In his Church Dogmatics Barth often calls Scripture “the Word of God.” For example, in Volume 1 (The Doctrine of the Word of God) we find a whole section entitled “Scripture as the Word of God” (Part 2). There he states: “Holy Scripture is the Word of God to the Church and for the Church” (475).
In a past blog (Dec 17, 2009) - Karl Barth Considered: Is Scripture Revelation or Merely a Witness to Revelation? – I stated: “For Barth, then, the Bible is not the revelation of God, but merely the witness to it. As such, to be fair, Barth does treat the Bible with considerable respect as the witness to revelation. However, [Barth’s] tragic failure to treat Scripture as God’s Word lifts off the lid of Pandora’s box.” One email, from a Ph.D student, asked me to print a retraction of the last sentence. The student pointed out that Barth emphatically and repeatedly refers to the Bible as God’s Word and that, for example, this identification is clearly presented in the Table of Contents of Volume 1, Part 1. The student conceded that I am correct in pointing out that Barth identifies revelation with Christ and not with Scripture. He also recognised that this entailed on Barth’s part a rejection of the modern doctrine of inerrancy (or verbal plenary inspiration). However, the student insisted that this had “no bearing whatsoever on his affirmation of the Bible as the inspired Word of God”.
In the light of these considerations should I retract my statement? Am I wrong to speak of Barth’s tragic failure to treat Scripture as God’s Word? Prima facie it may indeed seem that in my very brief blog (which hardly attempted to summarise all of Barth’s thought) I must have got it wrong, given that Barth does indeed speak of the Bible as the Word of God.
But let’s hold our horses for a moment. First, we need to ask ourselves what does it mean to speak of Scripture as God’s Word? Second, having determined this, we need to ask whether this is what Barth means when he speaks of Scripture as God’s Word?
My complainant has already laid his finger on the nub of the problem, the very issue raised by the title of my December 17 blog. Is it necessary or not to identify Scripture with revelation itself in order to justify its being called “the Word of God”? Clearly, the student, following Barth, does not think it is.
Before I proceed I do want to reiterate the careful wording I used in my previous blog, which attempted to express my appreciation for Barth: “As such, to be fair, Barth does treat the Bible with considerable respect as the witness to revelation.” Studying Barth’s Church Dogmatics was part of the work I did for my own post-graduate research-based Masters in Theology. I enjoy reading Barth. While I don’t agree with some of his basic theological presuppositions, I nevertheless welcome many of his insights, as reflected in some of my past blogs, for example, concerning Barth’s indebtedness to Luther. Nevertheless, I stand by the statement I made in the earlier blog. I do so on this basis: It is only legitimate to speak of Scripture as the Word of God if Scripture itself is revelation. It is my contention, therefore, that Barth illegitimately refers to Scripture as the Word of God.
Having said this, a closer reading of Barth’s section “Scripture as the Word of God” is required. Barth is a very subtle theologian and more needs to be said about how Barth sees the relationship of Scripture to revelation. Given the recent challenge I have received I will endeavour, from time to time, to tease out more of what Barth says on this matter.
Posted January 20, 2010
Upon clicking 'Buy now' you will be redirected to paypal.com where you can securely and quickly complete your purchase with a few clicks.
Immediately after payment at PayPal you will be redirected to a download page which
provides you instant access to your purchase.
