^{page 249 note 1} The Humanity of God, trans, by Thomas, J. N. and Weiser, T. (London, 1961), pp. 33–42Google Scholar. See also Torrance, T. F., Karl Barth: An Introduction to His Early Theology, 1910–1931 (London, 1962), pp. 43ff.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 2} The Humanity of God, p. 33.

^{page 249 note 3} ibid., p. 37.

^{page 250 note 1} The Humanity of God, p. 41.

^{page 250 note 2} ibid., p. 42.

^{page 250 note 3} ibid., p. 43.

^{page 250 note 4} Church Dogmatics (C.D.) IV/1–3.

^{page 251 note 1} C.D. II/2, pp. 13–14.

^{page 251 note 2} ibid., p. 7.

^{page 251 note 3} C.D. II/2, p. 8; cf. Jüngel, Eberhard, Gottes Sein ist im Werden. Verantwortliche Rede vom Sein Gottes bei Karl Barth. Eine Paraphrase 2 (Tübingen, 1965), pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 4} Jüngel, op. cit., pp. 88–9. Jüngel speaks of this also as a ‘historia praeveniens’ (ibid., p. 89) in which God determines himself for man even before the latter's creation and existence.

^{page 252 note 1} C.D. II/2, p. 7

^{page 252 note 2} ibid.

^{page 252 note 3} Friedmann, E. H., Christologie und Anthropologie. Methode und Bedeutung der Lehre vom Menschen in der Theologie Karl Barths (Münsterschwarzach, 1972), pp. 129–131Google Scholar, is right to point this out, and Jungel's exposition follows his three-fold scheme of Chalcedon without explicity saying so: op. cit., p. 86.

^{page 253 note 1} C.D. II/2, p. 110.

^{page 253 note 2} Barth bases this on his exegesis of Ephesians 1.4 and St. John's Gospel as well as on the perichoresis of the Trinity. Cf. Jüngel, op cit., pp. 86–7. Brunner, Emil, The Christian Doctrine of God. Dogmatics, Vol. 1, trans, by Wyon, Olive (London, 1949), p. 347Google Scholar, disputes this but gives no real reason for his objections.

^{page 253 note 3} Jüngel, op. cit., p. 86.

^{page 253 note 4} C.D. II/2, p. 105.

^{page 253 note 5} ibid.

^{page 253 note 6} ibid.

^{page 253 note 7} Cf. Jüngel, op. cit., pp. 89–93, for a succinct and clear summary of Barth's teaching on this point. I am much indebted to Jüngel's treatment. In this section, as in Jüngel's, the unity of Jesus Christ as God-man is stressed in his double aspect as both God and man. Jüngel looks at it from the point of view of God's being in action in relation to man. Here we are concerned more with the other side—man's being as determined by and so related to God in Jesus Christ. For this reason the two expositions are to be seen as the opposite sides of the same coin. Cf. also E. H. Friedmann, op. cit., p. 129.

^{page 254 note 1} C.D. 11/2, p. 107.

^{page 254 note 2} ibid., p. 110. The original German reads, ‘der praeexistierende Gottmensch Jesus Christus’ (K.D. II/2, p. 118); the word ‘preexistent’ has been omitted in the English translation.

^{page 254 note 3} ibid., p. 103.

^{page 254 note 4} op. cit., p. 94.

^{page 255 note 1} C.D. IV/2, pp. 94, 100.

^{page 255 note 2} C.D. II/2, p. 102. One consequence of the being of man with God, ‘in the beginning’, as Jüngel points out (op. cit., n. 90, p. 95) is the exclusion of all natural religion, theology, and law, since ‘“natural” means apart from Jesus Christ, apart from the Son of God who became also the Son of Man, who is called and is also Jesus of Nazareth’ (C.D. IV/2, p. 101). For Barth, therefore, the Logos ensarkos displaces and so supersedes all so-called natural theology. Moreover, since Barth discusses this also in connexion with the Lutheran communicatio idiomatum it is also his answer to the Lutheran tendency to deify the humanity of Jesus by a communication to it of the divine attributes. It is exaltation to the side of God, to his fellowship and glory but is not apotheosis (C.D. IV/2, pp. 101–2). More specifically the Logos ensarkos of Barth takes the place of the genus majestaticum of Lutheran orthodoxy. There can be no reversal of the relationship in which man would be identical with God or partially so. ‘In this respect the mistrust of Barth as a Reformed theologian of the Lutheran doctrine of the genus majestaticum has made his dogmatics a bulwark against every theological and philosophical attempt and tendency to ascribe divine predicates to man.’ (Jüngel,‘… Keine Menschenlosigkeit Gottes…’ Evangelische Theologie, Juli 1971, pp. 381–2.)

^{page 255 note 3} C.D. IV/2, pp. 32–3

^{page 255 note 4} op. cit., pp. 94–5.

^{page 255 note 5} C.D. II/2, p. 98.

^{page 256 note 1} Jüngel, op. cit., p. 94

^{page 256 note 2} C.D. II/2, p. 96.

^{page 256 note 3} ibid., p. 97.

^{page 256 note 4} Karl Barth's Table Talk. Recorded and edited by Godsey, John D.. S.J.T. Occasional Papers, no. 10 (Edinburgh, 1963), p. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 1} op. cit., p. 95.

^{page 257 note 2} C.D. II/2, pp. 180–1; cf. pp. 156, 162, 173, and 175.

^{page 257 note 3} C.D. II/2, p. 110.

^{page 257 note 4} C.D. III/2, p. 485.

^{page 258 note 1} C.D. III/2, p. 482.

^{page 258 note 2} ibid., p. 484.

^{page 259 note 1} ibid., p. 463.

^{page 259 note 2} ibid., p. 464. Here Barth is in fact giving an exposition and interpretation of Rev. 1.8.

^{page 259 note 3} Camfield, F. W., ‘Man in his Time’, Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 3, no. 2, June 1950, p. 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 259 note 4} C.D. III/2, p. 477.

^{page 260 note 1} ibid., p. 485.

^{page 260 note 2} C.D. II/2, p. 153 (my own translation). Traditional theology has consistently taught the latter two, the humanity of God present and to come but curiously has not drawn out its consequences, as Barth does, for the beginning of all things with God. Jesus Christ in this view is seen as God and man from the incarnation onwards but not from it backwards. It could speak in a way that closely resembles Barth, e.g. ‘His will personally is as Redeemer of the world never to be thought of, believed in, or called upon apart from his humanity at all.’ But it interpreted it as follows: ‘Even before his appearances in the flesh, it was only possible to believe in him as One who intended to come in the flesh.’ (Heppe, , Reformed Dogmatics, revised and edited by Bizer, Ernst with a Foreword by Barth, Karl, trans, by Thomson, G. T. (London, 1950), p. 427)Google Scholar. God's eternal election was shown as revealed in the will and intention of God to become incarnate but did not, as Barth teaches, in one sense embody the content of that decision and action. It is, however, precisely here that Barth is truer to the whole biblical revelation and has corrected, deepened, and enriched the older teaching in the light of Holy Scripture.

^{page 261 note 1} cf. C.D. III/2, pp. 474–85, where this is clearly stated, ‘The past to which we look back from the present of the man Jesus is like this present and the future which lies before it, his time, the time of this man Jesus’ (ibid., p. 478).

^{page 261 note 2} C.D. III/2, p. 486. Just as for Barth the resurrection is both the unveiling of the meaning of the cross, the completed event of reconciliation and also a new act of God, so the Parousia is both the unveiling of the meaning of the cross and resurrection, the definitive and manifest appearing of the Lord and also the new, last (eschatological) act of God.

^{page 262 note 1} cf. Friedmann (op cit., p. 131, note 391) who quotes R. W. Jenson and G. Gloege as distinguishing between the Logos asarkos as pre-existent and the Logos ensarkos as referring only to the incarnation. See also pp. 132–3.

Brown, Colin, Karl Barth and the Christian Message (London, 1967), pp. 109, 110Google Scholar, misunderstands Barth's teaching when he calls it a projection of ‘the incarnation back into the being of God before the event took place’. H. Hartwell, The Theology of Karl Barth: An Introduction (London, 1964), p. 185, believes Barth contradicts himself in speaking at one and the same time of the pre-existent God-man as contrasted with his doctrine of election which supposedly has no such reference. As we have tried to show this is not a proper objection since Barth in his doctrine of election speaks of Jesus Christ the God-man as the basis and content of God's election of grace while at the same time regarding election as God's will directed ad extra. The latter is the basis and only possibility of the former.

^{page 263 note 1} Zahrnt, H., The Question of God, Protestant Theology in the Twentieth Century, trans. by Wilson, R. A. (London, 1969), p. 114Google Scholar. Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 347. Reid, J. K. S., Our Life in Christ (London, 1963), p. 73Google Scholar, note 2, says, ‘This is not an easy conception, and it is difficult to reconcile with the genuine novelty which occurs in the nativity of our Lord.’ However, he goes on to qualify this by holding out the possibility of its containing a degree of truth when he says ‘on the other hand it cannot be supposed that the assumption of humanity at the incarnation was such a novelty for the pre-existent Christ as (if we may put it so) to catch him by surprise’. But Reid distinguishes between the Christ who was before the incarnation and the Christ after it. Distinction there must indeed be, else the incarnation is deprived of its novelty, but there is unity as well. This is well brought out by Küng, Hans (Justification. The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (London. 1964), p. 282)Google Scholar who speaks of the total divine action in Jesus as indicating ‘the meaning of the eternal decree of God, as well as the unity of the person and work of Jesus Christ and the unity of the history of salvation.’ A distinction from our point of view is in God's sight, will and action, a unity and wholeness.

^{page 263 note 2} op. cit., p. 347.

^{page 264 note 1} op. cit., pp. 112–22. For an effective reply see Hübner, E., ‘Monolog im Himmel?’ Evangelische Theologie (Februar, 1971), pp. 63–87.Google Scholar

^{page 264 note 2} op. cit., pp. 73ff.

^{page 265 note 1} Brown, op. cit., pp. 109–10.

^{page 265 note 2} Das Evangelium des Johannes (Stuttgart, 1903), p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 265 note 3} Das Evangelium des Johannes, Neues Testament Deutsch 10. Auflage (Göttingen, 1963), p. 31Google Scholar. Cf. Küng, op. cit., p. 122.

^{page 265 note 4} Cf., e.g., Büchsel, F., Das Evangelium nach Johannes. N.T.D., 5. Auflage (Göttingen, 1972), p. 29Google Scholar and Schulz, Siegfried, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 12. Auflage (Göttingen, 1972), p. 19Google Scholar, who speaks of the houtos as a repetition of the eternal Word.

^{page 266 note 1} op. cit., p. 110.

^{page 266 note 2} Gottes Sein ist im Werden, pp. 82–95. Jüngel's book both correctly interprets Barth and corrects many misinterpretations. According to Hermann Diem it was known and approved by Barth as giving a correct summary of his position. It can therefore be regarded as a reasonably definitive and authoritative interpretation by which others can be judged. Diem writes in his article ‘Die Christologie Karl Barths in der Sicht von Friedrich Wilhelm Marquardt’ that ‘Barth with whom he (Jüngel) worked intensively until his death confirms that the attempt has succeeded’, i.e., to interpret Barth ‘by saying the same thing in other words’ (Kerygma und Dogma (Juli 1974), p. 138; cf. Jüngel, op. cit., p. vi).

^{page 266 note 3} Justification, pp. 118–28, and Excursus, pp. 272–80.

^{page 266 note 4} ibid., p. 124. Küng (p. 282) quotes Thomas Aquinas as accepting the pre-existence of the man Jesus not as such but by reason of his union with the divine Son. He writes ‘in this connection it is of interest that Thomas, on the question “whether it is true that the man (Christ) always existed”, instead of denying it as one might expect, rather affirms it; “And we must say that this is true because of the fact that the use of the term man implies an eternal presupposition. Thus in the last chapter of Hebrews (13.8) it is said: Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. Yet a proposition of this kind is not reduplicatively true. For it was not according to his manhood that he was always man but according to his being as Son of God.”’ This is exactly Barth's meaning too.

^{page 267 note 1} ibid., p. 122.

^{page 267 note 2} ibid., p. 275.

^{page 267 note 3} ibid, pp. 277–8.

^{page 267 note 4} ibid., p. 278.

^{page 267 note 5} ibid.

^{page 268 note 1} ibid., p. 279.

^{page 268 note 2} God was in Christ. An Essay on Incarnation and Atonement (reprinted London, 1968), pp. 190–6, in the section entitled ‘Historical and Eternal Atonement’.

^{page 268 note 3} ibid., p. 191.

^{page 268 note 4} ibid., pp. 191–2. See the significant passage in the Westminster Confession, ch. 8.6, cited by Baillie, p. 193, ‘the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same, and for ever’.

^{page 268 note 5} The Fulness of Time (London, 1952), pp. 146–148.Google Scholar

^{page 268 note 6} ibid., p. 146. The imagery of the slain Lamb in Revelation is testimony to this (Rev. 5.6, 9, 10). Cf. also Pet. 1.19, 20.

^{page 269 note 1} ibid., p. 147.