God's Time For Us: Barth's Reconciliation of Eternity and Time in Jesus Christ

By James J. Cassidy

The relationship between eternity and time is a common subject for theologians and philosophers. What difference does it make for this discussion that God became man and inhabited time in Jesus Christ?

In God's Time for Us, James J. Cassidy examines the theology of Karl Barth to show that God is our Father who does not neglect us for lack of time; he is the God who has time to be with us. God also quite literally has time in his own being by virtue of the incarnation. Cassidy shows that Barth seeks a rapprochement between eternity and time, which is overcome by Jesus Christ.

There is today a resurgence in interest in the theology of Barth, especially among evangelicals. Yet Barth is often read without discernment and discussed in churches without full understanding. Cassidy illuminates his thought so evangelicals can make a better, more well-informed appraisal of the man and his theology.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Release date: Sep 28, 2016
• ISBN: 9781577997498

Book preview

God’s Time for Us

Barth’s Reconciliation of Eternity and Time in Jesus Christ

JAMES J. CASSIDY

STUDIES IN HISTORICAL AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

God’s Time for Us: Barth’s Reconciliation of Eternity and Time in Jesus Christ

Studies in Historical and Systematic Theology

Copyright 2016 James J. Cassidy

Lexham Press, 1313 Commercial St., Bellingham, WA 98225

LexhamPress.com

All rights reserved. You may use brief quotations from this resource in presentations, articles, and books. For all other uses, please write Lexham Press for permission. Email us at [e-mail].

Print ISBN 9781577997481

Digital ISBN 9781577997498

Lexham Editorial Team: Elliot Ritzema, Joel Wilcox

Cover Design: Brittany Schrock

For Eve, My Rib

Contents

Acknowledgments

1.Eternity and Time in the Theology of Karl Barth

A Third Time-Sphere

Toward a Christological Reading of Eternity and Time

2.The Doctrine of God in Barth’s Conception of Eternity and Time

Literary Features of Barth’s Doctrine of God

The Trinity and the Rapprochement of Eternity and Time

The Three Time-Spheres

Barth’s Christological Ontology

Debriefing

3.The Doctrine of Creation in Barth’s Conception of Eternity and Time

Act and Creation

Jesus Christ, the Creature of God

Creation Before Creation: The Transcendent Act of God

Creation in the Light of Revelation, Election, and Reconciliation

Dualism and Analogy

On Death and the Afterlife

An Appraisal

4.The Doctrine of Reconciliation in Barth’s Conception of Eternity and Time

Incarnation and Reconciliation: One Act, and Many Acts

In Our Time, but Not of It: Our History and the Event of Reconciliation

Bridging Lessing’s Ugly Ditch

Between the Already and Not Yet

Not By Human Devices: Reconciliation in Summary

5.The Doctrine of Revelation in Barth’s Conception of Eternity and Time

Eternity, Time, and Revelation

Eternity, Time, and the Trinity

Summarizing Revelation

6.Conclusion

Christology, Time, and Eternity

Critical Questions

Bibliography

Subject and Author Index

Acknowledgments

An acknowledgments page is a notoriously difficult thing to write. No one writes a book alone, so such a page can go on forever. With some trepidation at the possibility of missing names, let me be brief.

This book originated at Westminster Theological Seminary, where I wrote the initial manuscript as my doctoral dissertation. My greatest gratitude goes to my wife Eve and my three children: Caitlyn, Ian, and Anna. The amount of quality family time they sacrificed so I could research and write cannot be totaled, and this was in addition to the stress they felt simply by way of living with a doctoral student. My parents, remarkable in their abiding support of their son, made the dissertation possible by pushing me in school in a day when I did not want to be a scholar.

Special thanks go to my advisor, Lane G. Tipton, who faithfully helped and encouraged me in my studies. He has been to me a pastor, teacher, and friend. In the same breath, I have to acknowledge Jeffrey C. Waddington, whose wisdom and keen theological mind have been a constant store of riches for me throughout my studies and ministry. Also, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my professors who have so deftly instructed me in what it means to be an epistemologically self-conscious Reformed scholar: Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Vern S. Poythress, K. Scott Oliphint, David. B. Garner, Carl R. Trueman, and Jeffrey K. Jue. I must also mention the staff of the Montgomery Library at Westminster Seminary, above all Leslie Altena, who helped me to write better, and the staff at the (former) Speer Library at Princeton Seminary, especially Kate Skrebutenas for her cheerful helpfulness. I am forever grateful for the resources at Princeton Seminary’s Karl Barth Research Collection reading room and its eminently helpful staff.

Paige Britton provided kind editorial assistance, without which the dissertation would never have been done on time. Thanks to Jeremiah Montgomery and Mark Garcia for their editorial assistance, not to mention their camaraderie in the gospel ministry. If there is anything technically meritorious about the book, they deserve the credit. Where it falls short, I deserve the blame. A host of friends have encouraged me along the way, including Alan Dunn, James Dolezal, Camden Bucey, and Nate Shannon. Paul Price retrieved books for me from the Princeton University Library, and Chris Bush did the same at the Montgomery Library. The session and congregation of Calvary Church of Amwell (OPC), my former beloved pastoral charge, gave me encouragement and support. My current pastoral charge, South Austin Presbyterian Church, has been exceedingly supportive of my editing this present work from dissertation to book form. Finally, in terms of getting this book ready for publication, no mere man has been more helpful to me than Brannon Ellis at Lexham Press.

And in a completely different category from all the rest, thanks and glory be to the self-contained triune God of scriptural revelation. For from him and through him and to him are all things; to him be the glory forever. Amen.

1

Eternity and Time in the Theology of Karl Barth

Recent years have seen a renewed interest in the relationship between eternity and time among philosophers, scientists, and theologians.¹ Theologically, this question gets at the age-old problem of how an eternal God can interact with a temporal creation. A new generation of theologians is not content with the traditional answers proffered through the centuries. An eternal God who is wholly removed from our present experience and affliction, the thinking goes, is not a God we can trust. Karl Barth has been increasingly tapped as a resource for exploring this subject.²

However, no study to date has sought to explore how Barth’s relating of eternity and time is a common theme in the major loci of his Church Dogmatics.³ When we consider it as a literary whole, we can see that in CD Barth treats eternity and time across the various loci in a consistent and coherent way.⁴ Furthermore, Barth relates them through the linchpin of Christology: his solution to the eternity/time problem is bound up with his own particular christological recasting of traditional theological loci. His original way of relating the divine to the human in Christ presents new vistas for understanding how eternity and time relate.

Existing literature on Barth’s solution to the problem of eternity and time rightly picks up on his christological recasting of traditional formulations. However, there are questions that have not yet been addressed, such as: How does Barth’s Christology inform the relation between eternity and time? And does Barth merely employ a christological analogy as a heuristic device to explain how eternity and time can relate, or does his use of Christology bear more ontological weight? If we seek to answer these questions, it will become apparent how his Christology—in fact, Christ himself—is so central to his thought that it not only informs but structures every locus of his theology.⁵ Christ is central—indeed, he is everything—for Barth. This is no mere christomonism, as some have labeled Barth’s theology. Rather, this is the idea of Christ-as-all, or what I call christopanism.⁶

A THIRD TIME-SPHERE

In this book, I will show how Barth’s reframed Christology is a common thread in the CD, which casts greater light on how he explains the relation between eternity and time by means of his Christology. Barth’s Christology is neither metaphysical nor merely heuristic; rather, it must be understood as an act—an event. The event of Jesus Christ in God’s life is the only solution to the problem of time and eternity in every locus of theology—whether the doctrine of God, creation, reconciliation, or revelation. Jesus Christ is himself God, creation, reconciliation, and revelation. He is no abstract God but is both the electing, eternal God and the elected, temporal man in one divine act of rapprochement. Further, he is no abstract creature but is both the eternal Creator and the temporal creature in one divine act of rapprochement. Similarly, Jesus Christ is no abstract redeemer but is both the eternal redeemer and the time-bound man of sinful flesh in one divine act of rapprochement.⁷ Finally, for Barth there is no abstract notion of revelation but Jesus Christ is both the eternal revealer and the temporal receiver of revelation in one divine act of rapprochement. God, creation, reconciliation, and revelation are the eternal act of God in Jesus Christ, in whom and by whom time is eternity and eternity is time—precisely because and insofar as he has become time.⁸

This actualistic and temporal way of relating eternity and time is as monumental as it is revolutionary. In an attempt to bridge the infinite gap between eternity and time, Barth brings God and creation together in a third time-sphere—his theology is three-dimensional. He affirms the theological existence of three times: God’s time, our time, and the time of Jesus Christ. This last time is what Barth refers to as Gottes Zeit für uns—God’s time for us (KD I/2, 50).⁹ Gottes Zeit für uns is a transcendent act of God in the event of Jesus Christ. Here, the Creator and the creature are temporally agglomerated in a perichoretic interpenetration of eternal divinity and temporal creatureliness in which God has become time without ceasing to be eternal. Thus eternity and time will always be one. In other words, they will always be Jesus Christ. For Barth, the rapprochement of eternity and time takes place in a transcendentally temporal act of God in Jesus Christ called God’s time for us. It is this act of rapprochement on God’s part that provides the conceptual foundation for Barth’s theologizing about his doctrine of election, creation, reconciliation, and revelation.

For Barth, Jesus Christ is himself a dialectical relation existing always and everywhere as a transcendent event. In him, eternity becomes temporal without ceasing to be eternal. Likewise, in him time is eternal without ceasing to be time. This is a relation-act that takes place in the event of God’s life that is Jesus Christ; it does not occur in our time. Our time is fallen time and is therefore incapable of containing God or bearing the acts of revelation, creation, and reconciliation. And it is not God’s time, which exists in a rarefied field of eternity. Rather, it is a third time: the time of Jesus Christ, who is himself God, and as such is also the act of creation, reconciliation, and revelation. He has always been the eternal God without ceasing to be temporal man. He is a time-bound man without ceasing to be the eternal God. Thus Christian theology may never speak about God or man, Creator or creation, Savior or saved, revelation given or received, in the abstract.¹⁰ The church must always speak about eternity and time as the dialectical reality of the event in God’s life who is Jesus Christ. In this way, Barth proposes a consistently, unapologetically, and unequivocally Christian answer to the problem of the relationship between eternity and time. Furthermore, it is also a distinctly theological proposal as opposed to a speculative-philosophical one.

Barth’s theology stands at the juncture of two converging concepts. The first is the idea of a three-dimensional structure, qualified in terms of time. The second is the solution to the eternity/time problem found in a transcendent act of God. If these two insights into Barth’s thought remain underdeveloped, the radical nature of Barth’s proposal is muted or missed altogether. Too often, interpreters resort to understanding his theology as if he allows for a substance ontology. But until Barth is read consistently as a post-metaphysical, dialectical, and actualistic theologian, the greatest depths of his thought will never be plumbed.¹¹

What is missing is a more precise understanding of Barth’s notion of the third time-sphere, God’s time for us, the time of election, creation, reconciliation, and revelation—the time of Jesus Christ. What relates God’s time to our time is not a substance, an ontological thing. Rather, the relation is temporal, a matter of the two sharing in a common time. In light of this, I propose that we understand the relatedness of God’s time and our time in terms of an actualized analogia temporis, or a temporal analogia actonis. By analogia temporis, I do not mean the idea that God and humanity share in a third metaphysical reality called time. Rather, Barth’s view might best be described as an analogia veri temporis—an analogy of actual time. It is an analogical relation in which the commonality between eternity and time is the act of God in Jesus Christ, described in terms of time.¹²

TOWARD A CHRISTOLOGICAL READING OF ETERNITY AND TIME

In previous attempts to treat the relationship between eternity and time, as we have seen, the idea of God’s third time as a transcendent act in Jesus Christ remained ignored in some and underdeveloped in others. I intend in this book to highlight and develop the importance of Barth’s concept of God’s time for us in his CD. I will identify those areas in Barth’s work that are most pertinent to the issue of how the estrangement of humanity from God is overcome in his notion of a third time-sphere. I will then set that teaching within the broader scope of what Barth is saying in the particular section and/or volume in which his teaching is found. In this way, I will avoid the pitfalls that occur in so many studies of Barth that engage in abstractly selective readings of CD.

This study will demonstrate that the early understanding of eternity and time found in Barth’s doctrine of God (especially in CD II/1) forms a common theme reappearing time and again throughout CD. If the great problem in theology is the estrangement of eternity from time, then the solution is nothing less than Jesus Christ. Therefore, the theological problem is cast in terms of the infinite qualitative distinction¹³ between eternity and time. And, consequently, the only acceptable solution is the rapprochement of eternity and time in Christology. Any other solution comes from religion, against which God has already declared his own emphatic No!¹⁴

The argument will proceed as follows. In chapter 2, I will focus on Barth’s initial discussion of eternity and time with regard to the eternality of God. This will be a close study of his treatment of the issue in his doctrine of God in CD II/1. I will seek to explain how he solves the problem of the eternity and time gap in his characteristically christological way, relative to his unique doctrine of election. I will give special attention to the expression God has time for us, and unpack its meaning relative to his proposed solution. I treat this section of CD first because his idea of a third time-sphere forms the conceptual paradigm for solving all eternity-against-time problems that surface again and again in every locus of systematic theology.

In chapter 3, I will explore Barth’s proposed solution to the problem of how God relates to the creature in the act of creation. Specifically, the problem is this: How can an infinite, eternal, and unchangeable being be the cause of a finite, temporal, and mutable creature? Barth’s answer is quite radical and ingenious. On the one hand, he is not satisfied with the answers proposed in the Reformed tradition, where God creates, as it were, from a distance, yet that creation contains within it some manifestation of the being of God as it reveals God himself. Barth will have nothing to do with a Reformed notion of natural revelation. On the other hand, he is utterly dissatisfied with Aquinas’ notion of God as an uncaused Cause who simply serves as the source or fountain of creation. Rather, Barth radically redefines the notions of Creator and creature in terms of his Christology, eschewing any abstract conceptualization of either the Creator or the creature. Barth proposes a concrete rapprochement of Creator (eternity) and the creature (time) in the third time-sphere of God’s act, who is Jesus Christ. In other words, Jesus Christ is both the eternal Creator and the temporal creature. In order to confirm this thesis, I will offer a careful analysis of Barth’s doctrine of providence and how he transforms the traditional Reformed doctrine in such a way that it parallels his notion of the rapprochement of eternity and time in the time of Jesus Christ, which is known as God’s time for us.

In chapter 4, I will move on to explore Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation. As elsewhere, the underlying problem here is the great rift between God and humanity in the infinite qualitative difference between eternity and time. God is the eternal, merciful God who stands over against sinful, time-bound humanity. Once again, the solution to this againstness of God toward humanity is found in the reconciling event of God in the third time-sphere, God’s time for us. In this way, Barth articulates his version of the Reformed doctrine of union with Christ. Once more he retains the older Reformed language but reforms the Reformed view in terms that are thoroughly actualistic and temporal: Jesus Christ is himself the time of Gods union with humanity.

In a retrospective move, I will return to take up Barth’s doctrine of revelation in chapter 5. It may seem strange to circle back to the beginning of CD at this point, but this procedure is sound for two reasons. First, according to Bruce L. McCormack, CD II/2 marks a decided shift in Barth’s thought.¹⁵ It makes sense, then, to consider his more developed thought first and then take up his less-mature thought. Second, Barth’s doctrine of revelation is absolutely foundational to all his thinking, so taking up the foundation last will provide a retrospective view on all that has been said previously. To use an illustration, it is like watching a movie with a surprise ending and then watching it again from the beginning to help make sense of the end. In this way, I will take up that which is foundational at the end, and thus cast a retrospective light back on all that has been said in the previous chapters.

Finally, in chapter 6 I will summarize what has been said about how Barth relates eternity and time, and how his discussion is helpful for future work on a thoroughgoing theological solution to the eternity/time problem. Furthermore, I will seek to offer some critical remarks that I hope will be an impetus for refining Barth’s thought in such a way that the cause of theological scholarship, and an increasingly more faithful presentation of the Christian faith, can be articulated and advanced.

2

The Doctrine of God in Barth’s Conception of Eternity and Time

The God who has time for us, in his own distinct time in Jesus Christ, is the subject matter of the second volume of the Church Dogmatics. I begin with Barth’s doctrine of God rather than his doctrine of revelation (the subject of volume one) because this is the ontological foundation of Barth’s unique answer to the eternity and time problem. Later I will discuss my rationale for waiting until chapter 5 to discuss the doctrine of revelation, but suffice it to say for now that Barth’s doctrine of God is the principium essendi of both his entire theological project in general, and how he relates eternity and time in particular. For Barth, God in Jesus Christ is himself the rapprochement of eternity and time, and this grounds all other ways of speaking about eternity and time in the other loci of dogmatic theology.

Furthermore, Barth’s relation of God’s act of election to God’s own triune being is so unique that, unless we understand his ontological reconstruction, we will inevitably fail to fully appreciate his original contribution to the eternity/time discussion. As Barth himself acknowledges, I would have preferred to follow Calvin’s doctrine of predestination much more closely, instead of departing from it so radically.… As I let the Bible itself speak to me on these matters, as I meditated upon what I seemed to hear, I was driven irresistibly to reconstruction (CD II/2, x). This reconstruction makes Barth’s doctrine of God an appropriate entryway into understanding his distinctive way of bringing together eternity and time.

Therefore, in this chapter I will establish how Barth relates eternity and time by swapping traditional metaphysical categories for modern actualistic and temporal categories. In particular, I will show how eternity and time relate in the act of God in a third time-sphere. The chapter consists of four parts. First, I will set the literary context of Barth’s doctrine of God by noting some ways in which he employs equivocal language to accomplish his theological goals. I will look briefly at several key ways in which Barth’s literary style and mode of expression aid his purpose of dialectically relating eternity and time. Second, I will discuss the role that his doctrine of election plays in his reconceptualization of the doctrine of the Trinity, and how both election and Trinity speak to the matter of relating eternity and time. Third, I will explore Barth’s development of three time-spheres in his doctrine of God. Fourth, and most importantly, I will show how Barth’s Christology affects his theological ontology and brings about a wholly Christian rapprochement of eternity and time. This new ontology also yields a new doctrine of election and a distinctly Christian ethic.

LITERARY FEATURES OF BARTH’S DOCTRINE OF GOD

Volume two of the CD is divided into four parts (consisting of chapters V–VIII, and sections 25 to 39 of the CD as a whole). The first part (chapter V) is on the knowledge of God. In it, Barth explains how temporal, fallen humanity knows the eternal God. In the second part (chapter VI), Barth tackles the matter of the existence of God. God exists and has his being in his decision-act. This part also addresses and reformulates the traditional doctrine of the perfections or attributes of God. The third part (chapter VII) contains Barth’s famous reconstruction of the Reformed doctrine of election. The fourth part (chapter VIII) consists of Barth’s distinctive doctrine of Christian morality and ethics. In all of these parts, the relation between God and humanity—and thus between eternity and time—is explored and reconstructed along temporal and actual lines. Barth’s message is clear and consistent: The only God who is and who can be, is the one who has time for us in the occurrence of his grace in Jesus Christ. This God-man relation is understood in terms of Christology, since God in Christ is himself the ontological rapprochement of eternity and time.

In terms of literary features, George Hunsinger notes a certain ambiguous use of language by Barth, especially with regard to his use of Zeit in CD II, observing that this causes terminological headaches.¹ Granting the pain, I think a better descriptor for Barth’s choice of language is equivocal. Ambiguous implies confusion on Barth’s part, whereas I see his terminology as purposeful and clear-headed. In fact, it may be argued that equivocation is a distinct feature of Barth’s writing style. Here I will sketch out three examples of Barth’s use of equivocation to underscore the way he relates and distinguishes eternity and time.²

First, Hunsinger is correct to note Barth’s ambiguous use of the word time (Zeit). However, when it is understood that Barth is strategically using the word in two different—but related—ways, the reader of Barth can experience some palliative relief. For example, in the section of CD II/1 where he addresses God’s pre-temporality, Barth explains that God conditions time absolutely. This is what Barth means by God’s readiness for time. Relative to time, the triune God precedes its beginning, He accompanies its duration, and He exists after its end (CD II/1, 619). Furthermore, God would not be any less eternal if time did not exist outside of Himself (CD II/1, 619). Nevertheless, God is temporal in his eternality even without external time: "It is in this way that eternity has a positive relationship to time, for it is itself temporal, and would be so even if no time existed apart from it" (CD II/1, 620; emphasis mine).

From this we can see that Barth is purposefully ambiguous in his use of Zeit. For him, there are at least two times. There is the time of God, which has an existence all its own and is not dependent on anything outside or besides it; this can be called internal time. Then there is the time that is created—our time—which exists outside God and eternity. Call this external time. We must always be careful to parse out the exact way in which Barth intends the use of his language. He is not always using the same words in the same way, even within the same paragraph! In other words, he purposefully equivocates.

Second, just as Barth is ambiguous with regard to time, so also with regard to eternity. Barth seems to speak of eternity in two different, though related, senses. In God’s pre-temporal eternity, the union of God and man is found in the person of Jesus Christ. In one sense God is eternal and without time, but in another he is very much temporal. God takes time for us in the union of eternity and time in a transcendent act in Jesus Christ. In other words, Barth can speak about God’s eternality in terms of God’s aseity and self-sufficiency. With regard to the divine decision to be the God of love for us in Jesus Christ, he is unconstrained by time. But this is no traditional doctrine of the eternality of God, since God’s eternality is defined in terms of time. He is eternal precisely in his being temporal in Jesus Christ. For Barth, as we have already seen, God has time for us only in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is here, in the eternal rapprochement of God’s triune nature and his acts ad extra in the event of Jesus Christ, that God has time for us. God is eternal in one respect but temporal in another. This contributes to his threefold view of time. Barth articulates a three-dimensional view of time, of which the Trinity is an architectonic principle. As triune, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in three times.³ Only in this way can God be pre-temporal, supra-temporal, and post-temporal at the same time. I will discuss God’s threefold temporality more below.

Third, we can also speak about Barth’s purposeful and strategic equivocation in his language of history. In his discussion of ethics, he equates the idea of God’s command (or claim) with his decree. The decree is the eternal history, encounter and decision between God and man (CD II/2, 184). But Barth uses history equivocally. The decree is an eternal history (ewige Geschichte), but it also relates to our lives here and now as history of salvation (Heilsgeschehen). This is found in the Word of God proclaimed and received in the church. Predestination is made visible and becomes operative in the activity of Israel and the church (CD II/2, 185). But even here, there is no separation of the temporal from the eternal. In the decree, then, we have eternal history, or an eternal temporality. And in our here and now, in Heilsgeschehen, we have a temporal eternality. Barth has a kind of two-tiered understanding of eternity and history. There is the ewige Geschichte that is in Christ, in the beginning with God. It is eternal, and yet, because it is in Jesus Christ, it is never apart from time and history. On the other hand, in Heilsgeschehen we have time as we know it, though this time is never independent of eternity or the eternal-historical decree in Jesus Christ. The relation between them is one of hiddenness and manifestation. The ewige Geschichte is always hidden and secret, but when the church preaches it is made manifest in Heilsgeschehen. While Barth relates these two tiers in an analogical way by virtue of his Christology, here he places them in clear dialectical tension. The tension is intended to underscore an ontological duality. There is a history that is a transcendent event in Christ, quite distinct from our own history. In other words, he uses the one word to denote two wholly distinct realities.

In these three examples, we can see how the ideas of time, eternity, and history play into Barth’s concern for a non-metaphysical, actualistic reconceptualization of Christian theology. I will soon map out how his equivocal use of language, dialectical method, and a non-metaphysical ontology relate. For now, note that his equivocal uses of time, eternity, and history, are literary-conceptual devices that underscore the happening nature of God and creation. No longer will Christian theology employ or use the older metaphysical categories of being and substance. But Barth’s great contribution to the modernization of Christian theology is to consistently explain theology in term of time-acts. His equivocating in the use of time, eternity, and history underscores his twofold use of temporal terminology. Furthermore, these two uses form the first two spheres of his three-dimensional perspective on time. Now I will discuss how he applies this equivocal language to the rapprochement of eternity and time in his doctrine of the Trinity.

THE TRINITY AND THE RAPPROCHEMENT OF ETERNITY AND TIME

There has been much recent debate concerning Barth’s doctrine of God, especially regarding the relation between election and the ontological Trinity. Interest in Barth’s doctrine of election, even ancillary to the current debate, does not appear to be relenting.⁴ And for good reason—the way Barth appropriates his reconstructed notion of election for his doctrine of God is as novel as it is complex. As we seek to understand this adept innovation, we can hardly ignore the proposal of Bruce McCormack. In this section, I will briefly survey McCormack’s insights into Barth’s doctrine of election, explicate Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity, and show how Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity affects the way he relates eternity and time.

Election and the McCormack Proposal

According to McCormack, Barth’s unique contribution to the doctrine of election is that Jesus Christ is not just the object of election (hardly a new idea in Reformed theology), but that he is also the electing subject. As such, he is no abstract logos asarkos but was, is, and always will be Jesus Christ, the God-human.⁵ Barth notes that seventeenth-century Reformed theologians made a distinction between the logos asarkos (the eternal divine Word before and apart from taking on human flesh) and the logos ensarkos (the eternal divine Word in the flesh in time). They further expressed this difference through another distinction—that of the Logos incarnandus (the eternal divine Word who is to be incarnate by virtue of the eternal decree of God) and the Logos incarnatus (the eternal divine Word in the flesh in