Bromiley (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), “introduction,” 1, 87.
2) Karl Barth, “Biblical Questions, Insights, and Vistas,” in The Word of God and the Word
of Man, tr. Douglas Horton (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 73.
3) CD I/2.10, 14-16 (KD I/2.11, 16-18). From now on, CD and KD will denote the following
collections: Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, ed. Geoffrey Bromiley and Thomas F.
Torrance, tr. G. T. Thomson. 5 vols. in 14 part. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936-1977);
Die kirchliche Dogmatik. 5 vols. in 14 parts (Zollikon, Switz.: Verlag der Evangelischen
Buchhandlun, 1932-1970).
4) CD I/2.13 (KD I/2.15).
5) Cf. Cornelius van Til, “Karl Barth on Chalcedon,” Westminster Theological Journal 22/2
(1960), 147-166. Here, the author surveys on the overall view of Barth on the
Chalcedonian Creed and adds brief criticism.

- 1 -
Docetism, and the Antiochian school, whose weak point is Nestorianism and
who also balanced them according to the teachings of the Bible.6) There,
Hunsinger identifies Barthian Christology with “dialectical juxtaposition,”7)
and puts emphasis on the fact that the heart of his pneumatology is the
mediation of communion of Christ.8)
On the other hand, McCormark draws out the fact that Barth, while
identifying the being of Jesus Christ with His works, devoted himself to the
criticism of the traditional view, which he only tried to understand
conceptually and of the old protestant theologians.9) McCormark thinks that
the fact that Barth understands the Incarnation as a historical event from
the diverse revelatory viewpoints—the Trinity, election, and the atonement—
an excellent way of overcoming the weakness of Chalcedon, which is devoid
of the discussion on the humanity of Christ.10)
The interests of the two scholars remind us of the problem of
revelation and history, which Pannenberg highlighted as the central thesis
of his theology. Pannenberg thinks that the best theological contribution of
Barth is found either in his pursuing dialectically “the exaltation of the Son
of God” through the work of uniting the Son of God to the man Jesus11), or
in his reading of the heightened mankind in the history of God’s
self-revelation participated by man.12) He says that Barth is the pioneer of
giving an answer to his main interest, i.e., the substantiation of the
community’s confession of Christ.13)
According to Hunsinger and McCormark, “dialectical juxtaposition”
is an epistemological device that explores the substantial history, namely,

6) This view can also be found in the following paper. Hans Boersma, “Alexandrian or
Antiochian: A Dilemma in Barth's Christology,” Westminster Theological Journal 52/2
(1990), 279-280.
7) George Hunsinger, “Karl Barth’s Christology: Its Basic Chalcedonian Character,” in Karl
Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 139. This paper
is also included in the following book. George Hunsinger, Disruptive Grace: Studies in the
Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 131-147.
8) George Hunsinger, “The Mediator of Communion: Karl Barth’s Doctrine of the Holy
Spirit,” in Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000), 148-185.
9) Bruce L. McCormack, “Karl Barth’s Historicized Christology: Just How ‘Chaldedonian’ Is
It?” in Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academy, 2008), 201-233.
10) McCormack, “Karl Barth’s Historicized Christology: Just How ‘Chaldedonian’ Is It?”
203-206, 229-233.
11) Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, tr. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), 33.
12) Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 127, 130, 312-315.
13) Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 28-29.

- 2 -
the meaning of Christ’s work, or human responses to God’s words. After
all, it goes back to the problem of revelation and Christ’s presence, or
Christus praesens.14) Traditional Christology has regarded this as an
epistemological subject associated with Christ’s presence(praesentia) and
representation(repraesentatio). However, Barth saw it as Christ himself, and
also that He participated in Himself, or that salvation participated in
revelation. Thus, Barthian Christology is different from traditional
Christology in premises and methodology.
This paper will take notice of this fact and criticize Barthian
Christology centered around his main work Church Dogmatics. Chapter
Two deals with the revelation and history of Christ. Barth saw that
revelation means history as long as it is the act of God, and that history
means the being of its subject. Can we possibly identify Christ with history?
Can we identify the event of revelation with the work of Christ? Based on
Chapter Two, Chapter Three deals with the fact that Barth, who identifies
Christ with revelation, de facto denies the person or personhood of Christ.
This chapter focuses on Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Chapter Four criticizes Barth, relying on Chapter Three, in that he denies
the vicarious righteousness of satisfaction of Jesus Christ. It mainly focuses
on the fact that though Barth denies itself, it is developed in the way of
the analogy of being. Lastly Chapter Five reminds us as a conclusion that
such mistakes in Barthian theology stem from his “dialectical juxtaposition.”

2. Christ and Revelation

2.1. Revelation and Reality

Barth does not regard Scripture itself as revelation(Offenbarung).

Revelation “takes place as an event when and where the biblical word
becomes God’s Word.”15) It is the word of God, speaking through the Bible.
The fact that “God has said(Deus dixit)” is equivalent to the fact that “God
was with us(Gott war mit uns).” The Incarnation is an “event(Ereignis,
Geschehen)” of God’s word. “He was with us as one of us. His Word

14) Cf. Kurt Anders Richardson, “Christus Praesens: Barth’s Radically Realist Christology and
Its Necessity for Theological Method,” in Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology:
Convergences and Divergences, ed. Sungwook Chung (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006),
140-148.
15) CD I/1.113 (KD I/1.116): “Sie findet als Ereignis statt, wenn und wo da Bibelwort Gottes
Wort wird.”

- 3 -
became flesh of our flesh, blood of our blood.”16) Standing on such a view,
Barth does not acknowledge the fact that the Bible proves itself.17) The
Bible only tells the following fact: “God’s revelation is the event of Jesus
Christ.”18) According to Barth, in conclusion, Scripture is a mere start of
revelation, not the revelation itself or its destination.19)
While traditional Christology regards the consummation of
redemptive righteousness not as the eternal Son of God’s
“assumption(assumptio)” of the humanity but as His obedience(obedientia)
to God the Father’s will, Barth regards the Incarnation as a “completed
event(das abgeschlossenen, die erfüllte Zeit),” fulfilled in time, and as an
“absolute event(schlechthin Geschehene)” as He proclaimed “it is finished(Es
ist vollbracht)” in it.20) Barth argues that “Deus dixit” is “the event within
the whole history of the togetherness of God and man(Ereignis in der Mitte
der sonstigen Geschichte des Zusammenseins von Gott und Mensch),” “a
redemptive history(Heilsgeschichte),” which Scripture testifies, providing an
immutable “form (Gestalt).”21)
For Barth, the reason why the Incarnation is the beginning and the
end of salvation is not only because by “the form(Gestalt)” the revelation
event of Jesus Christ was completed but also because it is still being taken
place in us today. As “the reality of the Word of God(der Wirklichkeit des
Wottes Gottes),” revelation is “to a possibility still to be realized(zu
verwirklichenden Möglichkeit).”22) In this sense, revelation includes both
“being(Wahrsein)” and “becoming(Wahrwerden).” The Church remembers
“the past revelation(der geschehenen Offenbarung)” and proclaims “the
future revelation(der künftiger Offenbarung).” The Bible testifies and
anticipates such a “divine act(göttlicher Akt).”23) God, speaking in His
words, reveals Himself as God. He is the “being(Sein)” in the midst of
“becoming (Werden)” through God’s words, through the revelatory event of
Jesus Christ.24) From this perspective, Barth calls Jesus Christ an objective
reality of “once-for-all(einmalig)” revelation, arguing that “the truth of His
God-manhood(die Wahrheit seiner Gottmenschheit)”25) is the

16) CD I/1.115 (KD I/1.118); CD I/1.149-150 (KD I/1.155); CD I/1.175 (KD I/1.182).
17) Runia, Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture, 7-10.
18) CD I/2.49 (KD I/2.54).
19) Cf. Runia, Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture, 48-49.
20) CD I/1.116 (KD I/1.119).
21) CD IV/1.8-9 (KD IV/1.7).
22) CD I/1.118 (KD I/1.121).
23) CD I/1.120 (KD I/1.123).
24) Runia, Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture, 129, 132-134.

- 4 -
“reconciliation(Versöhnung)” of “God with us(Gott mit uns).”26)
Such a view of Barth can be found in his book God in Action,
written in the 1930s, also known as “Little Dogmatics.” In it, Barth points
out that the protestant doctrines of Lutherans and Calvinists simply
believed the fact that “God Himself is the content of His revelation,”27) and
clarifies further that “Revelation is God Himself.”28) He explains its meaning
as follows: “Revelation speaks, even in the Bible, only when and where God
wills it.”29)
We cannot accept the Barthian standpoint for the following reasons.
First, revelation has historicity. That does not mean that to be revealed or
revealedness(Offenbarsein) is synonymous to history(Geschichte), for history
is not about one’s opinion on or recognition of an event but about
objective events. Therefore, to be revealed cannot be identified with
revelation. Second, the Incarnation is a historical and once-and-for-all
event. The Word became flesh (“evge,neto,,” John 1:14). Jesus Christ was born
(“geno,menon,” Gal. 4:4)to a woman. Barth says that the Incarnation, as an
absolute event that happened when the time was full, does not repeat itself.
It is so only in the sense that it gave a typical “form” for the first time. In
fact, he is still denying the inherent historicity of the Incarnation. Third, in
this respect Barth argues that the revelatory event is still in progress in us
and by us. The reason why he identifies “to be revealed(Offenbarsein)” with
“to become revealed (Offenbarwerden)” lies here.30) According to his
understanding, it is inevitable to reject the fact that the Incarnation
happened only once. Fourth, Barth, therefore, regards “reconciliation” as
participation in the revelatory event. But, unfortunately at this point, it is
inevitable to reject the fact that Jesus Christ paid all the price of
satisfaction(pretium satisfactionis) for our salvation. Instead of seeing that
the essence of salvation is in the imputation(imputatio) of righteousness
that Christ perfected, he stands on the ground of Andreas Osiander and
Semi-Pelagianism, which argues for infusion(infusio) of righteousness.31)
In this case, the analogy of being(analogia entis) between the Son of

25) CD I/2.10-12, 14-15 (KD I/2.11-13, 16-17).

26) CD I/1.119 (KD I/1.122).
27) Karl Barth, God in Action, tr. E. G. Homrighausen and Karl J. Ernst (Manhasset, NY:
Round Table Press, 1963), 15.
28) Barth, God in Action, 13.
29) Barth, God in Action, 52.
30) CD I/1.119 (KD I/1.122).
31) Cf. Wilhelm Niesel, “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre,” Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 46 (1927), 410-430.

- 5 -
God, who came into the world and people of this earth, can be
problematic.32) The hermeneutics of the “analogistic metaphor(analogische
Metapher)” by Barth is characterized by its “anthropomorphic
(anthropomorphisch)” view on all Scripture on the ground of “metaphoric
correspondence.”33) In this respect Barth exhibits the typical characteristics
of the analogy of being, considering the fact that there is contemporaneity
between the revelatory event of the incarnated Son of God, which
happened there and then(illic et tunc), and the revelatory events that
happen to us here and now(hic et nunc).
Barth introduces his theological method as the analogy of
faith(analogia fidei), not as the analogy of being.34) He identifies it with the
analogy of revelation(analogia revelationis). The analogy of revelation which
he talks about can only present epistemological instruments with which one
can obtain the dialectical understanding of being and non-being, light and
darkness, time and eternity, nature and grace, which the Bible presents
and testifies. It only talks about the analogy of relation(analogia relationis),
devoid of substance.35) Barth seeks synthesis or climax of relation in the
relationship between God and man, which includes God and the world. Here
lies the central characteristics of “anthropomorphic” “contemporaneity,”
namely, the analogy of being. The Christology of Barth unfolds itself in that
way of dialectical search for a divine man or a human god. Barth does not
accept a direct illumination or inspiration of revelation.36) In fact, with the
analogy of being Barth is presenting Christological Universalism
(Christologischer Universalismus), a way of salvation that God bestows to all
mankind.

2.2. Revelation and Personality

32) Cf. Kenneth Oakes, “The Question of Nature and Grace in Karl Barth: Humanity as
Creature and as Covenant-Partner,” Modern Theology 23/4 (2007), 611.
33) Cf. Kim Jaejin, The Systematic Anatomy of Karl Barth’s Theology (Seoul: Handeul, 1998),
54.
34) Barth regards the "analogy of being" as that by which all creation and men are
experiencing God necessarily and internally by participating in the being of God as the
image of God. Karl Barth, “Fate and Idea in Theology,” tr. George Hunsinger, in The Way
of Theology in Karl Barthed. ed. H. Martin Rumscheidt (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick
Publications, 1986) 32, 86-87. Clifford Green, (ed.), Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 27, re-quoted.
35) Cf. Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1985),
117; Kim Younghan, From Barth to Moltmann: Modern Theological Trend Viewed in
Reformed Perspective (Seoul: Christian Literature Society, 1982), 51-54.
36) Cornelius van Til, “Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?” Westminster Theological Journal
16/2 (1954), 144.

- 6 -
 According to Barth, the Word’s becoming flesh(Fleisch) means that
He participates in the same human essence(Wesen), the same being(Dasein),
the same nature(Natur) and form(Gestalt), and the same
historicity(Geschichtlichkeit).37) Here, the flesh means the “human essence
and being, human actions and nature, and the humanity(Menschheit,
humanitas).” Since for the Word to become flesh and participate in the
human nature and being, He had to be “in the concrete reality of one
man(in der konkreten Wirklichkeit eines Menschen),” the Word of God also
became man. Therefore, the “potentiality(Potentialität)” of human flesh
came to reside in the man. It was the same “possibility(Möglichkeit),” given
to all men. The Word came to embody its possibility in Jesus for the first
time.38)
Therefore, Barth regards the Incarnation as the event not only that
reports the fact that God became man to fulfill the potential possibility of
human essence and being as man and that it already resides in all
mankind universally but also that shows the reality by being an example.
God became “this man(dieser Mensch),” and took and fulfilled the
“possibility as a man(Möglichkeit als Mensch).”39)

Thus the reality of Jesus Christ is that God Himself in person(Gott

selbst in Person) is actively present in the flesh. God Himself in
person is the Subject of a real human being and acting. And just
because God is the Subject of it, this being and acting are real.
They are a genuinely and truly human being and acting.40)

According to Barth, it is not that the Son, the second person of the
Trinity, took a sinless humanity and fulfilled the righteousness of our
salvation, but that God himself fulfilled His work in Jesus Christ, who is in
a humanity like us. In this case, the subject of the Incarnation is not Jesus
Christ, the eternal Son of God, but the Trinitarian God Himself. Jesus
Christ is simply “a man” in whom God is being and acting. As the one who
fulfilled our righteousness of salvation for us, Jesus Christ is not our
savior but a man who can show a type(Urbild) to us.41) Here lies the

37) CD I/2.147 (KD I/2.161).

38) CD I/2.149 (KD I/2.163-164).
39) CD I/2.150 (KD I/2.164).
40) CD I/2.151 (KD I/2.165).

- 7 -
reason why Barth regards the revelation of Jesus Christ as
“reconciliation(Versöhnung)” and states that He became “the Mediator of
the revelation(Offenbarungsmittler)” as the “Reconciler(Versöhner).”42)
Barth sees that the divine essence of Christ lies in making people
understand the essential potential of all mankind through the divine being
and work of God in “a man” Jesus Christ. In this respect, as long as
Scripture testifies the unity of the Father and the Son by the revelation of
the Mediator, the deity of Jesus is “definitive, authentic and essential
(endgültige, eigentliche und wesentliche).”43) Thus Barth calls Christ
“Reconciler” but the Holy Spirit “Redeemer(Erlöser).” Moreover, Barth
asserts that the two names only differ in the “mode of being(modus
essendi, Seinsweise)” but do not differ “ontologically(ontologisch).”44)
Therefore, Barth unfolds his own theory of the Trinity by
commenting on the phase of the Incarnation as he regards it as a
revelatory event by itself. The Incarnation is an event in which God reveals
Himself to one man—‘the man.’ If the Word of God became ‘a man’ to be
in the midst of curse and punishment for sinners—if he had not come to
us in the flesh—‘the man’ would not have become revelation for us.45)
Barth sees that the “sinlessness(Sündlosigkeit)” of Jesus is not inherent but
made through reconciliation between God and man.46) “Our unholy human
existence, assumed and adopted by the Word of God, is a hallowed and
therefore a sinless human existence.”47) According to this view, the
existence of eternal, absolute and objective revelation is inevitably rejecte
d.48)
Barth regards the subject of the Incarnation not as the Son Jesus
Christ but as the God Himself who exists and acts in Him, namely “the

41) Cf. Byung Ho Moon, “A Criticism of Schleiermacher’s Mystical and Pantheistic

Christology,” Chongshin Theological Journal 16/1 (2011), 61-64.
42) CD I/1.399 (KD I/1.415-419).
43) CD I/1.400 (KD I/1.420).
44) CD I/1.362 (KD I/1.382). Cf. Charles T. Waldrop, “Karl Barth's Concept of the Divinity of
Jesus Christ,” Harvard Theological Review 74/3(1981), 259-260. Here, the author argues
that the reason why Barth replaces “person” with “mode of being” is because his
theology, which esteems the humanity more than the deity of Jesus, exhibits the
characteristics of the Antiochian School.
45) CD I/2.151-152 (KD I/2.166).
46) CD I/2.157-158 (KD I/2.172). Cf. CD IV/2.92-93 (KD IV/2.101-103).
47) CD I/2.155-156 (KD I/2.170).
48) Here the “principle of being(principium essendi)” that Reformed theologians assert is
rejected. Cf. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena, ed. John
Bolt, tr. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 89, 207 ff.; Abraham Kuyper, Principles
of Sacred Theology, tr. J. Hendrik De Vries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 341 ff.

- 8 -
person of speaking God(persona Dei loquentis).”49)

Certainly God’s Word is not just the formal possibility(die formale

Möglichkeit) of divine speech. It is the fulfilled reality(die gefüllte
Wirklichkeit). It always has a very specific content. God always
speaks a concretissimum. But this divine concretissimum cannot as
such be either anticipated or repeated. What God speaks is never
known or true anywhere in abstraction from God Himself. It is
known and true in and through the fact that He Himself says it,
that He is present in person(in Person) in and with what is said by
Him.”50)

Jesus Christ, ‘a man,’ cannot be the subject of revelation by

himself, and only reveals one mode of being of God’s revelation as ‘the
man,’ whose subject is God.

Precisely in His Word God is person. But this then means concretely
that He is Lord of the wording of His Word(der Herr der
Wörtlichkeit seines Wortes). He is not bound to it but it to Him. He
has free control over the wording of Holy Scripture. He can use it
or not use it. He can use it in this way or in that way. He can
choose a new wording beyond that of Holy Scripture(über die
Wörtlichkeit der Heiligen Schrift hinaus neue Wörtlichkeit). What
Holy Scripture proclaims as His Word can be proclaimed in a new
wording as His Word so long as it is He Himself who speaks in this
wording.51)

In the above Barth attributes the subject(Subjekt) of revelation—

persona loquentis Dei—to God Himself(Deus ipsus).52) The reason why he
says so is as following: “God is who He is in the act of His revelation”53);
“God is who He is in His works(Gott ist, der er ist, in seinen Werken)”54);
God’s acts are singular(singularis) as a “pure act(actus purus)”55); “The

49) The English translation for this part “God’s speaking person” is inappropriate.
50) CD I/1.136-137 (KD I/1.141).
51) CD I/1.139 (KD I/1.143).
52) CD II/1.260 (KD II/1.291).
53) CD II/1.257 (KD II/1.288).
54) CD II/1.262-263 (KD II/1.294).
55) CD II/1.264 (KD II/1.296).

- 9 -
Word of God is itself the act of God.”56)

Now, if the being of a person(das Sein einer Person) is a being in

act(ein Sein in der Tat), and if, in the strict and proper sense, being
in act can be ascribed only to God, then if follows that by the
concept of the being of a person, in the strict and proper sense, we
can understand only the being of God. Being in its own, conscious,
willed and executed decision, and therefore personal
being(Personsein), is the being of God in the mode of
being(Seinsweise) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.57)

As can be seen above, Barth attributes the person to God Himself

while regarding the persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as
an act of God, or a mode of being of revelation. Barth defines the
Incarnation as “an act of God in the person of the Word(ein Handeln
Gottes in der Person des Wortes).”58) In this case “the person of the Word”
only means a mode of being of the acts of God, who is “the Person.” The
same holds true to the following statement:

His[the Man Jesus Christ] reality, existence and being is wholly and
absolutely that of God Himself, the God who acts in His Word(des in
seinem Wort handelnden Gottes). His manhood is only the predicate
of His Godhead, or better and more concretely, it is only the
predicate, assumed in inconceivable condescension, of the Word
acting upon us, the Word who is the Lord.59)

According to Barth, the hypostatic union of divine and human

natures—the Word becoming flesh—means that the Word of God works as
the predicate of the humanity for man. It means that the man Jesus Christ
“became(Werden)” the predicate of the Word, namely that He “became” God
in reality, existence, and being. Barth calls the subject of this “becoming”
“God in the person of the Word.” This only refers to the person of God
who takes the mode of being of the Word but does not signify the person

56) CD I/1.143 (KD I/1.148): “Das Wort Gottes ist selbst die Tat Gottes.”
57) CD II/1.271 (KD II/1.304-305). “Seinsweise” here must be translated not as “nature” but
as a “mode of being”.
58) CD I/2.162 (KD I/2.177).
59) CD I/2.162 (KD I/2.178). Cf. CD I/1.144 (KD I/1.149).

- 10 -
of the Word itself. The Word is only a mode of God’s act—a revelatory ac
t.60) Regarding “persona loquentis Dei” Barth received a great influence
from Calvin. However, he had entirely different views from Calvin in two
respects. First, unlike Calvin, Barth thinks that Scripture is not completed
yet but still waiting for its revelation to be interpreted by God’s act.
Second, unlike Calvin, Barth thinks that the word “person” does not mean
the subsistence(subsistentia) of the Trinity but the being of the
unity(esse[ntia]).61)

3. Incarnation and Trinity

3.1. Incarnation as Revelation

The orthodox theology and creeds mention first one essence and
three persons and then moves on to the Incarnation of the Son, the
second person of the Trinity. However, Barth turns the order backwards.
He puts so much emphasis on the Incarnation, but is indifferent to the
Son, the second person of the Trinity, which is the subject of the
Incarnation. It is only noteworthy that he tells that we need to pay
attention to the revelatory event of Jesus Christ in order to resist the
modern Idealism and deification thought.62)
Barth calls “the event of the incarnation(das Ereignis der
Fleischwerdung)” “a completed event(ein vollendetes Geschehen),” which is
a hypostatic union. However, as for Barth, God’s becoming man can only
mean that His words reach to the ears of people, and make them
reconciled with God. In this sense, the Incarnation can be called “an
objective fact(ein objektiver Sachverhalt).” Barth limits his “ontological
reference(ontisches Interesse)” to this only.63)
Barth talks about hypostatic union from the reality of the historical
event, called the Incarnation, and gives an ontological significance to it. He
does not deal with the person itself but hypostatic statements on His work.
The ontological horizon of Christology that Barth talks about is mere
revelatory-experiential statements on the being of Jesus Christ. “God’s

60) Cf. CD I/1.304 (KD I/1.320-321).

61) Cf. Institutio christianae religionis, in libros quatuor nunc primum digesta, certisque
distincta capitibus, ad aptissimam methodum:aucta etiam tam magna accessione ut
propemodum opus novum haberi possit, 1559, 1.6.1; 1.7.4.
62) David L. Mueller, Karl Barth (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1972), 71-72.
63) CD I/2.165 (KD I/2.181).

- 11 -
revelation in the event of the presence of Jesus Christ is God’s time for us.
It is fulfilled time in this event itself.” In this sense, Barth calls the
Incarnation as “revelation time (die Offenbarungszeit),” namely, the time
that His being is realized or known to us.64) By “the Word became flesh”
Barth means nothing but “the Word became time,” denoting that the Word
came to be recognized historically.65)
To Barth, the Word “becoming(evgeneto)” flesh means “the reality of
Jesus Christ, as an accomplished event, as a completed act(als ein
vollendetes Geschehen, als einen perfekten Tatbestand).” This means that
God’s words have been embodied—known and fulfilled—to us in the midst
of “witness(Zeugnis),” exhibiting “a noetic character(einen noetischen
Charakter)” of the Incarnation.66)
According to Barth, there is no revelation of God “without a
physical event(ohne physisches Geschehen).” The returning point of
Scriptural letters is in “the corporeality of the man Jesus Christ (die
Leiblichkeit des Menschen Jesus Christus).”67) In such a bodily revelation or
body’s revelation, “the divine reason with the human reason and the divine
person with the human person(göttliche Vernunft der menschlichen,
göttliche Person der menschlichen)” “communicate(mitteilt)” with each
other. In this sense, the event of bodily revelation is called “a rational
event(ein rationales Geschehen).”68)
The Incarnation is an event that God meets man. God meets a man
in the way of revelation—letting us hear His words. In the meeting, God
reveals Himself in the Trinity. The Incarnation is not God’s words’
becoming man, but “communication” between God and us. It is not God’s
words’ becoming man, but a man’s becoming God’s words—or listening to
His words. Here lies again the analogy of being between God and man.

As the Word of God becomes flesh He assumes or adopts or

incorporates human being into unity with His divine being, so that
this human being, as it comes into being, becomes as a human
being the being of the Word of God.”69)

64) CD I/2.45 (KD I/2.50).

65) CD I/2.50 (KD I/2.55).
66) CD I/2.167 (KD I/2.183).
67) CD I/1.133 (KD I/1.138).
68) CD I/1.135 (KD I/1.139).
69) CD I/2.160 (KD I/2.175). Here we can find the inclination of Thomas Aquinas towards
natural theology.

- 12 -
 In relation with this Barth talks about
“contemporaneity(Gleichzeitigkeit)” and “contingency(Kontingenz).”70) It
means that “a specific illic et tunc becomes(werde) a specific hic et nunc”
through a revelatory event.71) Such a “becoming(Werden)” can only mean a
type of noetic assimilation,72) Barth considers it as the ontological
foundation of Christology.
The Barthian view we have examined has the following errors. First,
Barth talks about hypostatic union without the premise of the existence of
hypostases, resulting in experiential, inductive, immanent, ascension
theology without the premise of the Trinity.73) Second, Barth does not
consider the Incarnation as the event of the Son of God becoming a
human being, but denigrates it to be a human event that we come to
recognize the being of God through the Word of God. There only lies the
idea of gods through general divine knowledge. Third, the Incarnation that
Barth talks about only refers to the religion experience that a man
becomes one with God through a revelatory event, and that reaches to the
analogy of being, which identifies the God in Jesus with the God in us and
regards that the Son of God communicates with our being. This view is
utterly far from the Biblical teaching.

3.2. Trinity as Three Modes of Revelation in Incarnation

“God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself through Himself. He

reveals Himself.” Here, the “subject(Subjekt),” its “act(Tat),” and its
“effect(Wirkung)” are proposed as the Trinity.74) Barth considers that a
revelatory event is “God’s being with us Mitunssein Gottes),” and is “the
root of the doctrine of the Trinity(die Wurzel der Trinitätslehre).”75)

Barth induces the Trinity from the following statement:

70) CD I/1.145 (KD I/1.150).

71) CD I/1.149 (KD I/1.154-155).
72) Cf. Cornelius van Til, “Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?” 148.
73) Cf. Byung Ho Moon, “Bavinck’s Understanding of Christ the Mediator’s Hypostatic
Union,” Chongshin Review 18 (2013), 179-197; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2,
Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, reprint), 387ff.
74) CD I/1.296 (KD I/1.312).
75) CD I/1.307 (KD I/1.324).

- 13 -
 Revelation in the Bible means the self-unveiling(Selbstenthüllung),
imparted to men(die Menschen zuteil werdende), of the God who by
nature cannot be unveiled to men.76)

Barth considers that revelation is “an event(ein Ereignis)” that God

bears an “alter ego(Doppelgänger)” by “taking a form(sein Gestalthaben)” or
“self-revealing(seine Selbstenthüllung).” It is “a self-distinction of God from
Himself(ein sich Unterscheiden Gottes von sich selbst),” insubordinated to
“the first and hidden mode of being(ersten, verborgenen Seinsweise),” but
taking a “different mode of being(anderen Seinsweise).”77) As dwelling
unchangingly through the Incarnation, God shows “the freedom to be
unlike Himself(Freiheit sich selber ungleich zu sein),” and “the other self” is
the Son, namely, the Second person in the Trinity.78)
Barth does not consider this “other self” as a person. It is just a
mode of being(Seinsweise) of God. Barth attributes the person to the only
One, God Himself. He points out that God Himself, not the Trinity, carries
“the personal lordship(persönlich Herrschaft)” and that the central message
of the Trinity is “the one personal God(eine persönliche Gott)” existing in
three special modes of being.79)
While referring to the fact that the Western Church put more
emphasis on one common essence(ouvsia, Wesen) than on the
subsistence(subsistentia) of the persons of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, using persona(proswpon) as the synonym with
hypostasis(u`postasij),80) Barth argues that “personality(personalitas,
Persönlichkeit),” which is thought to mean “simplicity(Einfachheit),” should
not be regarded as the synonym with persona(person, Person). Barth also
asserts that since the Trinity is the doctrine that mainly argues against the
three-ness of the persons and for one-ness of God’s substance and
“lordship(Herrschaft),” persona should be rightly attributed to one
Godhead(Gottheit) not three persons.81) Justified by his own argument, Barth

76) CDI/1.315, 320, 324 (KD I/1.332, 337, 342).

77) CDI/1.315-316 (KD I/1.332-334).
78) CDI/1.319-320 (KD I/1.337-338).
79) CD I/1.358-359 (KD I/1.378-379). Barth argues that the “mode of being(Seinsweise)” he
talks about is the same as the “hypostatic being(subsistentia)” that the Eastern Fathers,
Thomas Aquinas or Calvin. However, Calvin is totally different from Barth in that he
regards the “hypostatic being” as synonymous with person or hypostasis. Cf. CD
I/1.359-361 (KD I/1.379-381).
80) CD I/1.355-358 (KD I/1.374-378).
81) CD I/1.348-349 (KD I/1.369-370).

- 14 -
reaches an extreme conclusion as follows: “The name of Father, Son and
Spirit means that God is the one God in threefold repetition(daß Gott in
dreimaliger Wiederholung der eine Gott ist)82).” He is saying that such
repeating one God thrice emphasizes the fact that the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit, as alius-alius-alius, have the same
essence(Wesensgleichheit, o`moousia), and is the same subject(Subjekt),
namely, the same Person,83) and may be meaningful in confirming the
“unity(Einheit)” of God.84) Barth acknowledges that his view can prevent
“deification(deificatio, Vergötzung)” of revelation and mutual subordination
of each person.85) However, Barth, in fact, rejects the proper
characteristics of the Trinitarian God, and finally, the Trinity itself. In
reality, “deification” of revelation is being premised by Barth.
However, such a view of Barth is against the teachings of the Bible.
The Trinity does not amount to mere “repetition(Wiederholung)” nor judge
each person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit based on diversity,
comparability or relativity of a statement, for hypostasis means
subsistentia. Eberhard Jüngel, who had the criticism in mind, pointed out
the fact that, to Barth, “God’s being is in becoming.” As God becomes our
Father towards us, so does He become a self-related being in revelation—as
a being that the persons make relationship with each other.86) Such
“becoming” is said to take place only immanently in an “event” through “a
dialectical transcendence.”87) However, it is entirely wrong to infer the
internal relationship of God by the relationship between God and man. The
orthodox view on the person of Christ lies in the fact that He is the same
God as the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as man. Therefore, we need
to speak, most of all, about His personal being or hypostasis or person, for
the mystery of hypostatic union is in the person of the eternal Son of God,
who is its subject.
Barth, in reality, denies the hypostatic being, distinct from the
Father and the Son by saying that “the content of
revelation(Offenbarungsihhalt)” and “the person of the

82) Its meaning will be clearer if translated as follows: “that God is in the threefold
repetition of the one God.”
83) CD I/1.350-351 (KD I/1.369-370).
84) CD I/1.353 (KD I/1.373).
85) CD I/1.350 (KD I/1.369).
86) Eberhard Jüngel, God’s Being is in Becoming (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001), 77-78.
87) Jüngel, God’s Being is in Becoming, 79. CD II/1.264 (KD II/1.296). Cf. Hunsinger, “Karl
Barth’s Christology: Its Basic Chalcedonian Character,” 81-82.

- 15 -
Revealer(Offenbarer-Person)” are one and the same and that the person of
the Revealer is the person of Jesus Christ” by pointing out that the Son
reveals Himself while revealing the Father.88) The difference between the
modes of being of three persons that Barth talks about only amounts to
“distinctive genetic relations(eigentümlichen genetischen Beziehungen),”
namely, “relations of origin(Ursprungsverhältnissen),” which can be inferred
when we receive God’s revelation. Therefore, all that Barth says is that
there is something “like(wie)” “the Fatherhood(Vaterschaft)” or “the Sonship
(Sohnschaft),” or that there is something “like” “begetting(Erzeugen)” or
“being begotten(Erzeugstein),” or that there is something “like” “proceeding
(Hervorbringung)” from all that are related to begetting or being begotte
n.89) “The mode of being” or “repetition” that Barth talks about exhibits
such “wie.”
Barth strongly argues that the “subject(Subjekt)” of the Trinity God
is one. He is in three in the midst of self-repetition. He is in three modes
of being but is “one personal God(eine persönliche Gott).”90) Therefore, the
Father and the Son have the same essence, but “a divine
subordination(göttliche Unterordnung)” and “a divine superiority(göttliche
Überordnung)” exist between them.91) The breakdown of equality between
the three persons is the necessary consequence of Barthian theology.92)
The Barthian Trinity is, in reality, inclined to anti-Trinitarianism.
First, the Barthian Trinity is established on the ground of the Incarnation,
namely, a revelatory event. However, the being, economy and revelation of
the Trinity are premised with the essence of God, but it is not revealed
only through a historical event. One cannot discuss revelation without
presupposing the Trinity. One does not finally introduce the Trinity only
when supposing same traits of revelation such as the subject, the
revelation itself, and revelatory effects, and its three phases such as
revelation, Scripture, and declaration. That would be like putting the
Biblical teachings upside down. Second, to Barth, who rejects the
personhood of the Son, the Incarnation is not a historical event but only a
vague idea. Barth tries to establish the doctrine of the Trinity on an idea.
He may defend himself, saying that his view is a “dialectical

88) CD I/1.411-412 (KD I/1.432-433).

89) CD I/1.363, 370 (KD I/1.382-383, 390).
90) CD IV/1.205 (KD IV/1.224).
91) CD IV/1.209 (KD IV/1.228-229). Quoted from CD IV/1.209 (KD IV/1.229).
92) Cf. CD IV/2.65 (KD IV/2.70).

- 16 -
contemporaneity,” but it is only a dialectical speculation that one cannot
escape the loop of the hermeneutical circle. Barth explains the Trinity from
the revelatory event of the Incarnation, but there is no Incarnation or
Trinity in reality. Third, the reason why Barth repeatedly emphasizes that
one cannot grant personhood with the person of the Trinity is because in
rejecting the immanent Trinity he cannot acknowledge it. Fourth, Barth
rejects the internal and ontological difference of the hypostatic attributes of
the Trinity. All he talks about is the generative difference in the
relationships among three persons. The same holds true when he talks
about begetting, being begotten or proceeding. The problem is that Barth
presents their mutual relationship in three according to the revealed
economy without mentioning the hypostatic being of three persons.
Moreover, he is distortional as if for him to talk about the hypostatic
beings were like acknowledging the fourth and fifth person. Fifth, the mode
of being that Barth speaks about does not mean a person, but “ad
extra(nach außen)” “dialectical counterpart(eines dialektischen
Gegenstücks),” which is something that occurs differently “through a
distinctive mark(per appropriationem)” according to a phase of revelation,
but not a hypostatic being.93)

4. The Work of Christ and the Two States

4.1. Revelatory Participation

We have examined above that, dealing with the revelatory event of

the Incarnation, Barth, although he denies, introduces the way of the
analogy of being. If so, what does the revelation of the Incarnation—the
revelation of Christ, or Christ Himself—mean to us? Barth looks for it in
“inference (Entnehmen).” More than anything else, Barth stresses that we
infer through the subsistence of Jesus Christ not only how freely God is “in
Himself(in sich selber)” in relationships with us, but also God is “in and
among us(bei und unter uns).”

The reality of Jesus Christ, consisting in the fact that God is this
Man and this Man is God, invariably asserts that God can
cross(überschreiten) the boundary(die Grenze) between Himself and

93) CD I/1.374-375 (KD I/1.394-395).

- 17 -
 us; or expressed in general terms, between His own existence and
the existence of that which is not identical with Himself.94)

Barth argues that we infer through the subsistence of Jesus Christ

that God reveals Himself to us at least by becoming analogies to other
forms known to us, namely, in the way of revelation, or by His being
“humanity(Menschsein).”95) Here he proposes not “the analogy of being” but
“the analogy of relation.” Barth talks about “the analogy of relation” in
terms of revelation, but presupposes “the analogy of being” in terms of
substance. However, he suggests to remain in “the analogy of relation,”
because the Incarnation hides the unity of God and man, or deepens its
revelation and analogy.
According to Barth, Jesus Christ became “a real man(der wirkliche
Mensch)” through his act,96) and also one with God at the same time. “He
the doer(Täter) and His deed(Tat) are indissolubly one.”97) The being of
man has relationship with the being of God, “immediately and directly.”
Scripture talks about all people through the act of one man—abandoned
and claimed by God.98) Every man on earth faces “the divine
Other(göttliche Gegenüber)” in the ontological union with Jesus Christ—in
the person of this one man. Jesus Christ is present as a neighbor, a friend,
and the divine other.99) The essence of man is in hearing the word of God,
as the one living with Jesus, which is based on the fact that Jesus Christ is
the Word of God.100)

It is the identity of the Creator and the creature. And the Creator is
for the creature the utterly new and other. If it is the case that the
man Jesus is Himself the Creator who has become creature, then He
exists in a manner which cannot be exhaustively described by any
state, but in Him we are faced by the fulfilment of the strict
concept of history.101)

94) CD I/2.31 (KD I/2.35).

95) CD I/2.35-37 (KD I/2.39-41).
96) CD III/2.63-64 (KD III/2.73-74).
97) CD III/2.61 (KD III/2.71).
98) CD III/2.132-133 (KD III/2.158-159).
99) CD III/2.134-135 (KD III/2.160-161).
100) CD III/2.147 (KD III/2.176).
101) CD III/2.159 (KD III/2.190).

- 18 -
 Barth says that the God, who is with us, refers not to a
“state(Zustand)” but “an event(Ereignis).”102) God shares the same history
with us.103) “Salvation(Heil)” is “the participation in being of God(in der
Teilnahme am göttlichen Sein).”104) The fulfillment of God’s will through
redemption is the event that embodies the possibility of our own being.105)
It is the process of becoming of “God with us” to “We with God(Wir mit
Gott).”106) This view of Barth is caused by his confusion between
“creatureliness (Geschöpflichkeit)” and “sinfulness(Sündigkeit).”107) It stems
from the fallacy that regards the reconciliation of Jesus Christ as the
consummation of the fellowship with Himself, who has existed from the
Creation, and men.108)
Such an opinion of Barth can be conspicuously found in the early
days of his writing. In the next paragraph, we can find a typical
methodology of Barth, who seeks the way from the death of Christ to life
by the dialectic of “yes” and “no” and devises union of both parties from
salvation to creation in it.

To understand the New Testament Yes as anything but the Yes

contained in the No, is not to understand it at all. Life comes from
death! Death is the source of all. Thence comes the New
Testament’s knowledge of God as the Father, the Original, the
Creator of heaven and earth. Thence comes its grace, which is the
first and last word, the decisive, the perfect, the inexpressible word,
for the kingly and conquering relation of God to estranged
humanity.109)

Here Barth does not talk about the redemption through the
righteousness of Jesus Christ but ontological union. He does not regard the
essence of sin as disobedience to God’s will and the essence of salvation as
paying for the price of the sin. What Barth supposes as salvation is the
essential and natural union of the creation with Jesus Christ, namely, “the

102) CD IV/1.6 (KD IV/1.4).

103) CD IV/1.7 (KD IV/1.5-6).
104) CD IV/1.8-9 (KD IV/1.7).
105) CD IV/1.14-15 (KD IV/1.14-15).
106) CD IV/1.18-20 (KD IV/1.18-20).
107) Cf. CD I/1.436-437 (KD I/1.459-460).
108) Cf. CD IV/1.41-44 (KD IV/1.46).
109) Barth, “Biblical Questions, Insights, and Vistas,” 49-96, and the quotation is from 80-81.
The writing was published in a seminar in 1920.

- 19 -
communication of being.” It is not the problem of sin or fall, but a natural
problem. Barth does not characteristically distinguish the general history of
creation and the redemptive work, but connect the covenant of grace with
the creation before the Fall.110) Redemptive history is special only in the
respect that it is a proper event. That God is being with us is established
by the perfection of the creation in the future, and salvation is presented
only as an event in the process to achieve it.111) To talk about the union
of God-man in us from the perspective that Jesus Christ came into the
world as a human creature, “a new and different being,” and perfected the
entire history of creation, or that He is the Creator as well as a creature is
already, in fact, to talk about pantheism or deification.112)
In discussing the first, 1536 edition of “Institutio Christianae
religionis” of Calvin, Barth stresses that the two kinds of knowledge of God,
of the Creator God and of the Redeemer God, become one in reality as
follows.

Without the biblical revelation that defines God the Redeemer Calvin
sees no real knowledge of God the Creator, and conversely knowledge
of God the Redeemer is simply a sharper and clearer seeing of the
revelation of God the Creator. Materially the two forms of knowledge
are exactly the same. We differentiate them only at once to grasp
more truly their essential unity.113)

Here we can figure out that Barth is making use of Calvin in order
to develop his own theological view prior to reading him.114) Calvin had an
enormous influence on Barth. However, Barth accepted Calvin, which was
not Calvin in a real sense. The same holds true for the Gospel and the

110) CD III/1.231-232 (KD III/1.262).

111) CD III/1.322 (KD III/1.369).
112) In addition, the following theologians argue that there is no deification(qeopoihsij) in
Barthian theology. Jüngel, God’s Being is in Becoming, 75; Bruce L. McCormack,
“Participation in God, Yes; Deification, No: Two Modern Protestant Responses to an
Ancient Question,” in Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academy, 2008), 235-260; Adam Neder, Participation in Christ: An Entry
into Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 65-69,
86-92.
113) Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), 164.
114) Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Formation of a
Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 188. For a refute, refer to
the following. Stephen Edmondson, Calvin’s Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 29-39.

- 20 -
Law. It was true that Calvin put emphasis on the fact that the Gospel is
the fulfillment of the Law by Christ. However, unlike Barth, Calvin did not
regard the law as a mode of the Gospel, nor accepted the
Gospel-Law-Gospel structure.115) The writings of Calvin were regarded by
Barth as the field onto which he would counter-project his own theology.
For example, Barth says that Calvin said that Scripture is “a legal book
whose wording must always have the final decision,” which is Barth’s
personal view and entirely unrelated to Calvin.116) Likewise, the arbitrary
interpretation of Calvin by Barth is very blatant, especially when related to
Christology. In other words, “a dialectical contemporaneity” reaches
extremes. For example, Barth says that Calvin writes about Christ as the
one who sheds and hides light, conducts the execution of judgment and the
endowment of grace, and reminds us of regulations but also frees us from
them.117)

4.2. Revelatory Impartation and the Two States

Barth thinks that the Incarnation event is based on

“impartation(Mitteilung).” In relation to this, we will discuss the impartation
of human essence to deity, of divine essence to humanity, human essence
based on impartation, and “common actualisation(gemeinsame
Verwirklichung)” of divine essence.118) Barth sees that the actual
communication of attributes(communicatio idiomatum) between divine and
human natures takes place “concretely(konkret).”119) Barth thinks that “the
acting subject(das handelnde Subjekt)” in the communication of attributes
is “God Himself in His mode of existence as the Son(Gott selber in der
Existenzweise des Sohnes)”120) and discusses enhypostasis or anhypostasis
of Christ’s humanity.121) Here all he does is merely adding a type of
historical dynamics to the doctrine of the Lutheran, which says that the

115) CD II/2.511 (KD II/2.567): “Eben das Evangelium selbst und als solches hat die Form
und Gestalt des Gesetzes......Es ist Evangelium nach seinem Inhalt, Gesetz nach seiner
Form und Gestalt.”
116) Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, 167.
117) Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, 164-167.
118) CD IV/2.73 (KD IV/2.79).
119) CD IV/2.73-75 (KD IV/2.79-82).
120) CD IV/2.84 (KD IV/2.91-92).
121) CD IV/2.91 (KD IV/2.100). Cf. T. F. Torrance, “The Place of Christology in Biblical and
Dogmatic Theology,” in Essays in Christology for Karl Barth, ed. T. H. L. Parker (London:
Lutterworth, 1956), 16-17, 36-37.

- 21 -
divine attributes pass through the humanity.122)
Christological concentration of Barthian theology can only be
discussed from the epistemological perspective or premise. By being
established on the Christ within the Bible, it helps to talk about the Christ
without the Bible.123) From the fact that Barth emphasizes the Christ
outside the Bible, namely the hidden revelation of God, we can surmise the
influence of Luther. Barth thinks that the central theme of Luther is “God’s
mask(larva Dei).”124) The communication of attributes of the Lutheran is an
attempt to ontologically explain the God in a mask, identified
epistemologically.125) However, it is a paradox and contradiction to talk
about the communication of attributes while denying the personality of the
person of the Son, for union of two natures without the hypostasis will
inevitably end up to the analogy of being methodologically or to deification
substantially. To Barth the communication of attributes of two natures is a
mere speculative notion.126) It is adorned with “dialectical contemporaneity.”
Barth says that God’s essence taking the humanity, namely, the
“humiliation(Erniedrigung)” of the Incarnation is the “exaltation(Erhöhung)”
of human essence. He explains this with the communication of grace
(communicatio gratiarum), and stresses that Jesus Christ’s becoming the
object of worship in the divine and human natures says that we participate
in his “holy character(qeia fusij)” (2 Pet 1:4).127) The communication of
grace (communicatio gratiarum) that Barth talks about is very abstract. He
argues that instead of considering humiliation and exaltation as two distinct
events, we need to consider them as one event.128) Barth unfolds this with
the notion of common actualisation.129) The meaning of the Incarnation is
discussed in this perspective.130) He says that it is a clear, comprehensive,
and decisive “revelatory event.” The Incarnation of the Word is fulfilled in
the death on the cross, when the humiliation of the Son of God and the

122) Cf. Pannenberg, Jesus—God and Man, 302-303.

123) Cf. Runia, Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture, 49-56.
124) CD I/1.167 (KD I/1.173).
125) Cf. Neder, Participation in Christ: An Entry into Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, 3, 6-7.
This shows that Barth leans towards the communication of attributes of not the
Reformed, but the Lutheran.
126) Cf. Oliver D. Crisp, Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), 73-74; Richard A. Muller, “Directions in the Study of
Barth's Christology,” Westminster Theological Journal 48/1 (1986), 122: 119-134.
127) CD IV/2.100-103 (KD IV/2.110-114).
128) CD IV/2.104ff. (KD IV/2.115ff.).
129) CD IV/2.115-116 (KD IV/2.128-129).
130) CD IV/2.119-120 (KD IV/2.131-132).

- 22 -
exaltation of the sons of men are fulfilled at the same time.131)
Here we can discover that the notion of “common actualisation”
which Barth talks about is merely a “dialectical contemporaneity” of the
divine and human natures exhibited in the revelatory event of the
Incarnation. Barth is entirely indifferent to the fact that the subject of the
communication of two natures is the person. He just discusses the phases
of revelations testified in Scripture. Such extreme understanding makes him
further believe that His virgin birth is just a sign, and that “common
actualisation” of the divine and human nature that he talks about is just
an expression according to revelation; they are just divinization or
humanization. When Barth says that the Mediator is in the middle
point(Mitte), he is expressing such a dialectical confusion or its vagueness.
Such understanding of Barth can be seen as extreme in his taking
the virgin birth or the cross or resurrection as “a sign (Vorzeichen).” The
cross (Kreuz) is a description for the entire being of the man Jesus, divine
similarities and acts.132) The “sign” of the cross means that “a new
man(neuen Menschen)” born “according to God(kata qeon)” is created
“analogously to the mode of existence of God.133) The “sign” of the virgin
birth means that the Word of God became man, or that “grace is
imparted(wird Gnade zuteil).”134) The “sign” of resurrection means that “God
was in Christ(Gott war in Christus),” and that it is “the new act of God(der
neuen Tat Gottes).”135) After all, the humiliation and exaltation of Jesus
Christ can be described by the two following signs; “the way of the Son of
God into the far country(der Weg des Sohnes Gottes in die Fremde)” and
“the homecoming of the Son of Man(die Heimkehr des Menschensohnes).”
Barth does not see that the two events took place in order historically but
that they are ideally one.136) Therefore, he says as follows: “The light of
His resurrection was the light of His cross.”137)
Barth considers that the Incarnation is a revelatory event, and that
the virgin birth and the death on the cross and resurrection are the sign
that shows the fact that, since God became one with man in Jesus Christ,
we have such one-ness in us. Since the historical Incarnation is rejected

131) CD IV/2.140-141 (KD IV/2.157).

132) CD IV/2.249 (KD IV/2.276).
133) CD IV/2.166 (KD IV/2.185).
134) CD I/2.187 (KD I/2.204-205).
135) CD IV/1.301 (KD IV/1.332).
136) CD IV/2.21, 29 (KD IV/2.21, 30).
137) CD IV/2.295 (KD IV/2.328).

- 23 -
and regarded as data waiting to be interpreted, there is no authentic
humiliation and exaltation by the union of the divine and human natures.
Therefore, according to Barth, the price(pretium) of redemption that Christ
paid is rejected and Jesus Christ is denigrated to a teacher or rabbi.138) In
that case, there is no grace of salvation but an empty dialectical narration
about the Bible.

5. Conclusion: Replacing of Orthodox Christology and the Trinity

with Dialectical Contemporaneity

Has Barth been faithful to the Chalcedonian Creed? In order to

answer this question that has recently been asked, we first look at how
Barth understands the hypostasis of the Mediator Christ. As has been
raised by many theologians,139) it would be meaningless to mention the
Chalcedonian Christology if it was acknowledged that Barth is taking the
sides of Modalism, Sabellianism, or Sabellian Modalism. Those theologians
who argue for Social Trinitarianism have said that Seinsweise, which Barth
used to mean the proper modes of being for the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit, corresponds to the hypostasis and person of the orthodox
Christology. However, even Karl Rahner, who stated Trinitarianism upon the
influence of Barth, was skeptical about it.140) Cornelius Plantinga Jr., who
considers himself a Social Trinitarianist while holding fast on the Biblical or
orthodox Trinitarianism, judges the view of Barth as “eccentric.”141)
The eleventh council of Toledo(675) created the following confession
in order to distinguish the Godhead from the persons of the Trinity:

Although we profess three persons we do not profess three

substances, but one substance and three persons.....If we are asked
about the individual Person, we must answer that he is God.
Therefore we may say God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Spirit; but they are not three gods, he is one God.....Each

138) Cf. Cornelius Van Til, “Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?” 170; Kenneth S. Kantzer,
“The Christology of Karl Barth,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 1/2 (1958),
27.
139) Alan Torrence, “The Trinity,” in Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000), 81-82.
140) Hunsinger, “Karl Barth’s Christology: Its Basic Chalcedonian Character,” 82-83.
141) Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and
Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius
Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989): 32.

- 24 -
 single Person is wholly God in himself and......all three persons
together are one God.142)

The view that rejects the personality of the Son de facto while
distinguishing three “persons” from “the Person” of the unity is supported
by the scholars who advocate, so-called, moderate Social Trinitarianism.
They profess that they support such a view while standing on Scripture
and the truth of the orthodox theology after the Early Church fathers.143)
However, such a view cannot be comparable to Scripture, the Early Church
fathers, and the orthodox creeds, which clearly teaches three subsistences
of the Trinity.144) It is needless to say more for the view of Barth, who
denies the three persons of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

By Father, Son, and Spirit we do not mean what is commonly

suggested to us by the word “persons.”..... It was never intended to
imply—at any rate in the main stream of theological tradition—that
there are in God three different personalities, three self-existent
individuals with their own special self-consciousness, cognition,
volition, activity, effects, revelation and name. The one name of the
one God is the threefold name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The
one “personality” of God, the one active and speaking divine Ego, is
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.145)

We have so far criticized the Christology of Barth in three parts.

First, we have seen that Barth thinks the person and work of Christ in
terms of recognition of revelations or revelatory events. We have noted

142) Denz. 528-529 in The Teaching of the Catholic Church, comp. Josef Neuner and
Heinrich Roos, ed. Karl Rahner, tr. Geoffrey Stevens (New York: Alba Hounse, 1967),
94-95. Plantinga, “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” Re-quoted from 41.
143) Plantinga, Jr., “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” 42-43. The following author argues that
the Early Church fathers did not strictly use the terms such as persona or hypostasis in
order to refer to each hypostatic being in the Trinity. Claude Welch, In This Name: The
Doctrine of the Trinity in Contemporary Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1952), 269.
144) Cf. Jean Daniélou, The Origins of Latin Christianity. A History of Early Christian
Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea, Vol. 3, tr. David Smith and John Austin Baker
(London: Darton, Longan & Todd, 1977), 396.
145) CD IV/1.204-205 (KD IV/1.224). Such a view of Barth is supported by the following
views that consider that by calling three persons of the Trinity as persons or bestowing
personality, we will fall into a self-contradiction because each person will share some
part of divinity. Donald Baillie, God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and
Atonement (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948), 141.

- 25 -
that the way that Barth considers the Incarnation as the beginning and the
end of the Christ’s event is due to his bias toward epistemological
understanding. Second, Barth does not acknowledge the person of Christ.
Barth attributes personality to the Godhead of the Trinity only.
Consequently, such doctrines as the Trinity, the Incarnation, hypostatic
union, and the communication of attributes, are rejected but their
idealogical dialectical descriptions remain. Third, it is obvious that Barth
interprets the union of the divine and human natures as the analogy of
being between God and man. No doubt Barth clarifies that he opposes the
analogy of being, the methodology used in natural theology. However, he
does that only in the respect of the operation or reception of revelation, by
saying that God, by being united with man in the Incarnation, hides Himself
more deeply. Nevertheless, Barth clearly presupposes the analogy of being
in reality.146)
Barth affirms that he denies “demi-god from below(Halbgottes von
unten)” of Arianism, “demi-god from above(Halbgottes von oben)” of
Origen,147) Docetism which states Christology “from a human
conception(von einem menschlichen Begriff),” and Ebionitism, which states
Christology “from a human experience(von einer menschlichen Erfahrung)
.”148) However, his views are the result that dialectical speculation gave
birth to. For example, when Barth says that “the antithesis of divinity and
humanity(des Gegensatzes von Gottheit und Menschheit)” ultimately presents
the reality beyond them, he says there is no substantial truth at all. To
Barth, revelation is reality, nothing more or nothing less. To him, the
actuality of revelation is not related to the reality itself, but to how the
revelation about reality is. Barth defends himself by saying that his
dialectical method is not “deification(Vergottung)” but “a conformity to God
(Gottförmigkeit),”149) but that is again a dialectical excuse.150)
“The analogy of faith” that Barth talks about is simply dialectical,
but with that premise, he actually acknowledges the analogy of being. The

146) This following paper argues for Barth’s position of analogia entis. Bruce L. McCormack,
“Karl Barth’s Version of an ‘Analogy of Being’: A Dialectical No and Yes to Roman
Catholicism,” in The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist of the Wisdom of God?,
ed. Thomas Joseph White (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 88-144.
147) CD I/1.438-441 (KD I/1.460-463).
148) CD I/2.20 (KD I/2.22).
149) CD I/1.237-238 (KD I/1.250-251).
150) Cf. Cornelius Van Til, “Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?” Westminster Theological
Journal 16/2 (1954), 181. Here such a dialectical theology is more dangerous than any
heresy.

- 26 -
analogy of faith is to receive God’s word by faith, not to seek a
qualification for it. There is no need to discuss it by the dialectics of
subject and object. Barth may talk about the analogy of faith, but in
reality, he is doing the theology from the bottom by saying the
communication of being between Christ and a believer, as can be seen
from his discussion on the possibility and actuality of revelation. The same
holds true for his way of conception that we can experience a revelatory
event by using the actuality of Jesus as the archtype—an archtype as a
model—just like the way Jesus did. Just as seen, the Neo-Orthodox theology
of Barth replaces orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology with dialectical
contemporaneity. He simply rejects orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology.
Barth criticizes the Chalcedonian principle as making negative statements,
but protects his theology, on the other hand, as positive and active.
However, his theology is not positive but negligent, and not active but
vague. Not even the negatives of the Chalcedon can be found in Barth,
who wants to deny what Chalcedon had already but tries to make
something new.151) As Cornelius Van Til, the Reformed Apologist, once said,
“His Christ is not the Christ of the Scriptures.”152)

Soli Deo gloria in aeternum!

[key words] Barth, Christology, revelation, impartation, participation,

person, communication

[abstract]

This paper makes criticism of Barth’s theology in three parts. First, we

have seen that Barth thinks the person and work of Christ in terms of
recognition of revelations or revelatory events. Barth replaces substantial
facts and relations with actuality and possibility of perception and defines
being and attributes according to how one receives them. Second, Barth
rejects the person of Christ. Barth attributes personality to the Godhead of
the Trinity only. Consequently, such doctrines as the Trinity, hypostatic
union, the communication of attributes through one person, and the
historicity of humiliation and exaltation, are stated ideally only. Third, we

151) Muller, “Directions in the Study of Barth's Christology,” 132.

152) van Til, “Karl Barth on Chalcedon,” 166.

- 27 -
have seen that, though Barth may seem to argue for the analogy of faith,
he, in fact, does it epistemologically but in reality, presupposes the analogy
of being. Barth sees that the righteousness of the redemption by Jesus
Christ does not lie in the price that He paid for, but in the participating
communication and union. That is the reason why we cannot employ the
doctrine of imputed righteousness in his theology. Although Barth may say
he presupposes Trinitarianism and Christology, but does it only
epistemologically but in reality, he is always vague. Considering all these
various aspects, we can see that Barth rejects orthodox Trinitarianism and
Christology in reality, throughout his premises, processes, and conclusions.

[Bibliography]

Baillie, Donald. God Was in Christ: An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1948.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Ed. Geoffrey Bromiley and Thomas F. Torrance. Tr. G. T.
Thomson. 5 vols. in 14 part. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936-1977.
----------. Church Dogmatics: A Selection with Introduction. Ed. Helmut Gollwitzer. Tr. G.
W. Bromiley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994.
----------. Die kirchliche Dogmatik. 5 vols. in 14 parts. Zollikon, Switz.: Verlag der
Evangelischen Buchhandlun, 1932-1970.
----------. God in Action. Tr. E. G. Homrighausen and Karl J. Ernst. Manhasset, NY: Round
Table Press, 1963.
----------. The Word of God and the Word of Man. Tr. Douglas Horton. New York: Harper
& Row, 1957.
----------. The Theology of John Calvin. Tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995.
Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena. Ed. John Bolt. Tr. John
Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Boersma, Hans. “Alexandrian or Antiochian: A Dilemma in Barth's Christology.” Westminster
Theological Journal 52/2 (1990): 263-280.
Calvinus, Ioannes. Institutio christianae religionis, in libros quatuor nunc primum digesta,
certisque distincta capitibus, ad aptissimam methodum:aucta etiam tam magna accessione
ut propemodum opus novum haberi possit. 1559.
Crisp. Oliver D. Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Daniélou, Jean. The Origins of Latin Christianity. A History of Early Christian Doctrine
before the Council of Nicaea, Vol. 3. Tr. David Smith and John Austin Baker. London:
Darton, Longan & Todd, 1977.
Edmondson, Stephen. Calvin’s Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Green, Clifford. (Ed.). Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2. Anthropology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995,
reprint.
Hunsinger, George. Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000.
----------. “Karl Barth’s Christology: Its Basic Chalcedonian Character.” In Karl Barth. Ed.
John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 127-142.
Jüngel, Eberhard. God’s Being is in Becoming. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001.
Kaiser, Christopher B. The Doctrine of God. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1985.
Kantzer, Kenneth S. “The Christology of Karl Barth.” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological

- 28 -
 Society 1/2 (1958): 25-28.
Kuyper, Abraham. Principles of Sacred Theology. Tr. J. Hendrik De Vries. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1980.
McCormack, Bruce L. “Karl Barth’s Version of an ‘Analogy of Being’: A Dialectical No and
Yes to Roman Catholicism.” In The Analogy of Being: Invention of the Antichrist of the
Wisdom of God? Ed. Thomas Joseph White. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011: 88-144.
----------. Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academy, 2008.
Moon, Byung Ho. “A Criticism of Schleiermacher’s Mystical and Pantheistic Christology.”
Chongshin Theological Journal 16/1 (2011): 50-82.
----------. “Bavinck’s Understanding of Christ the Mediator’s Hypostatic Union.” Chongshin
Review 18 (2013): 172-209.
Muller, Richard A. “Directions in the Study of Barth's Christology.” Westminster Theological
Journal 48/1 (1986): 119-134.
----------. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Formation of a Theological
Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Neder, Adam. Participation in Christ: An Entry into Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009.
Niesel. Wilhelm. “Calvin wider Osianders Rechtfertigungslehre.” Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte 46 (1927): 410-430.
Oakes, Kenneth. “The Question of Nature and Grace in Karl Barth: Humanity as Creature
and as Covenant-Partner.” Modern Theology 23/4 (2007): 595-616.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus—God and Man. Tr. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.
Plantinga Jr., Cornelius. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and
Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius
Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989: 21-47.
Richardson, Kurt Anders. “Christus Praesens: Barth’s Radically Realist Christology and Its
Necessity for Theological Method.” In Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences
and Divergences. Ed. Sungwook Chung. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006: 136-148.
Rumscheidt, H. Martin. (Ed.). The Way of Theology in Karl Barth. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick
Publications, 1986.
Runia, Klass. Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Torrence, Alan. “The Trinity.” In Karl Barth. Ed. John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000: 72-91.
Torrance, T. F. “The Place of Christology in Biblical and Dogmatic Theology.” In Essays in
Christology for Karl Barth. Ed. T. H. L. Parker. London: Lutterworth, 1956: 11-37.
Van Til, Cornelius. “Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?” Westminster Theological Journal
16/2 (1954): 135-181.
----------. “Karl Barth on Chalcedon.” Westminster Theological Journal 22/2 (1960):
147-166.
Waldrop, Charles T. “Karl Barth's Concept of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.” Harvard
Theological Review 74/3(1981): 241-263.

- 29 -