Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T09:15:01.132Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Karl Barth on the Eternal Existence of Jesus Christ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2007

Edwin Chr. van Driel
Edwin Chr. van Driel
Affiliation:
Fordham University, Department of Theology, 441 E. Fordham Road, Bronx, NY 10458, USAedwin.vandriel@aya.yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Central to Barth's doctrine of election is the notion that Jesus Christ is the subject of election. This implies that Jesus Christ existed from all eternity. I discuss four possible interpretations of this proposition. I analyse these interpretations both in terms of their internal consistency and in terms of their consistency with Barth's overall proposal. Three of the four interpretations, defended by Emil Brunner, Cornelius Berkouwer, John Colwell and Bruce McCormack, I find wanting. With the fourth interpretation I lay my own cards on the table and argue that part of the problem lies in Barth's formulation itself. The context of Barth's saying that ‘Christ is the subject of election’ suggests that for Barth, Jesus Christ is not so much identical not with a subject, but with an act: the divine reaching out to that what is not God. This act establishes the act and object of election.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 45 - 61
Copyright
© Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was first presented at the meeting of the ‘Karl Barth Society of North America’ in Philadelphia, 19 Nov. 2005. I would like to thank George Hunsinger for the invitation to do so, and various members of the society for their valuable questions and comments. I also would like to thank Iain Torrance for his invitation to publish this in the SJT, and David H. Kelsey and Kimberly R. Miller van Driel for their helpful advice in preparing it for publication.