The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Barth on God's - humility!

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

What do you think about this?
"“Even in the form of a servant, which is the form of His presence and action in Jesus Christ, we have to do with God Himself in His true deity. The humility in which He dwells and acts in Jesus Christ is not alien to Him, but proper to Him. His humility is a new mystery for us in whose favour He executes it when He makes use of His freedom for it, when He shows His love even to His enemies and His life even in death, thus revealing them in a way which is quite contrary to all our false ideas about God. But for Him this humility is no new mystery. It is His sovereign grace that He wills to be and is amongst us in humility, our God, God for us. But He shows us this grace, He is amongst us in humility, our God, God for us, as that which He is in Himself, in the most inward depth of His Godhead. He does not become another God. In the condescension in which He gives Himself to us in Jesus Christ He exists and speaks and acts as the One He was from all eternity and will be to all eternity. The truth and actuality of our atonement depends on this being the case. The One who reconciles the world with God is necessarily the one God Himself in His true Godhead. Otherwise the world would not be reconciled with God. Otherwise it is still the world which is not reconciled with God.”

  • Karl Barth, CD IV.1, 192-193 (emphasis added)."
#2

This is a good quote.

It seems that Barth here stands in contrast to the Calvinistic idea of “voluntary condescension.” It seems that Barth is saying that God (in the Person and work of Jesus Christ) condescends because of who He is. Thus, to leave all humanity to die in their sins would be against the nature of God.

#3

That’s the way I read it, Dan. I have not read the CD for context, but as a stand-alone statement, this is a strong one.

#4

I don’t know about this. Barth uses his words in a slippery way. It implies something superficial about God - that He needed to show His compassion. It implies, to me, that God is neurotic, and that God would have demonstrated this grace whether we wanted it or not. God does not need to demonstrate His love or grace. God does not need our recognition.

This is, I think, a bit of false reasoning. Barth places the two ideas as equal: 1/ the essential trinity, as seen through the incarnation, being Barth’s own particular understanding of what the trinity means to him, 2/ with, salvation and reconciliation, being intrinsically bonded to the recognition of the God head (“necessarily the one God Himself in His true Godhead”). “Otherwise”, Barth says, “the world would not be reconciled with God.” This places a question mark on the original treaty of life which was offered to Adam. This treaty had no glimpse of this *necessary godhead *through the incarnation, and yet it was still ratified by both parties. Either God’s Adamic offer of life was not real, or Barth has exaggerated the necessity of the incarnation. If the incarnation was always necessary, than the original treaty was given under false pretenses. I might be reading to much into this, but I do think Barth drifted too far in his imagination.

S.

#5

Ah well, it edified me as I read it,and has edified me since, but I read it a little differently. Not a big deal.

#6

Are there any other god-candidates in the marketplace who are humble? The humility of Christ is surely one of the most beautiful things about him.

#7

Steve,

I don’t follow how you come to the conclusion that Barth is saying that the incarnation was necessary prior to or above the fall of man into sin. I fail to see how the current quote implies that. Nor do I see where Barth implies that God “need[s] to demonstrate His love or grace” and stands in need of human recognition.

It seems to me only that Barth was saying that, given the fall, God’s response to the fall demonstrates who He is (or was) already in Himself prior to the fall. Thus it would not be consistent with the nature of God (as defined in Himself) for Him to have responded any differently to the circumstance of the fall than He did.

#8

Stef, I see how you could interpret the passage the way you did; but my reading of it is along the lines Dan spoke of.
The real scandal, to our human nature, is not that God is Sovereign and Omnipotent - there are other ‘gods’ that meet that criteria (or close to it) - but the true God being Love, and exhibiting humility - it just would not enter the mind of man.

#9

I love Barth (the little I’ve read of him), but it’s always a struggle to follow him. What I read here is that God, in Christ, truly reveals Himself to us. That Jesus IS God reconciling us to Himself. Also that looking at Jesus, we see God in His true character of intrinsic humility. He stoops to help us because it is His nature to do so, and we see His nature in Jesus. Beautiful.

#10

From what I have read from and about Barth, he is very complex. He will often say something in a sentence or paragraph that means something else other than what was assumed, or the implications are opposite to the statement. Anyway, I agree with your appraisal Dave. If Barth means the same, then I agree with Barth too.

S.

#11

Stef - can I call you Stef? - I totally agree that Barth uses the language to the point of abuse in certain situations. Same with Tillich.
I will never read Church Dogmatics, though there are bloggers that have dedicated their lives to reading and commenting on it.

Me, I would love to have the 7 volumes of Balthasar’s Glory of the Lord. Christian aesthetics is mother’s milk for me.

#12

Stef (or Stefcui) is my name in Polish. It was given to me by a Polish brother over 20 years ago, and the name stuck. My wife calls me Stefcui.

I have been inspired and encouraged by most scholars, including Barth. On the early church, I like the works of Maurice Wiles and Pope Benedict. Most people, if not everyone, has something valuable to offer.

Stef