gignilliat, mark - karl barth and the fifht gospel - isaiah

7/23/2019 Gignilliat, Mark - Karl Barth and the Fifht Gospel - Isaiah

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gignilliat-mark-karl-barth-and-the-fifht-gospel-isaiah 1/182

Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel

Mark S. Gignilliat

Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah



Karl Bar th and the Fi Fth Gospel

Today’s biblical scholars and dogmaticians are giving a signi.cant amount ofattention to the topic of theological exegesis. A resource turned to for guidanceand insight in this discussion is the history of interpretation, and Karl Barth’svoice registers loudly as a helpful model for engaging Scripture and its subjectmatter. Most readers of Barth’s theological exegesis encounter him on the levelof his New Testament exegesis. This is understandable from several differentvantage points. Unfortunately, Barth’s theological exegesis of the Old Testamenthas not received the attention it deserves. This book seeks to ll this lacuna asit encounters Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah in the Church Dogmatics.

From the Church’s inception, Isaiah has been understood as Christian Scripture.in the Church Dogmatics we nd Barth reading Isaiah in multi-functional andmulti-layered ways as he seeks to hear Isaiah as a living witness to God’s triunerevelation of himself in Jesus Christ.



Barth Studies

s eries e ditors

John Webster, Professor of Theology, University of Aberdeen, UK George Hunsinger, Director of the Center for Barth Studies,

Princeton Theological Seminary, USAHans-Anton Drewes, Director of the Karl Barth Archive, Basel Switzerland

The work of Barth is central to the history of modern western theology andremains a major voice in contemporary constructive theology. His writings have been the subject of intensive scrutiny and re-evaluation over the past two decades,

notably on the part of English-language Barth scholars who have often been at theforefront of fresh interpretation and creative appropriation of his theology. Studyof Barth, both by graduate students and by established scholars, is a signicant

enterprise; literature on him and conferences devoted to his work abound; the KarlBarth Archive in Switzerland and the Center for Barth Studies at Princeton giveinstitutional prole to these interests. Barth’s work is also considered by many to

be a signicant resource for the intellectual life of the churches.

Drawing from the wide pool of Barth scholarship, and including translations ofBarth’s works, this series aims to function as a means by which writing on Barth,of the highest scholarly calibre, can nd publication. The series builds upon andfurthers the interest in Barth’s work in the theological academy and the church.

Other titles in this series

The Resurrection in Karl Barth

R. Dale Dawson

Barth, Israel, and Jesus Karl Barth’s Theology of Israel

Mark R. Lindsay

Barth’s Theology of InterpretationDonald Wood

a s horter Commentary on r omans by Karl BarthWith an Introductory Essay by Maico Michielin

Maico M. Michielin



Karl Barth and the Fifth GospelBarth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah

MARK S. GIGNILLIAT Beeson Divinity School, Samford University, USA



© Mark S. Gignilliat 2009

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Mark S. Gignilliat has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs and PatentsAct, 1988, to be identied as the author of this work.

Published byAshgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing CompanyWey Court East Suite 420Union Road 101 Cherry StreetFarnham BurlingtonSurrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405

England USA

www.ashgate.com

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Gignilliat, Mark S. Karl Barth and the fth gospel : Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah. – (Barth studies) 1. Barth, Karl, 1886–1968 2. Bible. O.T. Isaiah – Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title

224.1’06

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gignilliat, Mark S. Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel : Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah / Mark S.Gignilliat. p. cm. — (Barth studies) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-7546-5856-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Barth, Karl, 1886–1968. 2. Bible.

O.T. Isaiah—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 3. Bible—Hermeneutics. 4. Bible—Theology.I. Title.

BX4827.B3G54 2008 224’.106092—dc22

2008030841

ISBN 978-0-7546-5856-6eISBN 978-0-7546-8300-1



For William and Martha Gignilliat

honored parents and cherished friends



This page has been left blank intentionally



Contents

Preface ix Acknowledgments xiii

1 Barth and the Renaissance of Old Testament Theology in the Early20th Century 1

2 Die Zeit der Erwartung 253 Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah 1–39 63

4 Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah 40–66 1035 Theological Exegetical Implications of Barth’s Isaianic Exegesis 137

Bibliography 153General Index 163Scripture Index 167



Preface

This book is an exercise in listening. During my postgraduate days at theUniversity of St. Andrews, I had the good fortune of participating in the Scriptureand Theology seminar. I am not alone in saying that this seminar proved to be oneof the most signicant aspects of my postgraduate studies. In the seminar, we gavemuch attention and discussion to the relationship between dogmatics and exegesis,the failed promises of historical criticism and the very pertinent question: ‘How dowe go about doing theological exegesis?’ I and many of my peers were looking for

a method or at least something transferrable. Little did we know that matters werenot quite so simple. In this process, I also became aware that too much attention inthe discussion has been given to method with very little attention actually given toengaging the text of Scripture.

In light of this neglect, the history of interpretation offers a more than helpfulresource by providing models of theological exegetes actually engaging theScriptures. I found myself during these postgraduate days more often than notturning to Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics (hereafter CD) to see how he would

engage a particular Scriptural text with which I was wrestling. My dissertationfocused on Paul’s theological reading of Isaiah and the relationship of Paul’sreading to later practices of reading the Old Testament christianly. At that time, Iwas reading CD IV.1 with a group of theologians studying at St. Andrews. Duringthis exercise I discovered Barth’s reading of Isaiah and was enthralled. I knew Iwanted to pursue the subject more thoroughly and took to it after the publicationof my dissertation, hence this volume.

I primarily wanted to learn from Barth and this is why this book is rst and

foremost an exercise in listening. I wanted to see how he engaged a text like Isaiahas a theological witness. My ndings did not leave me disappointed. As the readerwill see, I do not nd all of Barth’s readings persuasive, or even very good forthat matter. As far as the standards of measurement go, the reader will have toadjudicate these matters. What I did nd in Barth was a wonderfully rich resourceof reading Isaiah theologically in differing theological contexts. Isaiah 6 canwitness to the identity of our Triune God and is also a testimony to the contoursof a Christian’s witness. Isaiah 53 speaks directly of Jesus Christ and in anothercontext of the CD is relegated rstly to the history of Israel and then gurally

extended to the person and work of Jesus Christ. This is why the book is centrallyan act of listening to Barth. I do engage in the critical analysis of Barth’s readinghere and there, but the reader will quickly nd that my sympathies lie with Barth’stheological exegesis of Isaiah.

The reader will also discover in the pages of this book my heavy indebtednessto Brevard Childs and his intellectual/theological progeny. My intention at the



Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel x

outset of writing this book was not to place Barth and Childs in conversation, but,as the nal chapter demonstrates, this has in fact occurred. In my estimation, Childstook Barth’s massive theological vision as it is rmly situated in the Reformer’sScripture principle and worked it out in the context of Old and New TestamentIntroduction and Biblical Theology. It does not take much reading of Childs to seehis vocabulary about witness, subject matter and his positive view of the dialecticalrelationship between exegesis and theology is inuenced by Barth. Due to theambitious and epoch-making character of Childs’ work, the relationship betweenhim and Barth must be carefully weighed. Perhaps Childs is for the biblical side ofthe divide what Barth was for the theological side—both of them seeking to breakdown that divide as well. Both men had outstanding training and sought to think aswidely as possible across disciplines threatening to become discrete.1 This makesthe theological world of Barth and Childs’ canonical approach close relatives. In

light of the passing of Brevard Childs in the fall of 2007, I am very happy to havehim represented so much in this volume. The lion’s share of what I have learnedabout theological exegesis is indebted to the theological trajectory set by Barthand Childs.

The rst two chapters of this book are orienting in nature. The rst chaptersets the context for the book and the context of Old Testament scholarshipcirca 1920–1940. This chapter, again, is orienting in nature, not comprehensive.The second chapter wrestles with Barth’s own formal theological engagement

with the role of the Old Testament as a witness to revelation in CD I.2. It ismeant to be a close reading of Barth’s location of the Old Testament in thecontext of the doctrine of revelation. Also, this chapter provides the theologicalframework for Barth’s actual theological exegesis of Isaiah. The third andfourth chapters are given to Barth’s actual engagement with the text of Isaiah.I will make hermeneutical statements in the nal chapter, but my desire is forthe reader to observe Barth’s actual engagement of the text. In this sense, thehermeneutical conclusions are meant to be seen and tested on the ground without

much attachment to theory or methodological formulations. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The nal chapter brings Barth into conversation withBrevard Childs’ understanding of the christological witness of the Old Testament.I believe Childs’ formulations provide a helpful heuristic in evaluating whatBarth does rather intuitively.

I do hope those who care about the subject matter of this book will read andenjoy this volume (even critically so). At the end of the day, however, it has beenmy privilege to sit at the feet of a great ‘little’ theologian who sees the readingand engaging of the Bible as the central component of his theological task. I donot think Barth is to be imitated, necessarily. This might only lead to frustrationfor many. But I do hope those of us who care about the church and theologyand who believe that the Bible is a unique means by which God communicateshis own presence to the church will seek to go and do likewise. My reading of

1 Thanks to Chris Seitz for this insight.Thanks to Chris Seitz for this insight.



Preface xi

Barth is not meant to be in support of repristination but of encouragement andinspiration to take seriously the exegesis of Scripture and, more importantly, thesubject matter witnessed to by Holy Scripture.

Mark S. GignilliatLent 2008



Acknowledgments

My gratitude is extended to many who have encouraged me during the writingof this monograph. So much of research and writing are done in isolation andfor one who is social enough to be troubled by too much isolation, I have foundgreat joy and encouragement in the personal and theological engagement fromthese people mentioned here. Special thanks to Thomes ‘Tee’ Gatewood, MattJenson, Jason Curtis, Chris Curtis, Jonathan Pennington, Don Collett, SteveMason, Carl Beckwith, Ken Mathews and Gerald Bray. Several of these took time

to read portions of the book and offered helpful critique. Terry Pickett of SamfordUniversity’s modern language department helpfully looked over my Germantranslations. I would also like to thank my students at Beeson Divinity School,Samford University. Their eagerness to learn, hunger for the gospel and love forour Triune God is infectious and creates an exciting context for teaching theologicalstudies. Special thanks go to my teaching assistants, David O’Dell and ColtonHouston, who have offered much critical and editorial help during the writing process. I am also grateful for the help offered by Beeson’s faculty secretaries,

Melissa Matthews and Debbie Simonetti. Beeson Divinity School’s TheologicalLibrarian, Michael Garrett, has been an invaluable resource for me in my research,and, more importantly, has offered his friendship along the way. My appreciationis extended to my colleagues at Beeson as well. It is a pleasure to serve with them.Paul House, Beeson’s associate dean, offered much support and encouragementduring my writing. He approved moneys for research and lightened my teachingload for the semester this project was due. Also, many thanks to Beeson’s dean,Timothy George, who also took a keen and supporting interest in this book.

My doctoral supervisor, Christopher Seitz, continues to inuence me positivelyin the direction of theological exegesis. He models a profoundness of thought andinsight that comes from a God-given capacious mind and heart. I am indebted tohim. John Webster has surprised me by his availability and encouragement as theeditor of the Barth Studies Series. I would not have written this book if I could nothave had his theological eyes on it. I am grateful to John for his help and criticaleye during the writing and publication of this book. The problems that remain inthe book are, of course, my own.

I gratefully acknowledge the permission granted to cite the following: Karl Barth,

Church Dogmatics, I.2, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.T. Thomsonand Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956). Reprinted with kind permissionof Continuum International Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

Special thanks are extended to my wife, Naomi, and my two, young sons,William and Jackson. Naomi was very patient with me during the writing of thisvolume (especially during Christmas break 2007). These three bring incalculable



Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel xiv

joy into my life. Books come and go, but these three do not. I dedicate this book tomy parents, William and Martha Gignilliat. As I get older, I become more and morethankful for their gracious presence in my life. Their investment in my personaland spiritual development has left an enduring and intangible mark. In the end,relationships such as the ones mentioned here are of profound importance in themaking of a life and a scholar. I and this book are the better for them.



Chapter 1

Barth and the Renaissance of Old Testament

Theology in the Early 20th Century

Indeed, it would be no exaggeration to understand the hermeneutical problem ofthe Old Testament as the problem of Christian theology, and not just one problemamong others, seeing that all the other questions of theology are affected in one way

or another by its resolution.1

Introduction

In a memorial colloquium held in 1969 at Yale Divinity School entitled Karl Barthand the Future of Theology, Brevard Childs recounts a pair of enlightening andhumorous stories about Karl Barth and his approach to Scripture. Childs tells of thesituation in which he found himself as a young doctoral student at the University

of Basel. There was a ‘Biblical phalanx’ (to use Childs’ words) that would sit in the back of Barth’s lectures armed with their Hebrew and Greek texts to cross-checkeverything Barth would say. Childs recounts how Barth would occasionally lookover at this phalanx and say, ‘Not that I don’t know all about J, E, D, and P,’ andthen go on with his lecture as if he could care less.2

In Childs’ estimation at the time, one did biblical studies, and if you could nothandle the Hebrew and Greek then you relinquished yourself to dogmatics.3 t hisreveals the tension that existed in those days between the biblical people and Barth,

with Childs rmly situated in the former. The second anecdote by Childs is revelatoryof this tension. During the 1952 lectures by von Rad entitled ‘Typological Interpretationof the Old Testament’, Barth was among those in attendance. Childs sat near the backof the lectures feeling as if he were listening to some of the most glorious lectures hehad ever heard. When von Rad concluded, Barth turned around in a half-sleepy way tothe person next to him and said, ‘Ich habe ihn gar nicht verstanden.’4 Childs found thisappalling and felt like saying, ‘Herr Professor, I can explain it all to you.’

1

A.H.J. Gunneweg,A.H.J. Gunneweg, Understanding the Old Testament , trans. J. Bowden (London:SCM Press, 1978), 2.2 David L. Dickerman, ed.,David L. Dickerman, ed., Karl Barth and the Future of Theology: A Memorial

Colloquium Held at Yale Divinity School, January 28, 1969 (New Haven: Yale DivinitySchool Association, 1969), 30.

3 Dickerman,Dickerman, Barth and the Future of Theology, 30.4 ‘‘ I have not understood him at all .’



Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel 2

In retrospect, Childs now understands the problems underlying von Rad’sappeal to typology. Von Rad’s wedding of typology to an overly historicist tradition-history ultimately fails for Childs.5 Nevertheless, during Child’s student days hisunderstanding was quite different. While Barth was not necessarily opposed tothe historical-critical project, he was not paralyzed by it either.6 Nor did he feelvon Rad’s need to proximate theological exegesis to the dominant patterns ofhistorical-critical engagement of the Scriptures. The dogmatic nature of Scriptureas the viva vox Dei allowed Barth freedom beyond the strictures of the historical-critical project and probably attests to the rationale behind Barth’s demurringfrom von Rad’s position. Childs concluded his talk at the Yale colloquium bystating admiringly, ‘The breadth and the scope of Barth’s use of all Scripture, Oldand New together, is, again, something it seems to me that hasn’t been paralleledsince Calvin.’7

As recently as 1991, Paul McGlasson laments the relative lack of detailedattention given to Barth’s exegesis in the CD. He speculates that the reasons forthis lack of attention are due to the bifurcation of the theological and biblicaldisciplines resulting in theologians who were unt to deal with Barth’s exegesis,and biblical scholars who were unt to deal with Barth’s theological reasoning. Itis worth citing McGlasson in full:

The result is that, for scholars of theology, the work is too ‘biblical,’ while for

scholars of the Bible the work is too ‘theological.’ The resulting fate of Barth’s biblical exegesis is in a way not really surprising. At least part of Barth’s reason

for doing extended biblical exegesis in the context of Christian theology was

to wage a direct assault on the bifurcation of scholarly work into two such

separated disciplines. Theology, for Barth, should again be biblical in a technical,

disciplined sense, and likewise should study of the Bible be disciplined by

confessional theological concerns. The immediate result of this assault on the

bifurcation of theological disciplines was that at least this part of Barth’s work

simply attracted no scholarly attention.8

5 Dickerman, Barth and the Future of Theology, 30. See also, Christopher R. Seitz,

Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998), 28–40. Childs states, ‘Whatever the weaknesses were in the debate ofthe 1920s and 1930s, it remains the enduring contribution of Barth, Vischer, and Hellbardt,among others, rightly to have insisted that the living, unfettered voice of God in Scripturecannot be held captive to the norms of human rationality.’ Brevard S. Childs, “On Reclaiming

the Bible for Christian Theology,” in Reclaiming the Bible for the Church, ed. C.E. Braatenand R.W. Jenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 4–5.6 Bruce McCormack, “Historical-Criticism and Dogmatic Interests in Karl Barth’sBruce McCormack, “Historical-Criticism and Dogmatic Interests in Karl Barth’s

Theological Exegesis of the New Testament,” Lutheran Quarterly 5 (1991): 211–25.7 Dickerman,Dickerman, Barth and the Future of Theology, 35.8 Paul McGlasson,Paul McGlasson, Jesus and Judas: Biblical Exegesis in Barth, American Academy

of Religion Academy Series (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1991), 4.



Barth and the Renaissance of Old Testament Theology 3

Resultantly, Barth’s biblical exegesis in the CD was of little consequence to both biblical scholars and theologians.9 Even during Barth’s day, Childs recountsthat most biblical scholars did not take Barth’s exegesis seriously. ‘You readhis theology with appreciation, but his Biblical work you might as well leavealone.’10 In this chapter, we will see this appreciation of Barth’s dogmatics andaversion to his exegesis to be the case with Barth’s Old Testament colleague,Walter Baumgartner. A decade after these comments by McGlasson the situationis a signicantly different one. Several monographs have been given to Barth’sexegesis both in his commentaries and the CD which reveal a renewed interestin theological exegesis, biblical theology and the organic relationship betweenexegesis and the dogmatic enterprise. With prophetic insight, McGlasson’s nal

remarks in his work are, ‘When and if there comes a renewed attempt at thetheological exegesis of biblical texts, an encounter with Holy Scripture beyond

historical criticism and hermeneutics, Barth’s biblical exegesis will surely bethere, ready to hand.’11 That ‘when and if’ is surely a ‘here and now’ in the currentclimate of renewed interest in reading the Bible theologically.

Even with the afrmation of this renewed interest in theological exegesisand the signicant role Barth plays in this enterprise, there is still a lacuna inthe landscape. Barth’s reading of the Old Testament has not received the amountof attention it deserves. If one surveys the recent works on Barth’s theologicalreading of Scripture, it would become obvious that the majority of attention is

given to Barth’s New Testament exegesis. This is somewhat understandable fromone vantage point simply because the bulk of Barth’s written material that focuses primarily on exegesis, that is the Römerbrief and his biblical studies lectures, are New Testament. Whether it is Romans, Philippians, 1 Corinthians 15, John 1 andthe other biblical lectures, our world is the New Testament canon.12

So, for example, when one looks at one of the more recent monographs givenspecically to Barth’s exegesis, namely, Richard Burnett’s ne work, Karl Barth’sTheological Exegesis, one nds him or herself in the territory of the several

Römerbrief prefaces. Burnett gives special attention to Barth’s hermeneutical principles that stand in contradistinction from the hermeneutical tradition ofSchleiermacher and Dilthey as particularly found in Barth’s exegesis of Romans.13 More recently, Bruce McCormack and Francis Watson have both, in their own

9 Exceptions to this claim would include, for example, Childs, Jngel, Frei, Baxter,Exceptions to this claim would include, for example, Childs, Jngel, Frei, Baxter,Schlichtling, Ford, Marquardt and Bächli.

10 Dickerman,Dickerman, Barth and the Future of Theology, 31.11

McGlasson,McGlasson, Jesus and Judas, 156.12 It is certainly regrettable that Barth did not lecture on the Old Testament. One canIt is certainly regrettable that Barth did not lecture on the Old Testament. One canonly speculate why this is not the case.

13 Richard Burnett, KarlRichard Burnett, Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis, WUNT 2 145 (T bingen: MohrSiebeck, 2001). See also, Mary Kathleen Cunningham, What is Theological Exegesis?

Interpretation and Use of Scripture in Barth’s Doctrine of Election (Harrisburg: TrinityPress International, 1995).




ways, engaged Barth’s theological exegesis in light of Barth’s commentary onPhilippians.14 These examples serve to show the weight of reection on Barth’sexegesis as primarily New Testament in orientation. The ip side to this coin isthat Barth’s Old Testament exegesis has not received the proper attention it isworthy to receive.

There are notable exceptions to the preceding claim. Kathryn Green-McCreighthas explored the ways in which Barth reads the plain sense of Genesis 1–3 in

CD III.1.15 She brings Barth into discussion with Augustine and Calvin regardingthe nature of a ‘plain sense’ reading of the Genesis material. She states, forexample, that:

Unlike Augustine, Barth is not advocating a reading of different senses of

scripture. Rather, he is saying that within the plain sense reading lies the gurative

and prophetic reference to Christ. This gurative and prophetic reference is notadded on or read into, but ingredient in the verbal sense ‘by reason of the fact

that the Bible gives us God’s own witness to Himself’ and ‘its word in all words

is this Word’.16

Greene-McCreight helpfully traces out Barth’s positive view of saga over-againstmyth as a proper descriptor of the kind of material one is dealing with in the primeval history. As saga, and not myth, the creation narratives demand to be

read ad litteram (according to the letter ) and in annexation to the forthcomingcovenantal materials in the rest of the Pentateuch.

Greene-McCreight has helpfully shown Barth’s appreciation of Old Testamentscholars such as Delitzsch, Zimmerli, Jeremias and others, while at the same timeshowing Barth’s personal outworking of his call for the historical critic to be morecritical. More is needed than historical-critical analysis when engaging the creationnarratives, and Barth’s sense, according to Greene-McCreight, is ‘intratextual’.17 It is the text which governs the interpretive process rather than historical-critical

reconstruction. One of the more salient aspects of Greene-McCreight’s analysisof Barth’s reading of Genesis 1–3 is her highlighting of Barth’s insistence on the priority of ‘the explanation given by the text itself’.18 Where Barth challengesvarious readings of Genesis in the history of interpretation, it is on the basis of the plain sense of the text itself. Greene-McCreight offers a very helpful reading ofBarth’s theological exegesis of the plain senses of Genesis 1–3.

14

Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Epistle to the Philippians: 40th Anniversary Edition, trans. J.W. Leitch(Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002).15 K.E. Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the

“Plain Sense” of Genesis 1–3, Issues in Systematic Theology 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999).16 Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram, 175.Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram, 175.17 Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram, 202.Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram, 202.18 Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram, 216.Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram, 216.




The most signicant work on Barth’s Old Testament reading is undoubtedlyOtto Bächli’s.19 He has written a full length monograph on the Old Testamentin Barth’s CD with special attention given to the ways in which Barth differedfrom the historical-critical milieu of his day. He engages Barth’s Old Testamentinterlocutors via the categories of Fathers, Brothers and Sons. These categoriesrepresent Barth’s Old Testament teachers, for example, Gunkel, his colleagues,such as Baumgartner and Vischer and those whom he taught, like Zimmerli. Thesecond part of Bächli’s work is devoted to particular instances of Barth’s OldTestament exegesis in texts such as Genesis 4, Leviticus 16, 1 Kings 13, and Job,to name a few. Bächli’s nal chapter makes claims about Barth’s hermeneutics ingeneral and about the signicant role the Old Testament plays for Barth’s ethic.Bächli’s work is an important contribution to this eld of inquiry.

Most recently, Matthias Bttner has written a monograph on the question

of theological exegesis and the theological center of the Old Testament in lightof Barth’s theology.20 Bttner’s work places Barth in conversation with OldTestament scholars as he seeks to understand how one reads the Old Testament asthe rst part of the Christian Bible. There is an impressive scope in Bttner’s work,and it is much more than an engagement with Barth’s thought. It is an attempt toestablish a theological framework for reading the Old Testament theologically inlight of its center: Jahweh is the God of the people of Israel; Israel is the peopleof God.21 Bttner nds much overlap between this theological center ( Mitte)

and Barth’s understanding of the Old Testament as the time of expectation. This particular understanding of the center of the Old Testament is, for Bttner, alsorelated to Barth’s claim that the history of Israel is the only true type of JesusChrist. Bttner’s monograph deserves more attention than is given here. It is animpressive piece concerned with the theological signicance of the Old Testament,the relationship between Christian and Jewish claims of the same Hebrew canonand the signicance of the fact that God spoke to Israel (diesem Volk ) rst. Barthis used as a ballast against other countervailing tendencies.

The problem with many treatments of Barth’s exegesis, Bächli and Greene-McCreight aside, is that they rarely give much detailed attention to the ways in

19 Otto Bächli,Otto Bächli, Das Alte Testament in der Kirchlichen Dogmatik von Karl Barth (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1987).

20 Matthias Bttner,Matthias Bttner, Das Alte Testament als erster Teil der christlichen Bibel: Zur Frage nach theologischer Auslegung und Mitte im Kontext der Theologie Karl Barths,Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 2002) See also Roger R.

Keller, “Karl Barth’s Treatment of the Old Testament as Expectation,” Andrews UniversitySeminary Journal 35 (1997): 165–79.

21 For the source of this understanding of theFor the source of this understanding of the Mitte of the Old Testament traced fromWellhausen and adopted and augmented by Smend see, Rudolf Smend, Die Mitte des AltenTestaments, Theologische Studien (Zrich: EVZ-Verlag, 1970). See also, Henning GrafReventlow, Problems of Old Testament Theology in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1985), 128–30.




which Barth actually reads Old Testament texts. For example, attention is given toBarth’s understanding of the Old Testament from his Christocentric or Christotelic perspective, or to Barth’s understanding of the Old Testament as the time ofexpectation ( Die Zeit der Erwartung ) or questions are raised about hermeneutics inabstraction from the actual engaging of the Biblical material. When one aims at a broad barn like ‘Barth’s Hermeneutics’, then engagement with the particularities ofhis exegesis becomes all the more difcult and problematic. Heavily philosophicalquestions like the relationship between history and revelation or Barth’s relationshipto the hermeneutics of romanticism can stymie interaction with Barth’s reading ofBiblical texts (the very thing Barth set out to do). These criticisms are not meantto nullify or attenuate the signicance of these sorts of questions. This work willengage some of these questions as well, in due course, but with an eye towardBarth’s reading of Isaiah. In other words, his biblical exegesis is the lens through

which his hermeneutics (very simply dened) will be explored.22 The sorts of criticisms mentioned are done so tentatively because the subject

matter is vast. Whenever one gives themselves to ‘Barth’s interpretation of theOld Testament’ or, for that matter, the New Testament, one immediately sensesthe impressive scope of this eld with the possible result of generalities which canunfortunately miss the genius of Barth’s exegesis of particular passages with allits nuance and hue.23 Barth’s own ghost reminds us of his antipathy to elongateddebates about hermeneutics or method (the danger lurks in the generalities) and

his clarion call to ‘exegesis, exegesis, exegesis’.24 So, if we are to really makeheadway with Barth’s theological reading of the Old Testament, exploration intoBarth’s actual reading of texts is needed. Greene-McCreight has done this in herown way with the Genesis creation material. Bächli has done so as well. But theeld is vast and this book seeks to ll in part of this gap by engaging Barth’sreading of Isaiah.

22 Bourgine’s massive work on Barth’s hermeneutical theology in CD IV is revelatory of

the preceding raised concerns. Such a broad-ranging book, impressive as it is, rarely, if ever,wrestles with how Barth reads particular texts. Without wanting to down-play the signicance

of Bourgine’s work, the lack of attention to actual biblical exegesis is unfortunate given

the subtitle of his volume: Exegesis and Dogmatics in the Fourth Volume of the Kirchliche

Dogmatik . Beno�t Bourgine,Beno�t Bourgine, L’Herméneutique Théologique de Karl Barth: Exégèse et

dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum

Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003). Bourgine’s taxonomyBourgine’s taxonomy

of recent interpreters of Barth’s exegesis and Scripture principle is worth noting.23 Cunningham perceptively states, ‘Constructing a systematic hermeneutics fromCunningham perceptively states, ‘Constructing a systematic hermeneutics from

Barth’s remarks in CD I/1 and CD I/2 and then drawing conclusions about his exegesis onthe grounds of these generalizations does not honor the pattern of Barth’s thinking and canlead one to distort his scriptural interpretation.’ Mary Kathleen Cunningham, “Karl Barth,”in Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, ed. J.S. Holbomb (NewYork: New York State University Press, 2006), 185.

24 Eberhard Busch,Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts,trans. John Bowden (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 349.




A full-length study of Barth’s reading of a particular book of the Old Testamentacross large swaths of the CD has not of yet been undertaken. Explorations intovarious themes are denitely present, but full-length treatments of the way inwhich Barth appeals to a particular book in different theological contexts coveringthe whole gamut of the CD are lacking. This book is a rst step toward that end.It seems that this type of exploration might be fruitful because it may give insightinto the ways in which Scripture serves Barth’s theology in multifunctional waysin differing theological contexts (or better, the ways Barth’s theology servesScripture). There are dangers in such an approach, and these will be mentioned atthe beginning of the exegetical chapters per se.

Theologians who study Barth are aware of the debate between synchronicand diachronic approaches to reading the CD. Such ‘hermeneutical’ approachesto Barth’s theology do advance different ways of engaging the material and have

created a lively debate in the eld. The current project does not necessarily layclaim to these approaches as its task is more modestly related to following Barth’sexegesis of Isaiah in the CD. In other words, there is not an identiable core ofisaianic reading in the CD that functions to govern the other readings. As will beseen, Barth’s reading is too variegated for such schematizations.

Also, at the front end of the current project let it be stated that a commentary

on isaiah in the CD is not being sought where there is none. Nor is Barth’s Isaianic

reading being tted into a neat and tidy mold of xed readings in the ‘mind of

Barth’ or even in the pages of the CD. Rather, the aims and intentions of thiswork are to see the exegetical instincts Barth brings to various Isaianic texts and

the way his Christian reading of the Old Testament ts into what Brevard Childs,

borrowing from Frei, who in turn borrowed from Wittgenstein, has called a ‘family

resemblance’ of Christian Old Testament reading.25 Barth’s theological reading of

Isaiah does not offer a denitive reading nor does it exhaust the potentiality of the

text to speak beyond the ways Barth hears it. By way of analogy, the same thing

could and should be said of the ways in which the New Testament reads the Old

Testament. On the whole, this project aims at engaging Barth as a theologicalexegete of a text that has, from the inception of Christianity, been deemed

Christian Scripture without compromise. It is the church’s book, and Barth reads

it as such.

Within the history of the church, Isaiah has been recognized as the ‘fth

gospel’, yet historical criticism’s conation of the sensus literalis with the sensushistoricus has tended to keep this ‘churchly’ understanding of Isaiah at arm’slength.26 It will be important to see the ways in which Barth, a theologian awareof historical-critical reasoning, appealed to and read Isaiah Christianly. How does

25 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

26 Regarding the complexity of the interpretation of Isaiah 53, Hermisson states,Regarding the complexity of the interpretation of Isaiah 53, Hermisson states,‘[T]he historical and theological understanding of this great text will remain controversialuntil kingdom comes.’ Hans-Jrgen Hermisson, “The Fourth Servant Song in the Context




Barth recognize the problems related to the scholarly study of Isaiah, and how doeshis theological exegesis adjudicate or transcend these issues? This project is keenon pursuing Barth’s theological reading of this magnicently rich and complicatedOld Testament text in light of such questions.

We are a few steps shy of observing Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah.Before embarking on the bulk of this project, some contextualization of the matteris needed on two fronts. Firstly, we will briey place Barth in the context of his OldTestament colleagues of the early to mid 20th century. Secondly, Barth’s formaltheological construction regarding the Old Testament in CD I.2 will be examinedat length in chapter two.

Barth and the Old Testament Theology Renaissance of the Early Twentieth

Century

The revival of Old Testament theology in Germany during the period between1920–1950 is something of a phenomenon. An intense Auseinandersetzung (debate) over methodology raged during this period. Was Old Testament theologyto be construed along religious-historical lines (the tradition observed fromVatke to Wellhausen to Baumgartner), as a dualistic approach preserving boththe critical and theological as two distinct categories (Eissfeldt), according to the

structure of the Old Testament itself in concert with its religious environment andthe New Testament (Eichrodt), as a witness to Jesus Christ in light of Christiandogmatic categories (Vischer and Hellbardt), or via Israel’s faith construal of theheilgeschicthliche events in her tradition-history as these ‘lean toward’ the NewTestament (von Rad)? One senses the fault-lines between these various positionswere related to the thorny relationship between the Old Testament conceived viaepistemological instincts of the religious-historical stripe and the renewed interestin theological exegesis of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. How did one

navigate through these rough seas where so much was at stake?Brevard Childs describes this era as the searching for a new paradigm.27 t hereligious-historical school’s hegemony was eroding as a new generation of OldTestament scholars sought to read the Old Testament along theological exegeticallines. For example, both Wilhelm Vischer and Otto Procksch begin their majorworks on the Old Testament with references to Christology. Vischer’s begins,‘The Bible testies beyond doubt, with the attestation of the Holy Spirit, thatJesus of Nazareth is the Christ. This is what makes it the Holy Scripture of the

of Second Isaiah,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed.B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, trans. D.P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 17.

27 Brevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany 1920–1940: The Search for a NewBrevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany 1920–1940: The Search for a NewParadigm,” in Altes Testament Forschung und Wirkung: Festschrift Für Henning Graf

Reventlow, ed. P. Mommer and W. Thiel (New York: Peter Lang, 1994).




Christian Church.’28 Procksch’s posthumously published Old Testament theology begins, ‘Alle Theologie is Christologie.’29 For Procksch (Eichrodt’s teacher), ‘alleTheologie’ without doubt includes the ‘Theologie des Alten Testaments’.

Childs is careful to draw out the contributing factors leading to this search fora new paradigm. It is not, according to Childs, a ‘frontal assault’ on the historicalcritical method.30 It is a move away from the hegemony and reductionisticsensibilities of the historical-critical method, not the positives drawn from themethods per se. In this regard, the theological exegetical instincts of a Vischerand Hellbardt are not in direct continuity with the conservative instincts ofHengstenberg. In Hengstenberg’s extended debate with Vatke and de Wette in themid to late nineteenth century, the authority of Scripture or its canonical/inspiredstatus was founded on whether or not the critical conclusions of these scholarswere proven to be true or false. Hengstenberg’s confessional orthodoxy was wed

to a breed of epistemological foundationalism whereby the authority of Scripturewas tied to whether or not Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch, Isaiah all of his66 chapters, Zechariah is a unity, conjoined with a mechanistic understanding ofMessianic prophecy and fulllment.31

Both Vischer and Hellbardt defended the right of critical research and wouldnot have shared Hengstenberg’s political instincts exemplied in his thwarting ofVatke’s appointment to a biblical studies chair.32 Their impulse toward theologicalexegesis had different inuences than Hengstenberg’s, and their understanding of

the theological signicance of the Old Testament was grounded dogmatically intheir Christology.

Childs may overstate the matter, however, when he places a decisive break between Hengstenberg and Vischer or Hellbardt. Vischer, Hellbardt, Prockschand Barth certainly did not share the urgency of Hengstenberg in the defeatingof critical detractors on their own epistemological playing-eld. Historical-critical conclusions were not necessarily a threat to the authority of Scriptureand its canonical status, as Hengstenberg would have conceived the matter. At

the same time, there is more continuity with Hengstenberg and his confessional presuppositions as a necessary pre-condition for one’s approach to readingScripture than with Hengstenberg’s detractors. How this works itself out on theground may differ with regard to what matters are deemed urgent or threatening.

28 Wilhelm Vischer,Wilhelm Vischer, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ: Volume I, the Pentateuch, trans. A.B. Crabtree (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 5.

29 ‘‘ All theology is Christology.’ Otto Procksch, Theologie des Alten Testaments

(Gtersloh, 1950), 1. Whether or not Procksch works out the signicance of this statementin his actual theology of the Old Testament is another matter.30 Brevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany,” 234.Brevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany,” 234.31 John Rogerson,John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in Nineteenth Century German and

England (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985), 87–9.32 Brevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany,” 234. Again, on Hengstenberg seeBrevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany,” 234. Again, on Hengstenberg see

Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism, chapter ve.




Nevertheless, Vischer, Hellbardt, et al. have more in common with Hengstenbergand his tradition than with Vatke, de Wette and Wellhausen’s. For the latter’sapproach to Scripture is driven by a methodology that is, in the language of BrianDaley, ‘methodologically atheistic’.33 To put the matter succinctly, dogmaticinstincts should order the use of historical-critical tools and not vice-versa.

A full length study will not be given to these issues. Rather, I will place Barthin brief conversation with two of his Altestamentlicher colleagues, namely, WalterBaumgartner and Wilhelm Vischer. These two gures will provide a window intoBarth’s interaction with a detractor—Baumgartner—and a sympathizer with Barth’sOld Testament reading—Vischer.34 We turn rstly to Barth and Baumgartner .

a Briefwechsel (correspondence) between Karl Barth and Walter Baumgartnertook place between the years 1940–1955.35 The context of these letters is primarilyBaumgartner’s taking issue with Barth’s exegesis of the Old Testament in various

quadrants of the CD. These two were colleagues together at the University ofBasel and esteemed one another. Despite his claim that Baumgartner offered up‘dry bread’ to his students, Barth had high regard for his colleague’s historical-critical skills.36 In fact, Barth’s son took Baumgartner as his Doktorvater atBasel. These letters reveal the stark epistemological and methodological contrast between a fully committed historical-critic from the religionsgeschichtliche Schule and a dogmatic theologian reading the Old Testament as a witness to revelation.Regarding Baumgartner, Marks states, ‘He strove to understand the Bible as a

product of its contemporary historical and linguistic environment, a phenomenonof its own time and place.’37 These letters are revelatory of Marks’ descriptionof Baumgartner and also show the signicance of one’s presuppositions when itcomes to engaging the subject matter of the Old Testament. What one understandsthese texts to be informs one’s reading.

There are nine letters from Baumgartner to Barth in the collection and fourresponses from Barth. The disparity in the number of letters may reveal Barth’shesitancy to engage his Old Testament colleague in a sustained debate. This is

conjecture, but it should be observed that Baumgartner’s criticisms of Barth’s Old

33 Brian E. Daley, “Is Patristic Exegesis Still Usable? Some Reection on EarlyBrian E. Daley, “Is Patristic Exegesis Still Usable? Some Reection on EarlyChristian Interpretation of the Psalms,” in The Art of Reading Scripture, ed. E.F. Davis andR.B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 72.

34 For a fuller length treatment see John H. Hayes and Frederick Prussner,For a fuller length treatment see John H. Hayes and Frederick Prussner, OldTestament Theology: Its History and Development (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985) andRogerson, Old Testament Criticism.

35

Rudolf Smend, ed., “Karl Barth and Walter Baumgartner: Ein Briefwechsel ber Rudolf Smend, ed., “Karl Barth and Walter Baumgartner: Ein Briefwechsel berdas Alte Testament,” in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Beiheft 6: Zur Theologie Karl Barths Beiträge aus Anlass seines 100. Geburstags, ed. Eberhard Jngel (T bingen: MohrSiebeck, 1986), 240–71.

36 Busch,Busch, Karl Barth, 268.37 J.H. Marks, “Baumgartner, Walter,” in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, Volume I ,

ed. J.H. Hayes (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 112.




Testament reading were made after the fact and had no impact on the CD itself.Put in other terms, Barth did no revising of his Old Testament exegesis to suit hiscolleague. Nevertheless, they do provide insight into the tensions between Barthand his Altestamentlicher colleagues. A detailed exposition of these letters will not be offered. Rudolf Smend, who received these letters as a gift from Baumgartner’swidow, says, ‘Sie [the letters] sprechen f r selbst.’38 I will simply highlight afew of the more salient points of this Auseinandersetzung as a window into thetype of disagreement between a pure historical-critical exegete and a theologicalexegete.

Baumgartner’s initial letter of 7 January 1940 was precipitated by his receivinga copy of CD II.1 from Barth. Baumgartner expresses his appreciation and then begins to make comments on Barth’s particular reading of Old Testament passages,for example, Isaiah 6, Deuteronomy 12 and Barth’s reading of the beauty of God in

association with ‘messianic’ texts in the Psalter. According to Baumgartner, thesePsalms do not have to do with the ‘messiah’ but with Israel’s king.39 Baumgartnerstates that all of the preceding comments lead to one primary observation:Systematic theologians (Systematiker ) and Old Testament scholars ( ATler ) seesomething very different when reading the Old Testament. Baumgartner uses thelanguage of ‘disparities’ and ‘altitude differences’. Baumgartner quickly statesthat such a state of affairs is to be expected. His major point of concern, however,is related to Barth’s earlier volume on Scripture (CD I.2), for in this volume,

Baumgartner found no clear positive comment about Old Testament scholars andresearch. On the contrary, only ‘ sehr scharf ablehnenden Äusserungen’ are to befound.40 Baumgartner warns Barth about the dangers of slipping back into the position of Hengstenberg, which is a task surely not in the purview of Barth’s project, so says Baumgartner. If he does not want to revert to Hengstenberg, thenhe must speak positively about the Old Testament research of his day, even if onlyfor the sake of the students. According to Baumgartner, today’s Old Testamentscholars have completely strayed from Hengstenberg and ‘nicht ohne Grund ’.41

Baumgartner follows this letter with another dated 20 March 1940. In this letterBaumgartner raises two important points ( zwei wichtigen Punkten) that he wishesto put to Barth. Firstly, Barth understands the theological task of interpretingthe Old Testament as having to do with the nished whole. In today’s language,this would be Baumgartner’s concern about reading the ‘nal form’ of the text.

38 ‘‘They speak for themselves.’ Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 240.39 Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 242.Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 242.40

‘‘very sharp, negative remarks.’41 ‘‘not without warrant.’ Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 243. Interestingly

enough, Barth never addresses Baumgartner’s politically loaded association of himself withHengstenberg. It is possible that Barth did not feel the sting of the association, thoughthis is conjecture. Undoubtedly, Barth did not have the resistance to historical-criticismthat Hengstenberg did but, as is mentioned above, Barth shares more in common withHengstenberg than de Wette and Wellhausen.




Moreover, Baumgartner is concerned that Barth commends ‘nal form’ reading to

others (apparently including Old Testament scholars). The Old Testament cannot

be interpreted as a nal whole because it is not authored in the sense that ‘nal

form’ exegesis would demand. Exegesis of the nal form of the text requires a

single author, rather than a collection of writings derived from different historical

contexts. Here, the relationship between form-criticism and redaction-criticism

in the matrix of a very complicated compositional history of biblical books is

highlighted. Initially, the layers of material within the canon were situated in a

position in Israel’s history phenomenologically understood. Baumgartner’s work

emphasizes this aspect of form-criticism. These materials are brought together later

and nally by a redactor who alone is responsible for the meaning of the whole.

The individual layers in the nal form of the material are lost in this redactional

move, and it is necessary to isolate these individual layers to understand the

original, historical contexts from which these layers derive. Why would one give pride of place to only one aspect of the compositional history of Old Testament

books, namely, the nal redactor or tradent? Resultantly, Baumgartner says that

nal form exegesis of First and Second Isaiah, Samuel, Chronicles and Kings is

not possible. Following this statement, Baumgartner says, ‘Das gilt dann f �glich

auch f �r das AT als ganzes ....’42 For Baumgartner, this is his view of the ‘owers’

( Blumenstrauss) in the Old Testament, and he understands the canon to play therole of ‘vase’ holding these disparate owers of tradition together. Baumgartner

is concerned with the owers, not the vase. It can safely be said that Barth isconcerned with the vase, that is the canon, because it is the sanctied vehicle bywhich God communicates Himself to the church and the world today.

It is the task of the Old Testament scholar, according to Baumgartner, to doexegesis in light of the historical particularity of the literature form-criticallyand redaction-critically understood. Christological readings, or readings thatimpose later signicance on these texts ‘wie das allegorisierende Verfahren deralexandrinischen Homerauslegung’, are not the work of an Old Testament scholar.43

Rather, it is the work of practical theology to do this kind of ‘allegorical’ exegesis.These concerns raised by Baumgartner are his response to the second portion ofthis rst concern, namely, the imposition on Old Testament scholars to read theOld Testament in the ways Barth suggests. Baumgartner rejects this call and fullyimbibes the bifurcation of the theological disciplines. One can read between thelines as Baumgartner in effect says, allow theologians to do their work and OldTestament scholars theirs. Do not, however, bring down the iron curtain separatingour tasks, methods and goals.

Baumgartner’s second concern is Barth’s understanding of the theologicalsignicance of the Old Testament as a book.44 Baumgartner makes an analogy

42 ‘‘That applies then justi.ably for the whole Old Testament .’ Rudolf Smend, “Barthand Baumgartner,” 244.

43 ‘‘as the allegorical method of Alexandrian interpretation of Homer .’44 Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 245.Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 245.




between the New Testament and the Old Testament for Barth. As the New Testamentis concerned with the message ( Botschaft ) of Jesus Christ in light of his personand work (historically understood), so too does the Old Testament concern itselfwith the ‘Volk Israel ’ ( people of Israel ). Here, Baumgartner is playing text overagainst the events to which they refer. It is not the text one is concerned with per se, but the historical realities behind the text, whether it is the historical Jesus orthe historical Israel. Baumgartner challenges Barth’s epistemological difculties

with the historical reconstruction of the people of Israel based on literary andarchaeological sources.45 For Baumgartner, knowledge of the book is necessarilydependent on knowledge of the people of Israel, their ways, institutions andhistory. In other words, one must understand the historical layers behind the bookthat contribute to the book as we have it, if one is to understand the book at all.

The major point Baumgartner is making is the necessary relationship between

a theology of the Old Testament and the history of Israel’s religion. ‘Und ebensoersteht hinter der t heologie des a t die Religion des Volkes Israel und damit dieFrage nach dem Verhältnis von beidem.’46 A theology of the Old Testament, ortheological exegesis of the Old Testament, cannot take place in isolation from thereligious-historical questions that dominate the research agendas of Old Testamentscholars like Baumgartner. Obviously, Baumgartner believes Barth leaves out amajor component of this enterprise, if not even disparaging it when he deniesthe centrality of Baumgartner’s historicist concerns. Baumgartner confesses his

understanding that these things are probably of little interest to theologians, ‘aberf r uns sind sie wichtig genug ....’47 As it goes, the lines of the debate are drawn.

Barth responds to Baumgartner on 23 March 1940. Once the platitudes of

academic exchange are set aside, Barth quickly reveals the tension at hand as

ultimately insurmountable. A clashing of worldviews is evident and this may be why

Barth is hesitant to enter into an elongated exchange with Baumgartner. They share

radically different epistemological and theological starting points. Barth understands

Baumgartner’s position as one where the phenomenon of the Old Testament can and

must be detached from the fact that the Old Testament is given through the ChristianChurch. In language reminiscent of Childs’ later canonical approach, or, one should

say, in line with the family resemblance that holds Christian interpretation of the

Old Testament together, Barth states that Baumgartner must have no use (in light of

his presuppositions) for the interpretation of the Old Testament as a canonical book.

Moreover, the request to interpret the Old Testament as canonical Scripture mustsurely be an odd request to the ear of Baumgartner.

45

Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 246. We will turn in the next chapter toRudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 246. We will turn in the next chapter toBarth’s stated criticisms of the religionsgeschichtliche approach in CD I.2. These are theconcerns to which Baumgartner is responding.

46 ‘‘ And just as much the theology of the Old Testament arises after the religion ofthe people of Israel, and thereby the question concerns the unity of both.’ Rudolf Smend,“Barth and Baumgartner,” 246.

47 ‘‘but for us they are important enough.’ Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 246.




Barth speaks directly to the issue of what constitutes a wissenschaftliche approach to the theological disciplines. He asks Baumgartner whether or not theycan share a common understanding of the concept ‘theologische Wissenschaft ’?Barth’s answer is rather tongue-in-cheek and is worth presenting in full: ‘Ja, wennwir das könnten, wie schön wrde das sein f r unser Fakultät und besondersauch f r unser gemeinsamen Schler, die jetzt, von einam Hörsaal in den andernwandernd, so seltsam umschalten und manchmal mit so primitiven Kompromissensich behelfen mssen ...!’48 The difference in Standpunkten is clearly stated.

Over a year passes before the two correspond again. On 10 July 1941,

Baumgartner sends Barth an address which he delivered in Z�rich. The title of

the address is, ‘Die Auslegung des Alten Testament im Streit der Gegenwart.’ 49

Barth is one of the interlocutors in Baumgartner’s address, and he believes

he has found Barth’s position on the Old Testament in CD I.1 and I.2. In the

address, Baumgartner aligns Barth with Vischer and Hellbardt. He also raisesconcerns that the dogmatic approach to these issues has multiple consequences

for Barth’s students and the reception of scientic results. Baumgartner’s short

letter concludes by emphasizing that this debate is in no way meant to be a

critique upon Barth’s work as a whole, and the letter amicably ends as such.

Barth responds to Baumgartner’s short letter with his most signicant response

of the four letters preserved from Barth to Baumgartner. We will examine this

response closely.

Barth’s letter is dated 12 July 1941, only two days after Baumgartner’s. Unlikethe previous letter where the matter is stated tongue-in-cheek, Barth raises thestakes of the debate as he takes his conversation partner head-on. There is anurgency in this letter revealing the pathos of Barth’s theological sensibilities inthis matter. He thanks Baumgartner for the address and assures him that he doesnot take it as an attack on his work as a whole. Barth also engages in an act ofself-depreciation as he confesses his engagement with Old Testament mattersas equivalent to the act of a ‘sniper’ or ‘buccaneer’.50 He then poses a pair of

questions to Baumgartner.Firstly, Barth presses Baumgartner regarding a Christian reading of the OldTestament. In the address, Baumgartner says that he by no means wishes to denyhis dogmatic friends (such as Barth, Vischer and Hellbardt) a ‘letzte Beziehungunserer Arbeit auf Christus’.51 Baumgartner points to the early church’s handling

48 ‘‘Yes, we could do that, how nice it would be for our faculty and especially our

shared students, who now are wandering from lecture hall to lecture hall, who must helpthemselves with so curious changes and much more, such primitive compromises ....’ RudolfSmend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 247.

49 ‘‘The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the Current Struggle.’50 Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 249.Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 249.51 ‘‘last connection of our work upon Christ.’ Rudolf Smend, “Barth and

Baumgartner,” 249.




of the Old Testament and Luther’s hermeneutical dictum, ‘was Christum treibet’.52 Barth does not warm to these comments and reads this tipping of the hat to hisdogmatic colleagues as platitudinous. The clear consequence of the precedingcomments, according to Barth, is that Old Testament scholars can work withcondence in the Old Testament without any ultimate or penultimate considerationof Christ. Moreover, another implication of Baumgartner’s framing of the issue isthat the early Church was fundamentally in error as it usurped the Old Testamentfor Christological reasons. In fact, the Old Testament pressures (treibe) anything but Christ. Barth does not take Baumgartner’s comments as a positive statementon Christian reading of the Old Testament but as an indictment on the eld of OldTestament scholarship.

Secondly, Barth is concerned about the implications of Baumgartner’s positionfor preaching. For Baumgartner, Christian reading of the Old Testament is an

imposition onto its natural sense. Baumgartner’s positivistic sensibilities keep himfrom allowing the Old Testament outside of the historical contexts from which thematerial arose. Christians can read the Old Testament Christianly but must do so inthe knowledge that this is beyond the natural sense of the texts. Barth demurs herestrongly. It troubles Barth that preachers need to bury their heads in their bosomsas they learn from Old Testament scholars that they have to make do with a vain, pre-Christian text and should handle the Old Testament only in a natural sense.With what is the preacher left, Barth asks, allegory?53

The implications of Baumgartner’s position are far-reaching for Barth. IfBaumgartner’s position is to be accepted, then three things should occur. Firstly,Barth’s students should be forbidden to attend instruction from a dogmaticstandpoint regarding Old Testament preaching. Secondly, the Old Testament should be eliminated from the church. And, thirdly, the Old Testament professors should be transferred from the theology faculty to the philosophical-historical faculty.Barth then engages Baumgartner in ‘[n]ude crude gefragt.’54 What benet is therein your Old Testament guidance for the poor devil of a student (armen Tröpfe von

Studente), who learns today that the Old Testament is only a pre-Christian affairand then tomorrow should and must speak in the Christian church so blithely forthe present? Barth believes the answer to this question is inevitably dark becausethe answer to his rst question regarding the placement of Christian reading of theOld Testament is such as well.55

More letters are exchanged between these two. Baumgartner engages variousaspects of Barth’s Old Testament exegesis, and they have an extended discussionabout Barth’s work on angelology. In fact, these letters are worthy of fuller study,

52 ‘‘What drives to Christ.’53 We will deal with Barth and guration in due course. Allegory is not as bad a wordWe will deal with Barth and guration in due course. Allegory is not as bad a word

today as it was in Barth’s, and one can safely say Barth engaged in allegory or gural

reading in the best sense of these terms.54 ‘‘bare, rough questioning.’ Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 250.55 Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 250.Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 250.




but the salient points are observed in the preceding. Two giants in their eld clashover the nature of Old Testament study and scholarship. For Baumgartner, theOld Testament is a product of the religious history of the people of Israel. Assuch, it is locked into this historical particularity, and the meaning of the OldTestament is found therein. He is willing to grant Christian reading, but this isa playful, willy-nilly imposition onto the text rather than a reading of its naturalsense. Baumgartner, whose lexical work in Hebrew and comparative philology ismonumental to this day, is fully enmeshed in the historicist move to relegate theOld Testament material to the history of Israel’s various traditions. It is the workof Old Testament scholars to remain in this eld. Christian theological work is foranother department; it is not for Old Testament scholars. Barth is willing to grantBaumgartner’s position as long as the Old Testament department is moved to thehistory faculty rather than the theology faculty. The point is, Barth’s understanding

of the Old Testament as part of a two-testament canon received in the church asChristian Scripture is a constitutive part of its nature and role. Also, Protestanttheology faculties bear some responsibility in the training of future pastors. Onerecalls Barth’s own crisis of preaching which ultimately lead to his monumentaltheological reform. In the second chapter, we will see more fully Barth’s rejectionof the religionsgeschichtliche Schule and his positive presentation of the OldTestament as Christian Scripture. Our attention is now given to Barth’s relationshipwith Wilhelm Vischer.

Wilhelm Vischer (1895–1988) and Karl Barth had an affection for one another because they both shared a common Christological base in their theology andendeavored to stand against the tide of theological liberalism. Barth describesVischer as a ‘free, childlike troubadour of the good God.’56 In 1936, Vischer movedto Basel and became Barth’s pastor, theological colleague and neighbor. Herein Basel their relationship was rekindled as their spheres of inuence and workoverlapped each other’s. Vischer was appointed assistant lecturer at the universityand lived ‘only a few houses away’ from Barth.57 Vischer also became pastor of

the historic St. James Church and ‘soon was one of the most popular preachers intown’.58 Barth attended St. James and had a high regard for Vischer’s preaching.At one point, Barth compared the preaching of Vischer to that of Thurneysen,who preached at the cathedral. According to Barth, Thurneysen attempted ‘tosay everything about any text,’ while Vischer interpreted Scripture ‘much morenarrowly than Thurneysen, that is, to present the quite special message which heheard and received from each particular text.’59 Barth understood Vischer to have‘an innate gift for reinterpretation, and an astounding capacity for so to speakassimilating himself to a text, making himself its servant even down to its tone

56 Busch,Busch, Karl Barth, 269.57 Busch,Busch, Karl Barth, 269.58 Stefan Felber, “Vischer, Wilhelm,” inStefan Felber, “Vischer, Wilhelm,” in Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, ed.

Donald McKim (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007), 1012.59 Busch,Busch, Karl Barth, 269.




and mood, and thus allowing the biblical author to speak from his pulpit in modernwords.’60

In Vischer, Barth found a theological colleague and friend who shared asimilar vision. Barth happily aligned himself with Vischer. As observed in thecorrespondence between Barth and Baumgartner, the latter had grave concernsabout Vischer’s Old Testament interpretation. Baumgartner associated Barthwith Vischer (and Hellbardt as well). In the 12 July 1941 letter, Barth respondsto Baumgartner’s association of himself with Vischer and Hellbardt. ‘Beiläug

gesagt: ich lasse mich bei Vischer gerne, bei Hellbardt dagegen nur von Fall zuFall behaften.’61 Also in the preface to CD II.2, Barth celebrates the publicationsof his ‘two friends’, Thurneysen and Vischer. Thurneysen’s work was on theEpistle of James in preaching, and Vischer’s publication was the second volumeof his Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments. Barth states that these three volumes

had independent growth and form but ‘belong closely together in purpose andcontent’.62 With Vischer, alongside Thurneysen, Barth found ‘serious theologicalunity’.63

A detailed examination of Vischer’s contribution to the theological exegesisof the Old Testament will not be offered here. Only the contours of his projectwill be explored as it pertains to Barth’s theological exegetical sensibilities.64 t hetheological conviction that both testaments share a common subject matter and aunied witness to Jesus Christ is fundamental to Vischer’s Old Testament reading.

The rst volume of his Christuszeugnis begins by stating that we learn from theo ld t estament what the Christ is and from the New Testament who he is.65 Felberdescribes Vischer’s understanding of the Old Testament’s ‘witness of Christ’ as both a genitivus objectivus and a genitivus subjectivus. It is the former because theOld Testament is ‘a testimony about the one who has not yet come’, and the latter because the Old Testament is the ‘self-testimony of the one who existed alreadywith the patriarchs.’66 Vischer’s afrmation of the ‘eternal simultaneity’ of JesusChrist is observed as an interpretive principle. Christ is the hermeneutical key to

all of Scripture, because as the divine logos he precedes the Old Testament.

60 Busch,Busch, Karl Barth, 269.61 ‘‘ By the way, I gladly allow myself to be stuck with Vischer, with Hellbardt, however,

only by case to case.’ Rudolf Smend, “ Barth and Baumgartner,” 251.62 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), x.63 Barth,Barth, CD II.2, x.64

For a thorough examination of Vischer’s life and work, one is encouragedtowards Stefan Felber’s ne and detailed treatment, Wilhelm Vischer als Ausleger der

Heiligen Schrift . Stefan Felber, Wilhelm Vischer als Ausleger der Heiligen Schrift: EineUntersuchung zum Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments, Forschungen Zur Systematischenund Ökumenischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999).

65 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 7.66 Felber, “Vischer,” 1013.Felber, “Vischer,” 1013.




Vischer’s work was not well received by the guild of Old Testament scholars,though it was popularly received by pastors and various church men.67 Childs states,‘Again, the vehement rejection of W. Vischer’s book by British and Americanscholars in the post-World War II period, arose from the fear that historical criticalscholarship was somehow being threatened by a form of traditional allegory.’68 ina response article to Childs concerning Vischer and the charge of allegory, Barrdescribes ‘ Der Fall Vischer ’ as ‘a remarkable episode in the history of scholarship’.69 Barr describes the situation more fully in the following: ‘Professors put pressureon publishers not to publish an English translation of his main work (in fact onlythe rst volume appeared in English), librarians were told on no account to buythe book; if they did buy it they doubtless concealed it from their students, keepingit under the counter as if it were Lolita or Lady Chatterly’s Lover . Few works inthese days have such honour paid to them.’70 That Vischer’s book was bitterly

rejected is without doubt. As to the why of its rejection, Barr queries whether thecharge of allegory is a fair one. We will return to Barr’s assessment.

The preceding raises the question of methodology in Vischer. What were hisinterpretive principles, or, at least, what did Vischer believe he was doing? It isfair to say that Vischer’s exegesis of the Old Testament ‘do[es] not follow a strict pattern’.71 Vischer was not hostile to historical-criticism. In fact, he afrmed thevery positive result of nineteenth century historical criticism in its discovery ofthe human dimension of Scripture.72 Vischer understood the Old Testament to

be a historical document whose telos informed Jesus Christ. This is Vischer’sunderstanding of fulllment in the New Testament.73 Fulllment does not mean the

dissolution of the Old Testament in the sense of a linear tradition-history where the

New Testament fulllment swallows and discards the Old Testament promise. Quite

to the contrary, fulllment ‘does not mean that the promise ceases and that which is

promised takes its place, but that the promise itself is now complete, perfect, clear,

and therefore powerful.’74 The unied relationship between the testaments allows

the promises presented in the Old Testament’s various genres to be understood in

67 Rendtorff rehearses the very positive impact and immediate success of Vischer’sRendtorff rehearses the very positive impact and immediate success of Vischer’sOld Testament work for preachers in the church. Rolf Rendtorff, Canon and Theology:Overtures to an Old Testament Theology, trans. Margaret Kohl, Overtures to BiblicalTheology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 78.

68 B.S. Childs, “Critical Reections on James Barr’s Understanding of The LiteralB.S. Childs, “Critical Reections on James Barr’s Understanding of The Literaland the Allegorical,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (1990): 5.

69 J. Barr, “Wilhelm Vischer and Allegory,” inJ. Barr, “Wilhelm Vischer and Allegory,” in Understanding Poets and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, ed. A. Graeme Auld (Shefeld: Shefeld

University Press, 1993), 39.70 Barr, “Vischer and Allegory,” 39.Barr, “Vischer and Allegory,” 39.71 Felber, “Vischer,” 1013.Felber, “Vischer,” 1013.72 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 14.73 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 22–4.74 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 24.




light of the New Testament fulllment. In this sense, the New Testament can beread back into the Old Testament because it sheds light on what was anticipatoryand forward looking. In language reminiscent of Barth’s, Vischer states, ‘To thewitness of the old covenant Jesus is near as the Coming One; to those of thenew covenant as the Returning One.’75 Vischer’s inheritance of the Reformation’sconfession about the unity of the testaments is a governing interpretive principle.Which, in turn, raises the question, ‘Is this [the assumed unity of Old and NewTestament] really true? Does our description accord with fact?’76

The answer to this question is of grave import for Vischer. ‘There is no doubtthat a Christianity which confesses Christ Jesus stands or falls with the unity of theTestaments.’77 At rst, Vischer afrms the necessity of faith and confession whenanswering this question. For example, Jews who read the Old Testament with noreference to Christ—and the Church do not and should not ‘rob’ the synagogue

of the Old Testament; it is theirs rst—must have a change of heart (metanoia) before they can understand the wealth of the Old Testament.78 At the same time,the answer, ‘“Faith alone can decide,” is an evasion.’79 Our ‘faith’ is faith in a book written by human words. ‘A careful reading of the book must be able totest whether what is maintained is really written or not.’ The following is worthrepeating in full:

And whilst a mere intellectual assent to the proof from scripture is not true

faith in Jesus Christ, yet it remains true that the proof from scripture must besusceptible of verication by intellectual methods. If Jesus is really the hidden

meaning of Old Testament scripture an honest philological exegesis cannot fail

to stumble across this truth; not in the sense that it directly nds Jesus there,

but in the sense that it would be led to afrm that the thoughts expressed and

stories narrated in the Old Testament, as they are transmitted in the Bible, point

towards the crucixion of Jesus; that the Christ Jesus of the New Testament

stands precisely at the vanishing point of Old Testament perspective.80

The preceding appears to afrm Vischer’s own understanding of his workas exegesis of the historical and philological kind. Vischer recognizes that hisChristological reading of the Old Testament has been challenged as an eisegesis of the Old Testament by modern study of the Bible. Vischer responds by sayingthat an imposition of a modernist Weltenshauung onto the biblical texts is surely areading into these texts as well. As a child of the Reformation, Vischer was openly

75 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 24.76 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 25.77 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 27.78 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 26–7.79 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 27.80 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 28.




hostile to allegory and afrmed the priority of the literal sense.81 ‘Die HeiligeSchrift hat nur einen Sinn: Der Literalsinn ist der christologische und umgekehrt.’82 Moreover, ‘Reference to Christ in a text of the Old Testament, says Vischer, shouldnot be forced by allegoresis or typology.’83 In light of the preceding, it is surely anirony of the history of interpretation that Vischer’s detractors vehemently accusedhim of the things he was opposed to: the downplaying of history and allegoresis.On this score, Barr’s assessment is correct. Vischer did not conceive of his projectas allegory or typology.

It was a particular type of historical exegesis that Vischer’s detractors

accused him of transgressing. Baumgartner’s accusations were of the literary-

critical and religious-historical type. Von Rad’s criticisms of Vischer, according

to Childs, had to do with historical criticism rooted in the theories of Alt and

Noth (tradition-criticism that takes into account strata and sources).84 Vischer’s

‘historical’ exegesis had to do with philological and contextual exegesis ofthe canonical type. He dealt with the text’s nal form and was not interested

in ‘scientic study’ of the Old Testament that had to do with reconstructing an

‘“original” context and meaning’.85 This sort of scientic exegesis ‘interprets the

testimony backwards, in order to discover records of something which happened,

instead of being ready to look forward to that which should come as the records

indicate.’86 Vischer’s reaction to the dominant forms of historical-critical exegesis

of the ‘behind the text’ type is that ‘it is characteristic of the Old Testament to

look forwards and not backwards, that can be done only by a violent dissolutionand reconstruction of the text.’87 In other words, ‘scientic’ exegesis, according to

Vischer, does not do justice to the material being dealt with in the Old Testament.

There one nds texts that are forward-looking or eschatological in nature. The

nal form of the text is not concerned with the process leading to its nal shape

(the concern von Rad raised about the nal form of the text being a collection of

very different sources).88 The Old Testament simply presents the nal form, and

this is the canonical scripture with which we have to deal. Moreover, this nal

81 The nature of the literal sense or plain sense of Scripture and its relationship toThe nature of the literal sense or plain sense of Scripture and its relationship togural reading will be addressed in the chapters to come.

82 ‘‘The Holy Scripture has only one sense: the literal sense is the christological and vice versa.’ Cited in Felber, Vischer als Ausleger, 150.

83 Felber, “Vischer,” 1013.Felber, “Vischer,” 1013.84 Brevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany,” 241 See Gerhard von Rad, “DasBrevard S. Childs, “Old Testament in Germany,” 241 See Gerhard von Rad, “Das

Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Wilhelm Vischers

gleichnamigen Buch,” Theologische Blätter 14 (1935): 250–54. See also, Rudolf Smend, From Astruc to Zimmerli: Old Testament Scholarship in Three Centuries, trans. M. Kohl(T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 181.

85 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 30.86 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 30.87 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 30.88 Rudolf Smend,Rudolf Smend, From Astruc to Zimmerli, 181.




form is eschatological in nature, with a forward-looking eye of hope. Philologicaland historical exegesis must deal with this reality.

By way of illustration, one recalls Barth’s similar response to his detractorsregarding his commentary on Romans. To the charge that Barth’s exegesisdemonstrated non-historical sensibilities, Barth responds by saying in effect, I would be interested in the historical Paul if Paul were interested in the historical Paul, buthe is not. Paul witnesses beyond himself to something other.89 McCormack states,‘The difference between Barth’s view of Paul and that of critics was fundamental.The reigning biblical science saw him as an object of interest in his own right;Barth saw him as a witness.’90 Here, indeed, is the great divide between Vischer/Barth and the guild of biblical scholars. For Vischer and Barth, the Scriptures area witness. For many within the guild of historical-critical scholars, the Scripturesare a source for historical reconstruction of various kinds.

James Barr denies that Vischer’s exegesis is allegorical (the charge made bymost of Vischer’s detractors); rather, Vischer is doing literal/historical exegesisof the Christological, historical, literal stripe.91 We have seen this to be the case,at least according to Vischer’s own account. There are not multiple layers ofinterpretation for Vischer. There is only one layer, the literal, and the literal is theChristological.

The problem, and probable difference between Barth and Vischer, is preciselythis point. Vischer believes his Christological readings of the Old Testament to be

supported and veried by ‘intellectual methods’.92 Vischer understands himselfto be simply reading the texts. In other words, there is a naive epistemologicalrealism at work for Vischer that one will search in vain to nd in Barth. Barth’stheologically informed epistemology would resist the claim that his theological-exegetical conclusions can be veried by ‘intellectual methods’. Barth’schristological understanding of the Old Testament is located in his theology ofrevelation, and, as a result, he is not surprised when rst century Jews or modernOld Testament scholars miss this. In Barth words, the Old Testament’s witness to

revelation is ‘not by way of a demonstration that can be carried out by experimentand logic. The expectation of revelation in the Old Testament is prophecy, not prediction to be controlled experimentally by logic. That is why it was and is

possible to look past it.’93 We may assume that ultimately Vischer would concur with

Barth on this score, but, at least in his early work, makes problematic claims aboutthe relationship between verication by ‘intellectual methods’ and christological

89

Karl Barth,Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. E.C. Hoskyns (London: OxfordUnversity Press, 1957), 6–8.90 McCormack, “Historical-Criticism,” 215.McCormack, “Historical-Criticism,” 215.91 Barr, “Vischer and Allegory,” 48.Barr, “Vischer and Allegory,” 48.92 Vischer,Vischer, Witness, 28.93 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans.

G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 100.




reading of the Old Testament. Barth’s account of the matter avoids this problem.We will see this to be the case, moreover, in the next chapter.

Also, Barth is willing to be critical of Vischer. In one of the letters toBaumgartner, Barth distances his own reading of the historical materials of theo ld t estament in CD II.2 from Vischer’s reading. Barth takes the reader on a long journey through Israel’s history as he deals specically with the issue of electionand rejection in Israel’s canonical history. In this letter to Baumgartner, Barthclaims to be doing something quite different than Vischer. Barth states, ‘MsstenSie mir gegen ber nicht mindestens noch ein bischen ander argumentieren als W.Vischer gegen ber, dessen Verfahren ich bei aller sachlichen Übereinstimmungnun gerade nicht gefolgt bin? Ist das nicht schön von mir?’94 Another example ofBarth disagreeing with Vischer is found in CD III.1. Barth places Bonhoeffer andVischer in dialogue with one another regarding the nature of the imago Dei and

nds Bonhoef fer’s reading more salient than Vischer’s.So, Barth can be critical of Vischer and seems to go his own way when it

comes to the execution of a theological exegesis of the Old Testament. Again,Barth would also afrm more fully the sui generis character of reading the OldTestament Christianly and the necessary confessional posture one takes whendoing such a thing. Barth’s theological exegesis claims to be realistic, true andnecessary but in a self-contained and self-referencing way that requires certainconfessional presuppositions about the centrality of revelation before beginning the

task at all.95 Pure philological and contextual work might not lead to the exegeticalconclusions Barth and Vischer do, and one should expect this to be the case. Thereis no Christological exegesis of the Old Testament of the bruta facta stripe, andthe charge of allegory or gural reading does not carry with it the reproach andsting it did in Vischer’s day. Theological exegesis is located in a web of theologicalconfessions that are all mutually informing one another. Barth is clearer on thisscore than Vischer as we will see in the next chapters. Though Barth and Vischermay differ when it comes to the execution of a theological exegesis of the Old

Testament—a more thorough treatment of this issue is needed—they denitelyshare in the same overall theological concerns: the Old Testament is ChristianScripture and shares a fundamental unity with the New Testament regarding itssubject matter. On this issue, Barth and Vischer join in solidarity.96

94 ‘‘Will you allow me to argue a different argument as compared with W. Vischer,whose method I have not exactly followed in all technical agreement? Is this not fair of me?’

Rudolf Smend, “Barth and Baumgartner,” 257.95 See especially Barth’s comments in the following: Barth,See especially Barth’s comments in the following: Barth, CD I.2, 100.96 Bächli states, ‘Unterschiede zwischen Barth und Vischer gibt es zwar in Fragen der Bächli states, ‘Unterschiede zwischen Barth und Vischer gibt es zwar in Fragen der

Ausfuhrung, kaum jedoch in bezug auf das Programm’ (There are admittedly differencesbetween Barth and Vischer in questions of execution, hardly, however, with reference to

program). Otto Bächli, Das Alten Testament in der Kirchlichen Dogmatik von Karl Barth (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987), 45.




Though Vischer’s approach may be regarded as too simplistic in itsunderstanding of the multiple layers of signicance and meaning in the Scriptures,he did offer to many the tools, freedom and courage to preach the Old Testamentonce again as Christian scriptures. This is surely one of the reasons Barth is sodefensive of his friend and colleague. The guild of Old Testament scholars hadneutered the Old Testament in the life of the church’s pulpit. As we have seenand will see again, Barth is unrelenting in his criticism of this particular problem.Vischer’s work entered a vacuum, offering hope for the preacher whose task wasto preach the whole counsel of God. Little wonder then that Barth could make thefollowing stinging comment regarding von Rad’s review of Vischer: ‘In readingthis [Vischer’s Christuszeugnis], one should add the review by G.v. Rad ... as notunprotable (a fruitful criticism of Vischer can, of course, be delivered only byone who is in a position to perform the same task better).’97 Apparently, Barth did

not think von Rad was in this position. Quite possibly, Barth himself was in the position to offer a more fully formed theology of reading both testaments as awitness to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. How then did Barth conceive ofthe Old Testament theologically as a witness to Christ? Our attention will turn tothis question in the following chapter.

Conclusion

Baumgartner and Vischer serve as windows into the debate raging betweenscholars who believe the theology of the Old Testament can only be garnered byfastidious attention to the religious history of the people of Israel and those who believe the Old Testament’s theological witness is properly sought in relationshipto Jesus Christ. In the latter approach Jesus Christ becomes Scripture’s externalcenter. However, Barth distinguishes himself sharply from Baumgartner’s overlyhistoricist approach to Scripture and happily aligns himself with Vischer’s

christological exegesis. Barth does not slavishly follow Vischer. His theologicalexegesis of the Old Testament differs from Vischer’s when it comes to the actualengagement of texts. Barth’s allergy to the religious-historical approach representedin Baumgartner will be explored more fully in the next chapter.

What one also senses from Barth and Baumgartner’s correspondence is Barth’sstrongly protective instincts when it comes to his students. Possibly speakingfrom his own experience, Barth understood the deadly affect of Old Testamentscholarship on the life of a preacher who must engage these texts as the word ofGod for the people of God. That Old Testament departments exist in the context oftheology faculties results in certain responsibilities. If the training of ordinands is part and parcel of a theology faculty’s responsibilities, then it is incumbent upon theteachers in a theology faculty to take this context seriously. Otherwise, according toBarth, Old Testament departments should move into different faculties. This will be

97 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 80.




observed more fully in due course, but sufce it to say, for Barth, one’s confessionabout the nature and role of Christian Scripture is a constitutive aspect of howone will engage in the interpretive process. This particular issue places Barth andBaumgartner at sharp odds with one another. In this work, Barth’s engagement ofIsaiah will provide the biblical context for discussing the interpretive signicance

of one’s confessional commitments when engaging the task of exegesis. Beforeattention is given to Isaiah, Barth’s dogmatic understanding of the canonical rolethe Old Testament plays will be explored.



Chapter 2

Die Zeit der Erwartung

To say that Jesus Christ rules the Church is equivalent to saying that Holy Scripturerules the Church. The one explains the other, the one can be understood onlythrough the other.1

The adoption of the Old Testament into the Canon of the Church really meant farmore than a welcome conrmation of Christ as the fulllment of ancient expectation

and prophecy. It was because on the basis of Christ’s manifestation expectation and prophecy constituted the very element by which His Church lived, that it naturallyhad to claim and to read as its own the book of expectation and prophecy.2

Introduction: No Mere Red Carpet

For Karl Barth, the Old Testament is more than a red carpet rolled out to introduce

the New Testament, that is, a corpus easily dispensed with once the New Testamenthas arrived. The Old Testament is, in fact, Christian Scripture and cannot beunderstood as anything else within the church.3 On this issue and others, the stakeswere high for Barth at the University of Bonn (1933–35) when his work on the CD I was in progress. This is nowhere more apparent than in his theological work onScripture, and especially the Old Testament.

The ghost of Marcion haunted the German church. Key gures, such asSchleiermacher, Ritschl and Harnack questioned the validity of the Old Testament’s

status as Christian Scripture. As Harnack rather infamously states, ‘[T]he rejectionof the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake which the great churchrightly avoided; to maintain it in the sixteenth century was a fate from which theReformation was not yet able to escape; but still to preserve it in Protestantism as acanonical document since the nineteenth century is the consequence of a religiousand ecclesiastical crippling.’4 Marcion, according to Harnack, was correct in hisdeployment of a law/gospel hermeneutic and this necessarily lent itself to the

1

Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.T.Thomson and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 693.2 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 117.3 See Karl Barth,See Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.1, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1956), 166–9.4 Adolf von Harnack,Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God , trans. John E. Seeley

and Lyle D. Bierma (Durham: The Labyrinth Press, 1990), 134.




divorcing of the Old Testament from its canonical status because of its law-taintedstatus and demiurge god. It is a lack of nerve in the modern church that keepsit from placing the Old Testament ‘at the head of the list of books “which aregood and useful to be read”’ while stripping it of its canonical status.5 Harnackconcludes this harrowing section of reection with the following: ‘He was obligedto reject the Old Testament as a false, anti-godly book in order to preserve thegospel in its purity, but rejection is not in the picture today at all. Rather, this book will be everywhere esteemed and treasured in its distinctiveness and itssignicance (the prophets) only when the canonical authority to which it is notentitled is withdrawn from it.’6

Commenting on this period, Kraus states, ‘ging es um die Frage der Geltungdes Alten Testaments in der Kirche, also um ein innerkirchliches Problem vonhöchster Brisanz.’7 Prominent theologians, such as Gerhard Kittel, advanced the

notion of an ‘un bruckbarer Gegensatz’ (unbridgeable contrast ) between theHebrew/Jewish Bible and New Testament thought.8 Barth was aware of theseGerman sentiments and was unguarded in his reproach. ‘We cannot eliminate theOld Testament or substitute for it the records of the early religious history of other peoples, as R. Wilhelm has suggested in the case of China, B. Gutmann in somesense in that of Africa, and many recent fools in the case of Germany.’9

For Barth, the attack on the canonical validity of the Old Testament was an

attack on ‘the very institution and existence of the Christian Church.’10 ‘Both in

the early days and more recently there have been many proposals and attemptsto shake off the so-called Old Testament altogether or to reduce it to the level of

a deutero-canonical introduction to the real Bible (that is the New Testament),

which is good and protable for reading.’11 These sentiments were contrary both

to the New Testament itself and the post-apostolic witness of the second century.

For the early Christians, the New Testament writings are an extension of the

assumed canon of the Old Testament and this order cannot be reversed. ‘The Old

Testament is not an introduction to the real New Testament Bible, which we can

dispense with or replace.’12

The urgency of the matter is sensed in the followingfrom Barth:

5 von Harnack,von Harnack, Marcion, 137.6 von Harnack,von Harnack, Marcion, 138.7 ‘‘ It was about the validity of the Old Testament in the church, it was also an inner-

churchly problem [as opposed to just a debate in the academy] of the highest explosiveness.’ Hans-Joachim Kraus, “ Neue Begegnung mit dem Alten Testament in Karl Barths Theologie,” Evangelische Theologie 49, no. 5 (1989): 435.

8 Kraus, “Neue Begegnung,” 435.Kraus, “Neue Begegnung,” 435.9 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 488 (emphasis mine).10 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 488.11 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 488.12 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 488. Von Campenhausen’s work on canon formation in the early

church emphasizes the self-same reality. Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the



Die Zeit der Erwartung 27

We are founding a new Church, which is not a Christian Church. For not only is

the canonicity of the Old Testament no arbitrary expansion of the evangelical-

apostolical witness to Christ. It existed before and when the rst Church arose,

even in the evangelical-apostolical witness to Christ, which as the witness of

recollection has rightly been placed alongside the original Canon, the witness

of expectation. It was so embedded in the New Testament Bible itself that

only if we wanted to make the latter unreadable could we try to assess and

understand it as the witness of divine revelation apart from the original Canon.

Whether we like it or not, the Christ of the New Testament is the Christ of the

Old Testament, the Christ of Israel . The man who will not accept this merely

shows that in fact he has already substituted another Christ for the Christ of the

New Testament.13

When one takes into account the political and theological climate of Barth’s day,the signicance of the Scriptures of Israel as Christian Scripture is only highlighted.Church and synagogue, for Barth, share the same Old Testament/Hebrew Bible ascanonical Scripture. It has always been this way.14 Church and synagogue divergedrastically in their understanding of the role of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible aswitness to the expectation of Jesus Christ. Barth does not shy away from confessingthis.15 Nevertheless, this sharing with the synagogue of the Old Testament ascanonical Scripture is a sine qua non of the Christian church. On this confession,

Barth is irretracting.This raises for us the question regarding Barth’s dogmatic formulations of

the Old Testament as Scripture. What exactly is the Old Testament? Before

answering this question, our attention must rst be given to the dogmatic context

of Barth’s formal interaction with the nature and role of the Old Testament.

Moving on from this, we will trace Barth’s own line of thought on the Old

Testament as the time of expectation. What is Barth’s warrant for his claims

of the revelatory role the Old Testament plays? To what and to whom does he

appeal? How does Barth differ from dominant competing methods, namely, thereligionsgeschichtliche approach? What are the lines of unity and discontinuity

between the Old and New Testaments? In due course we will come to these

questions and others. Our attention is given rstly to the dogmatic context for

Barth’s discussion of these matters.

Christian Bible, trans. J.A. Baker (Mifintown: Sigler Press, 1997), 8–9.13 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 488–9 (emphasis mine).14 Regarding the complexities associated with the scope of the canon alongside aRegarding the complexities associated with the scope of the canon alongside a

theological rationale for the Scriptures held in common by Synagogue and Church seeBrevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reection

on the Christian Bible (Minnepolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 60–68.15 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 489–90.




The Time of Revelation

The exigency of the Old Testament’s role as canonical Scripture has at least beentouched upon in the previous section. What of Barth’s actual understanding ofthe nature of the Old Testament? Before addressing this question, it is importantto recognize the context of Barth’s reection on the nature and role of the OldTestament as Christian Scripture. Barth’s detailed and formative discussion of theOld Testament is found within his larger discourse on the time of revelation orthe dialectic between God’s time and our lost, human time (CD I.2, 45–121). Asa result of the Fall, God’s originally created time remains hidden from the timeexperienced in our postlapsarian world. If, therefore, God has time for us in hisrevelation, it will be a different time from both God’s created time and our knownand possessed time, that is our lost time. Herein lies a third category of time for

Barth, the time of God’s revelation which exists alongside our time and the timeoriginally created by God. ‘The time God has for us is constituted by His becoming present to us in Jesus Christ, as in Deus praesens [ present God ].’16

God discloses himself in Jesus Christ in the dialectic of humanity’s lost timeand God’s time. God’s eternity, at this juncture, does not exclude the temporal;rather, it includes it.17 According to Barth, year, day and hour are not conceptsforeign to the Bible.18 God reveals himself in real space and time. Meanwhile,although Jesus’ time belongs to our lost time, because it is his time it ‘became a

different, a new time.’19 Or in the eschatological language of Paul, ‘Behold now(νũν) is the acceptable time’ (2 Cor. 6.2).20 In this revelatory sense, God has timefor humankind in the event of Jesus Christ.21

In revelation God stands in for us entirely. And so also the time he creates forHimself in revelation, the genuine present, past and future of which we have beenspeaking, is presented to us entirely. It should, it can, it will become our time, sinceHe directs His Word to us; we are to become contemporary with this time of His.His genuine time takes the place of the problematic, improper time we know and

have. It replaces it in that, amid the years and ages of this time of ours, the time ofJesus Christ takes the place of our time, coming to us as a glad message presented

16 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 50.17 Eberhard Busch,Eberhard Busch, The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barth’s Theology,

trans. Geoffery W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 270.18 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 5119 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 51 Earlier in this section Barth draws the distinction between the

time we think we know and possess and the time God created (see Gen 1.14). Betweenthese two times lies the Fall, and according to Barth, ‘(t)ime after the Fall is a different, anew time’ (CD I.2, 47).

20 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 52.21 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 47–8, 52. See Colin E. Gunton, Becoming and Being: The Doctrine

of God in Charles Hawthorne and Karl Barth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978),177–85; Busch, The Great Passion, 268–72.




as a promise to be seized and lived in by us. Just as a light in an otherwise darkspace is a light for its own little area and has light for the whole space, so far, thatis, as it is a bright open light and so far as there are open eyes in the space to beholdit as a light, so is the Gospel.22

Barth is inching toward his formal discourse on the nature of Old and NewTestaments at this point while seeking to clarify the reality of God’s time for us beyond the realm of abstraction. Drawing on biblical imagery (2 Corinthians 3),Barth speaks of the two-fold nature of the revelatory event in Jesus Christ—theterminus a quo and the terminus ad quem —as both ‘the veiledness of the Word ofGod in Him and the breaking through of this veil in virtue of His self-unveiling.’23 The veil imagery, at least within this section of the CD, functions for Barth in muchthe same way as for Paul in 2 Corinthians 3. The era before the event of Christ’sunveiling is the veiled old age of general time or lost time. Jesus Christ assumes

this time—our old, lost time—to make it his own time resulting in the removing ofthe veil. These concepts of old and new time do not exist abstractly or in isolationone from the other. The opposite is actually the case. The new time exists becauseit has triumphed over the old time, which also still exists. This overlapping of theages, this transition from the old age ending in the cross and the new age beginningwith the resurrection is, for Barth, the time of revelation.

Barth continues to pursue his understanding of the time of revelation beforehe actually turns to the Old Testament properly; however, one can sense at this

point the theological underpinnings of Barth’s approach to the material form ofChristian Scripture as Old and New Testament, each with their own integrity andintegral role as witnesses to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Both Old and New Testament witness to the veiled and unveiled revelation of God in Christ. Onetestament cannot be had without the other. ‘Again, this is why the Old Testamentand the New Testament are so indissolubly linked together. That is why, in both,the revelation of the divine judgment and the revelation of the divine grace arenowhere to be abstracted from each other.’24

It follows quite naturally for Barth to address what he describes as the ‘modern problem of “revelation and history”.’25 The relationship between revelation and

history is indeed a problem in modernity and has been addressed in various ways by

those on the right (for example Cocceius and von Hoffman) and left (for example

22 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 55.23 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 56. On the dialectical relationship between the veiling and unveiling of

the Word, which surely undergirds Barth’s thought here, see Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics,I.1, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.W. Bromiley (London: T&T Clark, 1975),162–86 and Bruce L. McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology:

Its Genesis and Development 1909–1936 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 423–4,428–9, 464–5.

24 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 56.25 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 56.




Kant, Strauss, Bultmann) of the theological spectrum.26 Here, and elsewhere inthe CD, Barth is uncomfortable with the ways in which both parties—if such aschematization actually works—address this particular issue. To put it in otherterms, though the two parties reach very different conclusions about the relationship between revelation and history, they inhabit the same epistemological starting pointand modernist Weltenschauung . It is the historical as received from modernity’squest for unfettered ‘being-in-itself’ that tends to govern the revelational, ratherthan revelation shaping our understanding of history.27

For Barth, the central point of this modern problem resides in the misunderstanding

of the nature of revelation itself. Firstly, one cannot begin with a general phenomenon

of time or history as ‘the text’ by which one observes the phenomenon of revelation.28

Stated another way, and borrowing the illustration Barth adopts, for one to recognize

the event of the cross in the New Testament as the passing away of the old eon

and the beginning of the new is to recognize God’s revelation—here one notes thedistinction between historicity (the event’s facticity) and historicality (the event’s

substance). The recognition of the historicality of the cross, however, does not take

place in terms of general or observable time or history reductively understood.

Moreover, Barth afrms the ‘questionableness and uncertainty of history.’29 Such

descriptors cannot be applied to God’s revelation, a revelation neither veried nor

detracted from by the modern problems of history-telling.

Following closely on the heels of Barth’s rst observation is his appeal to a form

of confessional circularity. ‘There has been failure to see that the event of JesusChrist as God’s revelation can be found only when sought as such, that is whenwe are seeking what we have already found.’30 Barth is consistently a nselmianhere in his theological epistemology and is rather lucid at this point concerning thematter at hand.31 It is faith that precedes understanding on this matter, because theobject of study determines the approach one takes to the subject. On the surface,this type of approach may seem to ‘grossly contradict all honest investigations of

26 For a sympathetic reading of the redemptive historical approach of gures such asFor a sympathetic reading of the redemptive historical approach of gures such asvon Hoffman and Cullman see Robert W. Yarbrough, The Salvation Historical Fallacy?

Reassessing the History of New Testament Theology, History of Biblical InterpretationSeries (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2004).

27 For a historical analysis of this development in Western thought see Thomas AlbertFor a historical analysis of this development in Western thought see Thomas AlbertHoward , Religion and the Rise of Historicism: W.M.L. de Wette, Jacob Burckhardt, andthe Theological Originas of Nineteenth-Century Historical Consciousness (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2000).28 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 56.29 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 57.30 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 5731 On des quaerens intellectum see McCormack, Barth’sOn des quaerens intellectum see McCormack, Barth’s Critically Realistic, 421–

48; Gary Dorrien, The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology Without Weapons (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2000), 99–100; Busch, The Great Passion, 26–8.




truth.’32 But for Barth, this contradiction is more apparent than real when one takesinto account the nature of this particular question—namely, God’s revelation andits relationship to history.

In a rather convoluted statement, Barth afrms the non-problematic nature ofHoly Scripture’s attestation to God’s revelation in Christ. It is not hidden behinda wall of veriable, historical truths needing to be propped up a priori so that itsgenuineness can be accepted. Rather, the real problem is quite the reverse and sits particularly on the noetic effects the old eon has even on its best of representativessuch as John the Baptist.33 t his is demonstrated especially in the Baptist’s abilityto witness to the passing away of the old eon in his confession of Jesus as theLamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Jn. 1.29). At the same time,he never fully grasps the genuine coming of the Messiah as demonstrated in thequestions John puts to Jesus towards the end of John’s life.34 This noetic tension,

typied in the gure of John the Baptist, is the real epistemological problem forBarth, which results in his insistence that we start where the New Testament itselfstarts. If one does not have this ‘turning point’ or recognition that the entiretyof Scripture, both Old and New Testament, speaks about this overlapping of theages (‘this turning-point of time’) then the possibility of answering the questionconcerning the relationship between history and revelation is lost. In the comingof the Messiah, the old eon is giving way to the new, and the entirety of HolyScripture bears witness to this. An ‘honest investigation of the truth’ demands

this epistemological starting point witnessed to in the New Testament. To attemptsomething other results in ‘nothing but abstraction.’35

The momentum is now built for Barth to take his third and nal blow at the problem of ‘revelation and history.’ In short, if revelation is revelation and if Godis the source of this revelation, then it is always God’s to give and never humanity’sto be ‘dug up’ in the realm of human history.36 Once again, Barth appeals to hisanalogy of the veil. General human history and time operate as the veil hidingrevelation from us. As will be observed in our engagement with Isaiah, the

canonical document is actually narrating a different history than the empirical onetaking place in Israel’s political and social life. General human history and timeis the post-lapsarian time of the Fall; for revelation to take place, the in-breakingof the Word must occur as event. The eventfullness of this event can never beaccomplished by our skill or effectiveness as interpreters of general human history.Using Barth’s illustration again, we have no criterion within our skill as appraisersof human history by which to judge the eschatological signicance of the cross. Itssignicance is only to be understood by the unveiling of revelation itself, namely,the resurrection. Pressing the illustration beyond Barth’s use, it is historically

32 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 57.33 Similarly see Calvin,Similarly see Calvin, Institutes I. 9.5.34 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 57.35 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 57.36 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 58.




veriable by modern standards of history telling that Jewish men were crucied

in the rst century. Without revelation, however, it is impossible by recourse tomodern standards of history telling to verify Jesus of Nazareth’s taking away thesins of humanity on the cross resulting in the eschatological new day. For this typeof afrmation to be made, revelation must be a constituent and determinative pre-understanding of one’s approach to the question.

This necessity of revelation as sense-maker of history leads to Barth’s famousstatement, ‘Offenbarung is nicht ein Prädikat der Geschichte, sondern Geschichteein Prädikat der Offenbarung.’37 Barth displays his deep discomfort with theheirs of von Hoffman and the Erlangen Schule’s approach to Heilsgeschichte (redemptive history). Whether one uses terminology such as ‘redemptive history’ or‘superhistory’ to describe revelation as the ‘ultimate, deepest content and meaningof history’ matters little to Barth.38 They all fall prey to the problem of predicating

revelation on history, and for Barth, this is a gross reversal of theological logic.Barth claries his statement with the following:

Of course, we can and must speak of revelation rst of all in the principle

statement, in order subsequently to speak of history by way of explanation.

But we may not rst of all speak of history in order subsequently or by epithet

to speak with force and emphasis about revelation. When the latter happens,

we betray the fact that we have gone our own way in interpreting, valuing,

absolutising. We have not gone the only possible way, the way of obedience.39

These are indeed strong words from Barth betraying the signicance andurgency of the matter at hand. It is the language of subsequence that reveals thedogmatic location and association of revelation and history. Speech about historyis subsequent to speech about revelation, for revelation provides the possibilityfor speech about history. In Barth’s estimation this dogmatic ordering is lost inthe history of redemption school associated with von Hoffman and his heirs. An

especially pointed illustration of this is Barth’s answer to the following question atPrinceton Theological Seminary in 1962:

Question: ‘Does your theology give enough weight to history, to God’s work in

history and the various manifestations of his redemptive purpose in the historical

process? In this connection what do you think of the Heilsgeschichte emphasis

in modern theology.’40

37

‘‘ Revelation is not a predicate of history, rather history is a predicate of revelation.’Barth, CD I.2, 58, 64. See Kraus, “Neue Begegnung,” 436.38 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 58.39 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 58.40 One can only guess at the source of this question. It certainly represents the critiquesOne can only guess at the source of this question. It certainly represents the critiques

of Barth coming from a certain Reformed contingent in the U.S.A., typied in the writings

of Cornelius van Til.




Answer: ‘Have I really not given enough weight to history? I think in every one

of these lectures which I have given in this place I mentioned the context of God’s

word as God’s work. To speak of God’s word as God’s work is to speak of the

history, the story, the context of the Biblical message and witness. What more? I

don’t think we are invited by the Biblical witness to speak of the general process of

world history, but we must think and speak about that very special, very particular

history of reconciliation and of revelation. That history was of course in the context

of general world history, but the sacredness of that history is in the fact of God’s

word becoming esh. As history of salvation and revelation, it is in one word

Heilsgeschichte. The Lord in the esh, the history of Jesus Christ, together with

the foreshadowing promise to Israel and followed by its justication in the Church

over against the world—this whole as such can be called Heilsgeschichte. Are we

to think of a kind of special history within this history, of a historical process, so to

say? Some theologians have thought so. The Dutch theologian Cocceius who wasthe founder of a big, important school of theology, and also Bengel, thought in terms

of events following one another on a line and so this became for them a kind of

philosophy of sacred history. I personally cannot follow this way because the history

in question is a “history” which not only happened but happens and will happen in

all times as the same history. It should not be divided into different steps and phases;

it is one history. We are always at one with the prophets of the Old Testament; we are

always invited to be witnesses of Christ’s presence in this life; and in history we are

always called to live in and with them as secondary witnesses.’41

Barth’s af rmation of Jesus’ place in real time and space is not lost in such a framework.In other words (and borrowing from McCormack) Barth is not ‘anti-historical.’42 Jesus

41 Karl Barth, ‘A Theological Dialogue,’ inKarl Barth, ‘A Theological Dialogue,’ in Theology Today 19 (1962): 174–5.42 McCormack,McCormack, Barth’s Critically Realistic, 233. McCormack’s use of this phrase

is located in his discussion of Barth’s discovery of Overbeck in the period between the publication of Romans I and the re-write of Romans II. McCormack states, ‘Barth was stillseeking to nd a way to speak of revelation in history, but not of history.’ In this section ofthe CD, Barth’s mature formulations of the matter are apparent. Equally important in thisregard is the work of McCormack’s student, Richard Burnett. Richard Burnett, Karl Barth’sTheological Exegesis, WUNT 2 145 (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Burnett (104) pointsout that already in the der Römerbrief period Barth uses the term das Unhistorische todescribe revelation. Burnett (104) explains, ‘This never meant for Barth that God had notacted in human history, only that historians qua historians could not know this as an act of

God apart from revelation.’ Similarly, yet in another context, Barth (CD I.1, 325) makesclear the Bible’s understanding of revelation as always ‘a concrete relation to concretemen.’ In a very telling statement, Barth (326) states:

a ll this [the genuinely historical nature of the Bible, e.g., Ancient Egypt and Babylon inthe experience of Israel, Cyrenius as governor of Syria, Pontius Pilate’s place in the creed]signies that when the Bible gives an account of revelation it means to narrate history, i.e.,not to tell of a relation between God and man that exists generally in every time and that is




really inhabited the time and space of the years 1–30.43 The point being made is:God’s revelation in Jesus Christ witnessed to in Holy Scripture provides the epistemic possibility for recognition of the unique and revelatory events of the years 1–30 andnot vice versa. Revelation is grounded in God’s own self-disclosure in the person ofJesus Christ witnessed to in Holy Scripture and not in the pursuit of general humanhistory with all its uncertainty, unveriability and hubris. God has time for us in JesusChrist and his time for us is real. Our access to this time, however, is only through theunveiling of his revelation in the veiled time of human existence.

Coming full circle and preceding Barth’s specic attention given to the Oldt estament per se, Barth rounds off his discussion of ‘our time’ and its relation to‘fullled time.’44 Firstly, fullled time takes the place of our ‘non-genuine time’as ‘proper time.’ There is no philosophical slight of hand here for Barth. God’stime is real time. The fullled time of Christ is mediated to us by the witness of

the apostles and prophets of Holy Scripture making Christ contemporaneous tous. The coming of the Kingdom and the passing away of this world are presentedto us in God’s revelation in Christ as ‘in truth our time.’ Secondly, revelationdestroys the concept of our time that we think we know and possess. The thing wethink we possess, time, is really not a possession of ours at all. ‘We are quite rightto be shocked to death when revelation confronts us; for it is actually the end ofour time, and also of everything that is real in our time, and it announces itself asimmediately imminent.’45

Thirdly, fullled time is genuinely presented to us in Jesus Christ; nevertheless,we are caught in the tension of our possessed time and the consummation offullled time. The Kingdom of God is presented to us as ‘at hand’ or ‘not yet

always in process, but to tell of an event that takes place there and only there, then and onlythen, between God and certain very specic men.

in the small print section to follow Barth (327) acknowledges the genuine hearing ofthis biblical history as taking place not in the decided hearing of general history but in its,

the Bible’s, special history. One observes the two-front battle Barth is waging here. On hisleft ank, he denies the abstracting of eternal content from its historical vehicle found inthe gures of the Enlightenment such as Lessing, Kant, Herder, Fichte and Hegel (CD I.1,329). While on his right ank, Barth denies the positivistic approach of modernist history-telling, or general history, as the realm in which biblical history resides and is discovered(cf. CD IV.2, 478–9). Especially helpful on this score is the distinction drawn between sui

generis historicality and sui generis historicity in Neil B. MacDonald, Karl Barth and theStrange New World Within the Bible: Barth, Wittgenstein, and the Metadilemmas of the

Enlightenment , Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs (Carlisle: Paternoster

Press, 2000), 107–12.43 ‘To put it quite concretely, the statement, “God reveals Himself” must signify that‘To put it quite concretely, the statement, “God reveals Himself” must signify thatthe fullled time is the time of the years 1–30. But it must not signify that the time of theyears 1–30 is the fullled time. It must signify that revelation becomes history, but not thathistory becomes revelation.’ Barth, CD I.2, 58.

44 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 66–71.45 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 67.




redemption.’46 So there is a ‘parallelism’ between our time and fullled time. Or,to use the current language of Pauline studies, we are caught in the tension ofthe already and the not yet. Interestingly enough, this tension between our timeand fullled time presented to us in Jesus Christ is for Barth an act of God’sgraciousness in which he leaves us time, our time, to repent and believe.47 Fourthly,and nally, Barth emphasizes the limited nature of our time. It is not innite time.‘The myth of innite or endless time is shattered by revelation.’48 The Church isin large measure dened by those who ‘wait’ and ‘hasten’ the coming of the Judgewho has already concluded our time.

God has time for humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. This time, caught in thetension between our lost time and God’s time, is for us the time of revelation. Therevelation of God in Jesus Christ creates the necessary space between this temporaltension as our lost time is overtaken by his time in both the eschatological now and

eschatological future. This exposition of our time and its relationship to fullledtime provides the context for Barth’s formal discussion of the Old Testament as Die Zeit der Erwartung (the time of expectation) or the time ante Christum natum(before Christ’s birth).

The Time of Expectation

Barth’s formal discourse on the Old Testament is not without a contextual home. Itis embedded within his theological reection on the time of revelation. This is animportant point to observe because it exposes the theological relationship betweenBarth’s understanding of revelation and his understanding of the material form ofChristian Scripture, both Old and New Testaments. It also serves to link Barth’sactual exegetical practices in the CD with his explicit bibliological reection foundespecially in CD I.2. Barth’s understanding of the nature of Scripture informshis actual approach to exegesis itself, or what the Bible is, in large measure,

determines the ways in which it is to be interpreted.49

For the purposes of thiswork, it will be important to observe the links between Barth’s bibliological

46 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 68.47 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 68.48 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 69.49 On the signicance of the nature of Scripture for Barth’s actual exegesis, see JohnOn the signicance of the nature of Scripture for Barth’s actual exegesis, see John

Webster, “Karl Barth,” in Reading Romans Through the Centuries, ed. Jeffrey P. Greenman

and Timothy Larsen (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 206–7. Webster (205) helpfullycuts through the fray of approaches to Barth’s Scriptural interpretation in der Römerbrief ,whether it be an over-theorized approach to his hermeneutics or a reading of the commentaryto expose the particular theological position Barth inhabited at the time, by stating rathermatter of factly that Barth’s commentary is just that, ‘a commentary on the Epistle to theRomans.’ Other approaches to der Römberbrief are legitimate but often executed at theexpense of this most obvious fact.




reections on the nature of the Old Testament in CD I.2 and his actual exegesis orreading of certain key passages in Isaiah. Before this, our attention turns to Barth’stheological reection on the nature and function of the Old Testament as the timeof expectation.

For Barth, the Old Testament is the sui generis pre-time to the fullled timeof revelation.50 in this particular history ante Christum natum, Israel resides in theanticipation of the unique fulllment of revelation in God’s self-disclosure in hisSon. Resultantly, this pre-time is differentiated from fullled time, while at thesame time it is inextricably bound up with the fullled time it anticipates. Onecannot speak of the fullled time of revelation without speaking of its pre-timeor ‘the time of expecting revelation.’51 Understood in this way, the Old Testamentis, properly speaking, ‘revelation-time’ in that its posture is one of expectation oranticipation.

The point Barth stresses is the unique role the Old Testament plays as God’srevelatory vehicle. The Old Testament’s revelatory character is as a voice ofexpectation, and as expectation ‘revelation is also present to it.’52 Because theOld Testament is a ‘previous’ voice does not mean it is a ‘not yet’ voice in regardto revelation. Whereas the Old Testament is a time of genuine expectation andthe New Testament is a time of genuine recollection, they both join in solidarityaround a single content, object and thing attested.53 Therefore, the Old Testamentas a time of expectation and the New Testament as the time of recollection are not

merely ‘future’ and ‘past.’ Rather, as ‘future’ and ‘past’ they are present witnessesto revelation.

Contra Religionsgeschichte

The nature of the Old Testament as a genuine witness to the expectation ofrevelation raises its time above other times as the specically ante Christum

natum. In light of this, the Old Testament’s historical uniqueness, whether thereligious or national history of Israel, is ‘another matter’ when specically dealingwith the revelatory character of the Old Testament.54 This is not to deny the uniquecharacter of Israel’s religious history. For this uniqueness is indeed the case, asmay be said for the religious history of the Babylonians, Persians or even theGermans. Reverting back to the notion of the inability to predicate revelation with

50 I am gratefully borrowing Neil MacDonald’s descriptor here. MacDonald,I am gratefully borrowing Neil MacDonald’s descriptor here. MacDonald, Barth

and the Strange New World .51 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 70.52 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 70.53 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 70.54 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 71 See also Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and

Salvation in Christ, Volume Three, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,2006), 219.




history, one senses Barth’s discomfort with aligning revelation with the history ofIsrael or the piety of Israel. What makes the Old Testament a unique witness torevelation is not its unique history, rather, its sui generis quality is located in thefact that this particular corpus is anticipating something greater than the sum ofits stories can tell.

Using apocalyptic imagery, Barth states, ‘Revelation in the Old Testament is

really the expectation of revelation or expected revelation. Revelation itself takes

place from beyond the peculiar context and content of the Old Testament. It breaks

into the peculiar context and content of the Old Testament from an exalted height

which has not the slightest connexion with a peak point in the history of early oriental

religion or the like.’55 The latter part of this statement reveals the front on which

Barth is ghting. If one does not take into account the uniqueness of the revelatory

role the Old Testament plays, namely, a uniqueness that breaks in on it extra nos,

then one is consigned to the study of Ancient Near Eastern history or religion, not theOld Testament of the Christian church. And, if this is the approach one takes without

taking into account this annexing of revelation with the material witness itself, it

would be best not to use the language of revelation at all when dealing with this

corpus. Only from the side of revelation, specically the singular authority of Jesus

Christ, can the Old Testament’s witness to revelation be asserted and afrmed.

t he religionsgeschichtliche Schule was in full bloom at the time of Barth’stheological reection on the nature and role of the Old Testament in CD I . During

Barth’s student days at the University of Berlin his fondness for Gunkel camesecond only to Harnack. Barth attended Gunkel’s lectures on Old Testamenttheology, stating, ‘It was thanks to Gunkel that it rst began to dawn on me thatthe Old Testament might be a real option.’56 Barth was thoroughly trained in thehistory of religions school having sat under one of its chief proponents. The schoolfor the history of religions was interested in drawing analogical relations betweenthe religious life of ancient Israel and/or the early church with the surroundingreligions of their neighboring cultures (Gunkel’s primary interest was related to

Israel’s oral history form-critically understood). This project helped to conrmhistorically their own faith as a faith rooted in a commonly held religiosity amidsta general anthropology.57 It could be safely argued that this approach to the OldTestament dominated the landscape during the 19th and rst half of the 20thcentury. Key gures such as Wilhelm M.L. de Wette, at the beginning of the 19thcentury, and Herman Gunkel, at the beginning of the 20th century, loomed large.

Barth recognized the difculties spawned by the newer approaches to OldTestament research. Old Testament scholars had availed themselves of the ‘host oftextual, literary, historical and in particular religio-historical problems’ resulting in

55 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 71.56 Eberhard Busch,Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts,

trans. John Bowden (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 39.57 ‘Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,’ in‘Religionsgeschichtliche Schule,’ in DBI I:385. For example, W. Bousset’s Kyrios

Christos.




exegesis ‘more uid, varied, and concrete and much more conservative than thoseof all the Early Church.’58 These approaches to the Old Testament, though positivefrom one angle, held captive Christian Old Testament scholars whose approachto the material of the Old Testament, according to Barth, should in large measure be commensurate with the nature of the texts themselves. ‘Research in the OldTestament texts from the theological standpoint appropriate to these very texts hasnot remotely kept pace with the multiplication, so promising in itself, of materialserviceable to such research, material, linguistic, literary and historical.’59 in otherwords, theological exegesis of the Old Testament rooted in the church’s confessionabout the nature of this corpus was keeping at a snail’s pace alongside otherapproaches vastly more enticing at the time (despite the efforts of Hengstenberg,von Hofmann and Delitzsch to the contrary).

Barth, rejecting both Harnack’s call to remove the canonical status of the Old

Testament and the history of religions school’s reduction of the Old Testamentto the piety of the Ancient Near East, held rm his ground on the central rolerevelation plays for a theological understanding of the Old Testament. ‘However brilliantly and happily conceived, the “history of Israelite religion” is not the“biblical theology of the Old Testament”.’60 Even so, Barth quickly followed thisstatement with a negative appraisal of the results of the history of religions school,whose aim was to prove that the piety of the Old Testament adumbrated the piety of the New Testament. According to Barth, this adumbration, or historical

homogeneity between religions, had not been proven at all by the history ofreligions school and the attempts at proving it had been feeble. Barth foundthis project methodologically specious, and believed the theological program ofSchleiermacher lurked behind the impetus to make connections between the pietyof ‘Judaism’ and Christianity.

The highlighting of Schleiermacher’s low view of the Old Testament is nonovum. For Schleiermacher, the Old Testament’s real signicance, which might be tolerable at best, is in its relation to ‘Judaism.’ The historical signicance of

the connection between ‘Judaism’ (note: not the Old Testament) and Christianityis primarily related to the fact that Jesus was born of the Jews.61 Even here,however, the matter should not be pressed too hard, for the Judaism of Jesus’day was an amalgamation of disparate ‘non-Jewish’ elements picked up especiallyin the Babylonian exile. Therefore, Christianity’s relationship to Judaism andHeathenism are about the same. The leap to Christianity from the latter may be

58 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 78.59

Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 78–79.60 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 79.61 Friedrich Schleiermacher,Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, trans. H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart

(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 60. See Barth’s reaction to §12 of Schleiermacher’s TheChristian Faith in Karl Barth, The Theology of Schleiermacher: Lectures at Göttingen,Winter Semester 1923/23, ed. Dietrich Ritschl, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1982), 239–40.




greater than the former because of the former’s monotheistic claims; nevertheless,a leap is involved in both.62

Regarding matters of doctrine, the Old Testament has no claim onSchleiermacher’s project except for the matters clearly attested in the NewTestament. All propositions claiming doctrinal status are rootedrstly in Evangelicalconfessions and secondly in the New Testament Scriptures.63 t he appeal to theformer involves an implicit appeal to the latter because Protestant confessions arerooted in Scripture. The point, however, is to highlight Schleiermacher’s insistencethat ‘Our proposition mentions only the New Testament Scriptures, not the Biblein general.’64 Because of the priority of the New Testament over against the OldTestament, Schleiermacher can conclude the following: ‘Hence the Old Testamentappears simply a superuous authority for Dogmatics.’65

Whatever one makes of Schleiermacher’s claims regarding the canonical role

of the Old Testament, his appeal to the religion of the day, Judaism, over againstthe canonical role of the Old Testament Scriptures is obvious. The history ofreligions school coalesces with the impulses found in Schleiermacher. It is thehistory of Israel’s religion or the Judaism of the day, pure or impure in its form,that is the controlling factor in Christian dogmatics and Old Testament exegesis. Itis this fundamental misstep regarding the nature of the material itself which drawsBarth’s strong reaction against the religionsgeschicthliche Schule, whether in theexegesis of Gunkel or the dogmatics of Schleiermacher. The ‘point of contact’,

if such language can be used responsibly, between the Old Testament and the New Testament is not ‘Judaism’ or ‘Christianity’, for that matter. It is neither OldTestament nor New Testament piety. Rather, ‘the whole concern is Jesus Christ asthe object of the Old Testament and the New Testament witness.’66 t he essentialconnection between the Old Testament and the New Testament is the revelationof Jesus Christ.

The history of religions school and its progenitors from the last 200 yearsof Old Testament scholarship have left the proclamation of the Church and its

dogmatics in a perilous state. Barth afrms some of the ‘scientic’ results of New Testament scholarship but is condemnatory of the New Testament’s sister

62 Schleiermacher,Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 61.63 Schleiermacher,Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 112.64 Schleiermacher,Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 115.65 Schleiermacher,Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 115 Schleiermacher’s doctrinal propositions

§130–31 afrm the inspiration and sufciencyof the New Testament Scriptures for Christian

doctrine. Following on the heals of this afrmation is proposition §132: ‘Postscript to thisDoctrine.–The Old Testament Scriptures owe their place in our Bible partly to the appealsthe New Testament Scriptures make to them, partly to the historical connexion of Christianworship with the Jewish Synagogue; but the Old Testament Scriptures do not on thataccount share the normative dignity or the inspiration of the New.’ Schleiermacher, TheChristian Faith, 608.





discipline. Old Testament scholarship has left the church to her own way, andBarth laments this. ‘The unconcern with which the layman must proceed is the parlous result of the unconcern shown by Old Testament experts for the last 200years or so to their main theological task.’67 A poignant example of this is seen inthe following confession from Wellhausen:

Only gradually did I come to understand that a professor of theology also has the

practical task of preparing the students for service in the Protestant Church, and

that I am not adequate to this practical task, but that instead despite all caution

on my own part I make hearers unt for their ofce. Since then my theological

professorship has been weighing heavily on my conscience.68

Barth happily refers to several who have not imbibed the intellectual culture of

the history of religions school such as Eichrodt and Vischer.69 Still, Old Testamentscholarship and its potential for service in the church was tenuous at best, whereasthe religionsgeschichtliche Schule was at the center of the map.

For Barth, the nature and role of the Old Testament as expectation ofrevelation—and specically revelation as expectation—can only be conrmed initself because it conrms itself. Any explanations of this fact are an a posterioriexplanation grounded in the self-manifestation of Jesus Christ and the witnessto him in the New Testament. In other words, and in contradistinction from the

evidentialist appeal to bruta facta, the historicist appeal to proximity to historicalreality or even Vischer’s quasi-apologetic project, the recognition of the OldTestament as an expecting voice follows one’s confession of Jesus Christ as God’srevelatory Word and can only be conrmed by the sole authoritative witness tohim, Holy Scripture. Resultantly, Barth turns rstly to the New Testament andsecondly to the history of interpretation.

The New Testament’s Witness to the Old Testament’s Expectation ofJesus Christ

Barth’s appeal to the New Testament understanding of the Old Testament’santicipation of Jesus Christ has this fundamental axiom under girding his reading:The New Testament does not appeal to the Old Testament alongside other aspectsof the proclamation, doctrine or narratives concerning Jesus. In fact, ‘it is taken forgranted as their universal and uniform presupposition.’70 The history of religionsschool was operative in New Testament studies as well with key gures such

67 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 79.68 Quoted in Jon D. Levenson,Quoted in Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical

Criticism (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 97.69 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 79.70 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 72.




as Diesmann and Bousett, for example, placing Paul in the midst of Hellenisticmystery religion or cults as an explanation for Paul’s new-found religion.71 Though in time the history of religions school was challenged by gures such asSchweizer, most of the Pauline approaches rooted Paul’s ‘religion’ in his particularhistorical context without giving necessary attention to the ways in which Israel’sScripture informed and constrained Paul’s theologizing. On the other hand, andanticipating a very interesting enterprise in New Testament scholarship today,Barth recognized the New Testament writers as a solitary witness to the centralrole that the Old Testament’s canonical voice played for their theological reection

regarding God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.72 It was neither the Judaism of the day(or its antecedents) nor was it the Hellenistic context that provided the primarysubstructure of the New Testament’s theological reection. Though both of these‘background’ questions may provide helpful ‘background’ material, they are not

the substantial clarifying voice or the hermeneutical key to unlocking the NewTestament. It was and is the Scriptures of Israel.73

As one would expect from Barth, he turns to the Scriptures to conrm his case.He refers to the more obvious examples where the Old Testament’s promisoryvoice is heard, for example Matthew, James, and particularly, Hebrews. Buteven the ‘Greek’ gospel of John is littered with appeals and allusions to the OldTestament, alongside ‘Marcion’s favourite writer’—a not so subtle jab fromBarth—Luke. Lastly, Barth turns to the Hellenistic Jew Paul.74 All to say, the

entirety of the New Testament, whether the writers are rooted in ‘Judaism’ or‘Hellenism’ or a combination of the two, witnesses to the anticipatory role of theOld Testament’s canonical voice. On this score, the New Testament writers are

71 The taxonomy of Herman Ridderbos, though dated, is particularly helpful on thisThe taxonomy of Herman Ridderbos, though dated, is particularly helpful on thismatter. Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard DeWitt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975). See also, William Baird, History of New Testament

Research Volume Two: From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 2003).72 See, for example Richard Hays,See, for example Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1989); Francis Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith (London: T&T Clark, 2004).

73 ‘But the New Testament writers are utterly unanimous in seeing, not in Judaism— ‘But the New Testament writers are utterly unanimous in seeing, not in Judaism— not one of them was concerned with that—but in the history of Israel attested in the OldTestament Canon the connecting point for their proclamation, doctrine and narrative ofChrist; and vice versa, in seeing in their proclamation, doctrine and narrative the truth ofthe history of Israel, the fullment of the Holy Scripture read in the synagogue.’ Barth, CD

I.2, 72. From a biblical theological standpoint, which differs somewhat from an appeal tothe ways in which the New Testament reads the Old Testament, Christopher Seitz makes asimilar claim: ‘It is precisely here—reading the Old in light of the New and the New in lightof the Old—that combustion takes place and fresh theological hearing, in a modern contextunder the inuence of the Holy Spirit, occurs.’ Christopher R. Seitz, Word with End: TheOld Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 105.

74 Whether or not this is a fairly accurate description of Paul is beside the point here.Whether or not this is a fairly accurate description of Paul is beside the point here.




in complete solidarity. Barth transitions from the New Testament witness to thehistory of interpretation as he engages four representative gures of the Church’stradition of Old Testament valuation.

Four Representative Figures

Though Marcion in the 2nd century and Socinius in the 16th century opposed the

Old Testament, the whole of the church from the 2nd century to the Reformation

understood these positions to be heretical and counterintuitive to Christian faith. The

move within the Aufklärung toward a revivication, mutatis mutandis, of Marcion’s

understanding of the Old Testament is outside the purview of the church, according

to Barth. Having established the New Testament case, which is primary for Barth,

he turns secondly to key gures within the history of interpretation to substantiatefurther his claim. These gures are Irenaeus, Augustine, Calvin and Luther.75

Irenaeus

As one of the most ‘outspoken representatives’ of the fundamental unity of the Oldand New Testaments as the revelation of Jesus Christ, Irenaeus stands as a veryearly witness to this catholic claim of the church. Barth refers solely to Book IV

of Adversus Haereses in a single paragraph of reection. In actuality, Barth allowsIrenaeus to do the talking himself. The basic point elicited from Irenaeus’ work is,despite the novitas (newness) of the incarnation and the particularity of this eventas the muneratio gratiae ( gift of grace), the Old Testament fathers recognized andanticipated the coming of Christ. In their doing so, they revelationem acceperuntab ipso Filio.76

The Old Testament fathers were the recipients of the same forgiveness of sinsas those who bore a closer proximity historically to Jesus.77 According to Irenaeus,

Jesus Christ did not come only for those in the time of ‘Tiberius Caeser.’78

Rather, both those who sowed—the Old Testament fathers—and those who reaped—thosewithin the New Testament and early church —simul gaudeat in Christi regno.79 They are all recipients of the same Word of God. One can observe the theologicaland conceptual overlap between Irenaeus and Barth.80 The Old Testament, though

75 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 74–78.76 ‘They received the revelation by the Son himself .’ Adversus Haereses, Book IV: 7, 2.77

Adversus Haeresus, Book IV: 27, 2.78 Adversus Haeresus, Book IV: 22, 2.79 ‘‘ At the same time they rejoiced in the kingdom of Christ.’ Adversus Haeresus, Book

IV: 25, 3.80 It should be noted that Irenaeus’ appeal to the Old Testament is in some senseIt should be noted that Irenaeus’ appeal to the Old Testament is in some sense

a progenitor of the redemptive historical approach to interpretation because it is notthe texts themselves that are primarily the means of revelation but the actual historical




in an expecting and anticipating posture, is a genuine expectation of the revelationof Jesus Christ. As recipients of the revelation of Jesus Christ post Christumnatum, it is a legitimate enterprise to retroject this understanding into the OldTestament. This can and should be done as long as one does not atten out itsunique canonical position as a voice of expectation.81

Augustine

Secondly, Augustine stands as one who testies to the substantial and subjective

overlap between Old and New Testaments. ‘The Israelite res publica was a prophetatio

et praenuntiato of the City of God to be gathered out of all nations ( De civ. Dei, X,

32).’82 Like a child’s hand may come forth rst from the mother’s womb before

the entire body appears, so too does Israel appear as a forerunner of the fullness of

the kingdom manifest in Christ. Even in the state of prophetatio et praenuntiato ( prophecy and foretelling ) Israel was not devoid of grace, though it was veiled and

hidden, and this grace ‘was not outside the fdes Christi ( Enchir . 118).’83

events. This reveals in some sense Irenaeus’ ‘pre-critical’ assurance of the one-to-onecorrespondence between narrated event or person and the event or person in themselves.There is no tension for Irenaeus between the historical event and its textual mediation.

Again, see Neil B. MacDonald, “Illocutionary Stance in Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: An Exercise in Conceptual Redescription and Normative Analysis,” in After Pentecost: Language & Biblical Interpretation; Scripture & Hermeneutics Series Vol 2,ed. Bartholomew Craig, Colin Greene, and Karl Möller (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001),312–28. One should observe, however, Barth’s use of this type of language: ‘... in thehistory of Israel attested in the Old Testament Canon ...’ Barth, CD I.2, 72. The Canonof Scripture is the vehicle for divine revelation and its take on the events and gures ofIsrael’s history mediates to us their narrative signicance. While one may argue for a levelof correspondence between narrated event and historical event, they are not identical and

the former is canonical.81 There is a renewed interest in Patristic Exegesis via gures such as Irenaeus today.There is a renewed interest in Patristic Exegesis via gures such as Irenaeus today.See, for example, James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Libraryof Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 171–6; Manlio Simonetti,

Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis, trans. John A. Hughes (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 21–4; John J. O’Keefe andR.R. Reno, Sanctied Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 2005); von Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian

Bible, 62–102; Brevard S. Childs, The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 45–55; Robert Louis Wilkin, “Cyril of Alexandria asInterpreter of the Old Testament,” in The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation, ed. Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating (London: T&T Clark, 2003),1–21. On the role of the regula dei and its signicance for Christian interpretation of theScriptures, especially the Old Testament, see Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology, 30–33.

82 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 75.83 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 75.




Ecclesiological language, for Augustine, is applied to gures such as Abel,Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses. The church bore such gures in the anteChristum natum, and ‘it also bore post adventum Domini the apostles and themartyrs and all good Christians ( De bapt. I 16).’84 ‘And the relation between theOld Testament and the New Testament was such that the Old Testament is theoccultatio novi [concealement of the new], the New Testament the veteris revelatio [revelation of the old ] ( De cat. rud. 4). Or in veteri novum latet, in novo vetus patet (ib. 5).’85

What one observes with Augustine is the perception of a fundamental unity ofthe Old and New Testaments in relation to its subject matter. To reiterate a pointalready made, the Old Testament and the New Testament both have unique placeswithin the economy of God. In other words, it is a poor theological move to atten

out the Old Testament’s particular role as a promissory voice of expectation.86

There was grace before Christ, but it was veiled and hidden. At the same time, theveiled and hidden grace of the Old Testament was the grace of Christ .

Calvin

Barth takes a sizeable historical leap from Augustine to Calvin as he rehearsesCalvin’s emphasis in expressed language what the church fathers took forgranted.87 Barth’s basic approach to Calvin in this small section is to quote various

84 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 75.85 ‘‘The new is latent in the old, the old is unveiled in the new.’ Barth, CD I.2, 75.

On this theme see especially Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis Volume I: The FourfoldSenses of Scripture, trans. Mark Sebanc (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 237–45.

86 Whether or not Augustine had a tendency to atten the Old Testament’s promissoryWhether or not Augustine had a tendency to atten the Old Testament’s promissoryrole is another question. Even here, however, this does not get at the different notion of‘meaning’ operating for one like Augustine. Where the hegemony of historical-criticism

reigns, its governing ideas will limit Augustine’s approach to the literal sense while keepinghis gural capacity at bay. This does not mean all of Augustine’s gural or literal readingswill be found salient today. Nevertheless, the fundamental approach to the text and itsrole as Christian Scripture found in a gure such as Augustine is still quite at odds withmodern conation of the sensus literalis and the sensus historicus. Though aspects of Frei’s

project can be challenged (for example the relationship between story and their ability towitness beyond themselves), modern biblical scholars still have much to learn from Frei.Hans Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century

Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974). See K.E. Greene-McCreight, Ad

l itteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of Genesis 1–3, Issuesin Systematic Theology 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1999); O’Keefe and Reno, Sanctied

Vision, 7–10; Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram; Frances Young, “Augustine’s Hermeneuticand Postmodern Criticism,” Interpretation 58 (2004): 42–55.

87 On the continuity between Calvin and medieval biblical interpretation see RichardOn the continuity between Calvin and medieval biblical interpretation see RichardA. Muller, “Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from the MiddleAges,” in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, ed. Richard A. Muller




key phrases from his Institutes II, chapters 9–11. Calvin’s understanding of theunity of the Old and New Testaments can be summarized as follows: the Old and New Testament are two sides of a right angle centering on one subject matter andone covenant relation between God and his people. The Old Testament is promise,while the New Testament is fulllment. The covenant God made with Israel, nowmanifest to the church in Christ, is one with a fundamental unitas.88

This is not to deny discontinuity between the Old Testament and the NewTestament. ‘[T]he promise in the Old Testament has sensible, gurative, legal,literal, particular form, which later falls away in the New Testament (II, 1–12).’89 This difference amounts to a difference in administratio not substantia.90 t hemovement of God in his election of Israel had a centrifugal motion to it and was,at the same time, a movement of grace.91 ‘They had but a slight taste of it; wecan more richly enjoy it.’92 Therefore, the Heidelberg Catechism Qu. 19 reects

the substantial overlap between Irenaeus, Augustine, and the Reformed Tradition:‘the Holy Gospel which God Himself revealed at the beginning in Paradise, next

and John L. Thompson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 8. Muller advances the idea ofCalvin’s inhabitance in the trajectory set by medieval biblical interpretation over againstthe overly emphasized notion of Calvin as a progenitor of ‘critical exegesis.’ ‘Althoughoften dismissed by modern exegetes as a form of excessive allegorism when understoodin terms of its logic and its intentions rather than in terms of its abuses, the fourfoldexegesis is not entirely discontinuous with the logic and the intentions of Reformation-era

biblical interpretation.’ Hans Frei has stressed a similar idea when he highlights the organicrelationship between the literal sense and its gural capacity in Calvin. Frei, Eclipse, 18–37.Though Calvin vocally detested the fanciful and arbitrary exegesis of medieval exegetes,he was in practice fully involved in gural interpretation of Old Testament texts. Again,this follows from Calvin’s understanding of the nature of Scripture and its ultimate subjectmatter. Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah as Christian Scripture, 214.

88 On this particular issue and much more related to the question of Calvin asOn this particular issue and much more related to the question of Calvin asinterpreter of history and texts see Stephen Edmondson, “Christ and History: Hermeneutical

Convergence in Calvin and Its Challenge to Biblical Theology,” Modern Theology 21, no. 1(2005): 3–35. Of course mention should be made of T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s Old TestamentCommentaries (Louisville: Westminster /John Knox Press, 1986).

89 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 76 On further differences between the Old and New Testamentssee David L. Puckett, John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament , Columbia Series inReformed Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), 40–43.

90 ‘Let us, therefore, boldly establish a principle unassailable by any stratagems of ‘Let us, therefore, boldly establish a principle unassailable by any stratagems ofthe devil: the Old Testament or Covenant that the Lord had made with the Israelites hadnot been limited to earthly things, but contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life. The

expectation of this must have been impressed upon the hearts of all who truly consented tothe covenant.’ Institutes II, 10: 23.91 On Calvin’s understanding of Israel’s eternal election, see Hans-Joachim Kraus,On Calvin’s understanding of Israel’s eternal election, see Hans-Joachim Kraus,

“The Contemporary Relevance of Calvin’s Theology,” in Toward the Future of ReformedTheology: Tasks, Topics, Traditions, ed. David Willis and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 327–31.

92 Institutes, II, 9: 1.




preached by the holy patriarchs and prophets and continued by the sacrices andother ceremonies of the Law, but nally fullled by His beloved Son.’

In the current administration of God’s covenant of grace, our understandingand taste of the grace of God may be fuller than the fathers and prophets of the OldTestament. The grace shared between us differs only in degree of experience andunderstanding but not in kind.93 This particular understanding of the Old Testamentand its relation to the covenant of grace instructs Calvin in his approach to OldTestament exegesis itself. Resultantly, the Old Testament text is both xed withinits historical particularity and concurrently has the potential to speak a promissoryvoice beyond this xity.94 Barth’s collocation, the time of expectation, resides inthe center of the Church Fathers’ and the Reformed Tradition’s emphasis on theOld Testament as an anticipating witness to the One coming.95

Luther

Barth spends very little time with Calvin in this small print section. This is probablydue to the fact that Calvin’s high view of the Old Testament is a secured realitywithout much need for argumentation. Luther, on the other hand, with his supposedLaw/Gospel hermeneutic, does in fact pose a problem, or at least provides fodderfor potential misunderstanding. Therefore, Barth gives a signicant amount ofattention to Luther, allowing Luther himself to clarify matters.96

93 See Puckett,See Puckett, Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament , 37–44.94 On Calvin’s use of synecdoche andOn Calvin’s use of synecdoche and complexus in his approach to o ld t estament

prophecy with special attention given to promise and fulllment in Calvin’s exegesis seeRichard A. Muller, “The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulllment in Calvin’s Exegesis ofthe Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom,” in The Bible in the Sixteenth Century, ed.David C. Steinmetz (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 68–82.

95 Because of this understanding of the Old Testament as a witness to the comingBecause of this understanding of the Old Testament as a witness to the coming

Incarnate One, Calvin’s understanding of the literal sense of the text and its gural capacityare actually joined together in a plain sense reading. Calvin is careful not to read Christunnaturally into the Old Testament as his famous reading of Gen 3.15 attests. Nevertheless,Christ is the ‘scope of Scripture’ and to understand the Old Testament on the level of promiseand fulllment is not an alien imposition on the text but a reading grounded in the subjectmatter of Scripture. Hans-Joachim Kraus, “Calvin’s Exegetical Principles,” Interpretation 31 (1977): 17–18. Or as Richard Burnett has stated, ‘Calvin was not a literalist .’ RichardBurnett, “John Calvin and the Sensus Literalis,” Scottish Journal of Theology 57, no. 1(2004): 12.

96 Bornkamm states, ‘If one could divide Luther’s professorship of the Bible, in hisBornkamm states, ‘If one could divide Luther’s professorship of the Bible, in histime united, into two elds as now done, one would have to call Luther a professor

of Old Testament rather than of New Testament exegesis.’ Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther

and the Old Testament , trans. Eric W. Gritsch, Ruth C. Gritsch (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1969), 7. On Luther’s Old Testament exegesis and Trinitarian faith and how the twoinformed one another see, Christine Helmer, “Luther’s Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the OldTestament,” Modern Theology 18, no. 1 (2002): 49–73.




Barth quotes a long portion from Luther’s commentary on Romans—in particular, Rom 13.11ff. ‘[F]or now is our salvation nearer than when we rst

believed’ (Rom 13.11). For Luther, the reference to ‘rst belief’ should beassociated with the faith of Abraham and the prophets of the Old Testament. The promise made to Abraham and the Old Testament fathers is now fullled in JesusChrist. In a very important turn of phrase, Luther, as quoted by Barth, states, ‘Butthereby is faith not done away but rather established, for like as they believed beforehand in the promise of God, that it would be fullled, so we believe inthe same promise, that it is fullled now, as promise and fulllment follow eachother.’97 In other words, the faith of the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets isnot differentiated in substance from the faith of the New Testament.98

Brevard Childs has highlighted the hermeneutical shift that took place for Luther

in his understanding of law and gospel. Whereas in Luther’s early exegesis he may

have followed the Christian tradition’s simple association of the law with the OldTestament and the gospel with the New, later a transition took place resulting in

the law/gospel contrast as an overarching hermeneutic for both testaments. As a

result, he nds gospel in the Old Testament—Abraham’s faith—and law in the

New Testament.99 Though Luther’s hermeneutical schema is capable and probably

deserving of critique, Barth does not do so in this instance because Luther’s

hermeneutic is not the primary issue. What is of central importance is Luther’s—

and Lutheran orthodoxy’s—solidarity with the Reformed tradition in his insistence

regarding one faith, one way of salvation, one promise, and the revelation of Christ proclaimed in the Old Testament.100 Surely matters of dispute arose between the

Reformed and Lutheran traditions, especially with regard to the analogy drawn

in the Reformed tradition between the Old Testament’s external and visible signs

of representation and the New Testament sacrament.101 These are no small issues;

nevertheless, Barth has different theological concerns in this section. ‘To a more

than formal difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament (say in

the contrast between them from the standpoint of Law and Gospel), no one within

the sphere of early Protestantism ever actually gave serious thought.’102

Luther rounds off Barth’s appeal to the doctors of the church. One does notnd Barth critically analytical at this point in the discussion. Rather, he appeals

97 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 76.98 ‘For, as he [Luther] never tired of pointing out in his commentaries on the Old‘For, as he [Luther] never tired of pointing out in his commentaries on the Old

Testament, the God of the Old Testament, the God of the covenant, was the Redeemer-God of the New Testament.’ Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther the Expositor: Introduction to the

Reformer’s Exegetical Writings (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 57.99 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah as Christian Scripture, 189–90 See also JansZimmerman, Recovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theoryof Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2004), 47–77.

100 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 79.101 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 78.102 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 78.




to a litany of voices which form a unied chorus singing the same song. The OldTestament is Christian Scripture. Though it is the time ante Christum natum, itis still the time before Christ. And in our privileged position as heirs of a two-fold canon, we know more fully their anticipation, though veiled and hidden, was precisely an anticipation of Jesus Christ. Their faith in God’s future eschatologicaldeliverance was a faith, again, though veiled and hidden, in Jesus Christ. Thisis the New Testament’s, the Early Church’s, the Reformation’s and Barth’sconfessional approach to the nature of the Old Testament. Admittedly, differencesin interpretation abound with various interpreter’s approach to the texts at hand— Luther and Calvin’s approach to Gen. 3.15 for example. These differences ininterpretation, however, are embedded within a confession of the Old Testamentas Christian Scripture and the viva vox Dei. To borrow the language of Childs, thisis the ‘family resemblance’ holding the various Christian traditions together .103

Three Lines of Unity Between the Old and New Testament

Having called on various witnesses in the classical tradition who understand theOld Testament as a witness of expectation, Barth turns to positive theologicalformulation. He does so by naming and expounding three lines of unity betweenthe Old Testament and the New Testament regarding their roles as witnesses torevelation. Our attention is now given to these ‘three lines.’

The Free, Once-For-All, Concrete Action of God: The Covenant Both Old and New Testament witness to the free, once-for-all, concrete action ofGod in his revelation to humankind. Barth is quick to insist what this confessiondoes not entail. It is not an object or idea to be pursued outside revelation; neitheris it an appeal to natural theology where the givenness of God is observed inthe spatio-temporal world, nor in transcendental truths known once for all. Inthese negative statements Barth takes aim at approaches to revelation grounded in

various philosophical abstractions (for example Aquinas and Kant).At the same time, the cross-hairs fall on the religious-historical approachwhich would root revelation in Israel’s national experience or in select individuals.In Barth’s language, ‘God’s presence is not bound up with the national existence,unity and peculiarity of the people Israel, nor yet with the individuality of this orthat religious person.’104 Abstract philosophical or speculative religious-historicalapproaches all impugn the freedom and sovereignty of God in his self-revelation.Yes, God does at various times reveal himself to Israel as well as to certainreligious individuals. But God’s revelation is a self-disclosure occurring at variousconcrete moments at the good pleasure and will of God. God’s self-disclosure is ‘a

103 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah as Christian Scripture, 299.104 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 80.




self-relation of the one, only God out of his own untrammelled [unbeschränkter]initiative in the sheer Now of His decision [Entscheidung].’105

This free-act of self-disclosure occurring in the now of the divine decision is,for Barth, the berith, or the covenant.106 On the front end of Barth’s discussion ofthe covenant is his identication of the covenant of the Old Testament with theunique event in Israel’s history. In this canonically ordered history, God calls Israelout of Egypt, elects her as God’s nation and seals the covenant with the ‘once-for-all covenant sacrice at Sinai.’107 Barth emphasizes God’s election of Israel asoccurring when she did not exist as a nation. God’s covenant movement towardIsrael constituted her as a nation. As such, Israel is rst of all qahal (assembly) andedah (congregation) before she is a nation. In other words, Israel’s national statuswas never an independent one—its national status was determined and effected byGod’s calling of her by his covenant graces.108

Barth describes God’s covenant with humanity, as particularized in God’scovenant dealings with Israel, as unilateral. It is God’s one-sided movement towardand arresting of humanity. Even the Torah with all of its prescriptions should not be understood as an instrument in the hand of humanity by which they can ‘getcontrol of God and dispose of his goodness and succour.’109 Rather, the Torah is adivine instrument of compassion achieving existentially ‘the liberating “thou artmine” upon man.’110 This can lead to Barth’s following characterization: ‘As law,the covenant is grace, exactly as qua grace it is law.’111

Resultantly, all of Israel’s obedience to the Torah and the cultic requirementsthere-within are no incident. It is, in fact, nothing more than Israel living out thecovenant reality that God has chosen them as his own. In this covenant God freelyand graciously punishes and forgives sin. Israel’s obedience to Torah is Israel’smanifestation of God’s prior claim on her. Moreover, the covenant establishes thecontext for Israel’s obedience and faithfulness to God and not vice versa. t his isthe theological priority for Barth as witnessed to in Israel’s Scripture and is whygrace precedes law even in the Old Testament’s own discrete voice.112

105 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 80.106 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 81.107 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 80–81.108 A close reading of Eichrodt’s theology will possibly reveal Barth’s heavy relianceA close reading of Eichrodt’s theology will possibly reveal Barth’s heavy reliance

on Eichrodt for his own formulations about God’s covenant with Israel in this section.See especially Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament I , trans. J.A. Baker

(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 40–41. As will be shown, Barth theologicalapproach to the covenant differs from Eichrodt.109 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 81.110 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 81.111 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 81.112 This is self-conscious borrowing of Childs’ ‘discrete witness’ language. BrevardThis is self-conscious borrowing of Childs’ ‘discrete witness’ language. Brevard

S. Childs, Biblical Theology.




Barth adjudicates the particularity and universality of God’s covenant by hisrecourse to the title of this section: the time of expectation. The Old Testamentcovenant with Israel is revelatory because of its anticipation of Jesus Christ.As God’s covenant with Israel is concrete and free in Israel’s particular history,so too does Jesus Christ become history in all of his particularity. As the telosof God’s particular covenant with Israel, it is quite proper from a retrospectivestance to understand Jesus as the ‘content and theme of this prehistory, of theOld Testament covenant.’113 As will be observed in certain sections of Barth’s OldTestament exegesis, the Old Testament’s own unfullled status creates the spacefor a christological reading which makes sense of the whole. Barth does not atten

out the Old Testament by nding Christ preexistent in various proof texts. Hissensibilities do not lean this way as he differs from Vischer precisely at this point.Rather, the major themes and movements of the Old Testament’s own complex

and idiom both anticipate the coming Christ and leave room in its unfullled statusfor such a reading.

But what is precisely meant by the appeal to covenant in the Old Testament?

Barth outlines the complexity of the situation by showing the polyvalence of the

term in the Old Testament canon. Does one appeal to the covenant with Noah or

Abraham, Sinai or the priestly tribe of Levi, David or the future covenant attested

in the prophets (for example Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah) as the covenant by

which all others are measured? From one angle, the answer to this complex issue is

‘all of them.’ In the particularity of their institution, they all witness to the covenant.The ip side answer to the selfsame question is, ‘none of them.’ None of these

covenants in and of themselves are the standard measurement of the others, nor do

they witness to the totality of God’s covenant with Israel or humanity. Barth states,

‘Or rather the covenant seems to lie without any of these forms; it seems in each of

them to be a promise, and so and only so to be present in each of these forms.’114 t his

lends itself quite nicely to Barth’s understanding of all of these particular covenants

in the Old Testament as in some incomplete measure witnessing to and expecting

‘the revelation of Jesus Christ as the covenant between God and man.’115

Here Barth distances himself from most biblical scholars in his approach tothe question of covenant in the Old Testament. Even Eichrodt, whose entire OldTestament theology builds on the covenant as the Mitte of the Old Testament,understands God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai as the fundamental covenantalconcept which reveals the historical causation for the other covenant concepts inIsrael’s history.116 Eichrodt’s etiological move is fully enmeshed in the historical-

113

Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 82.114 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 82.115 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 82.116 Eichrodt,Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament I, 36–69 See also D.G. Spriggs, Two Old

Testament Theologies: A Comparative Evaluation of the Contributions of Eichrodt and von Rad to Our Understanding of the Nature of Old Testament Theology, Studies in BiblicalTheology (London: SCM Press, 1974), 12–17.




critical nexus of source, cause and effect, even though, and despite, Eichrodt’sfollowing claim: ‘It is high time that the tyranny of historicism in OT studies was broken and the proper approach to our task rediscovered.’117 Eichrodt did seek totake seriously the literature of the Old Testament itself and its relationship withthe New Testament. At the same time, he protects himself from making what JonLevenson deems to be the unpardonable sin of the historical-critical project, namely,anachronism.118 For Eichrodt, the covenant concept is rooted in Israel’s historyalone and this is prior to any discussion of covenant from a biblical theological perspective. Eichrodt believed his confessional claims about the synchronic unityof the two testaments situated itself comfortably with the diachronic conclusionsof his Old Testament scholarship without taking into account multiple-senses or, inHans Frei’s terminology, the gural witness of the Old Testament.

Barth, on the other hand, worked his idea of covenant from fulllment to

promise. Jesus Christ stands as the central dening reality of the covenant betweenGod and humanity. Now, one must take care not to charge Barth with attening

out the Old Testament witness as nothing other than an arrow shot to Jesus. Barthrespects the covenant concept of the Old Testament as particular and anticipatory.In its anticipatory function it witnesses to the fullness of God’s covenant withhumanity in Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, the theological concept of covenant forBarth is not conceived along a historically developmental plot-line but functionsfrom a christological center and is then moved outward.

Apart from this formal theological description is a more direct guralrelationship between the Old Testament covenants and Jesus. Throughout theentirety of Israel’s covenantal history there are human ‘instruments’ who act asGod’s mediators of the covenant between God and humanity. One observes theactions and identity of Moses as a mediator of the covenant, or Abraham as ‘ourfather.’ David and Solomon are respectively vehicles of victory and glory in God’scovenantal economy. Isaiah’s servant reverses this direction and mediates God’scovenant in lowliness and suffering. Beyond these, and exemplary of all these, are

the kings of Israel, the priests, and nally, and most prominently, the prophets whoare the guardians of the covenant.119

The entirety of Israel’s history as attested in the canonical documents witnessto and anticipate God’s ultimate revelation of himself in one Man. Jesus as thenal and supreme ‘upholder and proclaimer of the covenant’ will do so as prophet, priest and king.120 Retrospectively understood, Jesus is the Old Testament’s‘content and theme.’121 These gures, kings, priests and prophets witness beyondthemselves to something greater in God’s covenant of grace.

117 Eichrodt,Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament I, 31.118 Jon D. Levenson,Jon D. Levenson, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism

(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993).119 Cf. Hos. 6.7; 8.1.Cf. Hos. 6.7; 8.1.120 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 83.121 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 84.




Israel’s kings never fully carried out Yahweh’s law as their own or exercisedthe power of Yahweh on their own. The priests never actually had the power toforgive sins or create reconciliation between God and humanity. The prophetstransmitted God’s Word but never actually became God’s Word. These all witnessto the incomplete nature of their identity and work and anticipate one who wouldgenuinely ‘fulll’ these activities beyond that which with they could have beenconceived. They are the signs; Jesus is the reality. ‘The covenant of God with His people through the incarnation is in truth the mysterium, the true mysterium of theOld Testament.’122 Or to use the language of Hebrews: ‘Long ago God spoke toour ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days hehas spoken to us by a Son.’

The Revelation of the Hidden God, The Judgment It Entails, Covenantal Sin, and

The Necessity of the Christmas/Cross EventSome of Barth’s more robust theological reection on the Old Testament as aChristian witness is found in these eleven densely packed pages of the CD (pp. 84– 94). Barth maintains the unity of both Old and New Testament in their witnessingto the hiddenness of the God who reveals himself. Entailed in this revelation ofthe hidden God is a judgment upon humanity and its apparent attempts to creategods in their own image or to possess the divine presence. Israel’s intrusion intothe Canaanite land of Palestine was, in effect, the ‘dedivinisation of nature, history

and culture—a remorseless denial of any other divine presence save the one in theevent of drawing up the covenant.’123 The stakes for Israel were high as she settledin amidst her neighbors. ‘[E]ither surrender the covenant with consequent loss ofthe presence and help of God, or a complete break with any supposed presence ofGod in the nature, history or culture of the country, even involving the physicalelimination of its inhabitants.’124

Barth describes this situation as the xed polarity between Yahweh andthe baalim of the surrounding nations.125 From one vantage point, it is surely

understandable that Israel would acclimate herself to the surrounding cultures.But Israel was not left to her own way to decide the matter. God’s claims onher were total and exclusive. At the same time, God’s pronounced judgment wasupon the nations and their baalim. The earlier prophets, such as Amos, may havedirected their injunctions at the neighboring civilizations alone. By the end of the prophetic literature, God’s judgment was pronounced on the nations as far awayas the Euphrates and Nile rivers. For Barth, this universal judgment foreshadowed

122

Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 84.123 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 85.124 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 85.125 KBL (I:143) denes theKBL (I:143) denes the baalim as ‘the nameless, numinous beings which are

know to appear at wells, trees, rocks etc. as the owners of the place, and whose inuence

was initially limited to the place itself.’ See also Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament I , 200–203.




in the Old Testament anticipates God’s nal eschatological judgment in the crossof Christ.126 Barth jumps ahead of himself here as he is wont to do and, in light ofhis theology, as he must do.

The key aspect of Barth’s argument at this point is as follows: Israel asthe recipient of God’s revelation means impending doom for the surroundingnations. At the same time, Israel, as God’s covenant partner, is not immune fromthe judgment which falls on those who pursue the divine presence outside therevelation of Yahweh in the baalim. As Barth states, ‘Its [Israel’s] covenant withGod does not in any sense guarantee that things go well with it.’127 t he prophetsof Israel actually stand as covenant emissaries reminding Israel of God’s covenantwith her and the covenant obligations entailed in that relationship. He explains,‘The prophets’ desire was not for Israel to be a nation, but for it at any price, evenat the literal cost of its natural nationhood, to be God’s nation.’128 God’s covenant

claims on Israel are total and exclusive, allowing for no recourse to or compromisewith the gods of the surrounding cultures. It is this struggle between Israel as anation and God’s covenant claims on her that denes the fundamental story ofIsrael’s history with her God as attested in the canon of the Old Testament.

Inherent in this struggle between Israel and her God, much like the wrestlingmatch at Peniel, is the consistent deferment of the covenant’s fulllment. This istypied in Israel’s heroes and prophets. Moses saw from afar, but never entered the promised land. Jeremiah ends his days in the lament of Israel’s sin and destruction.

Archetypical for Barth on this score is the ‘servant’ of Isaiah 40–55 who suffersand has no inherent beauty. All of these witness to the necessity of suffering andstruggle on the way to the fulllment of the covenant. One meets Job, the Psalmistor Solomon in Ecclesiastes and is brought face to face with relentless ‘clinging to’nature of the Old Testament’s greatest gures. They clung to the hidden God.

From this Barth makes a gural appeal to the Old Testament’s anticipationof Jesus Christ. Barth is quick to state that suffering Israel, the suffering prophetor the suffering righteous man are not Christ per se. Barth respects the discrete

witness of the Old Testament at this point without making the all-too-hasty moveto identify Old Testament gures with Jesus. Again, the Old Testament’s revelatorycharacter is found in its unique role as an anticipating voice. With this stated, it isin the gures of Jacob, Jeremiah, Job, the suffering servant—who is the pinnaclegure for Barth—that Christ as the suffering one is typied. He is anticipated in

but not conated with these events and gures.

The reverse of this scenario is found from the vantage point of the NewTestament witness itself. The Old Testament is a voice of guration, typication

or anticipation. One needs to respect this voice while at the same time recognizingthat from the perspective of the New Testament, the problem created by the OldTestament is solved in the New. ‘[T]o that extent Christ was indeed suffering Israel,





the suffering prophet, the suffering righteous man. Not an idea of Christ, but thereal, historical Christ qui passus est sub Pontio Pilato.’129 Jesus’ cry of deriliction,‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ creates a cavernous roar in whichall of suffering Israel is found in Jesus and actually so.

For Barth, the Old Testament’s own discrete voice, which is a voice to behonored and listened to on its own account without too quickly heaping realizedChristian doctrine onto it, creates a problem that is not solved on its own accord.Its own witness is one of anticipation. This is a key aspect of Barth’s gural

reading of the Old Testament. Israel’s history of covenant failure before her Godis a history of Israel’s sin. It is important to recognize Israel’s sin as sin withinthe connes of the covenant, or sin directed against God. It is not general vice orimmorality but breaches of the covenant relationship. All to say, Israel’s entirehistory witnesses to the devastating results of sin. The result of this loud divine

‘No’ in the Old Testament is the superior necessity of God’s nal triumphing ‘Yes.’The Old Testament anticipates this ‘Yes’ but does not see it ultimately realized. Thehuman resistance to the hidden God typied in Israel’s judgment and suffering isinextricably linked to the overarching divine plan in which God’s ‘Yes’ triumphs.In short, the Old Testament’s own witness creates the necessity of Christmas.

In light of Israel’s history of struggling with and against the covenant of God,the Old Testament itself reveals the necessity of Christ’s crucixion. In fact,the world stage created by the history of Israel attested in the canon of the Old

Testament could have lead to no other conclusion than the Golgotha event. Barthdraws upon the imagery of the stage—a stage that has been carefully crafted withroles played out in which God acts as God and man as man. In God’s acting asGod, he reveals himself as the hidden One in the enigmatic being and actionsof the suffering servant; man’s acting as man is revealed in the ‘rebellion anddesertion’ at the foot of the cross.130 These pre-gurements work themselves outon the stage of world events as Jesus, by necessity, goes up to Jerusalem, and thehigh priests, scribes and people deliver him over to the cross. The disciples had to

leave him. ‘Judas had to betray him.’131

The necessity of these events does not render humanity excusable. On thecontrary, ‘[m]an unveils himself here as really and nally guilty.’132 All of thishad to happen in the assertion of God’s lordship and can only be understoodretrospectively from the viewpoint of ‘Easter to Good Friday; we might also say,in prospect of Christmas to Good Friday.’133 Illustratively and with no reference,Barth quotes, ‘Our chastisement was upon him, that we might have peace.’134 it isat the cross with its attendant necessity that humanity meets God as the Hidden,

129 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology, 89.130 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 92.131 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 92.132 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 92.133 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.134 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.




and humanity acts out its role as rebel. At the cross-section of these two realitiesstands reconciliation.

In this light, Barth makes a crucial move in his theological exposition of theOld Testament’s nature and witness. It is important to recognize the directionBarth takes here. He moves from the revelation at Easter or Christmas, that is, therevelation disclosing the ‘had to’ nature of God’s reconciling activity on the cross, back to the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament’s own discrete voice is caughtup in the tension of God’s revelation as hiddenness and humanity’s rebellious posture. It is the cross that acts as the denouement of this pre-gured realityattested in the Old Testament. Therefore, the events of the Old Testament attestingthe reality fullled in the cross are ‘prophecy of the revelation of Jesus Christ.’135 ‘So, in view of the terrible encounter of God and humanity in the Old Testament,we shall have to say that here, too, we already have the communion of saints, the

for giveness of sins, the resurrection of the esh and the life everlasting.’136

Committing the unpardonable sin of historical-criticism, namely, ‘anachronism’,Barth allows the full revelation of God’s reconciling activity in Jesus Christ to beread back into the Old Testament itself.137 The fathers of the Old Testament intheir expectation of Jesus Christ, when in the posture of faith and anticipationfor something greater in God’s eschatological reconciliation, were, in fact,anticipating Jesus Christ. They were not anticipating an abstraction of Jesus oreven a logos asarkos unidentied with Jesus of Nazareth. They were anticipating,

and in this posture of anticipation, partaking fully in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christof history. The hermeneutical move from Easter back to Christmas leads faithfullyand ontologically back to the Old Testament itself.

This reading of the Old Testament via the lens of God’s concrete revelation inthe person of Jesus Christ separates the church’s reading of the Old Testament fromwhat Barth calls the Synagogue. Barth actually identies the Synagogue with theo ld t estament per se or in abstracto. In this reading, Israel’s canonically attestedstruggle with the hidden God of the covenant remains unfullled or ‘stiffened into

petrication.’138

But as such, it is not revelation.‘Who possesses, who reads the real Old Testament?’139 a ccording toBarth, this particular question still divides Church and Synagogue today. Toadjudicate matters, Barth appeals to the New Testament authors, stating that theirunderstanding of Jesus Christ did not take place in a vacuum but was understoodin light of the fulllment of the Law and the Prophets. The issues for the earlychurch were not necessarily scientic, or we might say, hermeneutical alone. They

135 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.136 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.137 Levenson has described the unpardonable sin of historical-criticism asLevenson has described the unpardonable sin of historical-criticism as

‘anachronism.’ See Levenson, The Hebrew Bible.138 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.139 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.




were the ‘burning, vital question of faith and revelation.’140 Put in other terms, thenecessity imposed on them by the revelation of Jesus Christ was conjoined withthe necessity imposed on them by the Word of God in the Old Testament.141 Ourconfession of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is mirrored in our confessionof the Old Testament as a witness to that self-same revelation. If this were not thecase, ‘the Church would be believing in a different Christ from the New Testamentwitnesses.’142 If one confesses the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as a necessaryconsequence of Old Testament revelation, the question is then settled as to who possesses the real Old Testament.143 An import result of this is a view of the OldTestament that is equally high to our view of the New Testament. They each witnessto the revelation of Jesus Christ from differing, but necessary, vantage points.

The God of the Old Testament as Both the Present and Coming One

The third ‘line of unity’ between the Old Testament and New Testament for Barthis the presentation of God as the one who is present and the one who is coming.This is the ‘eschatological thread’ Barth sees as fully operative within the OldTestament’s own presentation of itself. The covenant God has made with humanitywitnesses beyond itself to something other, something grander in God’s redemptive

140 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.141

Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 93.142 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 94.143 Barth’s language regarding the Church and the Synagogue has come under re.Barth’s language regarding the Church and the Synagogue has come under re.

Soulen describes Barth’s approach to Israel as a form of ‘economic supersessionism’, thatis, Israel’s election in the economy of salvation had its telos in Jesus Christ resulting inthe replacement of Israel with the church. Kendall R. Soulen, “Karl Barth and the Futureof the God of Israel,” Pro Ecclesia 6 (1997): 415. Soulen’s appreciative critique of Barthhas within it a critique of the classical, Iranaeun reading of the Old Testament that, inthe estimate of Soulen, attens Israel’s Scriptures in the appeal to Christological exegesis.

One wonders what is gained by such an approach to the Old Testament, a claim described by van Buren as ‘reading someone else’s mail.’ Jon Levenson, a Jewish Old Testamentscholar, recognizes that one’s theological/faith commitments to the reading of the OldTestament, whether Christian or Jewish, cannot be set aside in the process. Of course this

brings up a very lengthy debate that is very much on the Christian theological table today.See Levenson, The Hebrew Bible; Seitz, Word Without End . Soulen’s description should

be read alongside Busch’s portrayal of Barth’s understanding of Israel and the Church,an understanding which cannot be described as ‘economic supersessionism.’ See Busch,The Great Passion, 82–105. Alongside this see Mark R. Lindsay, Barth, Israel, and Jesus:

Karl Barth’s Theology of Israel , Barth Studies (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); KatherineSonderegger, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew: Karl Barth’s “Doctrine of Israel” (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992); Dieter Kraft, “Israelin der Theologie Karl Barths,” Communio Viatorum 27 (1984): 59–72; Robert W. Jenson,“Toward a Christian Theology of Israel,” Pro Ecclesia 9 (2000): 43–56; Angus Paddison,“Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Romans 9–11 in the Light of Jewish-ChristianUnderstanding,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (2006): 469–88.




economy. The actual revelation of God in the events of the Old Testament is futurein orientation.

The danger to be avoided in such a schematization is a downplaying of thesignicant present for the eschatological future. Barth deploys an illustration toserve as a window on this complex. If one hears someone knocking at their door,the person knocking is present to the one on the inside of the door. This presence isa future presence because in the moment between the knocking and the answering,the one on the inside is still alone. But this aloneness is in full anticipation that this‘alone time’ is shortly to come to an end. This illustration of Barth’s serves quitewell as a depiction of the urgency of the anticipation found in the Old Testament.It is in the intensity of expectation that God is really present and revealed to gures

such as Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Jesus of Nazareth is knocking on thedoor of the Old Testament.

Insight is gained into Barth’s reading of the Old Testament witness as awhole in this section because Barth presents these gures of the Old Testament

as fully aware of the incompleteness of their particular moment and the need for

fulllment. This is the ‘eschatological thread’ traced in the entirety of the Old

Testament. In other words, the Old Testament’s eschatological anticipation is not

a constitutive part of its witness standing alongside other aspects. Rather, the

whole of the Old Testament has an ‘inward necessity’, or a constraining voice that

presses the reader to understand this witness as anticipating its fulllment—its

eschatological other.There is hermeneutical signicance here for Barth revealing some insight into

his ‘multiple level’ interpretation of the Old Testament.144 Many of the signicant

events, ideas or factors in the Old Testament must be understood from twodifferent vantage points. From one side, the issue is to be understood as an aspectof God’s covenant ‘in a denite present of historical time.’145 Here Barth wouldafrm the necessity of wrestling with Old Testament texts in all their historical particularity. This is but one side of the issue, however, and, left to itself, it would

remain attenuated because it does not take into account the intrinsic eschatological pressure the Old Testament’s own voice is constraining on the reader. The secondaspect of this multiple level interpretation is to relate these historically particularrealities with their corresponding aspects in fullled time.

Several Old Testament themes are rehearsed by Barth to illustrate the matterat hand, namely, the people of God, the land, the temple, the lordship of God, judgment and the king. All of these signicant themes within the Old Testamenthave a dialectical relationship between their particularity and their eschatological

144 I am self-consciously borrowing this term from Childs. This particular article willI am self-consciously borrowing this term from Childs. This particular article will be turned to again in chapter 5. See Brevard Childs, “Does the Old Testament Witness toJesus Christ,” in Evangelium Schriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher

zum 65. Geburstag , ed. Jostein Adna, Scott J. Hafemann, and Otfried Hous (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 57–64.





anticipation. Who are the people of God, for example, in the Old Testament? Arethey the sum total of Jacob’s descendants? In some scenarios, yes, in others, no.Are they the remnant? Again, yes and no. Barth concludes, ‘The people within the people, the genuine Israel, is obviously not identical either with the sum-total ofJacob’s descendants or with any section of this sum. But the genuine Israel, elect,called and nally blessed by Yahweh, is merely typied in both, and remains agoal beyond the history of either. In the strictest sense this people is ahead ofitself in time. It has still to be seen what this people really is.’146 The identity of the people of God is an eschatologically ordered reality.

Another way of putting the matter is to stress that the Old Testament’s ownunique voice within the two-testament canon called Holy Scripture creates such adistanciation on issues, such as the ones listed by Barth, that they urgently anticipateand demand future clarication or fulllment.Again, in Barth’s masterful handling

of the themes of election and rejection in Israel’s history in CD II.2 354–409, oneobserves his attendance to the plain sense of Israel’s history creating space anddemanding a future denouement understood fully by an ‘apostolic exegesis.’ Inthis posture of anticipation, revelation is genuinely present as the one knocking onthe door about to be opened.

This is no more evident, in Barth’s estimation, than with the gure of the kingin the Old Testament. The king is a unique vehicle for God’s maintenance of thecovenant. At the same time, the king reveals in poignant ways the hiddenness

of God as a gure pointing beyond himself. The kings of Israel born out of the political existence of the nation anticipate a future messianic king who transcendsthe present, earthly nature of these kings. In fact, the coming Messiah anticipatedin the Old Testament is not merely an intensication of the current politicalexperience but is a transcendence of this experience. Resultantly, the anticipationof the coming Messiah is not fully typied in the gure of the king. A more fullyorbed anticipation is required and observed in gures such as the ‘servant’ ofDeutero-Isaiah, the son of David in Ps. 110, the son of man in Dan. 7 and the list

continues. All of these ideas and gurations anticipate the coming of the Messiahas a gure who enjoys ‘a rule of peace without end, the rooting out of sin, the judgment of the world, the supreme sway not only over human spirits but also overa renewed world of nature.’147 Barth makes it clear that all of these ideas do fallunder the concept of rule, ‘but only in such a way that the functions of an earthlyking obviously fall very far behind, having really become a mere parable.’148 inother words, the kings of Israel do have a gural role to play in the anticipation ofthe coming One, but in such a way as to pale in comparison when the Messianicfulllment appears.

For Barth, this messianic expectation in the Old Testament ‘indirectly’exhausts the eschatological anticipation found therein. All of the key ideas listed





(for example, nation, land, temple, lordship of God, judgment) are linked up withand culminate in this One who is expected at the end, namely, ‘the king of the endof time.’149 In the present but coming reality of the Old Testament all of the abovementioned anticipations nd their genuine fulllment in the coming One whowill be God’s ruler, and whose rule is different from what comes before it. Land, judgment, and so on will, with the arrival of the coming One, nd their fulllment,

and this fulllment will occur in ways that are in concurrence with and differencefrom the gures and events which anticipate the reality. To borrow the languageof Isaiah, ‘Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old. I amabout to do a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it’ (43.18–19).

Conclusion

Having sought to examine closely Barth’s own theological reection on thenature of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture, our attention is now givento some concluding lines of analysis from the material at hand. Firstly, Barth’sunderstanding of the nature of the Old Testament is both confessional andclassical. It is confessional because one’s understanding of the nature of the OldTestament as Christian Scripture is an a posteriori commitment grounded in one’sconfession of Jesus Christ as the object and subject of canonical Scripture. This

profoundly basic point removes Barth from the religionsgeschichtliche Schule,certain apologetic approaches or redemptive-historical approaches that ground theScripture’s authority on a priori categories of historical veriability, proximity tohistorical reality and the canons of modernity’s truth-standards. The Old Testamentis what it is because the self-communicative God has deemed it to be so in relationto God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ. To seek veriability outside thisrealm is to abstract the discussion into philosophical categories foreign to God’srevelation of himself.

From this, Barth’s confessional understanding of the Old Testament isclassically orthodox. At least from Barth’s own estimation of the matter, hisview of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture is none other than the viewheld by Matthew, Paul, Irenaeus, Luther or Calvin. This by no means removesthe interpretive nuance found among these various churchmen, for exampleCalvin and Luther on the protoeuangelion. They, however, all understood the OldTestament to be a revelatory witness anticipating the One to arrive. Barth wasfully aware of the dominant landscape of Old Testament scholarship during hisday and was also fully aware that this approach was endemic to the life of thechurch. Barth did not shy away from this ght but refused to allow the rules of thegame to be determined by the questions plaguing Old Testament scholars. Barth’stheological commitments rooted his interlocution with this guild on the playing





eld of revelation. If Marcion’s ghost was to be exorcised from the church, then itmust take place on confessional and classical grounds.

Secondly, for Barth, the nature of Scripture determines the way in whichit is to be interpreted. The confession that the Old Testament witnesses to theexpectation of revelation in Jesus Christ requires Old Testament interpretation to be commensurate with what it, in fact, is. For example, Barth resists the etiologicalmove to identify God’s covenant with Israel with a particular covenant withinIsrael’s national existence, such as Sinai. All of the covenants of the Old Testamentare incomplete signum witnessing to the res of God’s concrete and denitive

covenant with Israel/humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. The historicalcovenants of Israel are particular expressions of that one covenant of God withIsrael but are not individually identied each as the denitive covenant. This isin large measure attested to in the incomplete nature of the covenant’s fulllment

within the Old Testament’s own voice concerning the matter.Thirdly, Barth respects the discrete voice of the Old Testament. He does not

atten out its voice with the New Testament, nor are his instincts to root theChristuszeugnis of the Old Testament in proof-texting the preexistence of Christin various Old Testament texts or by appealing to arrow-shot prophecies fullled

in Jesus Christ (contra Hengstenberg). Rather, Barth allows the Old Testament’sown voice to open up the possibilities for an apostolic exegesis that retrospectivelymakes sense of the incomplete nature of the Old Testament in light of Jesus Christ.

The divine ‘Yes’ promised in the Old Testament is incomplete, creating thenecessity of the Christmas event.

A classic example of this is Barth’s exposition of election and rejection in theo ld t estament narratives in CD II.2, 354–409. Without describing this in detail(me that is, Barth is replete with detail), Barth allows the Old Testament’s ownvoice to create a necessary space for an apostolic understanding of these textswithout which they could not be fully understood. After rehearsing the history ofthe elect king in the book of Samuel, Barth states rather matter-of-factly, ‘And if

there are those who for any reason cannot accept our “if” i.e., the presupposition ofthe apostolic exegesis of these passages—very well, then, let them show us a betterkey to the problem of the elect king of the Books of Samuel!’150 Resultantly, Barthdoes not seem to root the witness to Christ in the Old Testament in Christophoniesor in an apologetically oriented prophecy and fulllment paradigm. Rather, hisChristological reading of the Old Testament is thick and overarching, allowinglarger patterns within the Old Testament’s narratives and prophetic literature tofunction gurally as witnesses to Christ.

Following from this is a fourth observation; Barth respects the discrete voiceof the Old Testament and at the same time allows the full revelation of God’s

150 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957), 393. Seeespecially the very ne article on Barth’s gural reading in this section of CD II.2 by MikeHigton, “The Fulllment of History in Barth, Frei, Auerbach and Dante,” in Conversingwith Barth, ed. John C. McDowell and Mike Higton (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 120–41.




action in Jesus Christ to be read back into these overarching structures and patternswithin the Old Testament. There is a multi-level aspect of Barth’s Old Testamentreading where he allows the Old Testament’s own voice and narrative/propheticmovements their say, then allows for a Christological or gural reading of thesetexts as legitimately anticipating Jesus of Nazareth. The Old Testament is a voiceof anticipation and functions as such in the divine economy. From our perspectivein the divine economy, however, we know fully that their anticipation was anexpecting of Jesus Christ.

Reading the Old Testament anachronistically, with full Christian doctrinein mind, is not only allowable in this frame of reading but necessary becauseof the confessional nature of what the Old Testament is. Herein lies a readingof the Old Testament that is multi-leveled or multi-perspectival with each levelor perspective speaking truthfully, though not exhaustively, about the subject

matter at hand. One hears the Old Testament’s own discrete voice, recognizingits anticipatory role, then relates this reading by organic extension to its gural

or theological relationship to Scripture’s subject matter, Christ. This type of OldTestament reading differs signicantly from the apologetic impulse to prove theexistence of Christ by nding his presence embedded in various Old Testamenttexts. Barth’s theological reading of the Old Testament respects the entirety of thewitness in its proper economical and dogmatic placement as understood from the proper standpoint of the revelation of Jesus Christ. A sharp distinction is found in

Hengstenberg’s apologetic project and Barth’s multi-layered reading of the OldTestament.151 In the nal chapter the multi-layered reading of the Old Testamentwill be addressed more fully.

This chapter has placed the Old Testament in theological context for Barth.We move now from Barth’s general understanding of the Old Testament to a particular case-in-point. Admittedly, Isaiah is a narrow slice of the pie. Barth’sengagement with the Old Testament is broad and sweeping. Nevertheless, Barth’sengagement with the Isaianic text will illustrate well Barth’s theological instincts

regarding Isaiah as Christian Scripture and the relationship between his dogmaticcommitments and his actual reading practices.

151 John Rogerson,John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in Nineteenth Century German and England (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985), 110.



Chapter 3

Barth’s Theological Exegesis of

Isaiah 1–39

But the time does not yet seem to have arrived when the dogmatician can acceptwith a good conscience and condence the ndings of his colleagues in Old and

New Testament studies because it is clearly recognised again on both sides thatthe dogmatician has also an exegetical and the exegete a dogmatic responsibility.

So long as so many exegetes have not better learned or practised their part in thiscommon task; so long as so many still seem to pride themselves on being utterlyunconcerned as to the dogmatic presuppositions and consequences of their notions,while unwittingly reading them into the picture, the dogmatician is forced to runthe same risk as the non-expert and work out his own proof from Scripture. Yet forall the trouble entailed I personally found particular joy in this part of my task, in

which I was only a substitute for others.1

Introduction

The previous chapter dealt primarily with the theological framework for Barth’sunderstanding of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture under the title, Die Zeit der Erwartung . This provides a theological context or dogmatic location forBarth’s broader theological sensibilities and commitment to the o ld t estamentcorpus. It will also provide a helpful backdrop to Barth’s actual exegesis of theIsaianic text itself. How and in what ways does Barth’s understanding of the nature

and role of the Old Testament in the divine economy actually inform or determinethe way he handles the Isaianic text, especially those texts that have proven their juggernaut status in the more recent historical-critical readings of them? Whatof the Emmanuel gure? How does the role and gure of Isaiah’s servant playitself out? Does Barth appeal to Isaiah in its entirety, even the oracles against thenations in chapters 13–27? These sorts of questions, questions that nag at moderninterpreters, will be explored. For as we have seen in the previous two chapters,Barth was well aware of the cutting edge of Old Testament scholarship in Germanyand doubly aware of its impact on the life of the church.

A statement should be made about the way in which the following materialwill be organized. For the sake of convenience, the chapters given to Barth’stheological exegesis of Isaiah will be split along lines with which we have become

1 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.2, trans. Harold Knight, et al. (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1960), ix.




all too familiar. This chapter will be given to some key texts from Isaiah 1–39 andthe next chapter to Isaiah 40–66. Barth probably accepted the historical-criticalconclusion that eighth-century Isaiah was not the author of the entire corpus that bears his name. This is evident in his appeal to language such as ‘Deutero-Isaiah’and aside comments that attribute certain portions of Isaiah to the eighth-century prophet. With this said, Barth’s acceptance of this historical-critical demarcationdid not, in essence, detract from his commitment to reading the entirety of Isaiah asthe one word of the Lord or as a unied witness. The Scriptures cannot be treatedmerely as sources for historical reconstruction. Theologians must give themselvesto the texts as we have them in the canonical Scriptures, that is, in their canonicalnal form. Barth states:

The real decision whether in this eld we are going to make a move for the

better will depend on two things. The rst is whether there will be a rekindlingof a similar interest in Old Testament scholarship. But the second is whether in

both elds the time has not passed when we can select arbitrary themes, whether

the exegesis of canonical Scripture as such, the coherent exposition of Genesis,

Isaiah, the Gospel of Matthew, etc., according to their present status and compass

is again recognized and undertaken as in the last resort the only possible goal of

biblical scholarship.2

Though Barth does not use this language, one can surmise from his broad appealto Isaiah as a unied whole that he would be comfortable with the later languageof Brevard Childs or Christopher Seitz: God spoke an intended word to Isaiahthe prophet that, under the providential moving of the Spirit of God, had a life ofits own after Isaiah had passed off the scene. As will be seen, a primary exampleof this is Barth’s appeal to Isaiah’s witness to the covenant concept in CD IV.1,28–32. Here Barth sees all of Isaiah witnessing to a unied reality. All to say, thedemarcation between 1–39 and 40–66 is more for convenience than revelatory of

any particular critical commitments.A word should also be said regarding the selection of passages. Barth’sappeal to the Scriptures in the CD is vast and variegated. It is no understatementto describe Barth’s appeal to tota Scriptura as breathtaking. He is a master ofassociating texts together and rarely exegetes passages in isolation from otherswithin the canonical witness. In this sense, Barth’s tight webbing of biblicalmaterial across large swaths of the canonical Scriptures makes him a ‘biblicaltheologian’ par excellence. Resultantly, dealing with a biblical book like Isaiahalone presents us with certain challenges, primarily, the challenge to avoid anarticial reading not taking into account Barth’s larger dogmatic concerns. Forexample, in the section entitled, ‘The Veracity of Man’s Knowledge of God’ (CD II.1), Barth states that a necessary result of our participation in the knowledge of

2 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.T.Thomson and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 494.



Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah 1–39 65

God is a posture of thanksgiving and wondering awe (220–23). As is typical ofBarth, in the small print section he begins supporting his thought with an appealto Scripture. How is it that the lips of humankind can ‘become the instruments bywhich God and His truth and righteousness and glory are praised, and His Word is proclaimed.’3 From this, Barth begins his masterful association of texts. He movesfrom Moses’ confession about his inadequacy in Exod 4.10, to the cleansing of themouth of Isaiah the prophet in Isa 6.5, to Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and variousother canonical voices, including Baalim’s ass and the New Testament witness.What one observes from this example is Barth’s wide-ranging appeal to Scriptureand Isaiah’s position in the midst of this larger movement and cross-referencingassociation. This is probably a case-in-point of what Childs refers to as Barth’s‘virtuoso performance’ in his biblical exegesis and association of texts.

Our investigation into Barth’s exegesis of Isaiah will, at times, involve Isaianic

texts found within this type of broad-sweeping biblical theological reection. Forthe most part, this is unavoidable. Where this is the case, the focus will remain

limited and modest with attention given to the Isaianic texts alone. At the same

time, a certain selectivity will be involved in the passages considered. Barth can

appeal to Scripture in more illustrative ways (as seen in the previous example),

and he can appeal to Scripture in more substantial ways as he provides biblical

warrant for the point he is making. For sake of time and space, our attention will

be given to the latter, and selectively with these as well. It is hoped that one can

gain a sense of Barth’s reading of Isaiah with some of its key passages addressed.As will be seen, Barth can appeal to the same passage from Isaiah in different

ways, at different times and for different purposes. This probably witnesses to

Barth’s multi-level approach to interpretation, but this is jumping ahead of the

argument.

Isaiah 1.2–4; 30.1,9: Isaiah’s Witness to the Recalcitrance of Israel as

‘Son of God’

Nestled within Barth’s larger discourse on the ‘The Way of the Son into theFar Country’ (CD IV.1, 157–210) is Barth’s interaction with the Old Testamentconcept of Israel as Son of God. Barth’s well-known dictum, ‘The atonement ishistory,’ is a statement that grounds God’s denitive action in the person and workof Jesus Christ within the ‘very special history of God with man, the very specialhistory of man with God.’4 Here, Barth roots God’s work of condescension inthe unique historical events attested in the canonical documents, both Old and New Testaments. Again, this unique and special history is not grounded within the

3 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.1, trans. T.H.L. Parker, et al. (Edinburgh: T&TT.H.L. Parker, et al. (Edinburgh: T&T(Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1957), 221.

4 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.1, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1956), 157.




general sphere of neutrally observed historical events; rather, the confession that‘[t]he atonement takes precedence over all other history’ is a revealed confession,a confession grounded in God’s own Triune self-disclosure.5

t he atonement is the history of Jesus Christ both noetically (objectivegenitive) and ontically (subjective genitive) conceived. This confession resultsin the following understanding: ‘The Word did not simply become any “esh,”

any man humbled and suffering. It became Jewish esh.’6 Here, one observes theimportance of the Scriptural witness in Barth’s theological interaction with thechurch’s dogma of the atonement. The atonement is the sui generis history of God’sinteraction with humanity, and the canonical document’s witnessing to this historyhas pride of place. Any theological construal not rooted in the Scripture’s ownself-presentation and subject matter is destined to loose the genuinely historicalnature of the atonement with ights of fancy into abstract categories foreign to the

Biblical material.This is of special import for Barth regarding the continuing signicance of the

Old Testament as a witness to Christ. ‘The New Testament witness to Jesus Christ,the Son of God, stands on the soil of the Old Testament and cannot be separatedfrom it.’7 If the New Testament is loosed from its Old Testament moorings, JesusChrist will be reduced to ‘a kind of ideal-picture of human existence,’ rather thanthe Nazarene fully rooted in Israel’s history of redemption.8 The detachment of the New Testament from the necessary commentary of the Old Testament ultimately

results in Docetism. In other words, the Father who has elected to himself thesmall, strange people of Israel is the self-same God who has elected Jesus Christas reconciler of humanity born within Israel’s particular context. Jesus’ birth inBethlehem was no fortuitous event. ‘The act of God which takes place in this manfor us takes place contingently on earth and in time, as the creeds have emphasizedwith their mention of Mary and Pilate.’9 When Jesus proceeds into the far country,he does so in the particularity of the one elect people of Israel.10 What is observedin Barth’s reections here is the safeguarding against Docetism assured by the

continuing canonical validity of the Old Testament as a Christian witness.Therefore, and by way of example, when the title ‘Son of God’ is predicatedon Jesus Christ it is not an abstract descriptor that can be analogously explainedoutside the divine economy. It is rmly rooted within the concrete particularityof God’s election of Israel. Barth states, ‘Under the name of Son of God Jesustook the very place which in the Old Testament had often enough been allotted to

5 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 157–8.6 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 166.7 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 166.8 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 167.9 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 168.10 See Katherine Sonderegger, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew: Karl Barth’s

“Doctrine of Israel” (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), 53.




the “children” of Israel in their relation to God.’11 Jesus as Son of God takes onthe unique role of Israel within the Old Testament economy, especially Israel’s priests (Mal 1.6) and membrum praecipuum [advanced member ], the king (2 Sam7. Psalm 2.7). The gural role Israel plays as a prophetic pre-gurement of JesusChrist is a central aspect of Barth’s theological reading of the Old Testament ingeneral and Isaiah in particular. We will see this theme surface again in our studyof Isaiah in the CD. By way of anticipation, this particular reading of the entiretyof Israel’s existence coram Deo as a gural anticipation of Jesus Christ is one ofthe more salient and promising aspects of Barth’s theological reading of Isaiah.

For Barth, the two testament canon witnesses to the organic relationship between Israel, especially Israel’s king, and Jesus Christ. Where one sees theformer in the Old Testament, one sees the latter in the New. This gural connection between Israel and Jesus Christ is located specically in the realm of the electing

will and grace of the Creator. God is the electing Creator in the Old Testamenteconomy of Israel’s election and redemption. God makes a graciously divine movetoward s the lowliness of Israel in the Old Testament. With the revelation of JesusChrist, the electing Creator actually becomes the elect creature.12 t he movementtowards becomes in Jesus Christ a movement of becoming . Jesus Christ actually becomes lowly in his move to the far country. As such, he becomes the Son ofGod in lowliness. Barth states, ‘And Israel and its kings and priests were only the provisional representatives of this incomparable Son.’13

Barth’s reading of Israel’s prophetic existence reveals an important dimensionto his overall understanding of the relationship between Old and New Testaments.God’s election of Israel in general and Israel’s kings in particular is a mysteriousrevelation that can only be unlocked from within the Old Testament’s own schemaand the trajectory which it sets. In the Old Testament we nd these representatives: priests, kings and prophets, and their representational or gural role should not be underestimated. At the same time, their placement and identity within the OldTestament creates a certain provisionality demanding fulllment.

The revelation of Jesus Christ has an apocalyptic force to it. In other words, a neatand tight linear movement within the history of Israel’s redemption to Jesus Christmay not be as readily available as some might wish. God’s revelation of himselfin Jesus Christ is surprising and unique. At the same time, the New Testament’sconnection to the Old Testament reveals that God’s revelation of himself in the person of Jesus Christ is not an accident or ‘the arbitrary action of a Deus exmachina.’14 it is fulllment , namely, the fulllment of the one revealed will of Godwho has manifested himself as One who reaches out to the lowly. The revelationof Jesus Christ fullls – in Barth’s language, ‘superabundant fulllment’ – thegracious election of Israel in the Old Testament. Barth’s phraseology here serves

11 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 169.12 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 170.13 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 170.14 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 170.




the point well. The revelation of Jesus is ‘superabundant’ (we might say thesurprising and unexpected apocalyptic, breaking in) and ‘fulllment’ (brings aboutthe hopes witnessed to in the idiom of the Old Testament’s plain sense).

The revelation of God in the Old Testament as a God who elects discloses thehumiliation and lowliness involved in the electing act. The movement toward inelection is a condescending movement. Beyond this general principle observed inthe Old Testament is the specic insistence on the unworthiness of the recipients ofGod’s electing grace. Jesus’ move into the far country begins with God’s electingof an unfaithful and unworthy people who can only be sustained by His electingfaithfulness. Isaiah’s canonical voice is called on by Barth as a witness to Israel’srecalcitrant and unfaithful ways before her God.

Contextually, it should be remembered that Barth is here discussing the gural

relationship between Israel in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ in the New.

Both are revealed as Sons of God. Jesus’ going into the far country to reconcilehumanity to himself takes place within the specic context of God’s election ofIsrael. Israel as the Son of God is elected to ‘obedience’ and ‘service’ to God.15 inthe New Testament Jesus takes on this commission as his own. It is important toobserve the language of ‘place-taking’ here. Why? Because Jesus’ going into thefar country and the humiliation and lowliness involved in this act is specically

grounded in his taking on Israel’s identity: both its commission to obedience andservice (calling) and its recalcitrance and disobedience (ontic status).

Isaiah witnesses to the type of sonship Israel actually embodies within the OldTestament economy. In association with texts from Jeremiah, Hosea, Malachi, 2Samuel and Psalms, Barth strings together several verses from Isaiah that witnessto Israel’s sonship (Isa 1.2, 4; 30:1, 9). Within this small-print section, Isaiah’svoice is the loudest as it speaks unequivocally about the children of Israel as a‘corrupt children.’ Representative of these verses is Isaiah 1.2: ‘Hear, O heavens,and listen, O earth; for the Lord has spoken: I reared up children and broughtthem up, but they rebelled against me’ (NRSV). Barth allows these texts within

Isaiah’s corpus to witness ontologically to the nature of Israel before her Godin the Old Testament. They serve to show the type of place-taking occurringwhen Jesus the true Israelite takes on the obedience/service of Israel as well asIsrael’s faithlessness. Barth concludes, ‘The place taken by the one Israelite Jesusaccording to the New Testament is, according to the Old Testament, the place ofthis disobedient son, this faithless people and its faithless priests and kings.’16

What is of special interest in Barth’s appeal to Isaiah is, rstly and negatively,what Barth does not say regarding the Biblical texts. Secondly, and positively, isthe purpose for which Barth deploys these particular texts. Admittedly, the exegesisin this small-print section is not expansive. Neither is Barth very explicative aboutthe texts. From one angle, he lets their plain sense be heard with the point being prima facie obvious. At the same time, and knowing the setting in which Barth

15 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 171.16 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 171.




resided as a biblical theologian, it is of interest to observe his lack of attention toissues of structure, genre/form, setting or even context basically understood.

Barth is not interested here in the form-critical identication of the propheticutterance. For example, the fact that Isa 1.2–3 can be identied as an accusation,whereas vv. 4–9 can be identied as an invective matters nothing to Barth here.17 Additionally, the fact that these ‘disparate’ oracles may be traced to their pre-history is not of consequence to Barth. Their nal form and the reality they witnessto in their nal form is of signicance for Barth.

Similarly, Barth shows little concern for the types of questions moderncommentators might put to Isaiah 30. For example, the fact that 30.1–17 showssigns of redactional activity with bridging devices connecting the dots is also oflittle importance for Barth. Redactional shaping, which we may safely assumeBarth afrms in general, does not come into play in the actual appeal to these texts.

At least here, Barth does not nd hermeneutical signicance in the redactionalshaping of the Isaianic witness. Rather, the text’s nal form witnesses to the natureand role of Israel in a unied way. Israel’s ontology in the Isaianic witness is ofsignicance for Barth.

The fact that Barth pays little attention to redactional activity in Isaiah 30 will probably come as no surprise. We recall Childs’s recounting of Barth’s statementabout J E D and P in his lectures on Genesis. He let the Biblical scholars know hewas aware of the issues and then moved on as if he did not care. This is probably

case-in-point of Barth’s lack of interest. What is more surprising, and possiblydisturbing, is Barth’s lack of attention to the literary context of the text itself.Israel’s recalcitrance is revealed in their alignment with Egypt and their trust inPharoah, rather than in Yahweh (Isa 30.1–4). The historical context of Isaiah 30.1– 17 on the surface seems to reect Hezekiah’s move against the Assyrians via hisalliance with Egypt.

On the other hand, there are problems with this historical reading as well. Firstly,Hezekiah is not mentioned in this text; neither is Assyria, though the Assyrian crisis

is assumed throughout Isaiah 1–39. We note how odd it is that neither Hezekiahnor his palace are mentioned in this text. There seems to be some sort of restraintat work within the text by not mentioning Hezekiah directly.18 Childs sidelinessome of these concerns by his understanding of an implicit criticism of Hezekiahin 30.1–17 that is not at odds with his later portrayal as a faithful king in Isaiah36–39. Hezekiah as a faithful king in 36–39 is set over against the faithlessnessof Ahaz in 7–8. Wherever one lands on the historical question about this text,the textual fact remains that Israel’s recalcitrance is revealed in the particularityof their trust in Egypt and not Yahweh. In this small-print section, Barth seemsunaware or at least uninterested in this contextual question.

17 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, The Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 16.

18 Christopher R. Seitz,Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox Press,1993), 216–17.




The point in all of this is Barth’s lack of interest in the historical particularity

of the text as revealed in the text as well as in the form-critical questions.

Admittedly, Barth is limited by space and time and must be discriminating in

his use of the Biblical material. He could possibly be chided for not giving more

attention to the textual context of Isaiah 30. In this light, he seems to be breaking

the three most important rules of exegesis: context, context and context. The case

can be made, however, that this breech is only so at a rst glance. In fact, Barth

may actually be heeding the text’s own claims regarding its signicance more

than is observed in this rst glance. Moreover, Barth’s reading may be revelatory

of the different exegetical instincts operating for theologians versus biblical

scholars. Again, Barth is concerned with the subject matter or the witnessing

potentiality of the text and does not bring his reader into the exegetical wood-

shop, so to speak. He allows the reader to see the nal product, the res of the

matter at hand.When one speaks of historical particularity with the Biblical texts, usually this

refers to the original situation out of which the text arose. For example, and ashas already been mentioned, with Isaiah 30 this situation is possibly Hezekiah’s political alignment with Egypt in the face of the Assyrian crisis or more basically,Israel’s political alignment with Egypt. But the oracle serves a larger role inIsaiah’s prophecy than revealing the historical situation out of which it arose.19 a shas been mentioned above, the historical particularity of this oracle in Isaiah 30 is

actually rather opaque without much of the historical dimension being revealed.One can argue that this is part of the text’s canonical intentionality. For in Isa 30.8the prophet is called to write down the events in a tablet or in a book as a witnessfor future generations. ‘Go now, write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it ina book, so that it may for the time to come as a witness forever.’ What exactly isentailed in this witness for future generations? It is not the historical particularityout of which the text arose. The text itself seems uninterested in this issue, or hasat least relativized its historical particularity for the sake of future generations.

The historically particular situation out of which this oracle arose is accidentalto its continuing canonical message found in the following verse: ‘They are arebellious people, faithless children, children who will not hear the instruction ofthe Lord’ (Isa 30.9). Alongside this is the intertextual allusion to Isa 1.2–4 in Isa30:1.20 Isaiah 1.2–4 resonates with the message of Isa 30.1 creating a textured andtextually embedded witness to the self-same reality.

Again, at rst glance, Barth’s reading and association of Isa 1.2–4 and 30.1may seem more rhetorical or homiletical than substantial. Nevertheless, Barth’s

19 Zimmerli observes the important relationship of prophecies born out of historicalZimmerli observes the important relationship of prophecies born out of historicalsituations to their continuing function as the Word of God beyond those particularities.Walther Zimmerli, “From Prophetic Word to Prophetic Hope,” in The Fiery Throne:The Prophets and Old Testament Theology, in The Fiery Throne: The Prophets and OldTestament Theology, ed. K.C. Hanson (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 23.

20 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 225.




association of these two texts is picking up the larger narrative movement ofIsaiah’s portrayal of Israel. To use the today’s language, there is an intertextualassociation between these two texts. Also, Barth’s lack of interest in historical particularity, reconstructed or contextual, may in fact be pardonable when onetakes into account that the point Barth seizes—Israel’s recalcitrance as the Son ofGod—is actually the enduring message of Isaiah’s witness for future generations.This ontological claim about who Israel actually is before her God is what isto be written down for future generations to observe (Isa 30.9). It would not be pressing things too far to say Barth as a member of this ‘future generation’ heardthe continuing canonical claims of these Isaianic texts rather well.

Jesus’ descent into the far country, his becoming esh, receives its shapefrom Israel’s Scriptures. The continuing canonical validity of the Old Testamentguarantees our understanding of Jesus taking on esh as the taking on of Jewish

esh. His identity as Son of God is commensurate with Israel’s identity as theSon of God in the Old Testament. Jesus’ becoming Israel incarnate involveshis taking on Israel’s unfullled positive role and negative identity embodiedin Israel’s covenantal recalcitrance. Barth states, ‘The place taken by the oneIsraelite according to the New Testament is, according to the Old Testament, the place of this disobedient son, this faithless people and its faithless priests andkings.’21 Jesus as Son of God is in solidarity with the sinfulness and faithlessnessof Israel whose portrayal in Isaiah is poignant. Barth stresses that all the prophet’s

invectives against disobedient Israel are now directed to the One Israelite takingtheir place. The communal guilt is now an individual’s guilt. We will return to thistheme again in our investigation of Barth’s reading of Isaiah 53.

The Holiness of the Triune God and Call of Isaiah: Isaiah 6

What Barth does not say about the biblical texts he calls on is often as interesting

as what he does indeed say. What are the kinds of questions Barth puts to theIsaianic text he is reading? Barth’s appeal to Isaiah 6 in the CD will help esh outthis question. Isaiah 6 serves Barth’s theology at several different junctures: rstly,it witnesses to the ontological identity of the Triune God whose identity cannot bynature be unveiled to humankind (CD I.2, 320); secondly, Isaiah 6 reveals the kindof space occupied by the omnipresent God (CD II.1, 477); and thirdly, Isaiah 6reveals the character of a Christian witness and calling pre-gured in the propheticcalling of Isaiah the prophet (CD IV.3.2).

The rst two of the aforementioned appeals to Isaiah 6 can be dealt withtogether. They both hover around Barth’s wrestling with the nature and identityof the Church’s Triune God. Much ink has been spilt on Barth’s doctrine of the

21 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 171.




Trinity.22 Therefore, our reections will be cursory, moving to his textual appeal.Barth wrestles in CD I.1 with the warrant both revelational and biblical for thedoctrine of the Trinity. Barth is fully aware of the charge of ‘non-Biblicism’launched against the early church’s doctrine of the Trinity with its language of‘essence’ and ‘person.’ No concordance search will reveal the early church’sTrinitarian language in the Bible. Barth does not dodge this particular query as herecognizes the doctrine of the Trinity as indirectly linked to revelation, that is, thedoctrine of the Trinity is denotatively related to the biblical witness to revelation.It is the product of translation and exegesis of the biblical text itself.23

Trinitarian language is the church’s wrestling with the language of the Bibleand its incorporation into the idiom of the time. The attack against the doctrineof the Trinity because ‘Trinity’ is not found in the Bible is necessarily an attackagainst the task of Christian dogmatics and preaching as well, for the latter is not

content with a mere reading of the text of Scripture. It must move to explanationand application. The task of Christian dogmatics is the explanation of the Bible bymeans of analogic speech into the current situation.24 In Barth’s language:

Inaccurate explanations of the Bible, made in the speech of a later period, had

to be countered in the speech of the same period. There thus arose in every age

the task of dogma and dogmatics. This is what gives dogma and dogmatics their

own special character as distinct from the Bible. But they are not necessarily

on this account unbiblical or contrary to the Bible. As we must admit at once,they nd themselves in the same dangerous sphere as the errors which they

must repel. But this is no other sphere than that of the ecclesia militans which

seeks to listen to the prophets and apostles but seeks to understand their word

in the language of the later periods, to understand it aright even at the risk of

misunderstanding.25

For Barth, the Bible’s witness to the doctrine of the Trinity is an implicit witness.

Having been born out of the history of God’s interaction with Israel and the earlychurch, the Bible does not address all the specicities of the later heresies that willtrouble the church. It is the task of dogmatics to call on the canonical Scriptures tospeak via the Spirit (‘being revealed’) to the current crisis within the church. Barthwarns against the simplistic equation of the doctrine of the Trinity with the biblical

22 See, for example,Alan J. Torrance,See, for example, Alan J. Torrance, Persons in Communion: An Essay on Trinitarian

Description and Human Participation with Special Reference to Volume One of Karl Barth’sChurch Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996).23 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.1, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans.

G.W. Bromiley (London: T&T Clark, 1975), 308.24 See Thomas F. Torrance,See Thomas F. Torrance, Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics

(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 374–91.25 Barth,Barth, CD I.1, 309.




of revelation as the sovereign and gracious self-disclosure of God. It is his aloneto give whatever the form in which he decides to give it.32

Barth’s calling on Isaiah 6 is nestled within the context described above. Hemakes an appeal to the holiness of God as a concept within the Old Testament thatdoes not have to do with speculation about the transcendent or his ethical qualities per se.33 God’s holiness in the Old Testament has to do with ‘His immanence, thatis to His revelation, His name.’34 Holiness has to do with God’s otherness and isalso a predicate of the forms by which God reveals himself in the Old Testament.These forms are the unique and sanctied means by which he reveals himself tohis people within the profane world of man’s existence.35 Barth comes back to point here, however: even in God’s revelation of himself by means of sanctied

forms, the very opposite of revelation may occur as well. God remains hidden inhis revealedness and is free to disclose himself on his own terms. Isaiah 6 is called

on as a biblical witness to this reality.The portrayal of the revelation of God in Isaiah 6 is of God high and lifted—

, important descriptors of Yahweh within the book of Isaiah, see Isa 52.13.36רּום ונׂשYahweh is revealed as transcendently other as it is the train or hem of his garmentalone that lls the temple. What one observes in this description of Yahweh is both his transcendence or otherness and the overlap of his transcendence withhis immanence. His robe does not ll the temple; merely the hem of his robells the temple. For Barth, Yahweh’s description as high and lifted up reveals

his incomprehensibility even in the revelatory event. God is holy and everythingassociated with him is holy. What Isaiah 6 attests is the holy boundaries set byYahweh even when he chooses to disclose himself. ‘Holiness is the separation inwhich God is God and in which, as God, He goes His own way even and preciselyas He is “God with us”.’37

The divine self-disclosure witnessed to in Isaiah 6 reveals Yahweh as one whoindeed does enter into the sphere of humanity’s existence and concerns. At the

32 Previously and at the beginning of this small print section, Barth’s reading of Previously and at the beginning of this small print section, Barth’s reading ofExodus 3 emphasizes the revelation of the divine name as God’s refusal to actually give aname. Hence the dialectic of veiledness and unveiledness. He also quotes Jer. 23.23, ‘Am Ia God at hand, saith the Lord, and not (also) a God afar off?’

33 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 55.34 Barth,Barth, CD I.1, 322 For a succinct, dogmatic account of God’s holiness see John

Webster, Holiness (London: SCM Press, 2003).35 For a dogmatic application of Sanctication to our understanding of the nature and

role of Scripture in the divine economy see, John Webster, Holy Scripture: A DogmaticSketch, Current Issues in Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 17–30.

36 H.G.M. Williamson,H.G.M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Compositionand Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 30–56.

37 Barth,Barth, CD I.1, 322 Brevard Childs makes a similar point in his appeal to Isaiah 6and the train lling the temple in Brevard S. Childs, Old Testament Theology in a CanonicalContext (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 41.




same time, Yahweh’s holiness confessed by the Seraphim in Isa 6.3 and describedin the throne-room scene of 6.1 entails within it a particular sphere ‘which is properto Him and to Him alone.’38 Barth makes a similar appeal to Isaiah 6.1 in CD II.1 inhis theological reection on the unity and omnipresence of God.39 God has spacefor himself rst and foremost which allows him as Creator to create space forothers. Therefore, Isa 6.1 witnesses positively to God’s holiness and glory. Equallyso, it witnesses to the space which is God’s own, namely, his throne room.40

Admittedly, Barth’s appeal to Isaiah 6 is surprisingly scant in his reection

on the revelation of God and his holiness. Barth is selective in the exegetical/theological point he draws out from Isaiah 6 here, and despite the selectivity seizeson a if not the central theme of God’s revelation of himself to Isaiah the prophet inIsa 6.1–3. Again, Barth does not concern himself with historical particularities. It isinconsequential for Barth that Isaiah’s revelation was in the year that King Uzziah

died. Within Isaiah’s own voice the reference to Uzziah’s death is signicant towhat follows in the Syro-Ephraimite debacle described in Isa 7.1–9.7. Barth’simpulse exegetically is that of a theologian. He is concerned about the witnessingof the text to the divine reality. His concern is again ontological. Isaiah 6 revealsYahweh as one who is transcendent and holy, which entails his own uniquenessfrom the created order. This is so even when he determines himself to be intimatelyinvolved with his creation. He is immanently transcendent. He inhabits his ownspace while at the same time creating space for others.

It is not a question for Barth whether or not Isaiah 6 is locked within thereligious-historical milieu of the Ancient Near East and competing religiousdepictions of the divine council.41 Based on the work of Neil MacDonald, one cansafely assume Barth was aware of the continuity and discontinuity between Israeland her religious-historical context.42 But these are inconsequential for Barth because the Scriptures of Israel are a unique form by which God reveals himselfto his people. They speak truthfully, even if analogically, about God’s nature andidentity. Isaiah 6 is not a fanciful tale locked in the imagination of Israel’s religious

experience. It is a faithful witness to the identity of our Triune God who remainsholy and other even when he reveals himself.Whereas Isaiah 6 is not a very prominent voice in Barth’s theology proper, the

opposite is the case in his doctrine of the Christian’s calling and vocation as witnessin CD IV.3.2. Here, Barth is wrestling with what he calls the common denominatoror basis of the Christian existence in light of the fact that each Christian’s calling

38

Barth,Barth, CD I.1, 322.39 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 474.40 See the very interesting discussion of this issue in Neil B. MacDonald,See the very interesting discussion of this issue in Neil B. MacDonald, Metaphysics

and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids:Baker Academic, 2006).

41 See Williamson,See Williamson, Book Called Isaiah.42 MacDonald,MacDonald, Barth and the Strange New World , 135–62.




and vocation is ‘particular.’43 Barth rehearses some of the prominent options inthe history of the church’s reection on Christian identity. The options Barthrehearses are: Christian identity as the eschatological tension between this worldand the world to come, Christian moralism (Kant’s categorical imperative tied tothe formal authority of Jesus Christ), or Christian piety, which all too often elidesinto ‘egocentricity’ (humanity becomes the measure of all things).44

The rst of these, though true, does not have the Scriptural support to sustainit as the ‘decisive characteristic’ of Christian identity.45 The second, again, thoughimportant when properly placed dogmatically, cannot be the common denominatorof Christian identity, either, for Christianity cannot claim exclusive religious rightsto morality. Here one thinks of the morality of Buddhists and other competingreligions. The last option, that of piety, surely ranks as the most dominant of thethemes in Christian history. For Barth, piety runs dangerously toward egocentricity

and the grounding of the soteric event in the subjective assurance of the recipientrather than on Jesus Christ alone and his gracious act.46 None of these are deniedtheir place, and at the same time none of these are allowed to reign supreme in thedening of the Christian existence and calling. Where does Barth turn to advancethe matter? He moves straightforwardly to his ‘primary concern,’ namely, ‘theanswer which is given in Holy Scripture.’47

Barth takes special aim at pietism’s grounding the Christian existence inconversion or personal experience of one’s state of grace. His rationale is simply

as follows: the centering of the Christian existence on conversion or personalexperience is not attested to in the Scriptures.48 We see it in the confessions ofAugustine and the call of Luther. But whence is such a thing in the Bible? To read pietism’s chief concern ‘with the establishment of their personal well-being intheir relationship with God’ into the stories of Abraham, Moses, the prophets orPaul is special pleading of the eisegetical sort.49 Barth states condently, ‘In nostory of calling in either the Old or New Testament does it stand in the foregroundor center. Strangely enough, it plays no part even in the accounts of the calling of

Paul.’50

Pietism’s classic expression of the center of Christian identity is in the end‘contrary to Scripture.’51

43 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.3.2, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1962), 555.

44 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 555–71.45 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 558.46 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 566–71.47 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 571.48 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 572.49 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 572.50 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 573.51 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 573.




In its description of what makes a Christian a Christian, this answer gives to the

element of his personal experience of grace and salvation, to his reception and

enjoyment of the benecia Christi, an abstract signicance and weight which it

does not have in the thinking and utterance of the Old and New Testaments. It

allows itself to make an emphasis which necessarily means that the picture of

Christian existence visible in Holy Scripture can be recognised only in obscure

and distorted form.52

In place of Barth’s negative appraisal of pietism’s assessment is his positive portrayal of the biblical description of calling. To be called is to be given a task.53 The task given, their vocational calling, is God making them witnesses of himself.‘He makes them witnesses of His being in His past, present and future action inthe world and in history, of His being in His acts among and upon men. They are

witnesses of the God who was who He was, is who He is and will be who He will be in these acts of His. They are witnesses of the God who in these acts of His,and therefore as God, as God with us, Emmanuel, was, is and will be with Hiscreation, the world and all men.’54 Those who are called in the biblical narratives become verbi divini ministri, and this is their reason for existence. And, as weexpect Barth to do, he turns his attentions to the Scriptures as warrant. Isaiah 6 plays a signicant role in Barth’s biblical description of Christian vocation andcalling.55

Isaiah 6 is placed within a larger network of readings and is nestled betweenBarth’s rehearsal of the calls of Moses, Gideon, and Samuel on the one hand andJeremiah, Ezekiel and into the New Testament on the other. Barth does not haveto work very hard with Isaiah 6 because the narrative portrayal of the story speaksfor itself and conrms Barth’s larger point. In other words, Barth steps back fromthe text and allows the narrative itself to do the ‘witnessing.’

Isaiah is called in the midst of a ‘divine theophany’ similar to Moses. He issurrounded by the seraphim who declare the thrice-fold Sanctus. The extension

of the Sanctus is important in Barth’s reading because it presses beyond anythingseen before in the call narratives of Scripture. The extent of the glory of Godrushes beyond the temple and the borders of Israel to the whole earth. ‘The wholeearth is full of your glory.’ Barth picks up here on the centrifugal motion of Israel’selection and the universal concerns of Israel’s God. This overtly centrifugal motionis a novum in the calling of Isaiah, and a point Isaiah (and Barth) will return toagain in Isaiah 40–66.

Another interesting aspect of Barth’s reading here is his description of Yahwehas ‘King Yahweh.’ The one Isaiah sees on the throne is Yahweh in his kingly role.The throne he dons is his kingly throne and his kingship extends to the whole

52 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 573.53 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 573.54 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 575.55 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 579–81.




earth. Barth stresses that this is the Yahweh Isaiah sees. The thrice holy one issitting on his throne as a king whose claim is universal. This vision of Isaiah’s isnot the dening feature of his calling. Barth calls on his readers to wait because thetext itself requires the reader to wait. Isaiah must be dealt with personally beforehis commissioning can take place.

Barth picks up on Isaiah’s ‘woe is me’ statement in Isa 6.5 as central to Isaiah’scalling and vocational task. He does not, according to Barth, claim ‘woe’ forhimself because of his unclean heart—a not-so-slight jab at pietistic rhetoric—but because of his unclean lips. Barth understands the implications of Isaiah’s woeas his own initial understanding that what he saw in his vision demands to be‘expressed and proclaimed.’56 He cries out ‘woe’ because Isaiah knows his humanlips are unworthy and incapable of expressing verbally what he has seen. Thisis the plight addressed by the angels as they clean Isaiah’s lips. Barth reminds

the reader, bolstering his larger argument about the center of Christian identityand calling, that whatever signicance the purging of his lips may have had forhim existentially or personally, its primary signicance is Isaiah’s vocationalenablement and ‘his being made worthy, for a service of his lips which is not yet but obviously will be required.’57 After the cleansing, then the calling. After thecalling, then Isaiah’s historic response: ‘Here am I; send me.’

Barth’s reading of Isaiah’s call narrative is careful and allows the movement

of the narrative itself to create the theological space needed to further the

particular point Barth is making. The signicance of Isaiah 6’s literary placementwithin the book is of little interest for Barth. Questions such as, ‘Why the call

narrative in chapter 6 rather than chapter 1?’ matter little to Barth. Whereas

for Barth’s contemporaries, like Procksch and Eichrodt, there was a tendency

to reposition Isaiah 6 to the beginning of the book on the basis of historical-

critical reconstruction.58 Here, one observes Barth’s respect for the nal form

of the text itself and his lack of interest in redactional issues, psycho-analysis or

romanticist notions of Isaiah’s call narrative. The psycho-analytical or romanticist

understanding of Isaiah is observed in certain commentators understanding thatthe actual commission in Isaiah 6 is a later intrusion from Isaiah himself or a

tradent, because who could withstand the psychological pressure of a calling that

on the front end promised misery and defeat?59 Barth is actually more minimalistic

in his reading of Isaiah 6, keeping at bay these sorts of questions as he allows

the text itself with its odd literary placement and perplexing commission to have

pride of place in the theological shaping of Barth’s ideas concerning Christian

calling as a vocation of witness. Barth allows the plain sense of the text its own

voice as he positions it in a larger network of readings witnessing to a common

56 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 580.57 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3.2, 580.58 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 52.59 One sees this sort of move in the 19th century commentator G.A. Smith. See Childs,One sees this sort of move in the 19th century commentator G.A. Smith. See Childs,

Isaiah, 53.




subject matter. We will observe a similar hermeneutical sensibility in Barth’sengagement with the Emmanuel material of Isaiah 7–8.

Isaiah 7.14; 8.6; 8.9: Emmanuel, God With Us

As one of the more venerated texts within the Christian exegetical tradition, Isa7.14 provides us with an especially important example of Barth’s wrestling withthe book of Isaiah and its Christian witness. Barth makes mention of Isa 7.14 in hisexposition of the virgin birth in CD I.2, but only in passing.60 It functions here as theassumed backdrop for his sustained interaction with the virgin birth traditions ofMatthew and Luke. A similar sort of ad hoc appeal to Isa 7.14 is made in CD III.1.Here Barth expounds with verve the central subject matter of Scripture as God’s

Triune revelation of himself in Jesus Christ. Nestled within Barth’s interactionwith the subject matter of Scripture is a small print warning against betrayingthe ‘right and necessary and central biblicism’ with ‘scattered and peripheral’ biblicism (for example, the Bible as a repository of pious knowledge).61 For Barth,it is biblically necessary to begin the doctrine of creation with an insistence thatwe take the Bible’s portrayal of the identity of God with utmost seriousness. In thiscontext, Isa 7.14 is called on in homiletical fashion as a witness to God’s identitywith Emmanuel. In Jesus Christ, God is with us.

None of these, however, are a sustained exegesis of the text. It is in CD IV.1 where Barth gives detailed attention to Isa 7.14. Unlike any of the Isaianic textswe have seen up to this point, Barth gives an entire small print section to Isaiahin this context with only the briefest mention of the New Testament. When hedoes move to the New Testament, it is with Isaiah’s own construal of the matterin mind. Also, the placement of this small print section at the beginning of CD IV.1 reveals how fundamental to the theological task at hand Isa 7.14 is for Barth.Moreover, the doctrine of reconciliation is at the heart and center of Christian

theology.62

The atonement has to do with God’s encountering of humanity on the basis of his own Triune identity, and the Christian message has to do with thisGod who is with us as God. Barth states, ‘The title “God with us” is meant as amost general description of the whole complex of Christian understanding anddoctrine which here confronts us.’63 Therefore, this reading of Isaiah’s Emmanuelmaterial will prove itself important in the broader landscape of Barth’s doctrine ofreconciliation and in this work as we seek to plot Barth’s engagement of Isaiah.

Barth is aware of the difculties associated with this passage. Within theliterary context of Isaiah itself, the identication of the Emmanuel gure is an

60 Barth,Barth, CD I.2, 174.61 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.1, trans. J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold

Knight (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), 24.62 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 1.63 Barth,Barth, CD IV .1, 4.




elusive enterprise. Historical-critical instincts tend to proximate the gure to someidentiable person or entity within Israel’s own history. Barth uncritically refers toMartin Noth’s The History of Israel at the beginning of this small-print section and Noth’s ascribing these three independent oracles to the Syro-Ephraimite debaclein Israel’s life.64 Barth afrms without reservation the result of Noth’s tradition-historical and redaction-critical instincts.65 Upon closer examination of Barth’sreading, however, this appeal to Noth and redaction-criticism’s handling of theseoracular traditions holds little material signicance for Barth’s exegesis of thetext other than showing an awareness that the Isaianic texts he associates togetheroriginated outside the context in which they are now found. In other words,Barth recognizes the biblical text’s referent in Isaiah, now canonically portrayed,is not ostensibly the political and religious life of Israel’s history ‘behind thetext.’ In fact, Isaiah’s account of these ‘historical’ events subverts the political

and religious life of Israel by relaying a different narrative than the one profferedwithin Israel’s historical mileu of the time. What is also observed here is Barth’scanonical instincts to allow the nal form of the text the privileged adjudicatoryrole in deciphering the answer to the question—who is Emmanuel?

Again, Barth reveals his awareness of the form-critical tendency towardatomization or lighting upon seams within the text for the sake of assigningthem to the Sitz im Leben from which the text arose. He grants to Noth that thesevarious Emmanuel texts did come from different situations and have now been

brought together in the text’s nal form (the redaction-critical move). This nalform creates its own network of associations beyond historical description alone,and the question raised in 7.14 about the identity of the Emmanuel gure cannot be answered without an appeal to the surrounding context of chapter 8 as well. Negatively, this means that the identication of the Emmanuel gure cannot benally solved by appeals to historical proximity or ‘behind the text’ approaches.Put simply, the nal form of the text keeps the historical situation obscured indetails and is also associated now with other texts in its literary placement in

Isaiah’s canonical voice. Barth’s instincts are to honor the canonical form.The Emmanuel passages are related to the changed dynamic between God andIsrael. This is dened by Barth as the movement from the divine ‘yes’ to the divine‘no.’66 Ahaz has aligned himself with Pekah and Rezin to deect the onslaught of

64 On Barth’s relationship to Martin Noth, a leading gure of theOn Barth’s relationship to Martin Noth, a leading gure of theüberlieferungsgeschichtliche approach to Israel’s canonical history, see Eberhard Busch,The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barth’s Theology, trans. Geoffery W. Bromiley

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 334. Noth was at Bonn during the two summer semestersBarth guest lectured there after WWII. See also, Rolf Rendtorff, “Martin Noth and TraditionCriticism,” in The History of Israel’s Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth; JSOTSupp182, ed. S.L. McKenzie and M.P. Graham (Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1994).

65 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 5. Barth cites, Martin Noth, The History of Israel , Second ed., trans.P.R. Ackroyd (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1958), 259ff.





the Assyrians. Ahaz’s failure to respond in faith to Yahweh is, according to Barth,the nal form of Israel’s unfaithfulness and opposition to Yahweh. Here again, onesees Isaiah rehearsing a different narrative of the events than the one taking placewithin Israel’s observable political history. Similarly, and in a different theologicalcontext, Barth appeals to Isa 8.11 in his engagement of the relationship of providence to various competing philosophies of history. After Barth rehearses intruncated form various approaches to history, for example Lessing, Hegel, Marx,he makes a categorical distinction between these various philosophies (which mayhave good and important things to say, falling themselves under God’s providence)and God’s providence. Paradigmatic in this distanciation between philosophy ofhistory and God’s providence are the Old Testament prophets.

What makes them prophets is not that they can rightly perceive and publicly

appraise past and present and future history, but that the hand of the Lord seizesthem (cf. Isa 8.11), that He says something to them which in relation to the

thoughts of their contemporaries and even their own is always new and strange

and unexpected and even unwanted, a “burden” laid upon them (Hab. 1.1), a re

kindled and burning in them (Jer. 20.9), even a superabounding joy lling them

(Jer. 15.16).67

The prophets understood God’s providence underlying the historical situation they

inhabited not by intuition, insight or an immanent law. Quite to the contrary, itwas revealed to them. In the context of Isaiah 7–9, the prophet weaves a differentnarrative than the one found on the surface of Israel’s political history conceivedin abstraction from God’s providence. The Word of God via the prophet constructsthese events on a different plane than observable political philosophy or an abstract philosophy of history. Isaiah’s prophetic reference is the divine move from ‘yes’to ‘no.’

Within the Isaianic context, Isa 7.14 arises as both a word of hope and a word of

judgment. It is a word of hope because before the year is over, the threat of Pekahand Rezin will be abrogated. God will be with them. It is a word of judgment because the greater threat, Assyria, will confront Judah before this child knowsthe difference between good and evil. In a short time, the child of promise will beeating curds and honey, the diet of the nomad.

The duality of grace and judgment is the central subject-matter of this passage inBarth’s exegesis. He makes a passing statement in his exegesis that the controversyover the translation of bears little weight on the ‘real sense’ of the text.68 Whatעלמהone observes in this passing comment is Barth’s attentiveness to the plain sense ofIsaiah’s own canonical voice regarding the matter at hand. The sign given in Isa7.14 is not the virginity of the woman giving birth. This is, by the way, without an

67 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.3, trans. G.W. Bromily and R.J. Ehrlich(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960), 24.





appeal to an elongated word-study on the differentiation between andעלמה תלה

and the LXX translation παρθένος. The particular word choice, Barth states, isinconsequential to the main issue of the text. The sign given is the birth of the childwho witnesses both to the grace and the impending judgment of God.

From this, Barth pursues his identication of Emmanuel by placing Isa 7.14in concert with the Emmanuel passages of Isa 8.6–10. Barth does not make anappeal to the ongoing wrestling of the tradition with the Emmanuel mysteriesof 7.14.69 This is the tradition-historical move most often associated with Nothand von Rad. He simply places these texts together as a collective witness to theEmmanuel idea in Isaiah. In Isa 8.6 the judgment side of the Emmanuel mysteriesare present—Assyria will sweep over your banks—while 8.9–10 presents the wordof grace and hope. Even though Assyria’s onslaught will be swift and destructive,Assyria is nothing other than a means of judgment in the hand of God. In the end,

Assryia’s destruction will not stand because Emmanuel (‘God is with us’). Judahwill survive the Assyrian threat not because of her political prowess, but becauseGod’s presence is promised in their midst. Again, Emmanuel.

Taking the larger Emmanuel context into account, Barth now asks, ‘Who is“Emmanuel”?’ When Isa 7.14 is juxtaposed to 8.6–10, the answer to this question,according to Barth is, ‘Hardly a historical gure of the period.’70 The elusoryhistorical nature of the text and the development of the Emmanuel materialinto chapter 8 keeps attempts at identifying the gure historically as necessarily

prefaced with ‘perhaps.’ Here are the ‘perhaps’ options given by Barth: Emmanuelcould be a traditional name or a novum selected by the prophet as a descriptor ofthe Redemptor-King of the last days.71 Or it could be a descriptor of the remnantof Judah’s understanding of their God’s nature and consequently their own nature.Perhaps it is both at the same time. Barth describes the mysterious nature of God’srelationship to Israel in that he is present with them both in prosperity and in thedays of adversity. Emmanuel is always true despite the historical contingency inwhich Israel nds herself. These are the ‘perhaps’ options kept somewhat at bay

because of the elusive nature of the text.Barth follows these thoughts with a move we will see him make later in hisdiscussion of the identity of the servant in Isaiah 53. Barth relativizes the questionof historical proximity or precision in identifying the Emmanuel gure by movingto the larger theological implication of the canonical material before him. ‘Nomatter who or what is concretely envisaged in these passages, they obviouslymean this: Emmanuel is the content of the recognition in which the God of Israelreveals himself in all His acts and dispositions; He is the God who does not workand act without His people, but who is with His people as their God and thereforeas their hope.’72 Barth’s interest is the privileged canonical text. Though he is

69 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 73–4.70 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 5.71 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 6.72 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 6.




willing to try his hand at identifying the gure historically, he does so only withthe preface ‘perhaps.’ Nor does his speculation about the historical possibilitiesof Emmanuel’s identication bear any material weight on his exegesis of the textitself. The point of the Emmanuel tradition in Isaiah 7–8 is: God is with his peopleand reveals himself to them in all his gracious and judgmental acts. This is theirhope.

One observes here Barth’s canonical sensibilities. He allows the literary xity

of the text itself the adjudicatory role in the exegesis of the biblical material. It isat least interesting that Barth does not entertain the notion that Emmanuel in 7.14is a possible reference to Hezekiah.73 This is a popular idea for some interpreterswho base their identication on historical or literary grounds.74 Even if Barth wasunaware of this option, one can safely surmise that this type of historical appealwould not have suited Barth. Precise, historical identication is not allowed by

the text itself. One could estimate that an identication with Hezekiah would beallowable by Barth, but it would have to remain in the ‘perhaps’ category. Herewe see Barth’s tendency to relativize the historical ‘perhaps’ while lighting on thetheological ‘therefore.’

Also, it can be argued that Barth’s canonical sensibilities did not go far enough.That is, he only allows the interpretation of Emmanuel to be framed in the contextof Isaiah 7 and 8 with no recourse to Isaiah 9. At this point, one might see Barth possibly falling prey to the problems associated with a concordance approach to

interpretation. That is, Barth seizes on the verses where the lexeme ‘Emmanuel’is visible rather than extending the Emmanuel idea into chapter 9’s ‘child being born’ context. In Isaiah 9, the language of a child being born—‘Unto us a childis born’, Isa 9.6—is contextually identied with the promised child of 7.14. Thisliterary association between the ‘child’ concept in Isaiah 7–9 and its literaryassociation with 36–39 have led Seitz, et al. to conclude that historically the child born is Hezekiah.75 The language is royal in connotation, possibly reecting form-critically ‘a traditional accession piece.’76 Alt’s historical work on this passage

73 One can observe two canonical interpreters of Isaiah who have differed on their One can observe two canonical interpreters of Isaiah who have differed on theirconclusion regarding this. Seitz argues for the identication historically of Emmanuel withHezekiah; Childs nds this reading overly historicist and beyond the sense left by the nal

tradents of this material. Barth would land with Childs on this score.74 Christopher R. Seitz,Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39. Seitz’s identication of Emmanuel with Hezekiah

has to do with the literary comparison between the negative presentation of Ahaz in Isaiah7–9 and the positive portrayal of Hezekiah in 36–39. In other words, Seitz’s move toward

identifying Emmanuel with Hezekiah is not because of historical-critical sensibilities perse, for example proximity to historical reality. Rather, Seitz, with Clements and Ackroyd,sees a literary indicator within the nal form of the text pressuring a Hezekiah reading ofthe Emmanuel material.

75 For the historical complexities associated with this reading alongside the difcultFor the historical complexities associated with this reading alongside the difcult

literary xity questions of Isaiah 7–9 see Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 84–7.76 Christopher R. Seitz,Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 86.




reveals the child-birth language of Isa 9.6 as not literally the birth of a child butthe accession of a king. The language is intentionally hyperbolic as the ANE waswont to do in royal accession pieces.77

Seitz is somewhat tentative about Alt’s historical reading. Even if it wereoriginally a royal accession oracle, chronologically it cannot be understood assuch in this particular context. Hezekiah’s reign is still awaited (9.7–10.34; 36– 39). What Seitz does see to be the case is the promised son in 7.14 fullled in9.1–7. ‘The promise related to his maturation awaits their fulllment.’78 Seitz stillsees the royal oracle of 9.1–6 identied historically with Hezekiah. At the sametime, he resists the chronological and literary problems of Alt’s appeal to ANEroyal, accession literature. Isaiah 9.1–6 is the fulllment of the promised child in7.14 and is not yet to be read as Hezekiah’s enthronement rite. Canonically, thiscomes later (Isaiah 36–39).

Childs is not inclined to nd much merit either in the attempt to identify 9.1–6with Hezekiah, nor does he nd much help with Alt’s theory as it relates to thenal form of the text. ‘Yet at this juncture it is crucial to distinguish between theconventional language of the oracle and its biblical function within the book ofIsaiah.’79 Childs does not allow attenuated claims based on ANE parallels in anyhermeneutical priority when addressing 9.6 regarding this new-born child on the basis of ANE hyperbole. This would overly historicize the material and overlookits literary context.80 Childs, with Seitz, associates Isa 9.6 with the Emmanuel

material of chapters 7 and 8. And for Childs, the descriptions (Wonderful Counselor,Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace) of the promised child of 7.14now fullled in 9.6 ‘make it absolutely clear that his role is messianic.’81 Childshas thoroughly eschatologized the material, or we might say, Childs has read thecanonical intentionality of the text as eschatological. As such, ‘The language isnot just wishful thinking for a better time, but the confession of Israel’s beliefin a divine ruler who will replace once and for all the unfaithful reign of kingslike Ahaz.’82 Special note should be made of the phrase ‘kings like Ahaz’, for

here Childs states again the eschatological/messianic implications of his reading.It is not merely Ahaz who is replaced by Hezekiah as the promised child. Why?One can surmise the answer as follows: wicked kings came after Ahaz too. This

77 See Hans Wildberger,See Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary, Continental Commentaries(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 398–407.

78 Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 87 See especially, C.R. Seitz, “Fixity and Potential

in Isaiah,” in The Multivalence of Biblical Texts and Theological Meanings, SBL Symposium

Series 37 , ed. Christine Helmer (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 37–45.79 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 80.80 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 80.81 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 81.82 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 81. Elsewhere Childs states, ‘Increasingly the righteous king of the

line of David took on roles which transcended human qualities (Isa. 9.6).’ Childs, OldTestament Theology, 242.




is an eschatological hope for the day when God’s royal child will rule and reignreplacing all kings like Ahaz.

Barth does not associate 7.14 and 8.8–10 with 9.6. In fact, Barth does notappeal to Isa 9.6 substantially at all in the CD.83 This is unfortunate, because themove to Isa 9.6 would have furthered Barth’s case. God’s promise to be with his people in their moments of bounty and judgment is fullled in the royal promiseof Isa 9.6. In Isaiah’s nal form, this text is best understood eschatologically. Thecoming royal gure is the unique means by which God will be ‘Emmanuel.’ Infairness to Barth, he does turn to the royal imagery of the coming messianic gure

in his engagement with Isaiah 11. We will come to this in due course.Barth makes an important hermeneutical move in the nal paragraph of this

small-print section. Here, his attention is drawn to the New Testament’s adoption ofthe Emmanuel material in Isaiah. Whereas in Ahaz’s day the promise of Emmanuel

is located in the change of direction from the divine ‘yes’ to the divine ‘no’, inMatthew, for example, the change of direction between God and his people is theopposite case—from ‘no’ to ‘yes.’ At this juncture Barth allows Isaiah’s construalof the Emmanuel material (even though attenuated because of Barth’s failure tomove to chapter 9) a coercive, pressuring voice in his reading of the New Testamentmaterial. Points of comparison are drawn between the Emmanuel-sign and Jesus.For in the person and name of Jesus, both ‘the deepest extremity imposed byGod (as in Is. 8.6f.) and also of the uttermost preservation and salvation ordained

by God (as in Is. 8.9f)’ are found.84 Jesus is found in both of these and as such,Jesus is the ultimate fulllment of the Emmanuel material in Isaiah. Jesus is theconcrete reality of God’s promise to be with his people both in their dejectionand salvation. What is of special interest at this juncture is Barth’s allowing ofthe Isaiah material itself to create the contours for his New Testament discussionof the issue. The elusive Emmanuel material of Isaiah, precisely because of thedifculty of ostensive identication, creates a space and resonance which now can be understood retrospectively in the person and work of Jesus. Jesus is the gural

fulllment of the presentation of Emmanuel in Isaiah 7–9. Jesus is Emmanuel.Barth’s reading of the Emmanuel material of Isaiah is faithful to the canonicalmaterial, not allowing historical reconstruction or speculation to cloud the res of the text at hand. Our attention is now given to Barth’s theologically creativeengagement with this portion of Isaiah from chapter 8. The same materialcontextually is deployed in a different theological context. Barth’s broad-ranginginterpretation of the six days of creation as their themes extend throughout the restof the two-fold canon will be exemplied in his reading of the separation of thewater from the land.

83 In association with other texts, Barth makes reference to Isa 9.6 inIn association with other texts, Barth makes reference to Isa 9.6 in CD II.1, 606 asmessianic in anticipation.





Isaiah 8.5–8: Creation Imagery of Water Figurally Applied

As has been repeatedly mentioned, Barth was very apt at associating texts togetherin his biblical expositions. This is observed again in his exegesis of Gen 1.9–10.On the third day of creation, God moves by his Word on the terrestrial waters ofthe universe in their tohu wabohu state. God assigns them their place in the cosmicordering of the chaos as he separates water from land. The crucial point Barthobserves here is: it is the sea that is acted on by the divine Word. Barth makes alinguistic argument by appealing to the passive sense of the verb yiqqawu at the beginning of verse 9.85 The sea does not move itself, neither is the Spirit of Gen1.1–3 the acting agent. It is the Word of God speaking which separates the waterfrom the land. In this creation act, the Word of God assigns the waters to their place,leaving the terra rma for humanity’s existence. Here the water is a threatening

presence which is not completely alleviated in the act of creation. Similarly, in theseparation of the light from the darkness, the darkness is not completely dispensedwith in the creation of light.86 The water’s threatening presence is placed underdivine limitation as the land gives a place for humanity’s thriving. It is the Word ofGod that keeps the seas from engulng the land.

From his exposition of the rst creation narrative’s witness to the third day ofcreation, Barth traces the signicance of the land and water themes as presentedin the rest of the Old Testament. Barth moves from the Psalms to Proverbs to Job

to the Prophets to expand on this creation theme in Genesis 1.9–10. An importanthermeneutical or theological exegetical move is observed in Barth’s reading of thenal form of the creation history of Genesis 1. Barth follows the Reformational principle: Scripture interprets Scripture (Scripturam ex Scriptura explicandamesse) and allows the rest of the Old Testament to function as a commentary on thecreation history of Genesis 1 and 2. As he states earlier in CD III.1, ‘The decisivecommentary on the biblical histories of creation is the rest of the Old Testament.’87 The move toward metaphysical (for example Augustine and Aquinas) or historical

(Gunkel’s form-criticism) abstraction which isolates the creation narratives ofGenesis 1–2 from their canonical placement results in a forced reading of these

85 Barth does not use the technical, Hebrew terminology, that is theBarth does not use the technical, Hebrew terminology, that is the niphal . Barth, CD III.1, 145.

86 In a similar way, Barth makes reference to Isa 21.11–12 in his exposition of the rstIn a similar way, Barth makes reference to Isa 21.11–12 in his exposition of the rst

act of creation, the separation of light from darkness. ‘Sentinel, what of the night? Sentinel,what of the night? The Sentinel says, ‘Morning comes, and also the night.’ As Barth does

above in his expansion of the theme of water and land into the rest of the two-fold canon,so too does he expand the theme of light and darkness. Isa 21.11 is referred to becauseit substantiates the notion that light and darkness are intertwined in the creation, and thelatter is understood as a menacing force. This juxtaposition of light and darkness will beeliminated in the new creation. ‘And there will be no more night’ (Rev 21.25; 22.5).

87 Barth,Barth, CD III.1, 65 For a fuller and illuminating treatment see, MacDonald, Barthand the Strange New World , 135–62, esp. 161.




texts going beyond their own nal form and plain sense (as a side-note, Barth’scanonical sensibilities are acute here). The creation narratives are found at the beginning of the Pentateuch, and as such, they function as the pre-history of God’ssoteric activity with the people of Israel. As Barth states, ‘They [the creationnarratives] do not speak of the work of any creator of the world, but—like all thatfollows—of the words and acts of the very One who later made Himself knownand attached Himself to the people of Israel as Yahweh-Elohim.’88 Faithful readingof the creation narratives will take into account their canonical placement andintentionality.

Barth’s allying of creation and redemption on the basis of the canonical placement of the creation narratives within the Pentateuchal traditions anticipatesvon Rad’s later work, “The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrineof Creation.”89 Working within his überlieferungsgeschichtliche approach, von

Rad views the Genesis creation narratives through the lens of the Psalter’s andDeutero-Isaiah’s deployment of creation themes. What one observes is that inIsrael’s own redemptive history, the doctrine of creation was a subservient themeto the doctrine of redemption. In other words, the doctrine of creation served thedoctrine of redemption and not vice-versa. There is no evenness between Israel’sunderstanding of these traditions. Creation serves redemption. ‘We do not hesitate,in fact,’ states von Rad, ‘that we regard this soteriological interpretation of thework of creation as the most primitive expression of Yahwistic belief concerning

Yahweh as creator of the world.’90 Moreover, Israel’s construal of cosmology andcosmogony in Genesis 1 never had an independent status. It always served Israel’ssoteriological concerns.

Our point here is not to engage von Rad head-on regarding his claims. Childs’s judicious reading of von Rad highlights the salient and enduring point of vonRad’s piece, namely, the Old Testament’s own voice understands creation andredemption as ‘correlatives.’91 Childs concludes that ‘it is highly questionablewhether creation was subordinated in principle.’92 Von Rad’s keen observation of

the interplay between creation and redemption in Israel’s traditional recording of herfaith may claim too much when subordinationist language is applied. Nevertheless,the tendency to abstract Israel’s doctrine of creation from its canonical placementin the Pentateuch and from the overwhelming intertextual appeals to creationimagery in Israel’s soteriological construal (for example Isa 40.1–3) is successfullychallenged by von Rad. One can see von Rad’s sensibilities, though without thetradition-historical mechanisms fully engaged, present in Barth’s reading of the

88

Barth,Barth, CD III.1, 65.89 Gerhard von Rad, “The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine of

Creation,” in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, trans.

E.W.T. Dickens (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 177–86 Originally published in 1936.90 Rad, “OT Doctrine of Creaton,” 183.Rad, “OT Doctrine of Creaton,” 183.91 Childs,Childs, Old Testament Theology, 33.92 Childs,Childs, Old Testament Theology, 33 See also MacDonald, God of Israel , 139–59.




creation story. Creation is understood within the Old Testament’s own idiom as acorrelative of redemption. The two mutually inform one another.

Coming full circle to Gen 1.9–10, Barth traces the theme of water in the OldTestament as a pernicious presence in Israel’s life. God’s ‘apotropaic’ act againstthe water serves as the basis for God’s ‘constitution and preservation’ of his peopleIsrael.93 As God holds back the terrestrial waters from engulng the land, so toodoes God hold back hostile forces from engulng Israel. The water of Gen 1.9–10‘is a representative of all the evil powers which oppose and resist the salvationintended for the people of Israel, thus trying to resist God Himself, but nding

themselves unable to do so because God who is also their transcendent LordHimself ghts against them, checking their arrogance and conning them to their place.’94 The Genesis account of creation, and here especially the separation of thewater from the dry land, not only serves questions of cosmology and cosmogony,

they also function as an architectonic for God’s soteric movement toward hiscovenant people Israel. Therefore, and in conjunction with a litany of other passages rehearsing the same theme, when Assyria is described in Isa 8.6–8 andIsa 17.12–14 as the waters of the river unleashed on Judah, it is not a fortuitousclamoring for imagery by the prophet.95 It is the intentional deploying of creationimagery where one sees the mutual informing of God’s initial creation in Genesis1 with his soteric movement to be the God of Israel no matter the stakes. It isIsrael’s covenant-keeping God who holds the waters in place, creating space for

humanity’s existence. It is also Israel’s covenant-keeping God who keeps the seasof Israel’s enemies from engulng her. When the dam of God’s protecting graceis removed, the waters (in this case the Assyrians) are unleashed as God’s divine‘yes’ elides into his ‘no.’ One must recall, however, that the momentary ‘no’ ofGod’s judgment serves his nal ‘yes.’

In Barth’s reading of Isa 8.6–8 he consistently applies the Reformation instinctthat Scripture is its best interpreter. This text serves as an interpretive gloss onthe creation imagery of Genesis that continues to reverberate throughout the Old

Testament as the relationship between redemption and creation are organicallyrelated. Such a reading is textured and gural as various texts are brought togetherto reveal their mutual informing of one another. Our attention turns now to Barth’shandling of Isaiah 11’s messianic hopes.

93 Barth,Barth, CD III.1, 147.94 Barth,Barth, CD III.1, 147.95 Cf.Cf. CD III.1, 279. One can pursue the theme of water, for example brooks, springs

and rivers, in Isaiah’s imagery (12.3; 30.25; 35.6; 43.19; 44.3; 49.10; 58.11).




Isaiah 11: Messianic Anticipation and the Wholeness of Jesus Christ’s

Humanity

Isaiah’s own prophetic movement presses toward chapter 11 as central to anddening of the eschatological hope of Israel. What one observes with Isaiah11’s placement in the canonical shaping of the material is the culmination andinterpretation of the preceding Emmanuel promises beginning in chapter 7with the sign proffered to Ahaz moving into chapter 9 and the promised child(7.1–9.6). The material has been thoroughly eschatologized as Israel’s hope isforward-looking. Isaiah 11’s portrayal of the coming King and his reign of peaceheightens the eschatological anticipation in this portion of Isaiah and rounds offthe Emmanuel material preceding it.

Isaiah 11.1 states, ‘A shoot shall come from the stock of Jesse, a branch shall

grow out of its roots.’ How is one to understand Isa 11.1 in light of its textualcontext? Is Isaiah 11.1 a negative statement about judgment following closely onthe heels of 10.33–34 (for example Eichrodt) where the fall of the Davidic dynastyis heralded? Why the appeal to the stump of Jesse and not the stump of David?Immediately one encounters a morass of interpretive difculties associated withthis portion of Isaianic hope. Williamson’s work on these issues helpfully chartsone through these interpretive waters. His redaction-critical work understands Isa11.1 in a more positive and hopeful light where the future hope of Israel is in a

second David gure (thus the appeal to the stump of Jesse instead of David per se) after Israel’s non-descript judgment had passed.96 The stump and root languageof 11.1 cuts against any notions of an ‘unbroken continuity’ between the house ofDavid and the coming royal gure.97 The negative description of Ahaz in Isaiah 7 prevents this ‘unbroken continuity’ and places Israel’s hope in a second Davidicgure who brings something new from what has been cut down.

Whether or not Isa 11.1–9 can be properly called ‘messianic’ has been thesource of some debate. The reasons for this debate hinge on what Childs has called

‘the crucial hermeneutical debate’ about this passage, namely, what is the propercontext for interpretation.98 Historical-critical sensibilities have tended to viewostensive referentiality of the historical type as the hermeneutical key. One cansee this even in Williamson’s ne treatment of Isaiah 11, where the question ofthe Isaianic authenticity of 11.1–10 is viewed as redaction-critically provable andimportant. Somewhat, though not equally, problematic is the basic lack of the term‘messiah’ in the text, alongside the tradition-historical problems associated withthe non-eschatological character of the messiah in the Second Temple literature

96 H.G.M. Williamson,H.G.M. Williamson, Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah, The Didsbury Lectures (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998), 54–5.

97 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 102.98 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 99.




and the New Testament.99 Returning to Childs’s ‘crucial hermeneutical debate’,the options for the genesis of this material have ranged from Isaiah himself(Duhm, Williamson) to post-exilic redaction (Clements) to a bifurcated readingwhere 11.1–5 is Isaianic and 11.6–9 is a post-exilic redactional glosses (Becker,H. Barth).100 Apart from the redaction-critical question, and still hovering towardhistorical identication, have been those who have argued for direct identication

of the shoot of Jesse with Hezekiah (Seitz)—whose multi-level reading canidentify the eschatological gure of Isaiah 11 as both Hezekiah and Hezekiah’sgural anticipation of another—or Josiah (Sweeney).101 The exegetical issues aredense with a text like this one, and the conclusions drawn by interpreters tends to be revelatory of aims, intentions and exegetical priorities for those who undertakesuch a project.

In his own way, Beuken has challenged the tradition-historical approach to

the concept of messiahship by allowing the Old Testament’s own intertextualcross-referencing to play the primary interpretive role regarding the concept over-against Inter-Testamental or New Testament construals of the matter.102 As wewill see, Barth did allow the New Testament to function as a commentary on thisOld Testament passage, but only in light of a promise/fulllment paradigm. ThatIsaiah 11 is ultimately messianic is understood for Barth without the tradition-historical mechanisms needed for such a claim. Returning to Beuken, he denes

messiahship according to Isaiah 11’s own discrete voice and the intertextual

referents associated with it in the following way: ‘It implies that the messiah is theanointed king who will bring God’s plan for Israel and the nations to completion,and not that his origins are transcendent and that his coming spells the end of theworld and its history.’103 What one observes from Beuken’s succinct denition,

concomitant with the thought of Childs, Seitz, Williamson, Sweeney and despitetheir different conclusions about particular referentiality, is that the royal nature ofthis eschatological gure is central to his denition. The one who comes will bea second David whose rule will establish justice and righteousness for Israel and

the nations (11.1–10).Barth does not hesitate to afrm Isaiah 11.1–10 as messianic. In fact, Barth doesnot entertain any other possibility. For example, in CD IV.3, in the context of Jesusas Victor and humanity’s non-neutral encounter with him, Isaiah 11 is the depiction

99 Willem A.M. Beuken, “The ‘Messianic’ Character of Isaiah Chapter 11: East andWillem A.M. Beuken, “The ‘Messianic’ Character of Isaiah Chapter 11: East andWest: Alien Perspectives?” in Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und

westlicher Sicht , ed. I.Z. Dimitrov, et al. (T bingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004), 347.100 Childs,Childs, Isaiah, 99–100.101 C.R. Seitz, “Fixty and Potential,” 43 Cf. Christopher R. Seitz,C.R. Seitz, “Fixty and Potential,” 43 Cf. Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 75

Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to the Prophetic Literature, TheForms of the Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 198–211.

102 Beuken, “Messianic Character,” 348.Beuken, “Messianic Character,” 348.103 Beuken, “Messianic Character,” 348.Beuken, “Messianic Character,” 348.




of ‘the coming Messianic reign of peace.’104 There is actually no strain in Barth’sappeal to the messianic character of Isaiah 11. It is not argued for in any exegeticalfashion or anything closely resembling the kind of exegetical labor hinted at inthe preceding paragraphs. Barth’s reading of Isaiah 11 is a straightforward readingthat ies close to the ground, and he understands this coming son of David (moreon this particular collocation below) as an eschatological, messianic gure.105 h ismost extended reection on Isaiah 11 is situated in his Christological-Anthropologyof CD III.2. Our attention will focus on this corpus alone.

As one might expect with Barth’s theology, when he addresses the question ofwhat it means to be human or a person he does not turn rstly to humankind ingeneral. The reaction to the philosophical impulses found in the proverbial, ‘Knowthyself,’ of ancient Greek philosophy is, for Barth, a turn away from the self tothe true human, Jesus Christ. Krötke’s analysis of Barth’s anthropology suggests

Barth’s appreciation of the empirical sciences and the turn to the phenomenologyof human existence past and present and what can be ‘brought to light’ from such. Nevertheless, these enterprises are empty shadows when seeking theologicalgrounds for ordering an account of what it means to be human. Krötke states,‘We are not to learn who and what the human being is by observing human beingsand their history in general, but rather to do so in the concrete human person towhom, according to Christian faith, God bound himself and entered into humanhistory.’106 In this sense, to know what real humanity is, one must turn to the really

humanizing human, Jesus Christ.Isaiah 11 is appealed to in a small-print section where Barth has turned rstly

to the wholeness of the human Jesus Christ. There is an orderliness and structureto the wholeness of Jesus Christ, or, as Barth puts it, ‘The interconnexion of thesoul and body and Word and act of Jesus is not a chaos but a cosmos, a formed andordered totality.’107 As a law unto himself and constrained by no exterior forces,Jesus Christ is both soul and body at once. The soul is prior to the body, or the souldominates the dominated body as Word is prior to act in Jesus Christ. This ordering,

however, takes place in fundamental unity and wholeness so that they are not atodds with one another. They are brought together as Jesus is both dominating souland dominated body at the same time and in wholeness. As such, Jesus Christ issovereign over his own existence. It is worth quoting Barth in full here:

104 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.3.1, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1961), 184. See also, Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III.4, trans. A.T. Mackay, et al.(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), 353.105 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 333.106 Wolf Krötke, “The Humanity of the Human Person in Karl Barth’s Anthropology,”Wolf Krötke, “The Humanity of the Human Person in Karl Barth’s Anthropology,”

in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 2000), 159.

107 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 332.




Jesus wills and fulls himself. He is His own ground and His own intention. He

lives in such a way that command and obedience, ordination and subordination,

plan and execution, goal and aim proceed from Himself and thus partake of

an equal inward necessity. He lives truly because he does not live secondarily

or in such a way that he as soul and body partakes of a common life which

is originally alien to Himself, which is always distinguishable from His own,

which must accrue to Him and can be lost again by Him. He lives in sovereignty.

His life of soul and body is really His life. He has full authority over it. 108

This oneness and wholeness of the human person, Jesus Christ, is for Barth the wayin which the New Testament describes him. Moreover, this oneness and wholenessof humanity in Jesus Christ is a derivative of his unique relation with the HolySpirit. This is the point where Barth begins to engage Isaiah 11 as the central

prophecy fullled in Jesus Christ as it has to do with his unique relation withthe Holy Spirit. Before Barth actually addresses the Biblical texts he makes aninteresting claim regarding the ontological priority of Jesus Christ’s Messiahshipand status as Son of God as that which grounds his relation with the Holy Spiritand not vice-versa. In other words, it is not because Jesus Christ has a uniquerelationship with the Holy Spirit that he is thus Messiah and Son of God. Rather, because he is the Messiah and Son of God he has this unique relationship with theHoly Spirit.

For Barth, Isaiah 11.1–9—though Barth only quotes 11.1–2—is the ‘central prophecy of the coming son of David’ understood by the New Testament writersto be fullled in Jesus Christ.109 Barth rightly notes the royal associations taking place in Isaiah 11. When Isaiah 11.2 describes the Spirit of the Lord (הוהי חור) asresting upon this coming shoot of Jesse, the Jesse imagery and context of Isaiah7–10 demands a royal understanding of this gure. As Barth states, ‘In a word, itis the Spirit of the true king that will be the Spirit of this man.’110 a s a gloss on thisstatement, Barth refers to the prayer of Solomon in 1 Kgs 3.6–9. Solomon’s prayer

reects the tenor and character of this coming Messianic gure in prototypicalfashion. ‘But according to Is. 11, this kingly Spirit is to rest on the Messiah (incontrast to Solomon, to David himself, and to all who in greater or less measure partake of his line). He is to be a man who is pervasively and constantly, intensivelyand totally lled and governed by this kingly Spirit.’111 From this, Barth moves tothe New Testament as an explanation of what this in fact looks like in the personof Jesus Christ.

There are some incongruities and possible questions begging about Barth’sexplanation and comments concerning Isa 11.1–2. Admittedly, he is lighting upon

108 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 332. Again, see Krötke’s exposition of Barth’s thought here,Krötke, “Humanity,” 169–71.

109 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 333.110 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 333.111 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 333.




Isa 11.2 in particular and the signicance of the Holy Spirit in relation to JesusChrist. Resultantly, and in line with most of Barth’s appeals to Isaiah, one does notexpect a fully throttled exegesis of the passage. Isaiah 11 serves Barth’s purposeswell here and is a faithful hearing of the text retrospectively understood in lightof the person of Jesus Christ. That Barth appeals to Solomon instead of David(compare with 1 Sam 16.13) is misplaced, though innocuous at the end of theday. This is probably due to the fact that Barth constructs his entry to Isaiah 11 by referring to the coming of the Messiah as ‘the coming son of David.’112 Again,not much is lost here, but it cannot be called a careful reading of the text, for Isa11.1 refers to the coming one as from the root of Jesse. How one understands thesignicance of the reference to Jesse instead of David is contested. As we saw previously, this can be construed as a word of judgment primarily, presupposingthe destruction of the Davidic line, or positively, as a word of hope. Williamson

has argued persuasively for the latter. He states, ‘The point of referring to Jesseseems to be not so much negatively to dwell on the nature of judgment which hasfallen, as positively to make the point that the new ruler will be a second David.’113 Again, not much is lost here and Barth redeems himself with his parenthetic clausethat contrasts the coming Messiah to Solomon, David or any from this line. At thesame time, Barth’s exegesis of Isaiah 11 is not necessarily very penetrating.

Barth also begs the question when he states that the New Testament writersunderstood Jesus to fulll the central prophecy of Isa 11.1–2. There are not

many quotations of Isa 11.1–10 in the New Testament, and where quotations ordemonstrable allusions occur, Barth does not refer to them in his New Testamentexposition of Isa 11.1–2. In Rom 15.10, Paul quotes Isa 11.10 in the context ofthe eschatological worship of God by Gentiles and Jews. Richard Bauckhamdemonstrates the prominence of Davidic Messianism in Revelation and the roleIsaiah 11 plays in this eschatological conguration.114 In his own way, N.T. Wright places the narratives of Jesus’ baptism by John with the Spirit descending on himlike a dove as a ‘deliberate allusion’ to Isaiah 11.115 But Wright has to appeal

to the category of allusion, and the connectedness of these texts has to do with

112 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 333.113 Williamson,Williamson, Variations, 55.114 Richard Bauckham,Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, New Testament

Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 68–9.115 N.T. Wright, N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996),

536–7 See also Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1995), 38, 57, and Richard Bauckham’s very interesting study of Mark 1.13’s statement,‘and Jesus was with the wild beasts,’ and its association with the messianic vision of Isaiah11, Richard Bauckham, “Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Imagefor an Ecological Age,” in Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical

Jesus and New Testament Christology, ed. Joel B. Green and M. Turner (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994), 17–19.




conceptual overlap rather than direct quotation as seen in Rom 15.10.116 in otherwords, some intertextual spade work has to be done exegetically to make sucha claim because of the lack of identiable quotation or direct allusion to Isaiah11 in the New Testament and the four-fold Gospels in particular. None of theseare appealed to by Barth as warrant for the claim that the New Testament writersunderstand Jesus to fulll the prophecy of Isaiah 11. Barth assumes the validity ofthis statement without any demonstrable warrant for such a claim.

Our chiding of Barth, soft as it is, is probably indicative of the problemsfaced when Biblical scholars and theologians approach the Biblical text and itscross-referencing capabilities. Biblical scholars whose sensibilities tend towardthe analytical need some sort of midrashic connection between texts by which toidentify a legitimate intertextual appeal. What we observe with Barth’s appeal toIsa 11.1–2 in association with various New Testament texts speaking about Jesus’

unique relationship to the Spirit is more akin to gural or allegorical exegesis thanintertextuality properly dened by today’s standards of intertextual referentiality.The latter has to do with older texts being somewhat identia bly embedded innewer texts to create some sort of theological resonance.117 Barth’s association ofIsa 11.1–2 with the New Testament lacks the technical sophistication associatedwith the ‘intertextuality’ of, for example, the Richard Hays sort. Barth’s reading isnot necessarily ruled out of court on this account. His reading is functioning on adif ferent level of association than direct identication between two texts.

Here, Barth’s reading of Isaiah 11 is case-in-point of Childs’s differentiation between midrash and allegory. Childs demonstrates the continuities betweenmidrash and allegorical exegesis and then makes the following point regardingtheir substantial differences:

While midrash works at discerning meaning through the interaction of two

written texts, allegory—I am using the term in its broadest sense—nds

meaning by moving to another level beyond the textual. It seeks to discern

meaning by relating it referentially to a substance (res), a rule of faith, or ahidden eschatological event. Christian exegetical use of intertextuality moves

along a trajectory between promise and fulllment within a larger christological

structure.118

Barth does associate texts together by means of a cross-referencing associationaround the concept of the Spirit but not necessarily in a midrashic sense where the

116

Other possible allusions to Isa 11.1–2 are found in Act 13.23 and the possibleOther possible allusions to Isa 11.1–2 are found in Act 13.23 and the possibleassociation of (sprout, shoot) with Matt 2.23 where Jesus’ identity as a Nazarene is saidנזרto be prophesied to in Scripture.

117 Most notably, Richard Hays,Most notably, Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (NewHaven: Yale University Press, 1989).

118 Brevard S. Childs, “Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation,”Brevard S. Childs, “Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation,” ZAW 115 (2003): 182–3.




semantic level remains on the textual. Rather, Barth is reading Isa 11.1–2 gurally

and in association with its subject matter (res). The orilegium of New Testamenttexts appealed to by Barth as demonstration of Isa 11.1–2’s fulllment may on thesurface seem a case of special pleading simply because the intertextual referent by way of quotation or identiable allusion is simply not present. If one, however,recognizes that Barth is reading Isa 11.1–2 allegorically or gurally in light ofthe text’s ultimate subject matter, namely, God’s revelation of himself in JesusChrist, then the litany of New Testament verses appealed to as explication of Isa11.1–2 work. The association between the texts is taken place on the level of res orontology rather than textual association in the midrashic sense.

In Isaiah’s own discrete voice, Isa 11.1–2 witnesses eschatologically to thecoming, Davidic King who will reign in righteousness and justice. This comingKing will be marked primarily by his unique association with the Spirit of the

Lord. When one turns to the New Testament, the unique relationship of Jesus tothe Spirit is observed in many different texts and can now function as commentaryon Isa 11.1–2 as the Old and the New Testament mutually inform one another’scommon subject matter. They speak to a common subject matter and are thus‘fulllment’ of the anticipation created for the coming eschatological King ofIsa 11.1–10. Barth’s reading is a gural reading of Isa 11.1–2 because its pointof reference is beyond the textual as it relates in this particular instance to thewholeness of Jesus as soul and body indissolubly linked because of Jesus’ unique

and abiding relation with the Holy Spirit. From Isaiah 11’s words of hope, ourstudy now turns to the oracles against the nations in Isa 13–27.

Isaiah 13–27: Israel’s God of the Nations

Barth’s substantial interaction with this corpus of Isaiah is admittedly thin. Thisis not to say Barth does not refer to the oracles against the nations (13–23) and

what has been called the little apocalypse (24–27). A quick glance at the Scriptureindex of the CD will reveal his reference to every one of these chapters except15, 16 and 23. It will be of interest to see the ways in which Barth does interactsubstantially with these chapters besides passing reference or cross reference in alitany of corresponding verses with no engagement of the text itself. The reasonfor this importance is that these chapters, more specically Isaiah 13–23, have proven themselves elusive for the christological interpreter of the Old Testament.Their subject matter at rst glance seems so related to the particularities of Israel’sexistence and struggle against the surrounding nations as to be locked in thishistorical setting.

Reecting on Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on Isaiah, Robert LouisWilken states that it was one thing for the Patristic exegetes to comment on morenotable passages of the ‘fth gospel’ like Isa 7.14 or 9.6. It was ‘quite anotherthing to interpret the book in its historical setting and as a book about Christ and




the Church.’119 Cyril of Alexandria was one of the few Patristic exegetes to engagethe entirety of Isaiah in a commentary. He joined the ranks of Origen, Eusebiusof Caesarea and Jerome. According to Wilken’s analysis, the chapters provingthemselves most difcult for Patristic exegetes with little mention therein were theoracles to the nations in chapters 13–23. Wilkin makes this summarizing statementregarding the oracles to the nations in Cyril’s commentary: ‘It is not surprisingthat Cyril most often gives a historical interpretation to these oracles and onlyoccasionally nds in them references to Christ.’120 In this regard, Isaiah 13–23 poses its own sorts of challenges for the Christian interpreter of the Old Testament because their christological referent is not readily accessible.

The aporia of these texts within the Church’s history of interpretation, notedespecially in the Patristic era, is worth pursuing in light of Barth’s engagement withthem. Our interaction with Barth on these chapters will be somewhat piecemeal

and selective. However, we should gain a sense of how Barth believed these‘historically particular’ texts continue to witness to the one Word of God.

Barth makes reference twice to Isaiah 13 in the context of the kingdom ofheaven in CD III.3.121 In this dogmatic context, Barth sets the kingdom of God andthe kingdom of heaven in ontological relation to one another. The kingdom of Godcome on earth is such because it is rst and foremost the kingdom of heaven. Thewhence of God’s actions in the world is that creaturely place where Christ sits atthe right hand of God. This ‘place’ is as real as our earthly sphere and is the source

of God’s will on earth. Important in this context is the Lord’s prayer, and morespecically, the petition, ‘Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’ Barth’sreference to Isaiah 13 is located in Barth’s handling of this prayer as it relates tothe kingdom of God.

Within Isaiah’s nal, canonical form, chapter 13 makes a distinct break from the preceding chapters. This is observed in the change of subject matter and the titularascription of these oracles to Isaiah. The movement is one from the restoration ofIsrael and resultant praise in chapters 11–12 to the oracles of judgment against the

119 Robert Louis Wilkin, “Cyril of Alexandria as Interpreter of the Old Testament,” inRobert Louis Wilkin, “Cyril of Alexandria as Interpreter of the Old Testament,” inThe Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation, ed. Thomas G. Weinandyand Daniel A. Keating (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 6.

120 Wilkin, “Cyril of Alexandria,” 6.Wilkin, “Cyril of Alexandria,” 6.121 Barth,Barth, CD III.3, 445. In his engagement with Yahweh as Yahweh Sabaoth, Barth

refers again to Isa 13.4 on p. 449 of CD III.3. Here Barth speaks of the multiplicity in unity

of the heavenly realm in their obedience to the Lord. The Lord is not alone in heaven. Heis the sovereign of a multiplicity; he is the Lord of Hosts. In Isa 13.4, the army gatheredtogether by the Lord of Hosts (one should observe the Hebrew play on words here— המחלמ —the Lord ofיהוה צ ֹות צ Hosts or Armies is seeking or mustering an army for battle)

seems to be an army of men. This verse is one of several that reveals the ambivalence between the heavenly hosts and the event of salvation on earth. The hosts of the Lord ofHosts is not always the heavenly realms, as in Isa 13.4.




nations in 13–27.122 It has puzzled interpreters for some time why exactly these oracles

against the nations are placed where they are. Any notion of a pure chronological

arrangement of Isaiah is dispelled by the placement of these oracles. Their placement

functions canonically for theological reasons that sound Pauline on the ear (or maybe

we should say, Paul sounds Isaianic). The basic message is, as Israel comes under

God’s judgment for their hubris, so too will the nations (the order is reversed, but

the logic is the same in Rom 1.18–2.16). These oracles are not intended as a word of

hope for the salvation of Israel. Rather, ‘they make clear that God’s sovereignty over

human pride and arrogance reaches to every nation on earth.’123 The kingdom rule of

God extends beyond the borders of Israel to the nations.

As a counterpoint example of God’s judgment extending to the nations, oneobserves in the oracle against Egypt in Isaiah 19 that after God has smitten theEgyptians, they too will know Yahweh, worship him with sacrices and grain

offerings, make vows to Yahweh and pay them (Isa 19.21). Not only does the Lord’s judgment spill over the borders of Israel, so too does his gracious sovereigntyextend even to the Egyptians. After their rejection by the Lord, they will be therecipients of his healing. By way of example, Barth refers to Isa 19.21 in CD III.4, where the active life is described as the life lived in free conformity to theobedience of Jesus Christ. According to the Old Testament, this free and obedientconformity is not only for Israel but for the nations as well.124 Thus the appeal toIsa 19.21.

Returning to Isaiah 13, when Barth makes mention of Isa 13.13—‘ThereforeI will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, atthe wrath of the Lord of hosts on the day of his erce anger’—in the context of‘Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven’ from the Lord’s prayer, one canobserve how Barth’s placement of Isaiah 13 ts within the theological rationalefor the oracles against the nations in Isaiah. For Barth, the kingdom of heaven,which is ultimately mysterious and beyond our speculation, is genuinely revealedwhen the kingdom of heaven functions salvically here on earth. Heaven, that

creaturely reality suitable to the sphere where the Father and the Son are uniedas Christ sits at the right hand of God (this is where Heaven is), is the whence ofhis Word and work in the earthy sphere.125 Heaven is the realm where God’s will

122 For our purposes it is inconsequential that many interpreters, beginning withFor our purposes it is inconsequential that many interpreters, beginning withDuhm, have separated 13–23 from 24–27 based on historical-critical reasoning (that isthe lateness of an apocalyptic genre). Thematically and canonically they are dealing withthe same subject matter, namely, God’s judgment against the nations. Moreover, one can

observe the material and substantial overlap between chapter 13 and 24–27’s depiction ofcosmic judgment. See Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 118.123 Christopher R. Seitz,Christopher R. Seitz, Isaiah 1–39, 122 See Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew

Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament , trans. D.E. Orton (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2005),667–75, esp. 675.

124 Barth,Barth, CD III.4, 476.125 Barth,Barth, CD III.3, 444.




is always performed obediently and this is the ‘material presupposition’ of theaforementioned phrase from the Lord’s prayer.126 We pray for God’s will to bedone on earth as it already is in heaven.

When Barth turns to the Scriptures as warrant for his understanding of thedifferentiation and mutuality of the creaturely spheres of heaven and earth, hementions Isa 13.13 rst. The heavenly occurrences within the Old Testament haveto do with God’s gracious and judicial Lordship over his covenant with Israel.127 And the correspondent of this heavenly occurrence is the earthly sphere whichruns parallel to it. This is seen in the prophecy against (or ‘for’ for in Clements’reading) Babylon in Isa 13.13. For here in the depiction of the coming day ofthe Lord, that is, the coming day of judgment, it is not only earth that shakes but heaven and earth. As God makes war against the pride and arrogance of thenations, the heavens and earth will feel its tumultuous power.

We see elsewhere Barth referring to this corpus in his exposition of the fourthday of creation in CD III.1. God begins to furnish the cosmos with the mediatorsof light, the Sun, Moon and Stars.128 The luminary bodies are part of the livingcreatures. They are not only things; they are personalities according to the OldTestament (contra Gunkel). How else is one to make sense of personal naturegiven to these beings in the Old Testament. Called on for service is Isa 24.21–23:‘And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall punish the host of thehigh ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they

shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in a pit, and shall be shut upin the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. Then the moon shall beconfounded, and the sun ashamed.’129 Barth treads carefully with his assertionshere, not wishing to go further than the Scriptures will allow. Nevertheless, theluminary bodies are referred to as personalities in the Old Testament. Barth statesthat the difference between ANE cosmology and the Old Testament cosmologyhas to do with the divinity of the heavenly bodies, not their personality.

Now, Barth could be chided in his reading of Isaiah 24 that he has not sufciently

taken into account or given heed to the apocalyptic nature of Isaiah 24.130

in otherwords, the moon’s dismay and the sun’s shame are hyperbolic images called onto illustrate the grandeur of the coming cosmic event, not indications of their personalities. One should also note the poetic terms used in the Hebrew text todescribe the sun and moon rather than the astronomical terms one might anticipate

126 Barth,Barth, CD III.3, 445.127 Barth,Barth, CD III.3, 445.128

Barth,Barth, CD III.1, 156 Barth makes the point that the naming of the Sun, Moonand Particular Stars does not occur in this passage. Giving them their names is humanity’s project, and as such, the heavenly bodies are in ‘the sphere of human knowledge and power.’Barth, CD III.1, 158–9.

129 As quoted inAs quoted in CD III.1, 159.130 On the negatives and positives of referring to Isaiah 24–7 as apocalyptic, seeOn the negatives and positives of referring to Isaiah 24–7 as apocalyptic, see

Childs, Isaiah, 173–4.




when describing the luminary bodies.131 In other words, Barth runs rough-shodover the genre of this text.

When, however, Barth’s exegesis is placed in the nexus of Scripture’s broadercanonical voice on the subject, one can see how Isaiah 24 illustrates the point Barthis making. It may not have worked in isolation, and in fact it probably does not.But in accordance with the other verses called on, Isaiah 24 can serve to show, atleast homiletically, the personality of the created heavenly bodies (though cautionis called for). What is of seeming interest for our purposes is that Barth refers tothis aspect of Isaiah 24 at all. A quick glance at some of the major commentarieson Isaiah will reveal very little discussion on the sun and moon in their abeyanceand shame at the coming day of cosmic judgment. In retrospect, his appeal toIsa 24.23 in his larger exposition may be special pleading. At the same time, inassociation with other texts, one can see how the personication of the sun and

moon in Isaiah 24 ts with the idea that the heavenly bodies are personalities ofsorts in the Old Testament.

These few examples from Barth’s engagement with Isaiah 13–27 reveal hisability to see these texts as witnesses to the one God of the Bible. They speak of thekingdom of heaven revealed in God’s action with both Israel and the nations hereon earth. Barth can call on their imagery as depicting a biblical cosmology whosefoundations were laid in the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. They can evenspeak of the death of death found in Revelation and pre-gured in the mocking

funeral dirge of the King of Babylon in Isa 14.4–11.132 All to say, Barth was nothamstrung by these passages because they did not relate to a direct Christologicalreferent. They can speak on their own accord of the being-in-act of Yahweh, and,as such, they are ultimately Christological. We cannot have Yahweh without thenal exegesis of Yahweh for humankind in Jesus Christ. Here, one senses thedifference between Christological exegesis of the Trinitarian kind and a at-footed

Christomonism.In fairness to the texts, one senses with Barth’s reading of this corpus, as

attenuated as it is, something of a strain. This is observed with his appeal to Isa24.23 and if pursued, would be sensed in his discussion of Isa 14.4–11 and the Kingof Babylon. In other words, this is not Barth at his nest as a reader of Isaiah. Atthe same time, his appeal to this section in various ways in the CD does exoneratehim from the charge of an overly historicist reading. Isaiah 13–27 witness to theidentity and actions of Yahweh and, as such, are not locked in the past, but openedin the present as a continuing word of the Lord. As we will see, Isaiah understandsthe word of the Lord to be such as well. But we jump ahead of ourselves.

131 J. Alec Motyer,J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary (DownersGrove: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 206.

132 Barth,Barth, CD III.2, 634.




Isaiah 30.20–22: Conversion as Nostri non sumus, sed Domini

Our nal Isaianic text from Isaiah 1–39 in the CD is Isa 30.20–22. Barth isexpounding the theme of ‘Awakening to Conversion’ in CD IV.2. Conversion isthe continual reawakening of those who were once asleep. Barth denes this sleepas ‘the relentless downward movement consequent upon their sloth.’133 Conversionis the reversing of this downward movement. It is a compulsion coming upon theslothful sleeping to rise up and come after him. The two movements of God’sawakening of the person and the person’s proceeding to God from the oppositedirection are indissolubly linked in the one act of conversion. The latter is groundedin the former, to be sure. At the same time, both acts are part of the ongoingdynamic of conversion.134

Barth refers to Calvin’s statement, Nostri non sumus, sed Domini, as paradigmatic

for the Bible’s portrayal of conversion’s dynamic. We once belonged to ourselves, plunging downward along the path of the ‘old way.’135 ‘But we now belong toGod as our Lord.’136 From this, Barth enlists the biblical canon to substantiatehis claim. He moves from the penitential cry of Ps 51.10, to the language of thenew covenant in Jer. 31.33, to Ezekiel and Romans. He returns to the prophet andspeaks of the urgent cry of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea and Isaiah for Israelto return to Yahweh. The prophets’ role as covenant emissaries was to remind the people of God about the imperatives demanded from the covenantal relationship:

I will be your God and you will be my people. In short, the prophets’ cry to Israelas the covenant people of God is a cry for their conversion, for their turning awayfrom their idolatrous plunge into the ‘old ways.’

Isaiah’s voice is present in this discussion in several ways. Barth refers again toIsa 1.3 where the recalcitrance of Israel is displayed.137 ‘Ah sinful nation.’ Israel’srefusal to return to Yahweh is exhibited again in Isa 30.15–17 where the offer of peace and quiet rest found in the trust of Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, isdeantly refused. ‘No’ (Isa 30.16). What one observes with Isaiah and the other

prophets alongside Isaiah is Israel’s refusal of conversion. Israel demands to stayasleep and, in fact, does remain asleep in her sloth.This is what makes the statement of hope found in Isa 30.20–22 such a stark

contrast to the surrounding material. It states, ‘Though the Lord may give youthe bread of adversity and the water of afiction, yet your Teacher will not hidehimself any more, but your eyes shall see your Teacher. And when you turn tothe right or when you turn to the left, your ears shall hear a word behind you,saying, “This is the way; walk in it”.’ Here, Israel is promised that her Teacher—

133 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.2, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1958), 555.

134 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 560–61.135 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 561.136 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 561.137 See section above on ‘the recalcitrance of Israel.’See section above on ‘the recalcitrance of Israel.’




an unusual name ascribed to Yahweh probably reecting the wisdom context ofIsaiah 28–30—will not hide himself any more but will open her eyes and make herears hear. One of the themes of Isaiah that reveals its inherent unity is the theme ofdeafness and blindness. In the call of Isaiah in Isaiah 6, his mission is to a peoplewho listen but do not comprehend; who look but do not understand. The peopleof Israel have ears and eyes, but they do not have real hearing and seeing.138 in isa30.20–22, which follows closely on the heels of the stubborn ‘No’ from Israel inIsa 30.16, Yahweh himself refuses to allow Israel’s ‘no’ to be the nal word. Hisgrace is the nal ‘yes.’

The placement of Isa 30.20–22 as a word of hope in the midst of Isaiah’sministry described in Isaiah 6 has troubled interpreters. Redaction-critical instinctssee here the prophet of the post-exilic era juxtaposed to the more negative prophecyof Isaiah (for example Wilderberger). Barth actually makes mention of this in his

comments on these verses. He states:

[I]t may be suspected that what we have here is a voice from the later prophecy

[assuming he means Deutero-Isaiah] which dared to speak of the new spirit

and heart and conversation given to Israel, and therefore of a fullment of the

unfulllable demand of earlier prophecy which was not achieved by Israel itself

but achieved on it, i.e., the actuality of the covenant as the truth revealed to man

and forcefully changing his life; the dynamic principle: Nostri non sumus, sed

Domini.’139

This is an interesting statement from Barth. It does not carry much force for theargument he is making. Whether or not Isa 30.20–22 is from Isaiah or that ofa later prophet inserted here redactionally does not change the matter at hand,namely, conversion is that awakening of humankind by God that involves a prioract of God and a necessary response from humankind. The latter is grounded andmade possible by the former. Isaiah 30.20–22 speaks of this future conversion

where God achieves for Israel what Israel could not achieve for herself. Here wehave the identity and the mission of the Servant of Isaiah 40–55 anticipated. Itshould also be added that words of hope are interspersed throughout much ofIsaiah 1–39 (compare with: 5:25; 9:12, 17, 21; 10:4; 14:26). That all of these arelater intrusions into the primarily negative ministry of Isaiah is contestable.

It is mentioned in the beginning of this chapter that Barth afrmed thehistorical-critical distinction between First Isaiah and Second Isaiah. In this senseBarth is not a pre-critical interpreter. Rather, he is a post-critical interpreter asRudolf Smend and Neil MacDonald in their respective ways afrm. Barth believesthe book of Isaiah to be a unied whole despite its compositional history, and hisinterpretation of the book substantiates this claim. Moreover, the entirety of theBible is a unied whole for Barth whose subject matter is God’s Triune revelation

138 Williamson,Williamson, Book Called Isaiah.139 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 562.




of himself in Jesus Christ. As such, it continues as the viva vox Dei into the currentsituation. It continues to speak of God’s identity and actions in the world in JesusChrist.

Therefore, and despite its compositional history, Isaiah 30.20–22 as a wordof hope speaks of conversion which results in our being God’s and not our own.These prophetic words anticipate a coming time in which God will act on behalfof his people because of their inability to act for themselves. This act of God ishumanity’s conversion and will ultimately have to do with Jesus Christ, for it isin and with Jesus Christ that we have God’s denitive action for humanity by ahuman agent. Isaiah presents the Gospel in gural fashion here in Isa 30.20–22. Not only does it pregure the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it pregures the redemptivemovement that will take place in Isaiah 40–55 in the gure of the Servant. Ourattention will turn to this corpus of the Isaianic witness in the next chapter.

Conclusion

Not much by way of analysis will be offered here. Our attention will be given tothis in our nal chapter. Sufce it to say, Barth’s reading of Isaiah 1–39 revealsa deep awareness of these passages and utilization of them in various theologicalcontexts. This is observed in the more theologically pregnant passages of Isa 7.14

and Isaiah 11, as well as passages that may seem more obscure like Isa 1.2–3,Isaiah 30 and even the oracle against Egypt. Barth’s reading is at times strained orhomiletical, as we see in his appeal to the sun and moon in Isaiah 24. In this sense,Barth’s particular readings cannot always be followed. That the Old Testament isthe voice of anticipation is patently revealed in Barth’s reading of Isaiah 1–39.The words of judgment as the divine ‘yes’ elides into the divine ‘no’ create theexpectation and anticipation for the reversal of this fortune as the divine ‘no’ inturn becomes his ‘yes’ again. This is the voice of Isaiah 40–66, and to this corpus

we now turn.



Chapter 4

Barth’s Theological Exegesis of

Isaiah 40–66

We can and should say even more emphatically that knowledge in the biblical senseis the process in which the distant ‘object’ dissolves as it were, overcoming both itsdistance and its objectivity and coming to man as acting Subject, entering into the

man who knows and subjecting him to this transformation.1

Introduction

The early church as especially embodied in the New Testament documents turnedto the Scriptures of Israel both for warrant and exposition of the person and workof Jesus Christ. The New Testament’s actualization of the Old Testament by meansof its various exegetical approaches is an integral part of the New Testament

canon’s compositional history.2 As von Campenhausen has poignantly stated, ‘Itis quite wrong to say that the Old Testament had no authority in its own right forthe rst Christians, and that it was taken over purely because people saw that it“treated Christ” or pointed toward him. The situation was in fact quite the reverse.Christ is certainly vindicated to unbelievers out of the Scripture; but the conversenecessity, to justify Scripture on the authority of Christ, is as yet nowhere evenenvisaged.’3 The Old Testament and its particular idiom understood via the ruleof faith functioned as a continuing witness for the early church’s understanding of

the signicance and identity of Jesus Christ and their own identity as the people ofGod. To borrow a phrase from Paul van Buren, the early church turned to what wenow call the Old Testament as their ‘ABC’s and grammar book’ for their discourseabout God’s action in Jesus Christ.4

1 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.3.1, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1961), 184.2 Brevard S. ChildsBrevard S. Childs , Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reection on the Christian Bible (Minnepolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 76.

3 Hans von Campenhausen,Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, trans. J.A. Baker(Mifintown: Sigler Press, 1997), 63–4.

4 Paul van Buren, “Authenticity Without Demonization,”Paul van Buren, “Authenticity Without Demonization,” Journal of EcumenicalStudies 34 (1997): 342.




In their turning to the Old Testament, few portions of that witness servedthe early church as well as Isaiah 40–55 (66).5 In Isaiah 40–55 (66) one nds

new life springing into Israel’s midst. Hope is dened as the return of Yahwehto Zion, as rough places are made smooth and crooked valleys straight. Israel,disillusioned and befuddled by her own sin and impoverishment, is met by thedivine ‘yes.’ God’s covenant faithfulness to his people is exhibited in the gure

of a servant who embodies all that Israel was called to be both for herself and thenations. And the servant who is the unique means of Yahweh’s salvic return toZion accomplishes all of this in the surprising and paradoxical suffering he takeson himself as representative of and in the place of others. The guiltless becomesguilty and suffers for the many. In Isaiah 40–55 (66)’s gural movement fromIsrael to servant to servants, one nds the gospel in gural form, fully anticipatingits embodiment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Moreover, Isaiah 40–55

sets the stage for the nal chapters of Isaiah where Israel’s eschatological hope isdened as nothing other than new heavens and new earth as the suffering righteousawait the coming day (Isaiah 65, 66). Little wonder the early church turned to thiscorpus of Isaiah’s witness as much as they did.6

Having examined the ways in which Barth appeals to various and sundry partsof Isaiah 1–39, our attention is now given to his engagement with key texts fromIsaiah 40–55 (66). The bulk of the material will be given to Barth’s employing ofIsaiah 40–55 in his exposition of the covenant in CD IV.1 and his interaction with

Isaiah 53 in various quarters of the CD. Barth does give more detailed attentionin the CD to Isaiah 40–55 than 56–66. In this regard, Barth by default falls in linewith the tendency of New Testament authors who appeal to Isaiah 40–55 morethan any other portion of Isaiah.

5 I refer to Isaiah 40–55 (66) to avoid the impression that 40–55 is distinct from 56–66.I refer to Isaiah 40–55 (66) to avoid the impression that 40–55 is distinct from 56–66.This corpus is a unied whole, alongside Isaiah 1–39 as well. See especially, Christopher R.

Seitz, Word with End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998) and Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah40–66 , Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences (Stanford: Stanford University Press,1998), 187–95. That the material in Isaiah 40–55, commonly referred to as Deutero-Isaiah (so Barth), is especially pregnant for Christian reection is observed in the NewTestament’s preference for this corpus in the various author’s references or allusions toIsaiah. One observes this with a prima facie glance at the Old Testament quotation indexin the NA27. Isaiah’s witness is Isaiah’s witness in its nal, canonical form, that is, 66chapters reecting the intended and inspired word of the canonical prophet. That certain

parts of Isaiah, namely, Isaiah 40–55, are referred to more often in early Christian literatureis recognized while at the same time non-detrimental to Isaiah’s overarching unity.

6 Richard Bauckham states, ‘For the early Christians, these chapters of Isaiah, aboveRichard Bauckham states, ‘For the early Christians, these chapters of Isaiah, aboveall, were the God-given account of the signicance of the events of eschatological salvationwhich they had witnessed and in which they were involved[.]’ Richard Bauckham, GodCrucied: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament , The Didsbury Lectures(Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998), 47.




Isaiah 40 and the Wisdom of God

Isaiah 40 marks a turning point in the nal form of canonical Isaiah. The Hezekiahnarrative of chapters 36–9 sets the stage for the coming Babylonian conquest asthe Assyrian crisis was averred. Now God moves toward his people as the double payment for their sin is over. The threat of judgment with which chapter 39 endselides into the words of comfort— (Isa 40.1). The ‘formerנחמּו נחמּו עמי י מר להיכםthings’ have passed away and the ‘new things’ are breaking into Israel’s midst.Yahweh is returning to Zion (Isa 40. 9–10; 52.7). The central dramatis personae of this chapter within Isaiah’s prophecy is not the prophetic gure delineated in aso-called ‘call narrative’ of 40.1–11. In fact, the prophetic personality remains inthe background for the sake of the central gure’s position at center stage. Who isthe central gure? It is the continuing Word of the Lord.7 ‘The grass withers and

owers fade but the word of our God will stand forever’ (Isa 40.8). The comfortIsrael is to nd in the midst or on the far side of her calamity is the sure andsteadfast character of God’s Word. The Deus dixit is Israel’s hope.

Isaiah 40.12–31 rehearses for Israel in the form of a sapiential disputationthe Word of God they have heard and known but seem to have forgotten. TheGod of Israel is sufcient unto himself as the source of enlightenment, power andwisdom. ‘To whom then will you liken God?’ (Isa 40.18). He is incomparable tothe gods of the nations whose form is hammered out on the anvil of a blacksmith’s

workshop or under the saw and knife of a carpenter (Isa 40.19–20). It is absurd tocompare God who is, in Barth terms, ‘the Creator, Sustainer and Lord of all that is’to anything in creation that is outside himself.

Barth relies on the inner logic of Isa 40.12–31 in his reection on the patience and

wisdom of God in CD II.1.8 In his parsing out of the reality of God expressed in the

profoundly simple phrase, ‘God is,’ Barth emphasizes God’s being as the One who

has acted in Jesus Christ.9 This ‘being in act’ is centrally his love directed toward

‘all His children, in His children all men, and in men His whole creation.’10 As such,

the divinity of the love of God in Christ is dened by his graciousness, mercy and patience which are exercised in such a way as to comport with His freedom, namely,

his holiness, righteousness and wisdom.11 These all together and in an inextricable

unity form the ocean that is found in the perfections of the divine love.

7 See Barth’s quotation of Isa 55.10–11 inSee Barth’s quotation of Isa 55.10–11 in CD I.1, 152. ‘Therefore we have to speak ofits [the Word] power, its might, its effects, the changes its brings about. Because the Word

of God makes history, as Word it is also act.’ The redemptive moment witnessed to in Isaiah40 is God’s Word making history in Israel’s life.8 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II.1, trans. T.H.L. Parker, et al. (Edinburgh: T&TT.H.L. Parker, et al. (Edinburgh: T&T(Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1957), 406–39.9 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 257, 351.10 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 351.11 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 352.




Our attention is given primarily to the wisdom of God because, as has beenmentioned, this is where Isaiah’s witness is called on by Barth. At the same time,it is of signicance that Barth’s discussion of the wisdom of God, an expression ofhis divine freedom, is found in the same section as his reection on the patienceof God which is associated with his graciousness and mercy. The grace and mercyof God without his patience could potentially swallow up humanity. It is in his patience ‘that he grants space to the sinful creature, thus giving Himself spacefurther to speak and act with it[.]’12 Again, these perfections of the divine loveare all part of the self-same, yet differentiated, divine reality, and this is observedin the biblical witness. From the story of Cain and Jonah especially, narrativesubstantiation is given to God’s claim in Isaiah: ‘In a little wrath I hid my facefrom thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on thee,saith the Lord thy Redeemer’ (Isa 54.8).13 The severity and judgment of God are

not outside the purview of His patience. But is this so?Barth is willing to raise a difcult question elicited from the Old Testament’s

rehearsal of Israel’s faith. In short, how is it that the long intermittent periods ofsupposed impatience and severity comport with God as patient? Is God really patient? What keeps the narratives of the Old Testament, which swing from patience to impatience and mercy to severity, nothing other than ‘a needlessly cruelgame?’14 Barth’s answer, or one should say, the Bible’s answer is: ‘God upholds allthings by the Word of His power.’15 Again, Barth refers to Isaiah: ‘For as the rain

cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereththe earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shallnot return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it’ (Isa 55.10–11).’16 What keeps the narrativesof the Old Testament something other than a cruel, cosmic game is God’s Word,the Word dened ultimately in the incarnation. In the incarnation God is leavingspace and time for himself and for humanity’s justication. His patience, when

expressed with his mercy and punishment, salvation and destruction, ‘means thatGod always, and continually, has time for Israel.’17 The fact that Israel is primarilydened by impenitence in the Old Testament reveals God’s grace, mercy, holinessand judgment as all markedly patient. God’s patience allows Israel time to hearhis Word. Ultimately, this Word is heard in the cry of dereliction when the divinewrath is seen in its fullness, not in the bursts of anger observed in the patientdealings of God with his people in Isa 54.8.

12 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 413.13 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 415 Cf. CD II.1, 373; CD IV.1, 537.14 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 416.15 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 416.16 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 417.17 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 417.




God’s patience is not a whimsical act of caprice, according to Barth. It isgrounded in his wisdom. ‘The wisdom of God is that God not only wills but knowswhat He wills. And He knows not only what He will, but why and wherefore Hewills it.’ We are now coming closer to Barth’s engagement with Isa 40.12–31. Barthis heavily indebted to the Old Testament and especially its wisdom traditions inhis exposition of the wisdom of God.18 God’s wisdom gives meaning to the world.God is not to be understood as the ‘immanent meaning of the world.’ Rather,‘The world has meaning as it acquires meaning from Him who alone has and ismeaning.’19 Barth’s canonical sensibilities are strong here as he claims that the Ketubim, or the third part of the Canon’s engagement with Hellenic ideas, is notto be understood primarily as an acceptance of foreign ideas. Rather, it is Israel’sconfrontation with foreign thought via the revelation of her God. From this, Barthengages Proverbs’ call to personied wisdom with an insistence that the wisdom

of the Ketubim is grounded in or begins with the fear of the Lord. If this is so, thenthe wisdom of the Old Testament is not an ‘abstract world principle’, a ‘wisdom’that might as easily be found in the Stoics or Philo.20 For all the practical nature ofthe wisdom found in the Ketubim, it is a wisdom whose genesis and life consists inthe covenant God of Israel who gives meaning and purpose to the world.21

Therefore, and in light of the wisdom literature of the Old Testament, theinscrutable and ‘unfathomable wisdom of God’ is called on in a text like Isa40.12–31 as warrant for ‘the impossibility, and therefore the utter folly, of all

idolatry.’22 Barth quotes large portions of this Isaianic text as he breaks at verse

18 It should be noted that Barth’s reference to המכח as primary over the Greek αIt should be noted that Barth’s reference to as primary over the Greekחכמה α and l atin sapientia is overstated and faulty linguistically. Barth, CD II.1, 426–7. Barthstates that the root meaning of the Hebrew isחכמה ‘rmness and steadfastness’, and thatthis denition grounds all others in our understanding of the wisdom of God, when in fact, חכמה has a semantic range from skill to experience to shrewdness, with nothing in thestandard linguistic works about ‘rmness and steadfastness’ (for example KBL, 314). Also,

to ground the concept of wisdom in the Old Testament on a ‘root denition’ is to breechJames Barr’s ‘illegitimate totality transfer.’ Context determines usage linguistically whendetermining what the wisdom of God is. With this stated, Barth’s actual practice is betterthan his erroneous linguistic claims. When Barth turns to the wisdom literature and Isaiah,it is the sense of these passages that contribute to our understanding of what the wisdom ofGod is, rather than facile appeals to the root meaning of .חכמה

19 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 427.20 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 427,430.21 See John Goldingay,See John Goldingay, Israel’s Faith, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP,

2006), 581–3.22 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 431 In CD I.2 Barth addresses idolatry in the Old Testament with

special attention drawn to Isa 44.9–20 (an elongated Isaianic invective against idolatryexpanding the ideas found in 40.19–20). Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2, ed. G.W.Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans. G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1956), 303. Here Barth draws the conclusion that it is not beyond the purview ofthe Biblical authors, the author of Isa 44.9–20 in particular, that these passages address




27 for comment. The rich imagery and rhetoric of this sapiential disputation hasa force of its own, and Barth respects this. He allows the text itself to create thenecessary imagery for the point at hand. ‘Have you not known? Have you notheard ....’ Because God is incomparable, because he is in Barth’s synopsis ofthis passage ‘perfect Creator, Sustainer and Lord of all that is,’ the sheer folly ofreturning to idolatry is highlighted (Isa 40.19–20). But again, and in line with thewisdom literature of the Ketubim, he is known as Creator, Sustainer and Lord of allthat is not from his creation in general, ‘but in His spiritual and merciful dealingswith Israel.’23

It is here that Barth’s break in reading of Isaiah 40 is signicant. Up to verse26 the reader is left in suspense regarding the ‘therefore’ of this disputation.24 o nthe heels of Isa 40.26: ‘Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these? Hewho brings out their host and numbers them, calling them by name; because he

is great in strength, mighty in power, not one is missing,’ follows 40.27: ‘Whydo you say, O Jacob, and speak, O Israel, “My way is hidden from the Lord, andmy right (mishpat ) is disregarded by my God? Have you not known? ...’ Barthquotes Isa 40.27–31 in toto. Again, the straightforward sense of the passage speaksto what Barth has claimed about the wisdom of God tied to his patience. TheIsaianic appeal to God’s wisdom (Isa 40.12–20) and his Lordship over his creation(Isa 40.21–26) has a redemptive motivation. It is not purely theoretical.25 It is, asBarth has stressed in his reading of wisdom in Proverbs, tied to God’s covenant

engagement with his people. Isaiah is not witnessing to God as Wise Creator inabstraction from the way this confession from Israel’s past bears on God’s particularcovenant relationship with Israel. His wisdom is proximate to his patience, and theknowledge of such takes place within the covenantal sphere of God’s engagementwith Israel—note that Israel is not called on to recognize something new about herGod; she is called on to remember what has already been revealed to her; ‘Haveyou not known?.’26 As Barth concludes, ‘The place where we discover the wisdom

the Roman Catholic error of the veneration of images. In fact, the common defense ofveneration—it is not the image worshipped but the Deity or spirituality beyond the image—iscountered by such texts. It is, according to Barth, the spiritual idolatry of image making thatdraws the people of God away from the One who cannot be represented by any fashioningof the human hand. Resultantly, the invective against idolatry in the Old Testament has boththe idolatry of the heathen religions and veneration of images of Yahweh equally in mind.

23 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 431.24 John Goldingay,John Goldingay,The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary

(London: T&T Clark, 2005), 63.25

Commenting on Isa 40.27, Childs states, ‘The prophet’s disputation never was anCommenting on Isa 40.27, Childs states, ‘The prophet’s disputation never was anattempt rationally and theoretically to convince Israel, but fully from the perspective ofIsrael’s tradition to dramatize the power and wisdom of Israel’s God, who was confessedfrom the beginning as creator’ (emphasis mine). Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, The OldTestament Library (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001), 311.

26 Similarly, Barth speaks of God’s holiness in the context of Scripture’s presentationSimilarly, Barth speaks of God’s holiness in the context of Scripture’s presentationof God as the Holy One of Israel . God’s holiness as the Holy One of Israel is related to his




of God, the place where it really exists and is known in the fear of God, is, if wegive due weight to the Old Testament witness in its context and specic utterances,the place where God gives Himself to be recognized as Creator, Sustainer andLord of the world. And that place is his holy and righteous, gracious and mercifuldealings with Israel.’27 Barth’s claims signicantly concur with those found in Isa40.12–31.

In a different theological context, Barth substantially engages Isa 40.12–31 inhis rehearsal of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one Word of God.28 Here,Isaiah 40’s forceful statements about the uniqueness and sovereignty of Yahwehare understood as anticipation of the uniqueness of the revelation of God in JesusChrist. Similarly to CD II.1, Barth allows Isaiah’s own voice to speak by quotinglarge portions of the text. Barth’s allows the text to speak for itself because with‘supreme and joyous assurance’ the text itself represents the matter as if it is self-

evident. At the same time and though it is self-evident, God’s supreme sovereigntyis argued for in the text itself. It is on the basis of God as Creator of heaven andearth that his sovereignty is expounded with such verve.

From this, Barth takes his cue from Isaiah 40 that even though Jesus Christas the one Prophet, the one Word of God, is self-evident, it does not follow thatargument, for such a claim is not necessary. If Isaiah argues for the self-evidenceof the sovereignty of God as Creator, so also should Barth argue for the uniquenessof Jesus Christ as the one Word of God. What is of importance for our study is

the way Barth concludes his reection on Isaiah 40: ‘And it is obvious that thecomprehensive answer to the question of the uniqueness of the revelation of Godin Jesus Christ can basically be no more than that which is so forcefully anticipatedin Is. 40.’29 Admittedly, it would be desirous for Barth to expand his idea here.How is it that Isaiah 40 is related to the uniqueness of God’s revelation in JesusChrist? What is the relationship between the text and its gural anticipation ofJesus Christ?

The fact that Barth does not expand his idea allows for a tentative reading of

his intentions here. The relationship between the literal sense of Isaiah 40 and itsgural relationship to Jesus Christ could be correlated to the major theme of thedisputation taking place in 40.12–31. Again, Isaiah is not bringing something to

graciousness. Here Barth refers to Isa 41.14; 43.3, 14; 47.4; 48.17; 49.7 and 54.5 where theHoly One of Israel is identied as Israel’s Redeemer ( goel ). ‘The Israelites will hold hisname holy because he will see what his hands have done for them (Is. 29.23).’ Barth, CD

II.1, 361.27

Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 432 As observed in the previous chapter, the language of creation inIsaiah serves Isaiah’s larger redemptive motifs. Again, see the programmatic, if overstated,article by Gerhard von Rad, “The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine ofCreation,” in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, trans.E.W.T. Dickens (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 177–86.





mind that is a novum in Israel’s midst. The phrase ‘Have you not known? Haveyou not heard?’ is repeated consistently in the text. In other words, Isaiah isappealing to revelation. Isaiah is referring to the fact that Israel has forgotten theWord of God spoken in her midst. Yahweh is the Creator, Sustainer and Lord, andas such is totally unique from all that is not Himself. When one reads this passagechristologically, or in light of God’s nal word in Jesus Christ, one observes howthe relationship between the uniqueness of God’s person grounded in revelationhas the potential, theologically, to resonate with God’s nal word, Jesus Christ.Here, in the terms of Hans Frei, the literal sense of Isa 40.12–31 is organicallyrelated by natural extension to its gural capacity to witness ultimately to God’srevelation of himself in Jesus Christ.

With this stated, and we will observe this again, one should take note howBarth does this. It is not by obliterating the plain sense of Isaiah 40. He rstly

allows it to speak on its own terms. He does not squeeze Jesus between verses26 and 27. He allows the totality of the witness to speak with its own idiom, andthen he proximates that xity to the potentiality of hearing Isaiah 40 in light of thewhole nexus of revelation witnessed to in Scripture. Barth’s theological exegesisof Isaiah is a multi-layered reading allowing the Old Testament’s own voice tospeak and then bringing it to bear eschatologically on the telos and subject matterof all Scripture, namely, God’s triune action denitely revealed in Jesus Christ.

In both of these appeals to Isaiah 40, Barth allows the plain sense of the text

its due while different implications are drawn in different theological contexts.in CD II.1 Barth is seeking a full-orbed understanding of the divine perfectionof love and hears Isa 40.12–31 speaking clearly about the wisdom of God and itsconnection to the patience of God. There is not much heavy-handed interpretationtaking place. Barth allowed the text itself to do the lion’s share of the work. Inthis sense, Barth is more ‘reading’ the text than ‘interpreting’ it. As was notedin a previous footnote, when Barth engages the Hebrew text it is with two leftfeet. Nevertheless, Barth’s reading of Isaiah, marked as it is by what Jngel refers

to as a meta-critical posture, allows the text space to speak for itself.30

Its xitycanonically has the potentiality to speak straightforwardly about the wisdom and patience of God in the context of Yahweh’s covenantal engagement with Israel. Atthe same time, and in the context of CD IV.3, Isa 40.12–31 has the potentiality to present in gural fashion the uniqueness of the Word of God in Jesus Christ whoseidentity from the whole of the Biblical witness is bound up with the identity of theone God of Israel spoken of in Isaiah 40. Here, we observe Barth’s multi-leveledor gural reading of the text. We will see this take place again.

Isaiah 40’s words of comfort grounded in the continuing validity of divineWord surface again with the words of comfort addressed to Israel in Isaiah 43. Ourattention turns to this passage now in the CD.

30 EberhardJngel,Eberhard Jngel, Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy, trans. P.E. Garrett (Philadelphia:The Westminster Press, 1986), 76.




Isaiah 43.1–4: Divine Love as Sovereignly Electing Love

Humanity’s ability to love has as its basis God’s love for humanity. In Barth’slanguage, Christians love because.31 Since this is the case, our love has its sourceand origin in the love of God. Resultantly, a theological exposition of what itlooks like for Christians to love must come from the ‘being and nature of GodHimself.’32 As one might anticipate, Barth turns rstly to God’s essence as a triunereciprocity of love before he turns to human agency of love. God is in himself boththe o ne and the o ther; his love ad intra precedes his love ad extra. At the sametime, because God is free and not a ‘prisoner of His own Godhead’, he exerciseshis love with humanity in view (opus Dei ad extra). His own eternal reciprocityof love for Himself as One and Other overows and takes humanity as the objectof his love.33

The context in which God’s love is operative is God’s covenant with Israelin the Old Testament, and the inauguration of the kingdom in Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Both covenant and kingdom are ip-sides of the same coin. ‘Thecovenant is the promise of the kingdom. The kingdom is the fulllment of thecovenant.’34 It is beyond our scope here to take into account Barth’s handling ofthis matter, as important as these two terms are in understanding the Bible’s unied

witness. What is of importance for us is Barth’s calling on ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ in hisengagement with the love of God in the Old Testament covenant as a love that is

‘wholly an act and therefore not a feeling, disposition, attitude or xation on the part of Yahweh.’35 Firstly, Barth turns to Hosea, and understandably so, for Hosea’sexpression of God’s covenant with Israel as the action of his love is dening ofthe book as a whole. One also nds Hosea’s love language in Jeremiah. But itis with ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ that Barth makes the following statement: ‘In Deutero-Isaiah there is again a recollection of God’s judgments, but this time the positivenote is predominant, and nowhere in the Old Testament do we have more eloquentmention of God’s love’ (emphasis mine).36

Barth culls together a pastiche of verses from Isaiah whose imagery reectsthe ‘eloquent mention of God’s love’ found therein. As we have observed Barthdoing before, he quotes large portions of Isaiah which, at least in this section ofthe CD, have no interpretive rhyme or reason other than the redemptive and lovingimagery they all share. He moves from Isa 50.1, ‘Where is the bill of your mother’sdivorcement;’ to Isa 54.4–5a, ‘Fear not; for thou shalt not be put to shame ...’; toIsa 62.4–5, ‘Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken …’; back to Isa 49.15–16,

31 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.2, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1958), 751.

32 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 754.33 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 759, 760.34 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 760.35 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 761.36 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 761.




‘Can a woman forget her sucking child ...’; back to Isa 43.4–5a, ‘Since thou was precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee ....’ Theseverses together function antiphonally to accentuate the love of God.

Unfortunately, Barth’s rst pericope of choice does not work. The query fromthe prophet regarding the whereabouts of the mother’s bill of divorce has troubledinterpreters on several fronts.37 Whatever one nally does with the imagery of themisplaced bill of divorce, this passage is a sharp invective against Israel. Israel has been invited by God to the ‘New Exodus’ (Isa 48.20), yet she continues to resistthis as is demonstrated in Isa 50.2: ‘Why was no one there when I came? Whydid no one answer when I called? Is my hand shortened, that it cannot redeem?Or have I no power to deliver?’ From this the prophet draws imagery from therst Exodus: drying up seas, sh dying, the heavens made black, the clothes ofsuffering and sorrow. Childs states, ‘The biblical imagery is of God’s judgment

on Egypt at the exodus, but now it falls on Israel, who had just refused to sharein the “new exodus” by being led through the wilderness without thirst and withan abundance of water and light.’38 What one observes contextually here is the juxtaposition of faithless and sinful Israel (Isa 50.1–3) with the faithfulness andobedience of another who is arguably none other than the servant (Isa 50.4–9; thethird of the so-called ‘servant songs’). All to say, Isa 50.1–3 is an invective againstIsrael.

Though Barth’s rst example does not serve his purposes well upon second

glance, the overarching point remains salient. The imagery of Isaiah 40–66 iseffervescent in its description of the love of God for his covenant people, andits poignancy is sensed with the mere reading of the text. Little interpretationis needed, for the texts speak for themselves. Before we press on, an importantside note is worthy of attention here in Barth’s rehearsal of the Old Testamentas a covenant of love. It is indicative of Barth’s larger sensibilities regarding thecanonical form of the Old Testament.

Barth recognizes that from a literary standpoint, the linguistic term love ( ח )

is found in the biblical literature that can be characterized as late (at the hands ofthe exilic and post-exilic prophets and the Deuteronomist). ‘But,’ Barth insists,‘there can be no doubt that it is not a kind of later explanation or interpretation— the embellishment of something which was originally very different.’39 t echnicalHebrew terms aside, how else can one conceptually describe the free movementof Yahweh toward Israel in the Exodus as their Liberator, even with the legalestablishment therein, as anything other than ‘love’?40 Barth admits that thesetechnical terms do dominate the later material (though it should be added thatthe synonyms related to ה are not manifestly absent in the earlier literature [forexample Gen 6.8; 19:19; Exod 33.12,16,19; compare with ה in NIDOTTE ]) but

37 For an overview of these issues see Brevard S. Childs,For an overview of these issues see Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, 393–4.38 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, 394.39 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 762.40 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 763.




the idea of God’s covenant relationship as one dened by the free love of God isno novum from the prophets.

At this point, Barth enters into a linguistic debate with Eichrodt who surmisesthat the relative absence of

ה

and its synonyms from Israel’s earlier period isdue to the desire to avoid confusion between worship of Yahweh and the overlyemotive/affective eroticism of the Canaanite cults.41 Barth resists this notion because it makes little sense to him why the guarding of Israel from the eroticismof the Canaanite cults was any more poignant in Israel’s earlier life than in theirlife attested to in the literature of the prophets. If anything, Israel’s propensitytoward idolatry is more readily observed in the prophets. Barth offers a differentreading that can be described as canonical without necessary recourse to religious-historical reconstruction.

In full recognition that ‘love’ language is more heavily peppered throughout

the prophets, Barth supposes the reason for this is that what was self-evident inIsrael’s pre-exilic existence, namely, Yahweh is their Liberator and as such heloves them, needs reinforcement in a time when Israel has met Yahweh primarilyas a judge. Israel had met the divine ‘no’ in full force. Precisely at this junctureof the argument, ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ is called on again. ‘This was the situation ofDeutero-Isaiah, in which prophecy could and had to become consolation—forthere is plainly implied an afrmation of the judicial majesty of God underwhich the people found itself bowed and had still to bow—but real consolation;

an afrmation of its election, and therefore of the love and loving promise ofits fulllment.’42 Illustratively, Barth quotes Isa 54.10: ‘For the mountains shalldepart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee,neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercyon thee.’ Why this evocative language and imagery now in Israel’s midst? Thelanguage of love in all its intensity found in ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ is the language of‘crisis.’43 It is out of the exigency of Israel’s canonically presented life where shehas met Yahweh under the blow of his judgmental ‘no’ that she must be reminded:

weeping endures for the night but joy comes in the morning.Again, Barth’s reading of the love of God in the Old Testament covenantalrelationship does not rest nally on facile linguistic appeals (which now have proven faulty under the biting scrutiny of James Barr’s The Semantics of Biblical Language) or religious-historical reconstructions. It is a reading that seeks to do justice to the Biblical portrayal of Yahweh’s electing love of Israel that was morevisible and conceivable in the pre-exilic period but had become eclipsed in theexilic and post-exilic period because of the divine ‘no.’ There is not a religiousdevelopment in Israel’s life from a juridical view of her God to a loving one.Rather, all of Yahweh’s dealings with Israel in his covenant with her are loving,

41 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 763 See Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament I , trans.J.A. Baker (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 250–51.





and there was an urgent need for the prophets to remind God’s people of this in thecrisis of her judgment.

How does Barth describe this love of God as attested to in the canonicaldocuments? He does so with three connected concepts. God’s love is electing, purifying and creative. Our attention, in close concert with what has just preceded,will focus on the rst of these. God’s love is electing love. God’s love is motivated by himself. There is no compulsion outside of God for his love. His diligere is hiseligere.44 Again, Barth turns to the Scriptures for warrant, and the Old Testamentis the rst juncture.

Unlike the gods of the surrounding nations whose source is the peoplethemselves and their nationalism, and whose relationship is one of bi-lateralreciprocity, Israel’s God is recognized as the sovereign of all nations.45 As such,God was not constrained by any force of history or inherent worth drawing his

divine attention in the election of Israel. He moved toward her and in free grace became her Creator. As Barth states, ‘Yahweh has created and formed Israel—andwe have to give to this statement the strict sense that He has caused it to be madenew’ (emphasis mine).46 From this statement, Barth cites Isa 43.1b–3a: ‘Fear not:for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. Whenthou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, theyshall not overow thee: when thou walkest through the re, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the ame kindle upon thee; For I am the Lord thy God, the

Holy One of Israel, thy Savior.’ Barth does not quote Isa 43.1a, which states, ‘Butnow thus says the Lord, he who created (participial form of ר ) you, O Jacob,he who formed (participial form of ) you, O Israel.’ It was alluded to in theיצרsentence preceding his quotation (see italics above).

Isaiah 43.1–4 is a locus classicus for Israel’s election rooted in the sovereigngrace of Yahweh. To highlight the centrality of Yahweh in Israel’s election or itsunilateral movement towards, Isaiah 43 deploys creation language. Now Barthdoes not elaborate on this passage. He does not draw attention to the linguistic

echoes of Genesis found in Isaiah 43.1. ‘In the beginning God created (ר

) theheavens and the earth’ (Gen 1.1). ‘Then the Lord God formed (רצי) man from thedust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being’ (Gen 2.7). Both of these terms found in Isa 43.1 echo thedouble creation narratives. The rst term, ר , is only predicated on Yahweh in theOld Testament and is never associated by means of an accusative or a prepositionwith the material God uses to create.47 So when Barth says, ‘The “I” must betaken in all its sovereignty,’ when referring to Isa 43.1–3, he is reecting the senseconveyed with the creation language deployed.

44 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 768.45 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 768.46 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 768.47 ClausWesterman,Claus Westerman, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, John J. Scullion, S.J. (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Publishing House, 1974), 98.




The second term used in the Genesis creation context reveals the one-sidednessof Adam’s springing to life as Yahweh fashions a gure from clay.48 a s these termsare brought into a redemptive context so that creating and fashioning have to dowith Israel’s genesis as Yahweh’s elect and their continued status as such, oneobserves both the at of Israel’s election and the dynamic status of Yahweh’s roleas Creator and Sustainer of Israel. Israel’s creation and fashioning, her election, isnot an event consigned to the past but is an event whose pastness continues intothe present status of Israel’s life. Barth comments similarly, ‘It is He, Yahweh, whoguarantees this promise, and the fact that Israel is the people which may receiveit and live with it comes from Him, from above, and not from below, for Israel,which is only the creation and construct of His free good will.’49

Isaiah 43.1–4 serves Barth well in his description of the love of God as electingin nature. Again, it is the plain sense of Isaiah with laconic interpretive glossing that

does the work for Barth. When read in the context of his engagement of ‘Deutero-Isaiah’ and the love of God addressed above, one senses Barth’s understandingof how Isa 43.1–4 ts within the larger theological issues attendant in Isaiah 40– 66. Israel’s existence is one of crisis having come under the divine ‘no’, and the prophet’s message within Deutero-Isaiah is to remind Israel of the love of Godwhich is free and sovereign. He created Israel, and he is sustaining her. Therefore,‘fear not.’

Isaiah and the Covenant as the Missio Dei

One of Barth’s more signicant and extended engagements with Isaiah is found atthe beginning of CD IV.1 under the title, ‘The Covenant as the Presupposition ofReconciliation.’50 Our previous chapter dealt with another elongated engagementwith Isaiah, that of the Emmanuel traditions, which is in close proximity withinthe CD to the current reading of Isaiah addressed. As a side-note, Isaiah’s witness

is heavily weighted on the front end of Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation. In thecurrent context, Isaiah, and especially Isaiah 40–66, serves Barth’s parsing outof the covenant’s centrifugal motion in the Old Testament. Dogmatically, Barth’sengagement with the Biblical notion of the covenant is important because hisdoctrine of reconciliation is understood as ‘the fulllment of the covenant betweenGod and man.’51

At the beginning of Barth’s small-print engagement with the covenant idea inthe Old Testament, he deals with the linguistic and historical issues associated withthe term. Barth does not offer a full-edged engagement with scholarly problems

48 On the technicalities of רצי see Westerman,On the technicalities of , see Westermanיצר Genesis 1–11, 203–4.49 Barth,Barth, CD IV.2, 768.50 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.1, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

1956), 22.51 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 22.




covenant of grace in the two-fold sense of its unmerited nature and promise ofGod’s long-suffering. The Noachic covenant has to do with humanity in general.Secondly, Barth turns to Isaiah.

The covenant God made with Israel is, according to Barth, not an end unto itself.It is a covenant that extends itself to the nations. Israel’s election is an election forsomething. Barth believes Isaiah witnesses especially to this centrifugal motion ofGod’s covenant with Israel and is found especially in the latter portions of Isaiah(40–66), though it is found in the early portions as well (1–39). Barth understandsthe prophetic genre of Isaiah to answer the ‘Why?’ of Israel’s calling in ways thatthe early traditions did not.56 Israel’s future is laid out before her in this propheticword of Isaiah. ‘It is given in the form of prophecy which arises out of the situationof Israel at the end of its historical independence, but which absolutely transcendsevery historical consideration, possibility or probability.’57 One could put the matter

as follows: though Israel’s historical existence had tended toward self-preservationwith an inward looking eye, now at the end of this independence Israel is forcefullyshown by prophetic utterance that her existence never was an end to itself; Israelhas a mission. Despite the historical contingencies of Israel’s national existence,Israel’s calling is one that elicits an outward looking eye in redemptive service tothe nations. The covenant with Israel was meant to demonstrate ultimately God’sredemptive intentions for all humanity.

One observes the centrifugal motion of Israel’s existence particularly so in the

Ebed Yahweh (הוהי ד ע; servant of the Lord) gure of Isaiah 40–55. Paradigmaticof Isaiah’s universal vision is the mission given to the servant in Isa 49.6: ‘It isa light thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, andto restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles,that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.’ Across the contours ofIsaiah, the prophetic portrayal of how this future restoration of the nations will take place is not uniform, according to Barth. To illustrate this diversity of portrayalshe juxtaposes Isa 2.2–4 and 25.6–8, where the former portrays Zion going out,

and the latter reveals Zion staying put with all coming to her. The future picture ofrestored Egypt in Isa 19.18–25, where Yahweh is known and worshipped in Egypt, presents another scenario of this future restoration of the nations. Barth does notsynthesize the various portraits offered. One can surmise from his silence that theactual mechanics and provenance of this future restoration of the goyim with itsmulti-sided portrayals in Isaiah’s witness is not as signicant as the fact that it will

56

Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 28. Barth overstates the matter when he says the earlier traditions(canonically conceived) did not answer the ‘why’ of Israel’s calling. Surely, the Abrahamiccovenant has a centrifugal motion to it. On the relationship between Genesis-Isaiah onIsrael’s mission to the nations see especially, Christopher R. Seitz, Figured Out: Typologyand Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001),145–57.





happen. God’s eschatological redemption has the nations in its purview. This is the point Barth seizes.

Barth returns to the so-called servant songs of Isaiah at this point. Here heexpands the idea of the universal mission of God in conjunction with God’s human partner in this eschatological endeavor. ‘In the texts so far quoted we may wonderwhether the eschatological event described is not conceived too much as the one-sided arrangement and miraculous operation of Yahweh. But in the Ebed-Yahwehsongs of Deutero-Isaiah the emphasis is unmistakably on the active co-operationof the human partner of Yahweh.’58 At this point Barth makes a very interesting proposal regarding the identication of this elusive gure called the servant. I willdefer discussing this until our detailed interaction with Barth’s reading of the fourthservant song, Isaiah 53. What is of signicance here is Barth’s understanding ofIsrael as the servant of the Lord and, as such, Israel operates as the partner of

Yahweh. Israel’s performance of her salvic role for the nations is the means bywhich God effects and actualizes his redemptive will. From this Barth quotes alitany of passages from the servant songs including Isa 42.1–8 with reference tothe berith am (more of this anon); reference is made to the already quoted Isa49.6; and above all the fourth and most revered of the servant songs, Isa 52.13– 53.12 (again, more of this below). After Barth reects on Isaiah 53, he returns hisattention to the berith am of Isa 42.8 (see also Isa 49.8).

Barth limits his discussion of berith to the berith am (covenant of the people)

of Isa 42.6.59 It is unfortunate that Barth does not expand his discussion of berith beyond the berith am of 42.6. Since the covenantal idea is so important for Barthat this juncture, his engagement with berith would have been served well if hisattention had turned to the berith shalom of Isa 54.10—especially in light of theconnection with Noah preceding 54.10, precisely the connection Barth himselfhas made here between the Noachic covenant and Isaiah—and the berith olam of Isa 55.3 (compare with Isa 56.4, 6; 59.21; 61.8)—here too, Barth’s exegeticalsensibilities would have been bolstered, for the berith olam is associated with the

Davidic promises which now entail the nations as well as Israel. Nevertheless,what the servant songs reveal is the eschatological signicance of God’s covenantwith Israel. God’s covenant with Israel is a berith am, that is, a covenant of or forthe people.

a dmittedly berith am is an obscure phrase which can be translated differentways.60 Is Israel the ‘covenant people’ or is berith am functioning in parallel to thefollowing phrase:

גוים

ל ור

? If the latter, the idea is as follows: Israel is a covenant for the people and a light for the nations. When one places Isa 42.6 alongsidethe reference to berith am in 49.8 where contextually the servant’s mission is

58 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 29.59 Berith am is found in Isa 42.6 not 42.8 as is stated here in the CD.60 Joel Kaminsky and Anne Stewart, “God of All the World: Universalism and

Developing Monotheism in Isaiah 40–66,” Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 146–7.




intentionally pressed beyond the connes of Israel to the nations (for example, isit too light a thing for you, Isa 49.6), the latter idea is preferable.61

Unfortunately, Barth does not make this connection and without muchexplanation or linguistic argumentation seems to dene berith am as the covenant people. The irony of Barth’s reading— berith am as covenant people rather thancovenant for the people in parallel to light for the nations—is that it actuallyundercuts the larger theological point Barth is making. Barth waxes eloquenthere as he rehearses the current state of Israel in Isaiah as her national existenceis coming or has come to an end. The am of berith am is the people of Israelwho are under the judgment of God and whose existence depends solely on hisunchangeable faithfulness. Because Barth is reading these covenant promiseseschatologically, Israel’s future hope does not rest in what Barth terms ‘laterhistorical developments.’62 Rather, ‘Its nerve and centre is the reference to an

event which will terminate history and all times, a history of the end.’63 The nalword of God’s berith am with am identied as Israel is Yes. In the last times,God’s covenant with Israel will transcend their historical development identied

in retrospect as her unfaithfulness to Yahweh.The point Barth makes here is robust and revealing of the larger intention

of Isaiah’s prophecy in 40–66. He cannot be charged with stating somethingerroneous. How he gets there in his exposition of berith am is problematical,however. The calling of the servant of Isaiah 42, who is without doubt at this

juncture of Isaiah’s presentation univocally identied with Israel, is that Israelherself will be a covenant for the people, a light for the nations. On every sideBarth is emphasizing this, from his rehearsal of the servant as the human partnerof Yahweh to his comment that follows immediately after his exposition of beritham: ‘And it is particularly the teaching of the book of Isaiah which makes it clearthat as such the last day which is the day of redemption for Israel will also be aday of redemption for the nations[.]’64 All to say, Barth misses the point of beritham itself as a phrase depicting Israel’s missional status, while at the same time on

every side emphasizes the true import of the term berith am properly conceived.Israel’s covenantal status entails a missional role for the nations.Barth understands Isaiah 40–66 as operating eschatologically. These chapters

witness to the restoration of Lady Zion who has been abandoned for a time. Whatis striking about Isaiah’s rehearsal of Israel’s restoration is that God’s dealingswith her, his maintaining of his covenant with her despite Zion’s faithlessness,has within its scope the nations. For Barth, Isaiah’s witness creates an anticipationand understanding that Israel’s eschatological hope is the nations’ as well. Thisis not to obliterate the uniqueness and special role Israel’s covenantal statusgives her. Barth makes passing mention of Jn 4.22, ‘salvation is of the Jews.’

61 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, 326.62 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 31.63 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 31.64 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 31.




At the same time, the aforementioned Isaianic texts ‘connect the salvation whichis the nal goal of the history of Israel with the salvation of the Assyrians andthe Egyptians and all nations, and in such a way that the special existence ofIsrael is an instrument by which God nally manifests and accomplishes salvationfor the nations.’65 For Barth, Israel’s primeval history in the Noachic covenantand eschatological history in Isaiah 40–66 both reveal the centrifugal motion ofGod’s covenantal dealings with Israel. Regarding the latter, Seitz states, ‘Centralto understanding Isaiah is God’s dealing with Israel within the destinies of thenations at large. This is Isaiah’s unique and sustained contribution within the major prophets. The nations will eventually come to worship at Zion, not because of anymoral or theological change of heart—on their part or on the part of Israel towardthem—but only because God wills it.’66 The primeval and eschatological ‘bordersof the Old Testament’, as Barth describes them, witness to the universal scope of

God’s eschatological salvation. The covenant between Yahweh and Israel, withall its particularity and exclusiveness, has within its eschatological purview theinclusiveness of all humanity. God’s covenant of grace is salvation for all.

A few lines of analysis are called for. Repeatedly in Barth’s engagementwith Isaiah he comments on the eschatological nature of the prophecy. He usesterminology such as ‘future event’, ‘understood eschatologically’ and ‘the lastday.’ Barth assumes this eschatological context when he reads Isaiah’s words offuture hope from the beginning of the book to the end. Whether it is Isaiah 2, the

oracle of salvation for Egypt in Isaiah 19 or the servant songs’ salvic language, allof these witness to the eschatological day. At least in this context, Barth assumesIsaiah’s words of hope are eschatological in orientation and Isaiah’s ‘forthtelling’

65 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 31.66 Seitz,Seitz, Word Without End , 209 For a reading that espouses a non-universalistic

outlook of Second Isaiah see Kaminsky and Stewart, “God of All the World”. Kaminskyand Stewart argue that Second Isaiah’s universalistic language has to do with the nations

recognizing the sovereignty of Israel’s God and the implications of such for Israel’s returnfrom exile and restoration, not necessarily their conversion or inclusion into the people ofGod. Admittedly, the servant’s role vis-a-vis the nations may be ‘indirect.’ Bernd Janowskiand Peter Stuhlmacher, eds, The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and ChristianSources, trans. Daniel P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 44. In other words, Israel’srestoration is primarily in view with the consequences thereof derivatively applied to thenations. Nevertheless, the exegesis becomes torturous when such a litany of universal textsin Isaiah 40–66 that witness to the universal implications of Israel’s salvation are strippedof their salvic overtones. Despite the compositional history of Isaiah (where Kaminski

and Stewart see Trito-Isaiah’s universalistic language expanding the signicance of themonotheistic claims of Second-Isaiah), the nal form of the book, especially as it moves tothe new creation of Isaiah 65–66, reveals the changing boundaries of dening the people ofGod along nationalistic lines. Especially helpful here is A. Gelston, “Universalism in SecondIsaiah,” Journal of Theological Studies 43 (1992): 377–98. See also, Mark Gignilliat, Pauland Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5.14– 6.10, Library of New Testament Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 65–6, 73–6.




has a signicant ‘foretelling’ aspect to it. At the same time, Barth understandsthis ‘foretelling’ aspect of Isaiah’s eschatological word as diverse in depiction. Itcreates eschatological hope without dening the contours of how such things willactually occur. The actual shape of this eschatological fulllment is in the handsof Israel’s God.

Barth is not unsophisticated here, and is surely aware of the overly historicisttendencies in Old Testament scholarship either to locate texts or pericopae in theirlife setting, atomizing them from their current context (such as form-criticism) orthe tendency among tradition-historical approaches to isolate and locate Israel’straditions historically in Israel’s history of redemption. Barth does not do so. Hereads the text in its nal form along broad contextual lines. He reads the textcanonically and as an overarching unity.

As an examples of his canonical commitments, it is noteworthy that no

mention is made anywhere in this extended reection on Isaiah, and especiallyIsaiah 40–66, about the provenance of Babylonian exile. Barth hints at this whenhe speaks about the threat to Israel’s national existence and independence, but hedoes so only in the ways Isaiah itself does—cryptically and with a larger purposein mind. He is reading Isaiah, to borrow from Childs here, with Isaiah’s canonicalintentionality in mind and in this sense is anticipating Childs’ canonical approachto the prophetic literature in general and Isaiah in particular. He is reading Isaiaheschatologically. More is called for by way of explanation.

Childs recognizes the theological deciencies in the way the various Geschichtes of Old Testament criticism have been deployed. Childs’ approach brokers the positives to be gained from the various diachronic approaches to biblical criticismwith an emphasis on the theological role canon plays in the nal formulation ofthe literature. The community of faith receives the Scriptures of Israel as canonicaland normative and, as such, recognizes that these various traditions now broughttogether in their nal form have a life beyond the historical particularity out ofwhich they arose. So, when we speak of Isaiah, it is without doubt scholarly

consensus that Isaiah 40–55 is born out of the provenance of the Babylonianexile.67 It should be observed that this reading does not depend on one’s view ofthe authorship or compositional history of the book (for example Oswalt’s OneIsaiah as clairvoyantly transported into the Babylonian exile). All to say, Duhm’slegacy of Babylonian exile as the provenance of Isaiah 40–55 continues.

Childs does not wish to deny this probability (as in the assumption that thetemple is already destroyed; Cyrus spoken of in ‘after the fact’ language), thoughhe cautions the reader of Isaiah to take into account the strange silence aboutgeographical location in Isaiah 40–66. The canonical sensibilities of Childs are thatwhen the collection of prophetic material is relocated and sedimented in its nal

form, in Isaiah 1–66, the material is loosened from the moorings of the historical

67 C.C. Torrey in his own provocative way has spoken against this reading with verve.C.C. Torrey in his own provocative way has spoken against this reading with verve.See also, Hans M. Barstad, The Babylonian Captivity and the Book of Isaiah: ‘Exilic’ Judahand the Provenance of Isaiah 40–55 (Oslo: Novus, 1997).




particularity out of which it arose. It is now an eschatological word which is t

as a prophetic word for future generations. Childs states, ‘Moreover, the originalhistorical background of the exilic prophet has been drained of its historical particularity—Cyrus has become a theological construct almost indistinguishablefrom Abraham (as in Kissane)—and the prophetic message has been renderedsuitable for use by later generations by transmitting it as a purely eschatologicalword.’68 This is part and parcel of Isaiah’s canonical role as Scripture, as the livingword of God.

in his Introduction to Old Testament as Christian Scripture, Childs refersto later reading practices of both Jews and Christians of this material.69 t heyunderstood Isaiah as an eschatological word of hope, not as prophecy locked inthe historical situation out of which it arose. The formation of Isaiah as canonicalin both its compositional history and nal formulation is organically linked to

its role as Sacred Scripture, or, the creaturely vehicle by which the word of theLord is guaranteed for future generations (contra Sundberg’s distinction betweenScripture and Canon). To read Isaiah in such an eschatological way is to read itin line with Isaiah’s own canonical intentionality. Barth intuitively and withoutfanfare does so as well.

One other point is worth drawing out here, and it is related to the preceding.Barth’s eschatological reading of Isaiah 40–66 with little to no recourse to ‘originalsetting’ is a case-in-point of Barth’s instinctual application of his principle discussed

in chapter two, ‘Revelation is not a predicate of history, history is a predicate ofrevelation.’ Isaiah’s history is real history. It is not ction, nor does it take placeoutside our own time and space: ‘In the year King Uzziah died.’ But what Isaiah’snal form reveals is the intrusion of eschatological time into our time. The two arenot easily synthesized, as we have repeatedly observed in our listening to Barth’sreading of Isaiah. Again, Childs has made much use of this with his canonicalapproach, and one can observe the overlap between Barth and Childs here. Childsstates in reference to Isaiah, ‘The brittle quality of the present literary structure only

conrms the basic theological point that eschatological history, that is God’s time,cannot be smoothly combined with empirical history, nor can the two be cleanlyseparated.’70 There is no neo-Gnosticism for Childs here as the last phrase of thequote intimates. God is involved in our space and time and has freely chosen suchfor himself.71 Rather, Childs continues, ‘The hermeneutical point to emphasize is

68 BrevardS.Childs,“TheCanonicalShapeofthePropheticLiterature,”Brevard S. Childs, “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature,” Interpretation

32 (1978): 50.69 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Christian Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 338.

70 Brevard S. Childs, “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets,”Brevard S. Childs, “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets,” Zeitschrift für die alten alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 373.

71 See especially, Neil B. MacDonald, Metaphysics and the God of Israel: SystematicTheology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).




that for Isaiah history is understood in the light of prophecy, not prophecy in thelight of history.’72 One can easily hear the echo of Barth in Childs’ statement.

This theologically loaded hermeneutic cuts against the grain of biblicalscholarship’s infatuation with history stripped of its eschatological signicance

within the prophets. The sociology or psychology or Sitz im Leben of the prophetrenders the prophetic word time-bound in such a way that their ‘Thus saith theLord’ potentiality is undercut. Put another way, if one reads Isaiah with theunderstanding that its literal sense is conated with a reconstructed historicalsense, such as proximity to historical reality, one will miss the larger canonicalintentionality of the book, which is eschatological.73 Revelation entails withinit the ability for this sanctied text to continue to serve as a vehicle for God’sdisclosure of himself to his people. Historical lenses alone without recourse tothis theological dynamic of revelation suffer from atrophy, and ironically, miss the

larger prophetic point.Barth does not argue for this type of canonical reading of the prophets in the

way or with the sophistication Childs does (it can be argued that Childs has ineffect taken much of Barth’s dogmatic concerns and applied them with brillianceto the eld of biblical studies/theology; more of this in the nal chapter).74 Barthsimply does it. He allows Isaiah and its attendant imagery and message theeschatological force it intends. He does not do so with recourse to discoveringthe mind of the prophet, sorting out original oracles from non-original, nor does

he allow a historically-critical reconstruction of the text a place of hermeneuticalcentrality. He reads the text and allows it to speak to the covenant between Yahwehand Israel with specic attention given to the eschatological future of the nations.When Israel is nally saved, the nations will be right alongside her .

Isaiah 53

It does not take a great deal of Christian imagination to read Isaiah 53 and think ofthe passion of Jesus. This reading is observed in the New Testament and is obviousin our liturgical and musical traditions as well (Handel’s Messiah comes to mind).This understanding in the church and the pew is often met with resistance in theacademy, and Barth is aware of the tension between the witness to Christ in theOld Testament and the historical particularity of Old Testament texts. Barth canallow these tensions to surface in his reference and reading of Isaiah 53, as wewill see, or he can pass over these issues ‘as if he could care less’, making a quick

72 Brevard S. Childs, “Retrospective Reading,” 373.Brevard S. Childs, “Retrospective Reading,” 373.73 Childs afrms the relationship between eschatological and empirical history asChilds afrms the relationship between eschatological and empirical history as

a dialectical with no easy collation between the two Brevard S. Childs, “RetrospectiveReading,” 374.

74 See Charles J. Scalise, “Canonical Hermeneutics: Childs and Barth,”See Charles J. Scalise, “Canonical Hermeneutics: Childs and Barth,” Scottish Journal of Theology 47 (1994): 61–88.




move to Christian identication. We will look at three ways in particular whereBarth engages Isaiah 53 in the CD. Our attention turns rstly to Barth’s appeal toIsaiah 53 in the latter part of CD II.1.

in CD II.1 Barth reects on the eternity and glory of God. Barth’s discussionof the eternality of God is a rather complex argument about God’s simultaneityand his being as pre-, supra- and post-temporal. It cannot be said that God is puretimelessness because God himself, without ceasing to be eternal, took time andmade it his own both in Creation and the incarnation.75 From this, Barth entersinto a discussion about God and his glory which moves, in Barth’s estimation,into a necessary reection about the beauty of God. God’s glory is his overowing

self-communicating joy which also by its very nature gives joy.76 a nd Barth’semphasis on the Trinity leads him to a discussion about the inner-triune dynamic(perichoresis) which emphasizes God as the source of all beauty especially in the

person of Jesus Christ.77

Barth insists, however, that the beauty of Jesus Christ is not just any beauty, but the specic beauty of God.78 One can observe how Barth’s denition of beautyis christologically driven when juxtaposed to Aquinas’ denition, for example.Beauty is not, for Barth, dened by proportionality, brightness or that which pleases the eye (contra Aquinas, Summa Theologica Q. 5, art. 4; Q. 39, art 8).79 Rather, it is the beauty of what God concretely is and does in Jesus. And becauseof the paradoxical nature of Jesus’ beauty, the only way we can know his beauty

as ultimate beauty is by the revelation of God himself, not by abstract appeals toa philosophical aesthetic. ‘In this respect, too, God cannot be known except byGod.’80 From this discussion of Jesus’ beauty, Barth moves directly to a small print section dealing with Isaiah 53:2–3, and its guarding us from ‘going astray’regarding the particular beauty of God in Jesus. ‘For he shall grow up before himas a tender plant, and as a root out of dry ground: he hath no form or comeliness;

75 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 617 Neil MacDonald offers a sophisticated argument for God’sinvolvement in our space and time while still inhabiting space unique to himself, heaven.See MacDonald, God of Israel , 3–23.

76 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 653.77 In a small print section, Barth reveals the overlap betweenIn a small print section, Barth reveals the overlap between doxa in the New

t estament and kabod in the Old Testament, concluding, ‘Thus the New Testament is simplyrepeating the fullled testimony of the Old when in its decisive strand it describes the gloryof God as the glory of Jesus Christ’ (CD II.1, 642).

78 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 665. In passing, Barth understands that the Old Testament prophets,

and especially Isaiah (so says Barth), are increasingly given to joy, exultation and jubilationeven in the midst of very somber situations. The object of this joy or the beauty elicitingthese sorts of responses is never fully revealed in the Old Testament. It awaited the revelationof this beauty in the Messiah (CD II.1, 664).

79 See Nicholas Wolterstorff,See Nicholas Wolterstorff, Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 161–3.

80 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 665.




and when we shall see him, there is not beauty that we should desire him. He isdespised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and wehid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.’

Setting the theological argumentation aside for the moment, Barth makes amove reminiscent of Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 53. There is no apparentawareness of any historical problems or critical issues arising for Barth here, asthere were not for Calvin. Commenting on the introduction of the servant in Isa52.13, Calvin states, ‘After having spoken of the restoration of the Church, Isaiah passes on to Christ, in whom all things are gathered together ... He calls Christ “hisServant,” on account of the ofce committed to him.’81 Similarly for Barth, at leastin this context, the question of the historical identity of the Servant is of no import.After quoting Isaiah 53:2–3, Barth makes this interesting statement, ‘Jesus Christdoes present this aspect of himself, and He always presents this aspect rst.’82

What one observes here, and again, similarly to Calvin, is Isaiah 53 speakingdirectly of Jesus Christ with Barth feeling no compulsion to justify such a claim.There is a direct referentiality to the person of Jesus Christ with no interferencein between; whether this interference is typology or allegory or something akin togural reading. The servant is Jesus.

Barth’s theological reasoning is related to the fact that it takes revelation torecognize that in the suffering servant we actually nd the exalted Christ. Jesus’ beauty is not abstract but is directly related to his humiliation as well. So there is

an ugly side to the beauty of Jesus (recall Gr nwald’s painting). We cannot knowthis biblical aesthetic and beauty on our own. ‘Who sees and believes that the Onewho has been abased is the One who is exalted, that this very man is very God?The glory and beauty of god shines out in this unity and differentiation’ (665).Barth’s theological point is: if you are looking for a beautiful Jesus without theugliness of the totality of his self-abasing love, you have created a beauty of yourown and not the one of revelation.

The exegetical signicance, in my estimation, is that for Barth there is no

veil between Isaiah 53:2–3 and its direct referent to the person and work of JesusChrist. We will notice later that Barth was denitely aware of the critical issuesand could even use them to his advantage. But in this particular instance, Isaiah53:2–3 witnesses cleanly to the beauty of Christ in his humiliation. Questions ofhistorical referentiality, identication of the Servant, or hermeneutical questionsabout how one applies a particular passage like this one to Jesus are not explainedor explored. It is simply: Isaiah 53 witnesses to Jesus Christ, full stop. Whether ornot such a move is deemed legitimate will have to wait to the nal chapter. We turnnow to the second of Barth’s engagement with Isaiah 53 in CD IV.1.

Barth begins his Doctrine of Reconciliation with what can best be described as a biblical theological engagement of God’s covenant with Israel and the nations. For

81 John Calvin,John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, trans. William Pringle(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 106.

82 Barth,Barth, CD II.1, 665.




Barth, this covenant of grace is initiated in the Old Testament by God’s graciouselection of Israel and is not an equilateral covenant between God and Israel. Itis a covenant whose covenantal obligations fundamentally rest on the shouldersof God’s own self.83 Everything in the Old Testament’s witness to the history ofIsrael is related to this covenantal reality. So Barth raises this question: does theOld Testament’s own discrete voice (this is my language not Barth’s) providewarrant for the transference of this covenantal concept, which is the fundamental presupposition of the history of Israel, to the ‘relationship and occurrence betweenGod and all men’?84 Using Barth’s own words, ‘Does the Old Testament allowor does it even perhaps command us to give to the concept of covenant the widersense which obviously it will have to have in this context?’85

Barth gives three examples from the Old Testament that serve to reinforce theOld Testament’s own emphasis about the centrifugal motion of God’s particular

covenant with Israel. The rst of these is God’s covenant with Noah, whichis universal in scope, the second is Isaiah and the third is the new covenant ofJeremiah 31, which is not a new covenant in the sense that it is disconnected fromGod’s covenant with Israel nor does it dissolve God’s old covenant with Israel.Rather, in light of the incarnation, it brings God’s unique covenant with Israel toits true moment of fulllment. We gave detailed attention to this in the previoussection deferring our discussion of Isaiah 53 to the present moment, the second ofBarth’s examples.

What we have here is quite signicant because Barth is appealing to Isaiah 53in a way that seeks to respect the discrete voice of the Old Testament in a moretextured way than the previous example in CD II.1. Isaiah 53 witnesses to the factthat Yahweh has an active co-participant in the eschatologically redemptive event,which has an outward looking focus resulting in the reconciliation of the nations.Then he makes this rather interesting statement: ‘The question whether this partner,the servant of the Lord, is meant as collective Israel or as a single person—andif so, which? a historical? or an eschatological?—can never be settled, because

probably it does not have to be answered either the one way or the other. Thisgure may well be both an individual and also the people, and both of them in ahistorical and also eschatological form.’86

83 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 25.84 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 26.85 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 26. It is worth noting here the signicance of Barth’s sensed need to

appeal to the Old Testament’s own voice on this matter. Does the Old Testament as time of

expectation have within its own parameters, beyond the ways in which the New Testamenthears it, an understanding of the one covenant of grace that reaches beyond Israel’s own

borders to that of the nations or all humankind? That Barth felt this need does intimate the positive role the Old Testament’s own voice plays in Barth’s theological formulations onthis issue.

86 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 29. One may observe the overlap of sentiments between Barth andEichrodt regarding the ostensive referent of the servant to a historical gure. See Eichrodt,




There is much going on in this little statement. First of all, Barth reveals hisknowledge about the particular debate up and running for Old Testament scholarson the exact identication of this servant gure. Is the servant Israel? Is the servantan individual or the prophet? Is the servant an ideal gure who doesn’t exist exceptin some eschatological moment? If we turn to the commentary literature on thisissue, the perspectives and arguments are vast. For example, Barth’s contemporaryvon Rad is very aware of this particular issue and argues that the servant is an idealgure of the future who exists in the realm of the pure miracle of Yahweh.87 t hegure could not be the prophet per se nor could the gure be Israel as a nation inlight of Israel’s failure.

Although recognizing the historical-critical arguments and problems that existin relationship to this particular question—Who is the servant?—Barth seems totranscend or relativize the issue on several fronts. First of all, and to repeat, he

implicitly afrms the discrete witness of the Old Testament. That is, nowhere doesBarth say in this particular passage, the Servant is Jesus. Now, we have seen thatBarth can make this sort of move, but he does not do so here. Barth respects theunique voice of this particular text in its literary and contextual placement in the book of Isaiah. At the same time, the particular historical questions that tend totrouble biblical scholars—Who was this gure?—are also set aside because theytend to obscure the real matter of the text. The servant is God’s human partner inredemption. The gure could be an individual and also the people at the same time,

according to Barth.88 Moreover, the servant can be both a historical gure, that is,Barth can show some level of respect for the historical particularity of the servantin the composition of the book of Isaiah, while at the same time afrming theunique canonical role the servant plays as witness to an eschatological event thattranscends its historical phenomenon. Referring back to the language borrowedfrom Christopher Seitz in Isaiah 7, Barth afrms both the xity of the text and itsgural potentiality.

So, Isaiah 53 can be born out of a historical situation for Barth (though, in

my estimation, the text is not very clear about this). One could hypotheticallyargue that there was a real servant gure that the contemporaries of this particular biblical author could point to and say, yes, him, or yes, that is suffering Israel.Even if this were the case, we can surmise from Barth that this would not get tothe real subject matter of this text. This text as a canonical document, understood

Theology of the Old Testament I , 483–4 n. 4. Eichrodt states, ‘In the controversy over therelation of the Servant to a historical gure it is of less importance to decide which of the

innumerable interpretations has hit upon the right gure, than in what way the connectionof this gure with the world of eschatological ideas is to be made clear.’ Whether or notBarth is dependent on Eichrodt for the general structure of his thought here is difcult tosay, though not without possibility.

87 Von Rad,Von Rad, Old Testament Theology II, 260.88 Similarly see Brevard S. Childs,Similarly see Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,

2001), 385.




most fully in the overarching framework of the time of expectation, transcendsits historical origins and witnesses to an eschatological event that may only be properly understood in retrospect or in light of the two-testament canon’s truesubject matter, namely, God’s unique action in Jesus.89

Again, what we note here is: 1) Barth’s respecting of Isaiah 53’s discrete voicein the OT canon and its contextual placement in Isaiah’s larger landscape; 2) anawareness of the critical issues with the removing of their sting when it comes tothe real substance of the matter; and 3) an appreciation of the fact that the OT textcan both refer to a historical situation (xity) while at the same time canonicallywitness to an awaited eschatological moment of fulllment (potentiality).

Our nal example of Barth’s appeal to Isaiah 53 is, in my estimation, the mostinteresting of the three. In CD IV.3.1 Barth reects on the reality that Jesus lives.Jesus lives in an act of self-actualization.90 It is true to state that Jesus lived and

that Jesus will live, but these statements teeter on the edge of abstraction whenthey do not take into account the full, dynamic reality that Jesus lives. 91 t heacknowledgment of this reality takes place in the realm of faith.92 interestinglyenough, Jesus’ history and existence is the existence witnessed to in the Scriptural‘history of salvation’ which is a witness to his revealed glory.93 This particularrevealed glory is described as ‘the glory of the Lord who is a Servant and theServant who is the Lord.’94

Barth moves quite naturally into reection on the third ofce of Jesus, namely,

that of prophet. Precisely at this point, Barth’s thought is interesting becauseBarth wants to afrm that there is genuine overlap between the role and tasksof OT prophets and Jesus—they witness to the same covenant—while at thesame time, Barth points out four key areas of divergence where the life of Jesus‘breaks through and transcends the Old Testament concept of a prophet, and isthus characterized as prophecy sui generis.’95 Jesus’ prophetic ofce is completelyunique because he is: 1) the Revealer by his very existence and not on the basis ofspecial election and calling; 2) the universal Prophet who does not speak merely

to Israel; 3) the Proclaimer of the present kingdom of God and not of that whichis to come; 4) no OT prophet is a mediator like Jesus who is both Yahweh and theIsraelite. Resultantly, Barth states that ‘we do not have in the life of any of the Old

89 Barth’s actions here do denitely coalesce with Child’s canonical approach. SeeBarth’s actions here do denitely coalesce with Child’s canonical approach. SeeScalise, “Childs and Barth.” 61–88.

90 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 40.91 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 44.92 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 45.93 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 46. Here Barth refers back to his section in CD II.1 on the glory

of God.94 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 48.95 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 49.




Testament prophets a true type or adequate preguration of the prophecy of JesusChrist.’96

Barth then turns the corner to say something more positive about Jesus’guration in the Old Testament. It is not found in the life of individual prophets, be they Moses, Elijah or Jeremiah. Rather, it is found pregured in the life of thehistory of Israel, particularly in ‘its character as an unbroken sequence of newevents of divine faithfulness in their height and depth as contrasted with the greatunfaithfulness of man.’97 Israel’s history is a prophetic one that pregures Jesus being and acting more fully than the prophets themselves. Or, as Barth says, ‘Thehistory of Israel in its totality and interconnexion is universal prophecy.’98 Fromthis statement, Barth moves into a small print section where he seeks to provestextually from the Old Testament itself the reality of Israel’s history as ultimate prophecy. More specically, Israel’s history, like that of Jesus’, is a city set on a

hill which cannot be hidden, leading to the opening of blind eyes.99

Barth appeals rstly to the Psalter, then to the life of Abraham, Jeremiah andEzekiel. All of these witness to the recognition of the glory of God by the nationsin the history of Israel. From these, Barth quotes in full the rst of the so-calledservant songs in Isaiah 42, highlighting the role the servant plays for the nations.He then lists a catena of verses in Isaiah that are universalistic in focus with littlecomment given. Their force is self-understood. Then Barth makes this statement:

Note should also be taken of the great passage in Is. 53:1–12 concerning thesuffering Servant of the Lord, concerning rejected, humiliated, defeated and

unattractive Israel . For it is he that ‘shall be exalted and extolled, and be very

high … he shall sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him:

for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not

heard shall they consider’ (Is. 52:13ff). The history of Israel as such is at work

in this prophetic ofce (emphasis mine).100

We note here Barth’s clear identication of the servant of Isaiah 53 as Israel’s ownhistory per se. To make matters more denitive, as Barth wraps this particularsection up he refers again to the servant of Isaiah 53 in the context of his discussionthat Israel’s history is a microcosm of what God wills, plans, has done, does andwill do with the human world as a whole. Israel’s history is a preguration ofhumanity as a whole.

96

Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 52.97 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 53.98 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 55.99 Barth’s movement here is to rstly show the unique role of Israel’s history asBarth’s movement here is to rstly show the unique role of Israel’s history as

prophecy; secondly, to show the connection with Jesus, and thirdly, move to a small printexegesis to prove the matter from the OT itself.





The election and rejection of this people, the disclosure of its transgressions and

forgiveness of its sins, the fullness of the benets with which He provides for it

and the severity of the judgments in which it is overtaken by His chastisement,

the incomparable distinction yet also the contemptible littleness with which He

causes it to exist among other nations, the whole doxa of the covenant which

He invests it – these are in nuce, in compendious form, His action with all

humanity.101

This history of Israel is the key to understanding all history.Barth’s nal Scriptural appeal in this particular section about Israel’s history as

humanity’s history is to the servant of Isaiah 53.

But on the other hand it is equally inevitable that the particular should bring

out the contours of the general. What it means is that Israel’s history is reallya concentration of all history, and to that extent takes place in the stead, for it,

as its recapitulation and preguration, and the way in which it does this, are

brought out with startling clarity in Is 53:4f, where the Servant of the Lord is

also Israel as such, if not only Israel ’(emphasis mine).102

Following this statement, Barth quotes 53:4–6 and 12. ‘Surely he hath borne ourgriefs, and carried our sorrows ....’

Admittedly, this ‘if not only Israel’ is a difcult statement with a certainthrow-away character to it. Is Barth stating that the servant of the Lord who is anindividual is actually Israel incarnate? Or is Barth stating that the servant is actuallyempirical Israel or idealized Israel (so von Rad)? Barth does not necessarily resolvethis dilemma and it may actually reveal the fact that the question of historicalreferentiality is not that important at this time both for Barth and Isaiah. It can,again, be a ‘both and.’ Barth does not seem to be dodging the question as muchas relativizing its signicance. Because the point Barth is driving home in the

paragraphs that follow his appeal to Isaiah 53 is that the history of Israel as a prophetic existence, embodied in all the contours found in Isaiah 53, uniquely pregures Jesus Christ.103 Therefore, Isaiah 53 is actually foretelling in the formatof messianic prophecy of the gural kind what the incarnate one would be and do

101 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 64.102 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 64.103 Similar sentiments are found in Barth’s reference to Isaiah 53 inSimilar sentiments are found in Barth’s reference to Isaiah 53 in CD I.2, 89. Here,

Barth emphasizes that Isaiah 53 is a recapitulation of what is to be found in every chapter ofthe Old Testament. Isaiah 53, like Jacob, Jeremiah, and Job, reveal the hiddenness of Godand points to his real revelation. In this sense, it is a preguration of God’s dealings with thesuffering and crucied Christ. Apart from this ultimate reality in Jesus, the Old Testament,in Barth’s estimation, remains a ‘Jewish abstraction.’ Christ was indeed suffering Israel,the suffering prophet, and the suffering righteous man as ultimate revelation of the hiddenGod of the OT.




as the embodiment of all that Israel was, is and is to be. So, in this sense, Isaiah53’s servant is genuinely Israel and in another sense, genuinely Messianic becauseof the larger gural pattern of Israel as the exact preguration of Jesus Christ andIsrael’s own history of failure.104 ‘But we do say that in and with the prophecy ofthe history of Israel there takes place in all its historical autonomy and singularitythe prophecy of Jesus Christ Himself in the form of exact preguration.’105 JesusChrist incarnate is Israel incarnate embodying all of her hopes, frustrations, callingand failures in the faithfulness and obedience to the will of God never consistentlyfound in Israel’s history of failure under the covenant but gurally presented in theform of Isaiah 53’s servant.

The identity of Isaiah’s servant is a perennial problem for Old Testamentscholars, coupled with an exorbitant amount of secondary literature on the subject.Referring to the so-called servant songs of Isaiah, Hans Barstad states: ‘Anyone

interested in this particular eld of human enterprise is faced, not with hundreds, but with literally thousands of scholarly (or less scholarly!) books and articles,the total amount of which no one person can ever have any hope of digesting ina lifetime.’106 There have been recent readings of the narrative movement of theservant in Isaiah 40–55 that emphasize the signicant role Isaiah 49 plays in thetransition from the servant as Israel per se to the servant as an individual who hasa mission to both the nations and Judah (Isa 49.1–6).107

These readings are, of course, after Barth’s time and have much to commend

them. But, for Barth, the question about parsing out the identity of the servant is

104 Robert Jenson makes a similar statement regarding the servant of Isaiah 49.Robert Jenson makes a similar statement regarding the servant of Isaiah 49.

s o much at least is clear: whatever may have been in the mind or minds of the authoror authors of this text…followers of the risen Jesus were only conforming to the actualstatement of the text when they took it as applicable to their Lord. For the text presentsan historically unlled template, indeed a template unfulllable by anyone who lives onlywithin the parameters of this age, of history as it now proceeds. To t that template to

someone is to say that this particular Israelite brings Israel back to the Lord and that just sothis person is Israel thus brought back, to take her nal mission to the nations.

(Robert Jenson, “The Bible and the Trinity,” in Pro Ecclesia vol. XI, no. 3 [2002]: 334–5).105 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 65.106 Hans M. Barstad, “The Future of the ‘Servant Songs’: Some Reections on theHans M. Barstad, “The Future of the ‘Servant Songs’: Some Reections on the

Relationship of Biblical Scholarship to Its Own Tradition,” in Language, Theology, andthe Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr , ed. S.E. Balentine and John Barton (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1994), 261 Of notable signicance are two relatively recent volumesdevoted to Isaiah 53, namely, William H. Bellinger and William R. Farmer, eds, Jesus and

the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins (Harrisburg: Trinity InternationalPress, 1998) and Janowski and Stuhlmacher, Suffering Servant .

107 Most notably, Peter Wilcox and David Paton-Williams, “The Servant Songsin Deutero-Isaiah,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42 (1988): 79–102 andChristopher R. Seitz, “‘You Are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I Will beGloried’: The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah’,” CalvinTheological Journal 39 (2004): 117–34.




relativized to the point where the servant can be understood as Israel and as anindividual, or both at the same time. With more penetrating insight into the actualexegesis of the text itself, Childs makes a similar claim to Barth’s regarding therelationship of the servant to Israel/individual.

I am not suggesting that collective Israel has been replaced by an individual

prophetic gure, say Second Isaiah himself. Such historical speculation misses

the point of the text. The identity of the rst person singular voice in 48:16

and 49:1–6 remains fully concealed. Rather, what is crucial to observe is the

one, bearing all the marks of an individual historic gure, has been named

servant, not to replace corporate Israel—the servant in Second Isaiah remains

inseparable from Israel—but as a faithful embodiment of the nation Israel who

has not performed its chosen role (48:1–2).108

One observes here the overlap between Barth and Childs especially regarding theinseparableness of the servant from Israel.

Barth is reading Isaiah 53 with a robust theological exegesis in gear. He isallowing Isaiah 53’s own canonical placement alongside the attendant problemswith this placement to have its own say. For instance, who is the rst personspeaking voice in Isaiah 49? Israel or individual? Barth’s answer, alongsideChilds, is ‘both.’ Barth’s reading of Isaiah 53 moves from xity —its discrete

voice—to potentiality —its gural anticipation that the text creates in light ofIsrael’s long history of unfaithfulness—to actuality —in Jesus Christ we see theguration of the suffering servant fullled. One must take special note, however,that Barth does not disjoint these three. He does not move to the New Testamentor Jesus and strip the signicance of the servant’s identity as wrapped up withthat of Israel’s from his ‘fullled’, christological reading. Jesus’ fulllment of thesuffering servant has intimately to do with his being born a Jew. And not just anyJew: a Jew who is Israel embodied in the covenantal faithfulness she empirically

could never perform. This incarnation of Israel suffers Israel’s guilt in her place(Stellvertretung ). As such, the Old Testament’s entire witness to the life andhistory of Israel is a preguration of Jesus’ unique ministry and in this regard can be understood as ‘complete Messianic prophecy.’109

This leads to one nal observation. The reason for Israel’s inability to performher chosen role in Isaiah 40–55 is sin. This very basic observation tends to getlost in the historical-critical instinct to reconstruct Israel’s history along political,sociological or religious lines. Israel was wrapped up in sin, and the servant’ssuffering in her place in Isaiah 53 has to do with the removal of sin by the place-taking of another (Stellvertretung : a term where both representation and

108 Brevard S. Childs,Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, 385.109 Barth,Barth, CD IV.3, 65. On this score, much is offered from Jon D. Levenson, The

Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993).




substitution come together), and, in Janowski’s terms, with the epistemological problem Israel has regarding how their sin/guilt was in fact dealt with (the ‘we’voice of Isaiah 53).110

Barth recognizes Isaiah 53’s role in a biblical understanding of substitutionaryatonement. He states, ‘The very heart of the atonement is the overcoming of sin ....’111 From here, Barth refers to Isaiah 53 and the idea of punishment associated withIsaiah 53. Now, Barth does not engage in detailed exegetical questions, of whichIsaiah 53 raises plenty (for example how do we understand ׂשם ; representationvs. substitutionary understanding of Isaiah 53 [Whybray vs. Janowski]; not tomention the numerous textually difculties?). Rather, he states that Isaiah 53’s ownvoice, apart from the New Testament’s relative silence regarding punishment or penal substitutionary ideas of the atonement, does elicit this type of understandingwithin its own idiom. Barth warns against reducing the atonement to the penal (like

Anselm). Nevertheless, Jesus, like the suffering servant, went to the outer cornersof darkness and suffered our punishment.112 What is of interest here exegeticallyand biblical theologically is Barth’s allowance of Isaiah 53’s own presentation ofthe suffering servant a say in a full-orbed, biblical understanding of the atonement;even if the New Testament does not pick up such a theme as central to its ownunderstanding of the atonement. Here, Barth’s biblical theological sensibilitiesare contrary to vetus testamentum in novo receptum (the Old Testament as it isreceived in the New Testament ).

When we look at the ways in which Barth appealed to Isaiah 53 in the CD, wend a certain level of multi-functionality. Yes, all of the OT is Erwartung , and not just general Erwartungen but the specic anticipation of Jesus Christ as if he isknocking on the door ready to enter.113 Resultantly, Barth can refer to Isaiah 53 asdirectly relating to Jesus Christ with no comment in between. In the latter part ofthe CD we nd Barth’s more robust gural reasoning. Isaiah 53 can completelyrefer to Israel in the discrete voice of Isaiah’s witness. In light of the subject matterof both testaments, the history of Israel is the most adequate and complete gural

pattern for Jesus’ own unique existence. If Isaiah 53 in its historical situationreferred completely to suffering Israel in exile or a prophet, then so be it for Barth.

110 Bernd Janowski, “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’sBernd Janowski, “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’sPlace,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. BerndJanowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, trans. D.P. Bailey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004),

69– 70. For an extended discussion of Stellvertrung’s signicance in recent biblical studiesand the inuence of Kantian moral philosophy on the question see Daniel P. Bailey,

“Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53,” in Jesus and the SufferingServant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. W.H. Bellinger and William R. Farmer(Harrisburg: Trinity International Press, 1998), 223–50.

111 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 253.112 Barth,Barth, CD IV.1, 253.113 Again, see Barth’s comments about the OT as a ‘Jewish abstraction’ without theAgain, see Barth’s comments about the OT as a ‘Jewish abstraction’ without the

afrmation of the revealed God in Jesus Christ as the hidden God of the OT (CD I .2, 89).




There is no sting in this theologically, and the fact remains that the text itself haskept this type of historical inquiry at bay. Moreover, Barth can take this historicalaporia and turn it on its head as an ultimate preguration or prophecy of Jesus. How?Because Jesus is Israel incarnate and Isaiah 53 serves as a pattern of what God willdo nally and completely in his covenant not only with Israel, but with the nationsof the world, with humanity. Isaiah 53 can refer both to Israel’s own history and, atthe same time, witness to the wonder of God’s nal eschatological action in JesusChrist. Isaiah 53’s own lack of direct ostensive identication creates the space forthis type of gural reasoning Barth applies to this text.

Here we nd a theologian who is not at-footed in his appeal to the witness

of the Old Testament to Christ. He recognizes what Brevard Childs will later call

the multiple level interpretation of the Old Testament. The witness of the OT to

Israel’s history is real and particular but it is not, as many OT scholars may tend to

lean, sealed off from God’s larger eschatological work in the person and work ofJesus. The Scriptures require a multi-level reading that respects both the discrete

witness of the Old Testament while at the same time afrms that the central subject

matter of Scripture is God’s triune action seen most concretely in the person and

work of Jesus. Barth’s approach to a text like Isaiah 53 is, to borrow from Childs

again, ‘confessional not apologetics, its function is worship not disputation, its

content is eschatology not time-conditioned history, and its truth is self-afrming

not analytical demonstration.’114 One senses in the theological exegesis of Barth

the way in which Isaiah as Christian Scripture witnesses theologically to theone covenant of grace God has made with humanity. Barth’s reading is a way

forward for those wishing to afrm the positive role historical-criticism plays

in the exegetical task while at the same time sensing that something grand is

missing if we keep to that realm alone with no recourse made to categories such

as canon, inspiration, and two testaments with a single subject matter.

Isaiah 56.1–8 and the Male-Female Relationship

Barth’s engagement with Isaiah 56–66 is surprisingly thin in comparison to hisengagement with 1–39 and 40–55. As was mentioned at the beginning of thischapter, Barth is in good company here as the New Testament authors were givento quoting or alluding to Isaiah 40–55 more than any of the other chapters ofIsaiah. Isaiah 40–55 is pregnant with the gural anticipation of the coming onewho would be, for Israel and the nations, all that Israel was to be and could not be on account of her sin. Before drawing our investigation to a conclusion, it behooves us to engage at least one of Barth’s references to Isaiah 56–66. Our textcomes from the beginning of this literary demarcater, namely, Isaiah 56.1–8.

114 Brevard Childs, “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ?” 63.Brevard Childs, “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ?” 63.




This portion of Isaiah is situated in Barth’s larger biblical theological explanationfor why the male-female relationship cannot be summed up in marriage alone.115 As is typical of Barth, he moves from the Old Testament to the New Testament;this is after some engagement with the tendency of the Reformers and their heirs to place marriage at the center with celibacy at the circumference. Barth locates thesesensibilities in human tradition grounded in a natural theology and not the Bible.Resultantly, Barth turns to the Bible.

Within the Old Testament, it is the case that remaining in an unmarriedstate for either male or female was a ‘terrible disgrace.’116 The issue in the OldTestament, however, does not turn on a general principle regarding the necessityof procreation. Rather, it has to do with ‘the very special one that the holy seedof Abraham and therefore the hope of Israel must be carried forward from onegeneration to another.’117 t he emphasis on marriage and procreation in the o ld

Testament has covenantal implications for the furthering of the salvation of God’s people. What Barth is guarding against is making the Old Testament complicitwith a general theory based on natural observation regarding the necessity andcentrality of marriage. The Old Testament’s emphasis on marriage and progenywas soterically motivated.

One can expect, according to Barth, that once the Messiah has come (that is, theexpected child) the rules of the game may change. This is the biblical theologicalrationale for the different emphasis on marriage and procreation found between the

Old Testament and the New Testament. The former has a single vision for marriageand procreation; the latter allows what Barth calls the possibility of ‘another verdict’where marriage is a relative as opposed to absolute necessity (see I Cor 6–7).118 Isaiah 56.1–8 is called on to support the notion that this eschatological hope wherethe unmarried are not disgraced but are actually given something ‘better than sonsand daughters’ is embedded within the Old Testament witness as well.

As we have seen Barth do before, his appeal to Isa 56.1–8 is not heavilyinterpreted or glossed. He simply gives an introductory statement having to do

with Gentiles and especially eunuchs worshipping Israel’s God and then allowsthe text to speak for itself by quoting it. It is brought into a larger network ofreadings as he juxtaposes Isa 56.1–8 to Gen 2.18–25 with an emphasis on therelationship between Yahweh and his bride eliding into the New Testament asChrist and his Church. As one might expect, the interpretive difculties of this textare bypassed (and there are plenty) as its plain sense is allowed to speak. So Barthis not interpreting here, he is simply reading, seizing a particular point salient tohis larger theological concern and moving on. Is the point Barth lights on germaneto the Isaianic context or is Barth falling prey to all the problems associated witha dicta probantia approach to dogmatic theology?

115 Karl Barth, CD III.4, trans. A.T. Mackay, et al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961), 141–9.116 Barth,Barth, CD III.4, 142.117 Barth,Barth, CD III.4, 142.118 Barth,Barth, CD III.4, 142.




In fairness, Barth’s reading or quoting is not a sustained exegesis. Weshould not ask too much of him here. At the same time, the issue of the eunuchsworshipping in the Temple is an important and central aspect of this text, andBarth picks up on this even as he moving along the way quickly. The concern ofthe Gentiles mentioned in 56.1–8 is their admittance to Temple worship and theirresultant fear that they may be nally dismissed. They are promised this will nothappen. On the other hand, the concern of the eunuch is not admittance to thet emple per se but their lack of progeny. Here, we see the association in Israel’scultic life that singleness alongside barrenness was a difcult disgrace to bear. The prophet portrays the eschatological day of Israel’s ultimate and nal restorationwhere foreigners and eunuchs inhabit and participate in the worship of Yahweh.Particularly these eunuchs (

סריסים

) who have no hope for progeny will be given amonument (די, perhaps a euphemism for ‘penis’) and a name (that which has been

lost because of their inability to procreate). What is profoundly poignant about thegrace of God in the eschatological day for these eunuchs is not only that they will be given a name; they will be given a name greater than sons and daughters. God’sgracious intervening in the reconstitution of his people, both Israel and the nations,transcends the centrality of marriage and progeny in Israel’s life as concomitantwith their salvic possession and progression.

Centrally to Isa 56.1–8 is the universal implications of Yahweh’s eschatologicalday. Both Israel and those foreigners who seek the righteousness of God and keep

his covenant will be admitted to worship in Yahweh’s temple. Barth’s deployingof Isa 56.1–8 reveals the ability of biblical texts to function on multiple levelsof theological interpretation. He does not engage the overarching theme of theuniversal implications of the day of the Lord; he allows a secondary, thoughimportant, point of the text to be situated alongside other texts of the canonicalwitness as he wrestles with what the Bible has to say about marriage and singleness.The promise to the eunuchs is a promise that witnesses within the connes of theOld Testament’s own discrete voice that the eschatological day of the Lord will

entail promises and blessings for those who are married or celibate. Even eunuchswill be given a name better than sons and daughters.

Conclusion

Our engagement of Barth’s reading of Isaiah is by no means exhaustive, thoughit does engage the places where, in the estimation of this author, Barth is mostattentive to Isaiah in his theological constructions. Having observed a spatteringof these readings, our nal chapter will pursue a few lines of analysis followed bythe hermeneutical implications of Barth’s Isaianic reading for Christian readersof Isaiah. All of this is pursued in light of our overarching concern regardingtheological exegesis of the Old Testament in light of a two-testament canon.



Chapter 5

Theological Exegetical Implications of

Barth’s Isaianic Exegesis

All Christian use of the Old Testament seems to depend on the belief that the OneGod who is the God of Israel is also the God and Father of Jesus Christ. All our useof the Old Testament goes back to this belief. What is said there that relates to ‘God’relates to our God. Consequently, that which can be known of our God is known

only when we consider the Old Testament as a place in which he is known. 1

Brevard Childs

Gressman is not a theologian, not in any sense; as a self-confessedly ‘heathen’

historian he gets exercised about my exegesis, and with just the same ‘righteous

anger’ I have to confess that I do not believe in his bona fdes as a clamant to the title

‘theologian.’ It is a lie to call oneself a theologian and to sit in a theological faculty if

one has no understanding of theological questions and no interest in theological tasks,

but on the contrary has one’s entire love as a scholar only for historical study. Sunt

certi denique fnes, and in Gressman’s case these have certainly been transgressed.

One might as well hold discussions with a wooden peg as with this man, who has

never thought it necessary to devote even ve minutes’ thought to the question ‘What

is theology?’ Where this man is concerned my dearest wish would be that he would

leave us in peace and just talk to the philologists about their problems.2

Karl Barth

Introduction

Karl Barth’s exegesis of Isaiah in the CD is rich and variegated. His ability toengage the text of Isaiah in different theological contexts reveals a reading of Isaiahas at times purposive and specic and at times ad hoc and homiletical resultingin diverse readings that betray simple codication. It is right to say that Barth hadno uniform methodology in his reading of the Old Testament as a witness to the

1 Christopher Seitz, “Christological Interpretation of Texts and Trinitarian Claims toChristopher Seitz, “Christological Interpretation of Texts and Trinitarian Claims toTruth: An Engagement with Francis Watson’s Text and Truth,” Scottish Journal of Theology 52 (1999): 222.

2 Quoted in John Barton,Quoted in John Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville: WestminsterJohn Knox, 2007), 32.




Triune God’s revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.3 And it may be the case that,as McGlasson has stated, Barth’s Old Testament exegesis is unstable enough to provide any clear approach to understanding the Old Testament witness to Christ.4 Or to put the matter more positively, what we may see in Barth’s reading of Isaiah,and again, our claims are modest and related specically to Isaiah rather than theOld Testament as a whole, is a reading of Isaiah that understands the relationship between its literal sense and gural witness as organically related and on a slidingscale of mutual reciprocity.

Depending on the theological contexts and aims of Barth’s particular exegesis,he can locate his reading of Isaiah in Die Zeit der Erwartung and, in Higton’sterminology, read Isaiah rstly remoto Christo (removed from Christ ) beforeturning to its christological witness.5 This is the case with Barth’s reading of Isaiah1 in association with Isaiah 30. The dogmatic context is broadly speaking the

atonement and the particular issue Barth is unpacking is the implication of Jesus’title, Son of God. The canonical instinct Barth brings to bear on this matter isthe role the Old Testament plays in lling out the implications of the title. Jesuswas born of Jewish esh and this Jewish esh is rooted in the soil of the OldTestament. Again, the theological context is christological. At the same time,Barth allows Isaiah’s own voice to contribute to the lling out of this christologicaltitle without overly reading assumed christological conclusions into the text. Barthallows Isaiah’s discrete voice to witness directly to the fuller christological issue

at hand.More will be said about this in the following section, but it is worth emphasizing

at this juncture two matters. Firstly, Barth does believe the subject matter of the OldTestament to be christological, or more broadly, Trinitarian in scope. At the sametime, this christological subject matter does not force Barth into transgressing the plain sense of the text in unnatural readings of Jesus back into the Old Testament.Rather, the text is in effect allowed to speak on its own terms and contribute to thetheological formulation of the issue from within its own idiom. In this particular

instance, Isaiah 1 and 30 together witness to Israel’s status as a disobedient andrecalcitrant son. This is the way Isaiah speaks of Israel’s sonship. From this rst-

reading, the plain sense of the text is naturally extended by guration to addressthe larger christological issue being addressed. Because this is the way Isaiahconstrues Israel’s sonship, a fully informed biblical theology of the title ‘Son ofGod’ must take into account this aspect of Jesus’ sonship as well.

Secondly, Barth more often than not allows the text itself to do the lion’s shareof explanation. Barth allows himself to ‘get out of the way’ of the text so thatthe text’s own verbal sense in association with other texts is afforded much of

3 See Paul McGlasson,See Paul McGlasson, Jesus and Judas: Biblical Exegesis in Barth, AmericanAcademy of Religion Academy Series (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1991), 53.

4 McGlasson,McGlasson, Jesus and Judas, 53–4.5 Mike Higton,Mike Higton, Christ, Providence and History: Hans W. Frei’s Public Theology

(London: T&T Clark, 2004), 165.



Theological Exegetical Implications of Barth’s Isaianic Exegesis 139

the explanatory power. Barth will tie the strings together, but his exegesis is nottypically heavy-handed. In addressing Barth’s Shorter Commentary on Romans,Reno praises Barth’s theological exegesis as more in line with early patristicexegesis than with his contemporaries. Instead of doing theological exegesis oneor two steps removed from the actual engagement of the text, Barth’s theologicalexegesis and theology in general tends toward ‘a dense act of exegetical “showing”rather than exegesis that draws theological conclusions at a remove from the text.’6 Though wanting to avoid an overly schematized approach to the matter, Reno’sdescription of Barth’s engagement of Romans is aptly applied to his reading ofIsaiah as well.

On the other hand, Barth can equally read Isaiah’s witness non remoto Christo (not removed from Christ ) and in light of the fulllment of its anticipation withlittle recourse to guration, typology or promise/fulllment paradigms. For

example, Isaiah 53 speaks of the ugly-beauty of Jesus Christ, full stop. Or, Isaiah11 witnesses to the Spirit’s relationship to Jesus Christ in light of the wholeness ofJesus’ humanity. In other words, the fulllment of Isaiah’s eschatological hopes can be read back into Isaiah without much fan-fare. Barth’s exegetical exibility as hemoves between remoto Christo and non remoto Christo may prove McGlasson’s point that Barth’s Christian reading of the Old Testament is unstable enough to provide a transferable method for the issue at hand (if such a transferable methodis desirable).

In light of the different types of Isaianic readings Barth attempts, it seemsfair to describe Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah as multi-layered and multi-functional. At the same time, Barth can move between these layers withoutmuch exegetical strain or explanation. It is also plausible that Barth understoodhis reading of Isaiah to be a reading of the plain sense of the text.7 r espondingto the overly historicist tendencies of much biblical scholarship, Barth reactsnegatively by stating, ‘No, I am more sympathetic towards keeping to what thetexts themselves say as they are, as distinct from, what comes before them or after

them. They say something of their own. What the texts themselves want to say hasmy “sympathy”.’8 This bears further reection and parsing out as will be attemptedin the next section.

In this chapter, Barth will be brought into conversation with Brevard Childs’multi-layered approach to reading the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. It ishoped that Childs’ approach may offer insight into what Barth is actually doing,even if Barth is not programmatic about the way he executes this multi-layered

6

R.R. Reno, “Biblical Theology and Theological Exegesis,” inR.R. Reno, “Biblical Theology and Theological Exegesis,” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation, Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 5, ed. C.Bartholomew, M. Healy, K. Möller, R. Parry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 392.

7 George Hunsinger,George Hunsinger, Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 214 n.6.

8 Eberhard Busch,Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts,trans. John Bowden (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 349.




reading. Childs offers an important heuristic for understanding the theologicalwitness of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. In the context of issues raised by Childs, we will seek to learn from Barth the theological warrant for movingseamlessly between guration and fulllment in various contexts dealing with thesame text. Again, a static method is not being sought here. Rather, we are seekingto learn from Barth’s theological exegetical instincts.

Barth’s Multi-Leveled Reading

In a festschrift article for Peter Stuhlmacher, Brevard Childs engages the OldTestament’s capacity as a witness to Christ (Christuszeugnis). Childs places hisdiscussion in the context of Vischer’s Christuszeugnis and the critical response to

Vischer’s work from Eichrodt, von Rad, Zimmerli and Wolff. Whereas Vischer’swork sought to nd Jesus Christ as ‘actually present in Israel’s history,’ forexample, in the confrontation with Abraham, Jacob’s wrestling match and variousother theophonies in the Old Testament, Vischer’s detractors, all in their variousways, insisted that theological exegesis had to ride on the back of historical criticalanalysis that took into account the complex development of these Old Testament books and the concerns attendant to this reality.9 Again, it is worth recalling thatVischer believed himself to be doing historical-philological exegesis of the Old

Testament. It was a certain type of historical inquiry that his detractors foundwanting in Vischer.

The other concern Childs addresses before moving to his own positiveformulations regarding a multi-layered reading, and these issues are pertinentlygermane to Barth, is his understanding of: 1) the role ontology plays in the exegesisof Holy Scripture’s theological claims and 2) the relationship between exegesisand theology as a dialectical one. Childs understands the Scriptures of Israel, andthe New Testament for that matter, to have been born in the context of real human

history. Even the New Testament interprets the arrival of Jesus as something thatoccurs in ‘a given historical moment in the life of Israel.’10 Nevertheless, ‘thistemporal orientation does not rule out at the same time moving the discourse toan ontological plane.’11 Childs refers to John’s prologue and the claims in Col1.15f. as examples of the ontological claims of the Scriptures and then Childsgives the following denition: ‘The term ontological refers to a mode of speech inrelation to a subject matter which disregards or transcends temporal sequence.’12

9

Brevard S. Childs, “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ,” in EvangeliumSchriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburtstag , ed. Jostein

Adna, Scott J. Hafemann, and Otfried Hous (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1997), 57.10 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.11 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.12 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.




Childs does not claim the New Testament’s ontological orientation as the solewarrant for this biblical theological move, but he does cite the New Testamentas an example of ontological readings of historical realities. The New Testamentwitness does call into question biblical scholars’ squeamishness about ontologicalreadings of the Scripture’s subject matter as ‘an illegitimate intrusion from the sideof philosophy.’13

The role of ontology in the exegesis of Holy Scripture is of signicant

consequence when one observes Barth’s reading of Isaiah. The Scriptures are theunique means by which God reveals his own Triune identity to us. This is ourconfession about the nature and role of Scripture in the divine economy. Whenone engages the question of context, surely an axiomatic term in biblical studies,the issues tend to deal with literary and historical questions. For theologicalexegetes such as Barth, however, the confession about Scripture’s own nature

and role in the divine economy is surely a ‘contextual’ question as well. It is inthis theological locale that ontological questions come into play in the interface between Scripture and Canon. Barth’s ontological reading of Isaiah cannot becalled abstract ontological readings that are not the product of close readings ofthe text, but it is this theological context that is primary for Barth (though the other‘contextual’ issues are not always dismissed).

So, for example, Isaiah 40 as the literary and historical turning point of God’sdivine ‘no’ to his divine ‘yes’ for the people of Israel is more than a rehearsal of

Israel’s historical exile and return from exile. Isaiah 40 is an everlasting canonicalwitness to the ontological claim that Israel’s God is both patient and wise. TheScriptures, again though born out of historically particular occasions in the life ofIsrael and the Church, witness beyond these historically particular occasions andmake enduring ontological claims about the nature and identity of our Triune God.As we will see, it is the ontological instinct in Barth’s exegesis that allows him toslide between the literal and gural senses of Scripture.

The second point Childs addresses is the relationship between exegesis

and theology. Childs speaks of the ‘common caricature’ of this relationship asfollows: exegesis is an objective task, solidly located in ‘independent historicaland philological’ work seeking to understand what the text says, and theologyis a subsequent and subjective task that is ultimately speculative in nature.14 Childs calls this understanding of the relationship between theology and exegesis‘mischief’ with roots as far back as Gabler and even present in the theologicallysympathetic work of Rendtorff.15 The primary issue at which Childs takes aimis the linear relationship between exegesis and theology. Exegesis comes rst

because it is manageable and static (of course, this is a bit of caricature as well)and then one moves on to theology. Childs counters, ‘Rather, I would argue that therelationship between exegesis and theology is a far more complex and subtle one

13 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.14 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.15 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.




which is basically dialectical in nature.’16 The picture Childs paints is the exegetecoming to Scripture with theological assumptions who then engages in the task ofexegesis itself so deeply that the subject matter of Scripture either afrms or callsinto question the exegete’s assumptions. Following from the previous ontological point, Childs stresses that exegetes of Holy Scripture cannot be content to dealwith the verbal sense alone but must press on to the subject matter of Scripture, orto what the verbal sense witnesses to beyond itself.

For example, whatever one makes of Barth’s doctrine of election in CD II.2,one must grant that Barth’s conclusions and his challenging of the traditionalReformed position is a product of his understanding of the biblical witnesses ownclaims regarding the matter. Here certain theological assumptions were called intoquestion by Barth’s engagement with the Scriptures. The same could be said aboutBarth’s change of mind regarding the non-sacramental character of baptism and

the Lord’s supper (whether or not Barth is found persuasive on this score).17 Or,in the context of Isaiah, Barth understands Isaiah 53’s witness as contributing tothe overall biblical portrayal of the atonement. Resultantly, a penal idea is in viewwithin the Bible’s construal of the atonement, even if it is not the dominating NewTestament motif. One’s theological assumptions and exegesis work in a dialecticalrelationship and mutually inform one another.

In John Barton’s recent work, The Nature of Biblical Criticism, he seeks to rightwhat he deems as wrong-headed portrayals of biblical criticism. Barton challenges

the portrayal of biblical criticism as a rigidly scientic enterprise that is overlyhistoricist in orientation and positivistic in philosophical disposition. There areindeed aspects of Barton’s work that are commendable. It is good, for example, to be reminded that the Documentary Hypothesis was in fact a hypothesis and not anempirical nding based on solidly positivistic evidences. And it is also good to bereminded that most biblical criticism is literary in orientation and not historicallyexcavating in disposition (though I think this is worthy of fuller discussion andchallenge; for surely most biblical scholars in the guild today consider themselves

historians rst and foremost). Much of this, however, seems besides the point when brought into contact with the task of theological exegesis. For Barton describesthe task of biblical criticism—notice, not historical-criticism—as three-fold: 1)‘attention to semantics, to the meaning of words, phrases, sentences, chapters,whole books’; 2) ‘awareness of genre’; and 3) ‘bracketing out questions of truth.’18 My assumption is that most theological exegetes or confessing exegetes wouldconsider points one and two as important tasks in the reading of Scripture. It is,after all, a creaturely reality.

16 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 60.17 Trevor Hart, “Systematic—In What Sense?” inTrevor Hart, “Systematic—In What Sense?” in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology

and Biblical Interpretation; Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 5, ed. C. Bartholomew, etal. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 343–4.

18 Barton,Barton, Biblical Criticism, 58.




It is the third point that continues to bring life to the caricature painted by Childsabout the linear relationship between exegesis and theology (or truth-claims).Barton believes that it is merely a procedural matter to bracket out questions oftruth or theology from one’s exegesis of a text, because ‘[o]ne must establish whatit means; one may then ask whether what it means is true.’19 Barton claims this isneither Enlightenment principles revitalized nor skepticism at work. It is simplythe necessary posture of a biblical critic when coming to the text. Fully imbibingJowett’s claim to read the Bible as any other book—admitting that one might besurprised to nd it is not like any other book after reading this way—Barton resiststhe notion of applying a special hermeneutic to the Bible and requires biblicalcriticism to be nonconfessional.20 Barton’s proposal is a sophisticated way ofsaying, we need to read what is there and let the text’s own sense be established.To do this, bracketing out truth claims is essential.

Barton takes aim at theological exegetes who are confessing from the outset,namely, Childs, Seitz, Moberly and Watson. Again, how can one come to understandthe text’s own claims if one does not begin with criticism ‘but with a commitmentto the Bible as divine communication with the Christian community.’21 t hefollowing reveals the tensions between a Barton, a self-dened biblical critic, anda theological exegete, who sees biblical-critical tools as necessary and importantto the exegetical task but cannot go down the path of ‘bracketing out’:

They [Seitz and Moberly] argue that a ‘ruled’ reading of Scripture provides anaccess to its true meaning, the meaning that a responsible interpreter should

feel constrained to adopt. Their position is not compatible with a pluralistic

approach in which one may use the Bible for any purposes one likes, including

critical ones, but rather makes claims to normativity. And in that respect it comes

into genuine conict with a critical approach, if a critical approach is as I have

proposed.22

One can surmise that Seitz and Moberly in their respective ways would respondto Barton with, ‘quite so.’ A confessional approach does come into difculty withthe biblical criticism proffered by Barton because one’s confession about thenature and role of Scripture as both humanly and divinely authored brings it intoconict with Jowett’s claim to read it as any other book. And despite Barton’sclaims, such an approach is the product of the Enlightenment project’s insistenceon intellectual autonomy and the priority of reason, even if biblical criticism islocated in the humanities and not the sciences.23 Barth’s theological reading of the

19 Barton,Barton, Biblical Criticism, 171.20 Barton,Barton, Biblical Criticism, 179.21 Barton,Barton, Biblical Criticism, 146.22 Barton,Barton, Biblical Criticism, 147.23 Alvin Plantinga,Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press,

2000), 386.




Scriptures in general, and Isaiah in particular, is in radical contradistinction fromthis ‘bracketing out’ approach.24 John Webster describes the situation well whenhe locates Christian reading of the Bible primarily in a theological context withthe need for theological description rather than the language adopted from varioushermeneutical theories.25

Barton raises the stakes as he claims that the neutral bracketing out approachis actually more honoring to the text than theological approaches.26 But this canonly be the case if one understands the Bible as a literary artifact to be examinedin the context of the humanities per se. The history of reception in the church, theconfession about the ontological status of Scripture and, as Childs has demonstrated,the ‘canon consciousness’ embedded within the Scriptures themselves (the textsthemselves attest to being something more than a literary artifact) speak againstthe reductionistic tendencies of the bracketing-out models. In this respect,

theological approaches to exegesis are more respective of the text’s own claimsabout themselves as they take into account the primary theological context forengaging the task of exegesis. This is not to deny the literary character of Scriptureand the importance of biblical criticism. Again, it is a creaturely reality. But it isnot only a creaturely reality and from a Christian dogmatic standpoint, it is ourunderstanding of the Scriptures in the context of divine action that is theologically prior to our understanding of their creaturely reality. The former grounds the latter.This properly basic confession about the ontological status of Scripture requires

a ‘ruled’ reading because this confession is an integral aspect of the context ofScripture.

When all is said and done, the debate between biblical-criticism per se andtheological exegesis that takes into account the Bible’s creaturely reality and itsdivine inspiration amounts to a clashing of worldviews and prioritizing principles.27 How does one engage questions about the unity of the canon, or, for that matter,the material form of the canon at all without a confession regarding God’s providential ordering of creaturely events as a prioritizing principle? Credo ut

intelligum ( I believe in order to understand ). The point emphasized here, however,is the necessary dialectical relationship between exegesis and theology.It is this dialectic and confession about the canonical status of Scripture that

seeks to keep ‘wax nose’ approaches to exegesis at bay. In other words, Scripture

24 See Burnett’s portrayal of Barth’s hermeneutic as requiring a loving participation inSee Burnett’s portrayal of Barth’s hermeneutic as requiring a loving participation inthe subject matter of Scripture, Richard Burnett, Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis, WUNT2 145 (T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001).

25

John Webster,John Webster, Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics (Edinburgh: T&TClark, 2001), 47 Webster states, ‘That is to say, a Christian description of the Christianreading of the Bible will be the kind of description which talks of God and therefore talksof all other realities sub species divinitatis.’

26 Barton,Barton, Biblical Criticism, 27.27 For a detailed philosophical account of the epistemological issues at play seeFor a detailed philosophical account of the epistemological issues at play see

Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief , 386–421.




does not lose its’ ‘over-against’ status in this dialectical relationship. Moreover,theological exegesis does not believe the Scripture’s ‘over-against’ status is protected by general theories of hermeneutics borrowed from the humanitiesor by historical-criticism’s objective distancing of the exegete from the subjectmatter (‘bracketing out’). One wrestles with semantics and genre, along with otherexegetical tasks, but must press beyond them to the subject matter witnessed tothrough these creaturely means. This is a theological task in need of theologicaldescription. Another consequence of the necessary dialectical relationship betweenexegesis and theology is the continuing role exegesis plays as a dynamic aspect ofthe church’s life coram Deo.

Returning to Childs’ argument, he recognizes the concern registered againstsuch a dialectic between exegesis and theology as the potential for uncontrolledallegory. Barton in his own way and Childs’ interlocutor, Rendtorff, both believe

the text is protected from allegorical ights of fancy by rooting one’s exegesis inhistorical-critical exegesis (or what Barton calls simply ‘biblical criticism’). Childsis sympathetic with this concern and recognizes that the four-fold interpretivemodel of the Medieval period is ultimately problematic because the relationship between the text itself and the subject matter witnessed to were often ‘seriously blurred through clever interpretive techniques.’28 Childs continues: ‘Rather Iam suggesting a single method of interpretation which takes seriously both thedifferent dimensions constituting the text as well as distinct contexts in which the

text functions’ (emphasis mine).29

Before actually delving into the multiple layers Childs proposes, it is

important to observe that he is offering a single method of reading. In other

words, the various layers are related to one another in an organic fashion and

the different dimensions and contexts for reading are all part of the one act of

reading the texts faithfully. By way of analogy in the CD, Barth rehearses the

three-fold exegetical method as explicatio, meditatio and applicatio (what Barth

refers to as ‘assimilation’). Barth insists that the application or assimilation of

Scripture into the current situatedness of the church’s life is constitutive of theexegetical task.30 One does have exposition or exegesis if step three is abstracted

from steps one and two. The gural layer proffered by Childs falls under the

category of applicatio in the broad sense in that it presses beyond semantics,

genre and historical particularity (explicatio) to the subject-matter attested to in

all of Scripture (meditatio and applicatio). There is not a xed temporal order

here for Childs in the sense that one must move linearly from layer ‘1’ to layer ‘2’

to layer ‘3.’ In fact, there is freedom to operate between these different layers of

reading (something in fact Barth does quite intuitively). But for heuristic reasons,

Childs presents the layers in ‘1’ ‘2’ ‘3’ fashion. Our attention will be given to the

28 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.29 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.30 Karl Barth,Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2, ed. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance, trans.

G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956), 736.




description of these layers and then we will turn to Barth’s reading of Isaiah to seehow they shed light on the exibility of Barth’s exegesis.

The rst layer rehearsed by Childs is the interpretation of Old Testament textswithin their own ‘historical, literary, and canonical contexts.’31 t o read the personof Jesus Christ back into the stories of the Old Testament or in the theophoniesrecorded there is, in the estimation of Childs, to atten out the Old Testament’sown voice. Vischer’s tendency to nd Jesus Christ present in the Old Testamentis to confuse promise and fulllment. In Barth’s language, this particular concernwould be characterized as respecting the Old Testament’s witness to revelationas Erwartung . The Old Testament is anticipation not fulllment, and to respectits discrete voice is to take into account its canonical role and placement. AsChilds states elsewhere, something has to end before something begins. A verysimplistic example of the early church’s reection of this impulse is its reception

of the Scriptures of Israel as a canonical witness to Jesus Christ without recourseto redactional editing. Isaiah 52.13 does not say, ‘Behold, my servant Jesus’ inany Septuagintal recensions. The early church understood that the text as it stoodfunctioned as Christian Scripture in its own right.

Childs insistence on reading the Old Testament in its literary, historical andcanonical context is related to the concerns raised by Barton that biblical criticismtakes into account verbal semantics and genre. Where Childs’ understanding ofthe literal sense differs from Barton’s is Childs’ notion that the verbal sense does

not turn in on itself. ‘However, even when restricting oneself to the Hebrew Bibleaccording to its canonical shape, the serious interpreter is still constrained torelate the text’s verbal sense to the theological reality which confronted historicIsrael in evoking this witness.’32 t he o ld t estament in its basic verbal and literarysense witnesses to theological realities beyond these basic senses. Again, issues ofontology come into play here.

A second level of reading is an extension of the literary/historical that seeksto ‘to analyze structural similarities and dissimilarities between the witnesses of

both testaments, Old and New.’33

Childs carefully points out that this dimension ofreading is not phenomenologically oriented to a comparison of various writings inthe history of religions nor is it merely descriptive. ‘Rather, it is an exegetical andtheological enterprise which seeks to pursue a relationship of content.’34 Childsgives the example of the doctrine of God. Both testaments witness to the identityand nature of the one God of the Bible. The two testaments contents should not be fused together; they each have a discrete witness. But in their discreteness theyshare a theological relationship regarding the identity of God and must both betaken into account.

31 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.32 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.33 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.34 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 61.




The third layer is related to the second in such a way that it is in effect the ip

side of the same coin. This approach ows from the Christian confession regardingthe theological unity of both testaments. Once one wrestles with both testamentsand their discrete witness to the same subject matter, a ‘fuller knowledge’ ofthat subject matter is then grasped. Biblical interpreters can then move from thisknowledge of the reality of the subject matter of Scripture back to the text ofScripture itself. Childs is quick to point out that this is not merely a homileticalmove related to the subjective conjoining of the Old and New Testaments. It is, onthe other hand, a necessary exegetical move that takes into account the materialform of the Christian canon as both Old and New Testaments. Childs states, ‘Thecentral point to emphasize is that the biblical text exerts theological pressure onthe reader which demands that the reality which under girds the two voices not beheld apart and left fragmented, but critically reunited.’35 it is important to observe

Childs’ handling of this matter. He does not root the unity of the testamentsin a common history of religions, growth of tradition or Heilsgeschichte. It isa thoroughly theological move that understands the nal form of both parts ofthe canon as continuing in their own ways as witnesses to the self-same subjectmatter. The more serious claim Childs makes is that once one wrestles on the levelof the subject matter of Scripture, then the Christian exegete necessarily mustread back into the Old Testament the full reality of the subject matter attested in both testaments. This third layer of reading or re-reading is the gural dimension

of Scripture and commits the unpardonable sin of historical-criticism, namely,anachronism.36 Figural reading can commit this sin because it recognizes therelational and associative dimension that connects gures, events, themes acrosslarge swaths of the canon on the basis of the theological confession that one isdealing with the same divine economy across both testaments.37

Childs gives two examples to illustrate the point. The rst is the exampleof the Trinity. Is it legitimate to read the doctrine of the Trinity back into theScriptures? Neither testament speaks explicitly about the doctrine of the Trinity,

but as David Yeago has demonstrated, the doctrine of the Trinity is a product of theearly church’s wrestling with the Bible’s claims about the identity of God who isa ‘dynamic divine reality in constant inner-communication.’38 Though the doctrineis not explicit in the Scriptures, it is not only legitimate but necessary to read theScriptures in a Trinitarian fashion because of the subject matter witnessed to in the

35 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62.36 Barton would see this gural dimension of reading back into the text as a breech of Barton would see this gural dimension of reading back into the text as a breech of

its ‘plain sense’ as he denes it. Barton, Biblical Criticism, 71.37 See especially, John David Dawson,See especially, John David Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioningof Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002); and John J. O’Keefe and R.R.Reno, Sanctied Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2005).

38 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62; David Yeago, “The New Testament and theChilds, “Old Testament Witness,” 62; David Yeago, “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma,” Pro Ecclesia III (1994): 152–78.




Scriptures. The second illustration is the primary issue dealt with in this volume,the Christuszeugnis of the Old Testament.

When one comes to the Old Testament as a Christian reader, the multipledimensions of Scripture should be taken into account. One recognizes that theOld Testament’s witness to revelation is as a time of expectation. The fusing of promise and fulllment is to confuse the particular witnessing function the OldTestament plays. But this is only one level of reading. Childs uses the example ofthe prophets of the Old Testament’s testimony regarding a coming royal gure.39 The rst layer of reading recognizes the promissory and anticipatory function ofthe eschatological hope for a coming, royal gure. The second layer of readingtakes into account the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which in turn brings ‘fresh life’ to these Old Testament passages.40 Childs states, ‘Thus, when theinterpreter moves from the reality of God manifest in action back to the Scriptures

themselves for further illumination, he or she is constrained to listen for a newsong to break forth from the same ancient, sacred texts.’41 The example Childsgives is Isaiah 53, where the morphological t between Jesus and Isaiah 53 isacutely observed, despite scholarly denunciation.

Childs asks how it is that Isaiah can serve both as the voice of historic Israel inthe Hebrew Scriptures and as a witness to Jesus Christ. His response to this questionis important for it reveals the necessary posture of reading the Old Testamentas a multi-layered witness. ‘It is not only possible, but actually mandatory for

any serious Christian theological reection. Because Scripture performs differentfunctions according to distinct contexts, a multi-level reading is required even to begin to grapple with the full range of Scripture’s role as the intentional mediumof continuing divine revelation.’42 Of signicance here is Childs’ use of the term‘mandatory.’ Recalling the debate between Barth and Baumgartner discussed inchapter one, one is reminded of Baumgartner’s allowance of a Christian reading ofthe Old Testament as a nal, homiletical move that can be made by theologians and pastors. Such a procedure, however, is not the task of the Old Testament scholar.

Barth was unhappy with such a concession because it construed a Christianreading of the Old Testament as inauthentic or an alien imposition. It is importantat this point to notice that gural reading of Scripture, whether it be construed asChristological or, more broadly, Trinitarian, is in the theological constructions ofBarth and Childs a necessary enterprise in the engagement of the Old Testament.It is a constitutive part of the one act of reading.

The rst layer of reading, which may be called its literal or plain sense, seeks

to hear the Old Testament’s own construal of the matter in the midst of her own

disastrous experience. It allows the Old Testament’s own idiom and voice to create

the contours and shape of Israel’s expectation. The second layer of reading, the gural

39 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62.40 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62.41 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62–3.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 62–3.42 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 63.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 63.




dimension, does not atten out the Old Testament’s witness but connects its voice

by natural extension with the full reality witnessed to by the entire Christian Bible.

One understands this gural relationship between the Old Testament and the New

Testament as a dialectical one. The Old informs our reading of the New and the New

informs our reading of the Old. This dialectical relationship of mutual informing

resists sedimentation into a clearly dened hermeneutical theory or method.

Moreover, such a gural reading of the Old Testament differs from apologeticimpulses to read the Old Testament Christianly in order to prove Christ’s messianiccharacter. Rather, such a reading is confessional in nature and follows from one’sunderstanding of the common subject matter shared by the two testaments. Thistype of reading is not neutral or bracketing out. As Childs states, ‘[I]ts truth isself-afrming not analytical demonstration.’43 The church’s understanding of theScriptures as the ongoing vehicle for divine communication requires a pneumatic

context for interpretation that takes into account the dynamic ‘aliveness’ of theScriptural text. And returning to the point made above, the gural dimensionof Scripture is a necessary aspect of the one multi-layered act of reading. ‘Thesweetest and most sublime occupation for the theologian is to search for JesusChrist amid the sacred books [of Scripture].’44

Childs’ very helpful heuristic construal of the multiple layers of reading ormultiple contexts of Scripture provides a framework for our understanding of whatBarth does in his multi-leveled reading of Isaiah. If the applicatio of the biblical

text is a constituent aspect of the exegesis of Scripture, as Barth insists in CD I.2,then the meaning of Scripture expands to meet various theological and pastoralissues in the life of the church. Lessing’s ugly ditch is overcome by the pneumatic presence of Christ in the life of the church and the church’s reading practices ofthe Bible. Moreover, Isaiah is from the outset Christian Scripture, and its verbalsense must be calibrated to the ultimate subject matter of Scripture as history and

prophecy in the divine economy are related to eschatology or fulllment.

Barth can allow the literal sense or the discrete voice of the Old Testament its

own say without relegating it too quickly to Jesus Christ. As we have seen, Barthcan allow Isaiah to speak about the identity and nature of Yahweh without a at-

footed christomonistic reading. The oracles against the nations in Isaiah 13–27 aredifcult passages to extend gurally to Jesus Christ, but for Barth, they can speakof the being-in-act of Yahweh in the history of Israel and the surrounding nationsdespite this. The christological witness is not sought here, necessarily, as Barthallows the oracles to the nations to say something about God. This, of course,ultimately has to do with Jesus Christ, but Barth is not always constrained to showthis (though this is denitely his tendency).

43 Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 63.Childs, “Old Testament Witness,” 63.44 Ephraim Radner relays these words from the eighteenth-century Jansenist CatholicEphraim Radner relays these words from the eighteenth-century Jansenist Catholic

Duguet who lectured on the Old and New Testaments in Paris. Ephraim Radner, Hope Among the Fragments: The Broken Church and Its Engagement with Scripture (GrandRapids: Brazos, 2004), 93.




Returning to the example of Isaiah 40, Barth reads Isaiah 40 in the context ofIsrael’s history as a witness to the patience of God. Barth does not refer to JesusChrist in this section, but he allows the Old Testament’s own construal or verbalsense in the context of Israel’s canonical history its say. After reecting on Isaiah40’s literal sense or literary/contextual sense (layer ‘1’ of Childs’ approach), Barththen moves to Jesus Christ as the ultimate fulllment of God’s patience with Israeland humanity. In Jesus Christ, God’s patience is dened to the fullest as Barthmoves Isaiah 40 from its literal sense to its gural sense. This theological exegeticalmove is not done at the expense of the wording of Isaiah, or the akoloutheia of thetext (narrative movement or the way the words go), as the fathers would say, butthe verbal sense of Isaiah’s literary/contextual placement is then gurally broughtinto an association with the full subject matter of the two testament canon by wayof natural extension.

One of the more interesting and rich aspects of Barth’s Isaianic reading is hisengagement with Isaiah 53. Observe the various layers of Barth’s reading of this passage in different quadrants of the CD. In CD II.1, Barth understands Isaiah53 to speak of the ugly beauty of Jesus Christ. In CD IV.1, he wrestles with theservant’s identity, concluding that the material of Isaiah 53 demands to be read asan eschatological witness concerning the human partner of God in redemption.t hen in CD IV.3, Barth engages the prophetic role of Jesus Christ and argues forthe centrality of the history of Israel as the one true type of Jesus Christ. This is

Barth’s gural exegesis at its best. Barth clearly identies the servant of Isaiah 53with Israel, as one could safely argue is the Isaianic construal of the matter, andgurally extends this reading to Jesus Christ as the fulllment of all of Israel’shope, frustration, failure and calling to restore Zion and be a light to the nations.Jesus is Israel incarnate. Barth allows Isaiah 53’s idiom and canonical placementto create the theological space for his ontological association of this passage withthe person and work of Jesus Christ. In these examples, we see Barth reading thesame text of Scripture in its various layers with the freedom to move between

these layers without much effort, or explanation, for that matter.Barth does not allow us to see the sawdust from his exegetical wood-shop. Werethat it was so. Rather, Barth intuits his way through the text of Isaiah as he wrestleswith its verbal sense as a theological witness to the One God with whom we haveto do. Barth slides between the various layers of Scripture and is not constrained to provide warrant for why he is reading a particular text the way he is reading it in thisor that context. Moreover, Barth can read the Scriptures on their gural plain withouttracing out the ‘how to’ or ‘may I’ of this reading. He allows the various senses ofScriptures from the literal sense to their gural witness to slide between each otheras Barth follows the way the words go. Like Irenaeus before him, Barth believedthe whole of Scripture is a mosaic whose various pieces could be t together onthe confessional basis that Scripture’s subject matter is God’s triune revelation ofhimself in Jesus Christ.45 In this sense, Barth’s reading is a ruled reading.

45 Haer. 1.8.1.




Conclusion

This is not to say all of Barth’s readings are found persuasive. They are not. Hisreading of Isaiah 24 is interesting but wanting. Also, there are aspects of Isaiahone can only wish Barth would have paid more attention to such as Isa 48.6ffand the calling to forget the former things because God is about to do somethingnew in Israel’s midst. This is surely a central text in the explication of Isaiah’slarger literary and theological movement. Again, Barth reads with a purpose andcan be unprogrammatically selective. But this is not really the point. For Barth’sexegesis of various portions of Isaiah was not examined for nal formulations onthe matter. This would betray the canonical point made here that the Scriptureshave a life in the divine economy and their subject matter is never exhausted.Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah was examined in the anticipation that many

of us would go and do likewise in the hopes that God’s word may break forth inthe church and the world by his own good pleasure.



Bibliography

Bächli, Otto. Das Alte Testament in der Kirchlichen Dogmatik von Karl Barth. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1987.

———. Das Alten Testament in der Kirchlichen Dogmatik von Karl Barth. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1987.

Bailey, Daniel P. “Concepts of Stellvertretung in the Interpretation of Isaiah 53.”in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, edited byW.H. Bellinger and William R. Farmer, Harrisburg: Trinity International Press,

1998, 223–50.Baird, William. History of New Testament Research Volume Two: From Jonathan

Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.Barr, J. “Wilhelm Vischer and Allegory.” In Understanding Poets and Prophets:

Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson, edited by A. Graeme Auld,Shefeld: Shefeld University Press, 1993, 38–60.

Barstad, Hans M. “The Future of the ‘Servant Songs’: Some Reections on theRelationship of Biblical Scholarship to Its Own Tradition.” In Language,

Theology, and the Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr , edited by S.E.Balentine and John Barton, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994, 261–70.

———. The Babylonian Captivity and the Book of Isaiah: ‘Exilic’ Judah and the Provenance of Isaiah 40–55. Oslo: Novus, 1997.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. I.2. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance.Translated by G.T. Thomson and Harold Knight. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.

———. Church Dogmatics. IV.1. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&TClark, 1956.

———. Church Dogmatics. II.1. Translated by T.H.L. Parker, W.B. Johnston,Harold Knight, and J.L.M. Haire. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957. ———. Church Dogmatics. II.2. Translated by T.H.L. Parker, W.B. Johnston,

Harold Knight, and J.L.M. Haire. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1957. ———. Church Dogmatics. IV.2. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1958. ———. Church Dogmatics. III.1. Translated by J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and

Harold Knight. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958. ———. Church Dogmatics. III.2. Translated by Harold Knight, G.W. Bromiley,

J.K.S. Reid, and R.H. Fuller. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960. ———. Church Dogmatics. III.3. Translated by G.W. Bromiley and R.J. Ehrlich.

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1960. ———. Church Dogmatics. IV.3.1. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1961.




———. Church Dogmatics. III.4. Translated by A.T. Mackay, T.H.L. Parker, H.Knight, H.A. Kennedy, and J. Marks. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1961.

———. Church Dogmatics. IV.3.2. Translated by G.W. Bromiley. Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1962.

———. Church Dogmatics. I.1. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance.Translated by G.W. Bromiley. London: T&T Clark, 1975.

———. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by E.C. Hoskyns. London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1957.

———. The Theology of Schleiermacher: Lectures at Göttingen, Winter Semester1923/23. Edited by Dietrich Ritschl. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

———. Epistle to the Philippians: 40th Anniversary Edition. Translated by J.W.Leitch. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Barton, John. The Nature of Biblical Criticism. Louisville: Westminster JohnKnox, 2007.

Bauckham, Richard. The Theology of the Book of Revelation. New TestamentTheology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

———. “Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Image foran Ecological Age.” In Jesus of Nazareth Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, edited by Joel B. Green andM. Turner, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, 3–21.

———. God Crucied: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament . TheDidsbury Lectures. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salavation in Christ, VolumeThree. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Bellinger, William H., and William R. Farmer, eds Jesus and the SufferingServant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins. Harrisburg: Trinity InternationalPress, 1998.

Beuken, Willem A.M. “The ‘Messianic’ Character of Isaiah Chapter 11: East

and West: Alien Perspectives?” In Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibelin orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht , edited by I.Z. Dimitrov, J.D.G. Dunn,Ulrich Luz, and K-H Nieber, T bingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2004. 347–58.

Bornkamm, Heinrich. Luther and the Old Testament . Translated by Eric W. Gritsch,

Ruth C. Gritsch. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.Bourgine, Beno�t. L’Herméneutique Théologique de Karl Barth: Exégèse et

dogmatique dans le quatrième volume de la Kirchliche Dogmatik. BibliothecaBibliothecaEphemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. Leuven: Leuven UniversityPress, 2003.

van Buren, Paul. “Authenticity Without Demonization.” Journal of EcumenicalStudies 34 (1997): 341–5.

Burnett, Richard. Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis. WUNT 2 145. T bingen:Mohr Siebeck, 2001.

———. “John Calvin and the Sensus Literalis.” Scottish Journal of Theology 57,no. 1 (2004): 1–13.



Bibliography 155

Busch, Eberhard. Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts.Translated by John Bowden. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

———. The Great Passion: An Introduction to Karl Barth’s Theology. Translated by Geoffery W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Bttner, Matthias. Das Alte Testament als erster Teil der christlichen Bibel: Zur Frage nach theologischer Auslegung und Mitte im Kontext der Theologie Karl Barths. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 2002.

Calvin, John. Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. Translated byWilliam Pringle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

von Campenhausen, Hans. The Formation of the Christian Bible. Translated byJ.A. Baker . Mifintown: Sigler Press, 1997.

Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

———. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1985.

———. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reection

on the Christian Bible. Minnepolis: Fortress Press, 1992. ———. “Old Testament in Germany 1920–1940: The Search for a New Paradigm.”

in Altes Testament Forschung und Wirkung: Festschrift Für Henning Graf Reventlow, edited by P. Mommer and W. Thiel. New York: Peter Lang, 1994.

———. “On Reclaiming the Bible for Christian Theology.” In Reclaiming the

Bible for the Church, edited by C.E. Braaten and R.W. Jenson, 1–17. Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1995.

———. “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament Prophets.” Zeitschrift fürdie alten alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 362–77.

———. Isaiah. The Old Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster/John KnoxPress, 2001.

———. “Critique of Recent Intertextual Canonical Interpretation.” ZAW 115(2003): 173–84.

———. The Struggle to Understand Isaiah as Christian Scripture. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2004.Childs, Brevard. “The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature.” Interpretation

32 (1978): 46–55. ———. “Does the Old Testament Witness to Jesus Christ?” In Evangelium

Schriftauslegung Kirche: Festschrift für Peter Stuhlmacher zum 65. Geburstag ,edited by Jostein Adna, Scott J. Hafemann, and Otfried Hous. Göttingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997, 57–64.

Childs, B.S. “Critical Reections on James Barr’s Understanding of the Literaland the Allegorical.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46 (1990):3–9.

Cunnigham, Mary Kathleen. What is Theological Exegesis? Interpretation andUse of Scripture in Barth’s Doctrine of Election. Harrisburg: Trinity PressInternational, 1995.




———. “Karl Barth.” In Christian Theologies of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, edited by J.S. Holbomb. New York: New York State UniversityPress, 2006, 183–201.

Daley, Brian E. “Is Patristic Exegesis Still Usable? Some Reection on EarlyChristian Interpretation of the Psalms.” In The Art of Reading Scripture, edited by E.F. Davis and R.B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, 69–88.

de Lubac, Henri. Medieval Exegesis Volume I: The Fourfold Senses of Scripture.Translated by Mark Sebanc. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Dickerman, David L., ed. Karl Barth and the Future of Theology: A MemorialColloquium Held at Yale Divinity School, January 28, 1969. New Haven: YaleDivinity School Association, 1969.

Dorrien, Gary. The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology WithoutWeapons. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2000.

Edmondson, Stephen. “Christ and History: Hermeneutical Convergence in Calvinand Its Challenge to Biblical Theology.” Modern Theology 21, no. 1 (2005): 3–35.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament I . Translated by J.A. Baker.Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961.

Felber, Stefan. Wilhelm Vischer als Ausleger der Heiligen Schrift: EineUntersuchung zum Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments. Forschungen ZurSystematischen und Ökumenischen Theologie. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck andRuprecht, 1999.

———. “Vischer, Wilhelm.” In Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters, edited by Donald McKim. Downers Grove: IVP, 2007, 1011–16.

Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and NineteenthCentury Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

Gelston, A. “Universalism in Second Isaiah.” Journal of Theological Studies 43(1992): 377–98.

Gignilliat, Mark. Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s Theological Reading of Isaiah 40–66 in 2 Corinthians 5.14–6.10. Library of New Testament Studies.

London: T&T Clark, 2007.Goldingay, John. The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-TheologicalCommentary. London: T&T Clark, 2005.

———. Israel’s Faith. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP, 2006.Greene-McCreight, K.E. Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read

the ‘Plain Sense’ of Genesis 1–3. Issues in Systematic Theology 5. New York:Peter Lang, 1999.

Gunneweg, A.H.J. Understanding the Old Testament . Translated by J. Bowden.London: SCM Press, 1978.

Gunton, Colin E. Becoming and Being: The Doctrine of God in Charles Hawthorneand Karl Barth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978.

von Harnack, Adolf. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God . Translated by John E.Seeley and Lyle D. Bierma. Durham: The Labyrinth Press, 1990.

Hart, Trevor. “Systematic—In What Sense?” In Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology

and Biblical Interpretation; Scripture and Hermeneutics Series 5, edited by



Bibliography 157

C. Bartholomew, M. Healy, K. Möller, and R. Parry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,2004, 341–51.

Hayes, John H., and Frederick Prussner. Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development . Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Hays, Richard. Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul . New Haven: YaleUniversity Press, 1989.

Helmer, Christine. “Luther’s Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament.” Modern Theology 18, no. 1 (2002): 49–73.

Hengel, Martin. Studies in Early Christology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.Hermisson, Hans-Jrgen. “The Fourth Servant Song in the Context of Second

Isaiah.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources,edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher, translated by D.P. Bailey. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2004, 16–47.

Higton, Mike. Christ, Providence and History: Hans W. Frei’s Public Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

———. “The Fulllment of History in Barth, Frei, Auerbach and Dante.”in Coversing with Barth, edited by John C. McDowell and Mike Higton.Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004, 120–41.

Howard, Thomas Albert. Religion and the Rise of Historicism: W.M.L. de Wette, Jacob Burckhardt, and the Theological Originas of Nineteenth-Century Historical Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Hunsinger, George. Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Janowski, Bernd. “He Bore Our Sins: Isaiah 53 and the Drama of Taking Another’sPlace.” In The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources,edited by Bernd Janowski and Peter Stuhlmacher, translated by D.P. Bailey.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004, 48–74.

Janowski, Bernd, and Peter Stuhlmacher, eds The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Translated by Daniel P. Bailey. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2004.Jenson, Robert W. “Toward a Christian Theology of Israel.” Pro Ecclesia 9 (2000):43–56.

Jngel, Eberhard. Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy. Translated by P.E. Garrett.Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986.

Kaminsky, Joel, and Anne Stewart. “God of All the World: Universalism andDeveloping Monotheism in Isaiah 40–66.” Harvard Theological Review 99(2006): 139–63.

Keller, Roger R. “Karl Barth’s Treatment of the Old Testament as Expectation.” Andrews University Seminary Journal 35 (1997): 165–79.

Kraft, Dieter. “Israel in der Theologie Karl Barths.” Communio Viatorum 27(1984): 59–72.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. “Calvin’s Exegetical Principles.” Interpretation 31 (1977):8–18.




———. “Neue Begegnung mit dem Alten Testament in Karl Barths Theologie.” Evangelische Theologie 49, no. 5 (1989): 429–43.

———. “The Contemporary Relevance of Calvin’s Theology.” In Toward the Future of Reformed Theology: Tasks, Topics, Traditions, edited by DavidWillis and Michael Welker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 323–38.

Krötke, Wolf. “The Humanity of the Human Person in Karl Barth’s Anthropology.”in The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, edited by John Webster.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, 159–76.

Kugel, James L., and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Library ofEarly Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism.Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

———. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism. Louisville:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.MacDonald, Neil B. Karl Barth and the Strange New World Within the Bible:

Barth, Wittgenstein, and the Metadilemmas of the Enlightenment . PaternosterBiblical and Theological Monographs. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000.

———. “Illocutionary Stance in Hans Frei’s The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative:An Exercise in Conceptual Redescription and Normative Analysis.” In After Pentecost: Language & Biblical Interpretation; Scripture & HermeneuticsSeries Vol 2, edited by Bartholomew Craig, Colin Greene, and Karl Möller.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001, 312–28. ———. Metaphysics and the God of Israel: Systematic Theology of the Old and

New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.McCormack, Bruce L. “Historical-Criticism and Dogmatic Interests in Karl

Barth’s Theological Exegesis of the New Testament.” Lutheran Quarterly 5(1991): 211–25.

———. Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development 1909–1936. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

McGlasson, Paul. Jesus and Judas: Biblical Exegesis in Barth. American Academyof Religion Academy Series. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1991.Marks, J.H. “Baumgartner, Walter.” In Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation,

Volume I , edited by J.H. Hayes. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999, 111–12.Motyer, J. Alec. The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary. Downers

Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.Muller, Richard A.“The Hermeneutic of Promise and Fulllment in Calvin’s Exegesis

of the Old Testament Prophecies of the Kingdom.” In The Bible in the SixteenthCentury, edited by David C. Steinmetz. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990,68–82.

———. “Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation: The View from theMiddle Ages.” In Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, edited by Richard A. Muller and John L. Thompson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996,3–22.



Bibliography 159

Noth, Martin. The History of Israel . Second ed. Translated by P.R. Ackroyd. SanFrancisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1958.

O’Keefe, John J., and R.R. Reno. Sanctied Vision: An Introduction to EarlyChristian Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 2005.

Paddison, Angus. “Karl Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Romans 9–11 in theLight of Jewish-Christian Understanding.” Journal for the Study of the NewTestament 28 (2006): 469–88.

Parker, T.H.L. Calvin’s Old Testament Commentaries. Louisville: Westminster /John Knox Press, 1986.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Luther the Expositor : Introduction to the Reformer’s ExegeticalWritings. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.

Plantinga, Alvin. Warranted Christian Belief . New York: Oxford University Press,2000.

Procksch, Otto. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Gtersloh, 1950.Puckett, David L. John Calvin’s Exegesis of the Old Testament . Columbia Series in

Reformed Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995.Rad, Gerhard von. “Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments: Eine

Auseinandersetzung mit Wilhelm Vischers gleichnamigen Buch.” Theologische Blätter 14 (1935): 250–54.

———. “The Theological Problem of the Old Testament Doctrine of Creation.”in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology,

translated by E.W.T. Dickens. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, 177–86.Radner, Ephraim. Hope Among the Fragments: The Broken Church and Its

Engagement with Scripture. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2004.Rendtorff, Rolf. Canon and Theology: Overtures to an Old Testament Theology.

Translated by Margaret Kohl. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis:Fortress Press, 1993.

———. “Martin Noth and Tradition Criticism.” In The History of Israel’s Traditions:

The Heritage of Martin Noth; JSOTSupp 182, edited by S.L. McKenzie and

M.P. Graham. Shefeld: Shefeld Academic Press, 1994. ———. The Covenant Formula: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation.Translated by Margaret Kohl. Old Testament Studies. Edinburgh: T&T Clark,1998.

———. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament . Translated by D.E. Orton. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2005.

Reventlow, Henning Graf. Problems of Old Testament Theology in the TwentiethCentury. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John RichardDe Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Rogerson, John. Old Testament Criticism in Nineteenth Century German and England. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985.

Scalise, Charles J. “Canonical Hermeneutics: Childs and Barth.” Scottish Journalof Theology 47 (1994): 61–88.




Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Christian Faith. Translated by H.R. Mackintoshand J.S. Stewart. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.

Seitz, C.R. “Fixity and Potential in Isaiah.” In The Multivalence of Biblical Textsand Theological Meanings, SBL Symposium Series 37 , edited by ChristineHelmer, 37–45. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006.

Seitz, Christopher R. Isaiah 1–39. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press,1993.

———. Word with End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

———. Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture. Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

———. “‘You Are My Servant, You Are the Israel in Whom I Will be Gloried’:

The Servant Songs and the Effect of Literary Context in Isaiah’” Calvin

Theological Journal 39 (2004): 117–34.Seitz, Christopher. “Christological Interpretation of Texts and Trinitarian Claims

to Truth: An Engagement with Francis Watson’s Text and Truth.” Scottish Journal of Theology 52 (1999): 209–26.

Simonetti, Manlio. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Translated by John A. Hughes. Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1994.

Smend, Rudolf, ed. Die Mitte des Alten Testaments. Theologische Studien. Zrich:

EVZ-Verlag, 1970. ———. “Karl Barth and Walter Baumgartner: Ein Briefwechsel ber das Alte

Testament.” In Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Beiheft 6: Zur Theologie Karl Barths Beiträge aus Anlass seines 100. Geburstags, edited by EberhardJngel. T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986, 240–71.

———. From Astruc to Zimmerli: Old Testament Scholarship in Three Centuries.Translated by M. Kohl. T bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66 .

Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress, 1998.Sonderegger, Katherine. That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew: Karl Barth’s “Doctrine

of Israel”. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992.Soulen, Kendall R. “Karl Barth and the Future of the God of Israel.” Pro Ecclesia

6 (1997): 413–28.Spriggs, D. G. Two Old Testament Theologies: A Comparative Evaluation of the

Contributions of Eichrodt and von Rad to Our Understanding of the Nature ofOld Testament Theology. Studies in Biblical Theology. London: SCM Press,1974.

Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1–39 with an Introduction to the Prophetic Literature.The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion: An Essay on Trinitarian Descriptionand Human Participation with Special Reference to Volume One of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.



Bibliography 161

Torrance, Thomas F. Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics.Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995.

Vischer, Wilhelm. The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ: Volume I, the Pentateuch. Translated by A.B. Crabtree. London: Lutterworth Press, 1949.

Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. London: T&T Clark, 2004.Webster, John. Word and Church: Essays in Christian Dogmatics. Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 2001. ———. Holiness. London: SCM Press, 2003. ———. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Current Issues in Theology.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ———. “Karl Barth.” In Reading Romans Through the Centuries, edited by

Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005,205–23.

Westerman, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. John J. Scullion, S.J.Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1974.

Wilcox, Peter, and David Paton-Williams. “The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42 (1988): 79–102.

Wildberger, Hans. Isaiah 1–12: A Commentary. Continental Commentaries.Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Wilkin, Robert Louis. “Cyril of Alexandria as Interpreter of the Old Testament.”in The Theology of St Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation, edited by

Thomas G. Weinandy and Daniel A. Keating. London: T&T Clark, 2003, 1–21.Williamson, H.G.M. The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah’s Role in Composition

and Redaction. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. ———. Variations on a Theme: King, Messiah and Servant in the Book of Isaiah.

The Didsbury Lectures. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998.Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Art in Action: Toward a Christian Aesthetic. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1980.Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Yarbrough, Robert W. The Salvation Historical Fallacy? Reassessing the Historyof New Testament Theology. History of Biblical Interpretation Series. Leiden:Deo Publishing, 2004.

Yeago, David. “The New Testament and the Nicene Dogma.” Pro Ecclesia iii(1994): 152–78.

Young, Frances. “Augustine’s Hermeneutic and Postmodern Criticism.” Interpretation 58 (2004): 42–55.

Zimmerli, Walther. “From Prophetic Word to Prophetic Hope.” In The FieryThrone: The Prophets and Old Testament Theology, edited by K.C. Hanson.Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003, 22–42.

Zimmerman, Jans. R ecovering Theological Hermeneutics: An Incarnational-Trinitarian Theory of Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Press, 2004.



General Index

allegory 12, 15, 18, 20–22, 94–5, 125, 145Alt, Albrecht 83–4a nselm 30, 133atonement 65–6, 79, 133, 142Augustine 4, 43–4, 76, 86

Bächli, Otto 5Barr, James 18, 20, 21, 113

Barstad, Hans 131Barton, John 142–4, 145, 146Bauckham, Richard 93Baumgartner, Walter 3, 5, 8, 10–16, 17, 20,

23–4, 148 beauty of God 11, 124–5Bengel, Johann Albrecht 33Beuken, Willem 90

biblical criticism 121, 142–45

biblical theology 3, 38, 138Bultmann, Rudolf 30Burnett, Richard 3Bttner, Matthias 5

calling 68, 75–6, 77–8, 117Calvin, John 2, 4, 44–6, 48, 59, 100, 125Childs, Brevard vii–viii, 1–2, 3, 7, 8–9, 13,

18, 20, 47, 48, 64, 65, 69, 84, 87,

89–90, 94, 112, 121–3, 132, 134,139–49christology 8–9, 16–23, 91–2Cocceius, Johannes 29, 33conversion 76, 100–102covenant

breaking of 54doctrine of 45, 48–52, 56, 57, 60, 111,

115–20, 126

fulllment of 53, 58–9creation 4, 79, 86–8, 98, 99, 114–15cross 30–32, 54–5crucixion. See crossCyril of Alexandria 95–6

Die Zeit der Erwartung 5, 6, 27, 35–6, 46,50, 59, 128, 133, 138, 148

d ocetism 66

Eichrodt, Walther 8, 40, 50–51, 78, 89,113, 116 , 140

election 49, 58, 60, 66–8, 114–15Emmanuel 79–85

eschatology 31–2, 56–7, 58–9, 76, 89,119–23, 136exegesis

theological exegesis vii–ix, 3–5, 8, 13,17, 22, 38, 64–5, 103–4, 121–3,137–51

family resemblance 7, 13, 48Felber, Stefan 17

gural sense. See gurationguration 4, 22, 51, 53, 54, 58, 60–61, 67,

68, 85, 94–5, 102, 104, 109–10,129, 131–4, 138, 139, 141, 147,148–50

Frei, Hans 7, 51, 110

Green-McCreight, Kathryn 4Gunkel, Herman 5, 37, 39, 86, 98

Heilsgeschichte. See redemptive historyHengstenberg, Ernst 9–10, 11, 38, 60, 61hermeneutics. See interpretationhistorical criticism

form criticism 12, 37, 69, 70, 80, 86,121

redaction criticism 12, 69, 78, 80,89–90, 101, 146

religionsgeschichtliche Schule 10, 16,27, 37, 38–40, 41, 59, 146, 147historical criticism vii, 2–3, 4, 5, 7–11 18,

20–21, 50–51, 55, 64, 63, 78, 80,89, 101, 127, 132, 134, 140, 142,145, 147




historyhistorical particularity 12, 16, 46, 57,

70–71, 121–2, 123, 127, 145historicality 30historicity 30

of redemption. See redemptive historyof religions. See religionsgeschichtliche Schule

holinessof God 74–5

homiletics. See preaching

interpretationconfessional approach to 9–10, 22, 30,

48, 51, 59–61, 143, 149, 150history of vii, 20, 42–8, 96intertextuality 70–71, 87, 90, 94–5Irenaeus 42–3, 59, 150

Kant, Immanuel 30, 48, 73, 76kingdom of God 34, 96–7, 97–8, 99, 111,

128kingdom of heaven. See kingdom of God

Kraus, Hans-Joachim 26Krötke, Wolf 91

literal sense 4, 15–16, 20, 58, 68, 78, 81,87, 109–10, 115, 123, 135, 138,139, 146, 148–50

loveof God 111–15

Luther, Martin15, 46–7, 48, 59, 76

MacDonald, Neil 75, 101Marcion 25, 41, 42, 60marriage 135–6McCormack, Bruce 3–4, 21, 33McGlasson, Paul 2–3, 138–9Messiah 11, 31, 58, 89, 90–93, 135midrash 94–5multiple layers/levels 23, 51, 57, 61, 65,

90, 110, 133, 134, 136, 139–50

natural sense. See literal sense Noth, Martin20, 80, 82, 116

pietism 76–7, 78 plainsense. See literal sense

preaching 15, 16, 17, 23, 70, 72, 99, 102,148

Procksch, Otto 8–9, 78 prophet

israel as 129–32

Jesus as 128–31

redemption 67, 87–8, 118, 119, 127redemptive history 32–3, 147

Religionsgeschichte. See religionsgeschichtliche Schule

religious-historical 8, 13, 20, 23,37–8, 48, 75, 113. See alsoreligionsgeschichtliche Schule

Rendtorff, Rolf 141, 145revelation. See also Word of Godas an act of God 73–4expectation of 21, 36–7, 40, 41, 43, 60inhistory 29–34time of 28–9, 36

Römerbrief 3

salvation history. See redemptive history

Schleiermacher, Friedrich 3, 25, 38–9Seitz, Christopher xi, 64, 83–4, 90, 120,127, 143

Servant of the Lord 101, 112, 117–19, 125,126–7, 128, 129–33

Smend, Rudolf 101Son of God

israel as 65–8, 71Jesus as 66–7, 71

Suffering Servant. See Servant of the Lord

Thurneysen, Rudolf 16–17time

God’s versus humanity’s 34–5of expectation. See Die Zeit der

Erwartung t rinity 71–3, 147typology 2, 20, 53, 58, 125, 139, 4

unity between the Old and New Testament

19, 22, 42, 44, 45, 48–59, 66, 121,144, 147

van Buren, Paul 103



Index 165

Vischer, Wilhelm 5, 8–10, 14, 16–23, 40,50, 140, 146

vocation. See callingvon Campenhausen, Hans 103von Harnack, Adolf 25–6, 37, 38

von Hofman, Johann 29, 32von Rad, Gerhard 1–2, 8, 20, 23, 82, 87,127, 130, 140

Watson, Francis 3–4, 143Webster, John xi, 144Wellhausen, Julius 8, 10, 40, 116Wilken, Robert Louis 95–6Williamson, H.G.M. 89, 93

wisdom of God 105–8Word of God 23, 86, 105, 109–10Wright. N.T. 93–4



Scripture Index

Genesis1.9–10 86, 881–2 86–7, 992.12–25 1353.15 489.1–7 116–17

1 Kings 3:6–9 92

Psalm 51:10 100

Isaiah1.2–4 65–71, 100 1.4–9 692.2–4 1176 71 9

24.21–23 98–925.6–8 11730.1 ,9 65–730.11–17 69, 10030.20–22 100–10240 105–10, 141, 15042 119, 12942.6 118

43.1–4 114–1543.4–5a 11243.18–19 5948.6ff 15149.6 11749.8 118–1949.15–16 111–1249 132

gignilliat, mark - karl barth and the fifht gospel - isaiah

Documents