(iv.1.58.1)*: Barth begins by discussing the “Grace of God in Jesus Christ.” Barth explains that reconciliation offered to us by Jesus Christ is the “fulfillment of the covenant of grace, as in the covenant of grace itself, we have to do with a free act of the grace of God”. God is not bound to what has gone before, thus, in reconciliation He makes a “new start” because He is the “free subject” of the reconciliation. In the act of reconciliation “[God] acts to maintain and defend His own glory”. God is not forced by any external factor to maintain and defend His glory in this specific way; he is unconstrained to act in this fashion. While God could—in all senses of right—have left humanity in their sinful filth and regarded the covenant as broken and invalidated, He does not. It is purely His will to reconcile humanity through Jesus, it is His undetermined choice to continue the covenant with humanity. It is in this free, unbound choice of God that humanity has the assurance of its permanence, “They will see the connexions and in them they will find the constancy of God, the divine will which is preconceived and unalterable and which is therefore necessary and triumphant in this happening”. Through this free choice and God’s free will, by its eternal and inflexible nature, God’s grace is made manifest and God’s glory defended, which is His mercy. By the atonement and, thus the reconciliation of humanity to Himself, God 
demonstrates that He is a God of grace and mercy. Essentially, atonement by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s pure speech-act, a declaration that He is not any other god, but the One God, this very God who is of this kind.
The atonement is the starting point for knowledge about God, humanity, and what sin is, “[it] is the place and the only place from which as Christians we can think forwards and backwards…It is here that Christian preaching and instruction and pastoral care and dogmatics and ethics can begin with their own Yes and No, their pro and contra” (italics Barth). As an event that has happened, that is eternal and inflexible it never becomes incapable of being our starting point, “our knowledge can never get beyond it”. In the atonement we are faced with the eternal and inflexible (and gracious) command: “to realize fearlessly and indefatigably in all its aspects the possibility of life and knowledge given us with the atonement made in Jesu
s Christ”. All of our knowledge grows forth from this event and we are encouraged and directed in this way in all our knowing. There is no other starting point or fount of knowledge. We cannot change our axiom from the atonement to something else; thus, Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” is a blind and audacious attempt to escape the reality of the atonement as the essential starting point. Essentially, Descartes is wrong; one cannot know themselves from within them but only from the eternal, inflexible, sovereign event outside of oneself on one’s behalf. So, we should say, “Jesus is the perfect propitiation for my sins, therefore I am” or “He acts and declares sovereignly, therefore He is, therefore I am.” In God’s sovereign action and declaration 
of the atonement, He is the one who crosses the distance between humanity and Him. By the atonement, God’s being is made manifest by His activity.
…the one who constantly surpasses himself in His constancy and faithfulness, and does everything in order, who could not be more powerfully holy and righteous than when by His Word and in His Son He calls us who are His enemies His children, when He causes us to be His children because in His freedom to do that He is truly the Lord. Reconciliation is God’s crossing the frontier to man: supremely legitimate and yet supremely inconceivable—or conceivable only in the fact of His act of power and love.
ycle within ourselves, reducing our being to a temporal and flexible event alienated from God’s grace and mercy. Our thinking does not make anything concrete, but God’s sovereign declaration and activity is truly creative and permanent (“God said, let there be light and there was light” (Gen 1: 3)). In reconciliation, in the atonement, we come face to face with God and hear the declarative word and see His self-determined action of grace and mercy; and we are drawn out of ourselves to Him and we become: justified, lovable, His forever.
*The reference iv.1.58.1 is the standard way when referring to Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics. It is short hand for: volume four, part one, section 58, part one (!!!). The fourth volume of Church Dogmatics is The Doctrine of Reconciliation, and this series is based on a section within the first part of that volume. Also, I’ve removed page numbers for ease of reading, if you would like to see where I’ve pulled quotes or how I’ve used my words to explain what Barth is saying, please do not hesitate in asking me for them.
COMMENTS
19 responses to ““Wake me up inside…” (part 2a): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)”
Leave a Reply
I find this to be extremely comforting on a very personal level, and surprisingly so, considering the abstract treatment the "atonement" seems usually to generate and in some ways requires. God's free and sovereign work of grace to me, a sinner… can it get any better than that? Thanks for this post.
Cooper: no, it doesn't get any better than that…I'm glad you enjoyed the post and thanks for your thoughtful comments (as always!). have a fantastic weekend!
I'm not clear on why we have to be declared righteous before God.
Why can't we just be sinners, and loved anyway?
bls: i've been thinking about your question (which is a good one) and have been hesitant in just rattling off an answer. I want to proceed cautiously…but here are some thoughts:
To be declared righteous indicates that the righteousness we have is apart from our actions (which have been notoriously famous for being unrighteous). In a great sense this is imputation: something foreign to us imputed to us through faith in Christ. Another way of talking about it (and Barth will get there) is to say: Declared Justified. The declaration that comes from God is irrevocable and is not contigent on our works (which still continue to be tainted with Sin). To be declared righteous means, in the fullest sense of the phrase, that–in Christ–we stand before the judgment seat of Christ, the Judge, and are handed the verdict: not guilty apart from our works. This phrase does not negate the fact that we are simultaneously justified and sinner; but rather reinforces it (we are "declared" righteous).
sin (that which is false, a lie, untruth, not good), cannot be in God's presence (which is truth and is true goodness)–Jesus was forsaken on the Cross as he bore the burden of all of our sins. Therefore, our sins are not just white-washed but removed from us. In that removal–in the fullness and totality of the Cross of Christ–we are declared righteous and can, in fact, stand in God's presence without reaping what it is we have sown in our sins–because that wrath was taken out on Christ. We stand before God declared rightoues; we are justified yet still sinner.
Lauren's answer is great. Here's my shot! If God loves us "anyway," his law, his creation, and his very being, are mocked. He becomes the parent who can't hold to threatened discipline. By declaring us righteous on account of Christ, his justice is upheld, paid for by Christ's blood, and yet we can be saved from it.
Thank you very much for your answers; I understand better now.
I have more questions, though, I'm afraid! Since God knows already that we are sinners, he knows that we can't be anything else. We are not "mocking" his law (except, of course, when we are); we can't possibly obey it, no matter what we do. So why does God need something different? Surely he can't ask more of us than we can ever possibly do?
So, OK – Jesus dies on the cross for us, the supreme Sacrifice. God comes to earth to die for us. On the cross he has taken the sins of the world on his own shoulders – he has taken all the guilt to himself, which ought to be enough, no? – but we are still sinners, not righteous.
In the next moment, we will sin again; I know it and you know it.
I'd rather not have to live up to "imputed righteousness," myself; it seems way too big a burden psychically, even if it's really not.
But perhaps this "imputed righteousness" is akin to the "virtues," as described in Catholic theology as "ways in which a goodness which is not ours becomes connatural with us" (per James Alison)? It doesn't seem to me that these two ideas are the same, but if they are, then maybe I can go along….
Hey bls –
1) God, apparently, HAS asked us to do something we cannot do. The implications of this run really deep, and are basically, I think, unknowable.
2) We ARE righteous. When Jesus cries out that he's been forsaken by his Father, all his righteousness is given to us. Luther's "simultaneously justified and sinner" thing is a way to try to explain the powerfully counterintuitive way in which we experience our lives (i.e. usually given to the same proclivities of a "sinner) and the truth of the Gospel, that we are 100% righteous in the sight of God.
3) I don't know much about Catholic virtues or Alison's work, but the way you describe it doesn't sound too far from what I believe. The good that happens through us is just that: good happening through us, rather than from us. We often recognize it only in hindsight, if at all. I don't think I'd go with "co-natural," because I think it is NOT from our nature at all, it is from that righteousness that we've been given by being clothed with Christ.
I can't claim to speak for Mockingbird, or Lauren, by the way…just trying to lay out what I think!
Thanks, Nick. I guess this is why I'm not an Evangelical (at least, not in this way); I can't accept the premises.
But, horses for courses, as they say. I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that any of the Atonement theories (as far as I understand them) actually explains the thing fully, so I tend to just let go and cease trying to explain it at that point (kind of like your point #1!).
I'll need to read yours and Lauren's explanations over again several times, I think, before I'll get what you're saying, but I do understand the general argument. Thanks again.
Hey BLS… again, real glad to see you on here.
There's probably no chance of me saying anything better than Lauren and Nick just did… but here's yet one more way of thinking about our need to be declared righteous. That word (righteousness) means a lot, but part of what it means is To Be Put Right With. So to be clothed with God's righteousness is to be put back in right relationship with him.
Now let's just forget about theology and atonement theories and so on for a minute, and just think about what it's like to be in relationship to someone you care about a lot — but someone you have also just done something terrible to. It could be your best friend, your mom, your girlfriend or boyfriend, whatever.
You have done a terrible terrible thing to that person. If you want to be in relationship to that person, going forward, that relationship is going to have to be Made Right.
Now the way that really plays out, in practice, is that the bad person needs to have the other impute to him a Guiltlessness — a forgiveness so thorough that the other says effectively that it has as if the terrible thing never happened. God uses a lot of metaphors for that in the Bible, but the one he uses most is a kind of willed amnesia, that "I will remember your sin no more."
Any time that the forgiveness takes any form less than that — e.g. well, I'll forgive you, but I am not really going to forget it — I'll be watching you, etc. — then the relationship hasn't been put right. It's still all wrong and this plays out vividly in marriages and parent-child relationships and so on.
What we need, therefore, to turn the discussion back to where you and Nick and Lauren were, is a forgiveness so total and secure that it can blot out every transgression, and thereby have the confidence that our relationship has been "put right" once and for all. This is righteousness we receive from Christ.
Thanks, StampDawg.
I do like that analogy better than any other I've seen, so thanks for that. The word "righteousness" gives me the willies, somehow, so I'll think of it in terms of "amnesia" from now on.
And actually, that's even better, because it really takes the focus off of me – which is part of what I dislike about "imputed righteousness" also, I think – and makes God the only actor in the drama. Good!
Thanks!
Well, one of the things that MB is big on lately is realizing that certain kinds of religious speech, certain words, can become tinged with all kinds of negative associations — and so they end up meaning the opposite of what we want them to. Righteousness may be an example of that for you.
If you get a chance, do a search (using the MB search engine) for the phrase Persuasive Words — and you'll see a bunch of recent articles where we grapple with this explicitly — and implicitly it runs throughout the whole MB enterprise.
The goal is to stay very true to the Old Old Story — to not change the content of this message at all — but find "new persuasive words" to tell it.
Also, if you haven't had a chance to watch it yet, run to Youtube and do the same search on their site. You'll find 5 short videos by Paul Zahl that try to begin to unpack this. Roman Catholic Andrew Sullivan posted a link to them on his site as well — he seemed to really like them.
Blessings,
SD
bls:
I really like how stampdawg explained it via relationships. It is clear and avoids the burden that you are feeling with the term "righteousness"–which i understand.
One thing to add, you wrote "I'd rather not have to live up to "imputed righteousness," myself; it seems way too big a burden psychically, even if it's really not"…now, I'll say nothing to try to convince you but would want to assure you that imputed means just what you want it to mean: it's not something we can "live" up to, therefore it's given, imputed to us. so, imputed righteousness would be something that we are even though we don't live up to it…again, not to say this to try to convince you to accept the word "righteousness" but to reinforce SD's definition of "willed amnesia" (that God, by really forgetting our sins, separating us from them as far as east is from west, makes us righteous). Anyway, thanks for the great questions and for commenting!
bls,
I really appreciate your candor and honest questions. . thank you!
You asked:
I'm not clear on why we have to be declared righteous before God.
Why can't we just be sinners, and loved anyway?
And then said: But, horses for courses, as they say. I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that any of the Atonement theories (as far as I understand them) actually explains the thing fully, so I tend to just let go and cease trying to explain it at that point (kind of like your point #1!).
If there is any acceptance of anything deserving the name "Atonement" at all, by whatever theory one is operating, then that necessarily informs the answer to your first question. Whatever is wrong with us, it was not enough for God to simply say "you're forgiven," because one imagines that He would have spared his Son were that the case.
It is funny how many things that we can try to hang on the cross to dress it up and make it less graphic, real and decidedly non-abstract. How it "works," is a subject for debate sure, something of the "inner council of God" as Luther liked to say, but what it is–ie. an atonement for sin (however that is understood)–has constituted the core of Christian proclamation from Peter's first recorded sermon in Acts.
Barth's "theory of reconciliation"–at least by the end–was/is like that of the Hindus, that even though everyone else is confused and misguided, God will ultimately have mercy on them and they will realize in the end that we were right.
Whether this is true or not is certainly something that we'll all find out one day (hopefully not too soon:); however, this threatens to drive god back up towards Mount Olympus or wherever, and away from any direct contact with the everyday experience of human beings; any sort of genuine connection between the one who died for us and the reasons he had to die are relegated to the purely psychological and speculative.
This is all well and good until you are forced to either forgive or be forgiven for something concrete and specific, when this need arises, general "theories" of god, much less the atonement, break down.
So, we're back at the beginning, If "sinner" means anything, in light of the Cross, it does not mean "human" or "flawed" or something like that, but it means something more like "those who without Faith are dead, unjustified, lost." Again, what happens to these people is beyond our knowledge, but the Christian's role in "confessing the Faith once delivered" has been clear for 2000 years.
There's been something askew in this dialogue and it just hit me what it is: ontology.
Jady said something that sparked something in my head: "So, we're back at the beginning, If "sinner" means anything, in light of the Cross, it does not mean "human" or "flawed" or something like that, but it means something more like "those who without Faith are dead, unjustified, lost.""
Jady's broaching the subject of ontology (person/being). (and this came to mind with the comment about "virtues" earlier.) IF we are talking in terms of ontology then how we define ontology becomes VERY important. Currently, ontology is understood in terms of "i am what i do" (i.e. Aristotle's "a virtuous man does virtuous things", or actuality has priority). If this is the understanding of ontology we are bringing in to understanding imputation of righteousness, then it will result in dis-ease because, essentially, "I will do what I am and if I've been declared righteous, then i should act righteous…but I can't because I sin and thus I am a sinner because I sin". While the later half of that equation is true (I am a sinner because I sin) this, as Jady said, has no bearing on your person and being. Being declared justified by God by faith in Christ redefines our understanding of ontology (who we are is not defined by what we do (good or bad) or as Eberhard Jungel will say: possibility has priority over actuality (contra Aristotle)): we are His own, loved, justified, made right.
so it is as sd said: willed amnesia; but it is also more in that your very person and being becomes redefined by God's verdict apart from works (and very well in spite of them).
But there's a huge difference, isn't there, between "imputed righteousness" to human beings, and God's own "willed amnesia"?
When I am able to "forgive and forget," at least, it does involve a "willed amnesia" of whatever I'm forgiving. It does not involved my "imputing righteousness" to the other person! I know the other person is a sinner just like me – this is exactly why forgiveness is so important!
Perhaps this is only a problem of perception on my part, or a continued lack of understanding of the terms. But one seems to involve accepting reality for what it is, without attempting to change it – and the other seems (to me) to be a total departure from reality! (Perhaps the problem is that I struggled very, very hard to get into reality at one point in my life – it was the hardest fight I've ever been in. And maybe this is why I have this reaction, now that I think of it; I'm quite deeply averse to the thought of unreality and to the illusion of perfection both….)
I have read over both Lauren and Jady's comments, and will do it again later; I'm not sure I understand what's being said, but sometimes it takes a while for the light to come on.
You have a point about God "sparing his Son" – but of course the Son is also God, who went to Jerusalem on his own initiative. I find Atonement to be less an equation than a deep mystery that speaks to human suffering at a direct and visceral level – which addresses a point you made elsewhere about how to communicate these ideas; Good Friday has always given me the metaphysical shivers – and a sense of awe and mystery in how "salvation" works. (Besides, I'm partial to the "bait" theory….)
Well, thanks a lot for the discussion – it's really interesting even if I don't quite get the point sometimes.
"So, we're back at the beginning, If "sinner" means anything, in light of the Cross, it does not mean "human" or "flawed" or something like that, but it means something more like "those who without Faith are dead, unjustified, lost.""
Yes, I agree with this – but "sinners" are not "sinners" in a vaccum! We live in the world and in history, too, and time only flows in one direction for us: forward. So if we are continually sinners, then how can we ever be "saved" in these terms?
I like the little formula "Justified and a sinner both" – but I'm not sure it works very well in the real world, or in the human psyche (at least, it doesn't, in mine). I guess once again I approach this from a sort of "mental and spiritual health" POV, which seems to be a first principle in "salvation," for me. ("Dead" and "lost" do both seem to speak to the condition of soul-sickness, don't they? And what else is Jesus but "lover of souls"? The "inner man" being renewed, day by day?)
I really do look through the lens of AA quite naturally, I guess. That's the reason I first found this blog!
This is a great discussion… and this series on Barth (along with Marilynne Robinson's book Gilead, which I recently read) really makes me want to read some of his work– but that citation in the footnote at the end suggests that "Church Dogmatics" might be a bit imposing… anyone suggest something easier to start with? or maybe some kind of summary of Barth? I'm not above reading Cliff's Notes (or the theology equivalent, whatever that may be.) 🙂
Emily: i just noticed your comment and feel horrible that it has gone this long without a response. First, Barth's "Dogmatics in Outline" is a great primer. It is very dense (as is everything with barth). If you would like to contact me directly, I could dialogue with you directly about what to read. Maybe the best step would be to contact the administrator of this blog and get my email address. i'd love to dialogue more about barth and be of any help i can.
The section on Descartes is a misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Descartes. “It think therefore I am” does not mean my thinking is causing my existence or that our thinking will cause anything concrete. That is not the point at all. Descartes point is that since I think, the thinking subject “I” must exist. A nonexistent thing cannot think. He merely looking a an indubitable starting point for rational thinking. One can doubt the existence of anything, but one cannot doubt the existence of oneself, because if I doubt the existence of myself, then who is doubting? I can doubt only if I exist. That was his point. Descartes was not taking about the creative power of thinking.