Random Barth Related Stuff

barth study

Fun Barth Fact:

It took Barth three lecture periods to get through his material on John 1:14 when he taught through the Gospel of John in 1925. (No wonder he didn’t make it all the way through the Gospel, given that pace!)

A Real Barth Related Conversation:

2 year old — “Help Momma!”

Me — “You want to help Momma do research?”

2 year old — nods.

Me — “Can you speak German?”

2 year old — “…fitzzzzzzzzzzz.”

Me– “Perfect! You’re hired!”

Barth quote that I’m examining in light of the McCormack’s argument that Barth moves from being Pneumocentric to Christocentric in his Christology:

Inasmuch as the Incarnation fulfills the time, it is also limited by time. Insasmuch as it is epoch-making, it is also an epsiode which points beyond itself to the Holy Ghost who proclaims the Incarnate Word in other ages as well, and to the Resurrection of the body which includes all ages. ~”The Word Made Flesh” sermon 1926.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • http://parrhesia-lalein.blogspot.com Matthew Frost

    Hooray for research assistants. :)

    The quote suggests to me a connection with Barth’s later reading of the “threefold parousia,” which can be found (among other places) in IV.3.1, 293. The resurrection of Jesus’ body, the gift of the Spirit, and the eschatological return are “second” comings of the same Jesus Christ, just as Jesus Christ himself is a new coming of the same God in a different way. Jenson certainly complained that this shorted the Spirit as a full person in its own right, though I wonder to what extent we could say the same of the Father. That may bear on the pneumato-to-Christo-centric issue.

    At any rate, this bit feels rather like “our” half of the parousia so outlined. So the incarnation has its providential limitation in time and space, which lines up nicely with III.4, and Jesus is resurrected in a way which implies the general resurrection for which we hope, at the eschatological “second” coming. And the Spirit stands as the general active presence of God in the world.

    Maybe that’s useful, maybe not. Anyways, those are just my off-the-cuff riffs on the quote; I’d love to hear where your examinations of the issue are taking you.