iv.1.58.3 In the short (!!) third section of section 58, Barth continues by discussing the “middle” point—“which both differentiates and comprehends [reconciliation]”—between looking up toward the reconciling grace (part 1) and down to the being of man in reconciliation (part 2): the atonement made in and by Jesus Christ. The atonement is “…the middle point the one thing from which neither the God who turns to man nor man converted to God can be abstracted, in which and by which both are what they are, in which and to which they stand in that mutual relationship”. That middle point is Jesus Christ; in Him and by His atoning work, God is turned toward humanity and humanity is converted to God: without Christ, there is no reconciliation, for both 
turning and converting are dependent on Him and His work. “[Jesus Christ] exists as the mediator between God and man in the sense that in Him God’s reconciling of man and man’s reconciliation with God are event”. Jesus functions in this role as the middle point, as the Mediator in a “comprehensive whole” neither his divinity nor his humanity out weighing the other . In reconciliation by Jesus, humanity is confronted with Jesus as Man, as God, and as the God-Man. With this Jesus, in this proposed three-foldness of Jesus, Barth will demonstrate how reconciliation has a threefold office and how all three offices must be held together to form the whole of who Jesus is as the middle point of reconciliation as the mediator (in part 4).
COMMENTS
12 responses to ““Wake me up inside…” (part 4): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)”
Leave a Reply
Yes, precisely, and Barth is right to make the meaning of God contingent upon the atonement and the meaning of the atonement contingent upon the identity of the God-man. It seems that the atonement is often abstracted during informal theological discussions (read 'sermons'), but I can't put my finger upon why I feel that way. Any thoughts, Mockingbird? [BTW LL, my supervisor rarely lets me get away with the same syntactical indulgences that we observe in Barth–I had to read this quote more than once before his meaning became clear.]
I LIKE KARL BARTH'S GLASSES!
dp: you know, i've read not a small amount of recent scholarship this past year that typical renders the 'atonement' as some sort of foreign concept that has been imposed on the Gospel story. In pushing the atonement into the way distant background (rather than allotting it it's rightful spot in the foreground), 'informal theological discussions' can become more 'moralistic' in the sense that without being confronted with the fact that Jesus died for my guilt as a sacrifice that dealt with God's wrath over my great transgressions of His holy law, we can look to Jesus as an ethical example rather than a 'much-needed-Saviour'. Also in removing the atonement from it's rightful spot, maybe we can also lessen the weight of the law (i seem to talk about this a lot). just some initial and quick and rather exhausted thoughts.
i need a nap.
Hey Dyl,
I think that, ironically, Barth is the reason for the abstract treatments.
Debates over "young" vs. "old" Barth are legion; however, one thing is certain, that is "mature" understanding of the "reconciliation of all things(taken from the panta in Col. 1:20) is what he has left us with.
Not only has this understanding contributed to our natural propensity to not deliver bad news, but it also has helped to decouple the theological enterprise from the pastorate. Sure, we can all sit back and theologize with increasingly more sophisticated (and inaccessible) language and examine the world from a God's eye view since we know that he has already reconciled the world to himself, and we can be thankful that we don't live in a time where we actually think that people need to be converted. Thanks to Barth, whatever is happening now, we can be certain, is only the outworking of what has already been accomplished in Christ.
This is the standard law/gospel critique of Barth, that he has "seen through" the mystery of the Cross to the ultimate purposes of God, which are now to be proclaimed as having been accomplished and fulfilled in Christ.
While nobody would, I hope, argue with the hopefulness of this assertion, his explicit rejection of the reality or theological necessity behind the concept of the–deus absconditus–the hidden God who works his alien work of wrath–means that, for Barth, EVERYTHING that people are experiencing is really, if they could only see it, the loving hand of God.
This may help the 10 of us who have stuck around in church to us sleep better at night, and maybe universal reconciliation is true, but for people under the law, this offers very little comfort.
Nice JDK. Well said.
Jady–As you know, Moltman shares Barth's universalist optimism, but from a Lutheran perspective. I don't necessarily reject a form of universalism, but I do reject one which has no place for a real judgment, because I think one has to throw out about half the NT to get there. As for what may or may not offer comfort, people seem to find comfort in a lot of things, even 'the law,' oddly enough, if the massive growth of Mormonism and Islam is any indication.
I thought Moltmann was part of the Reformed church in Germany?
I don't know Moltmann's formal church affiliation. I think that he was a pastor of an Evangelical church for a few years in the 50's. I do think that he was very influenced by Luther, even if he was not formally affiliated with the Lutheran church. Anyway, I guess we should defer to PZ on that. My point is that I find that this abstracting quality which robs the gospel of its power of deliverance for sinners is not something that is caused by Reformed as oppossed to Lutheran theology, but is a result of a broad universalism, which can come from any number of sources.
Moltmann is a self-professed Reformed theologian (as is Barth). MC, you have company!
So, Todd, what exactly does that mean: "Self-professed Reformed theologian?" Does that mean we can peg all the ills of the Christian church, including anything and everything from moralism to abstract universalism, on him ? If so, I really do have company around here!
…but seriously, as you know, both Barth and Moltmann are very complex in their total output. Although I am not a fan of Moltmann's quasi-universalism, or of Barth's either, I do not think it is fair to say these are "Reformed" ideas, as opposed to "Lutheran." Moltmann, like Barth, differs considerably with classic "covenant" Reformed theology, both of them having a problem with infant baptism, for example. Moltmann claims to have been very influenced by Luther, while he also is very sympathetic toward the charismatic movement, as well as toward the historic "Left" of the Reformation, including the Anabaptists and the various pacifist groups. There may be a lot to admire in many of Moltmann's views, and a lot to question, but he is not exactly your standard-issue "Reformed theologian" 😉 But if one wants to use the "Reformed" label for its perceived negative implications, that of course is another matter.
I happen to agree with Barth that Christ satisfied for all. However, Barth also states that God reveals himself this truth not to all men. So much for Barth universal grace, Barth does not realize that man resists the Holy Spirit, and rejects God’s grace given to them. In a sense both Barth and the 17th century puritans like John Owen that Barth so much hates, have one thing in common, a God whose grace, mercy, and kindness no man resists. And these my friends is false doctrine, and gives little hope to the billions of people that God passes by.