In contemporary evangelical theology the subject of eschatology, in its various forms, is in a precarious situation. For instance, in the wake of popular dispensationalism one may wonder whether or not the eschatological doctrine of bodily resurrection, which the New Testament so boldly emphasizes, has been raptured from theology altogether. Yet in spite of this daunting eschatological trend one can find in the theology of Karl Barth a treatment of bodily resurrection that is both theologically dynamic and also highly practical. For the following analysis, I will be principally using two shorter books written by Karl Barth at the height of his theological maturity (from my perspective). The books will be Dogmatics in Outline and The Resurrection of the Dead. The first book focuses more on a systematic and theological perspective, whereas the second book offers more of a biblical exegesis rather than systematic view. Rarely was a 19th cent. theologian considered both a biblical scholar and systematic theologian, but as for Barth, he bridged the gap by being both in addition to being a pastor and professor. Thus, I think his thought is worthy of study.

What I want to do in the following analysis is to briefly explicate Karl Barth’s conception of bodily resurrection in order to ascertain (a) how he acknowledges the reality of physical death from a theological and biblically based perspective, and (b) how this death is to be understood in light of the resurrection at the eschaton. Thus, without understanding death, says Barth, one cannot understand resurrection. In addition to looking at Barth’s perspective on this eschatological subject, I’ll also offer a personal yet brief critique of Barth’s thought in light of the my own theological convictions.

Confronting the Reality of Physical Death

“The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting” is an appropriate chapter title to conclude Barth’s Dogmatics in Outline. In it, Barth provides a short but substantive treatment of the doctrine and hope of bodily resurrection (p. 153). One can appreciate how Barth begins his perspective because he starts out with an unabashed portrayal of physical death: it is terrifying (if you don’t think that it is, then good for youJ). From my perspective it seems that the reason Barth begins with death in this respect is twofold. First, death is a reality and curse for all humanity and therefore must be directly engaged before proposing the hope of bodily resurrection. The person, says Barth, “who does not take it seriously that we are looking to that end;…who does not realize what dying means, who is not terrified at it, who has perhaps not enough joy in life and so does not know the fear of the end, who has not yet understood that this life is a gift of God;…cannot grasp the significance of ‘resurrection.’” (p. 151) Thus, Barth does not address death in a cavalier way, but understands it to be a great enemy of humankind.

Secondly, the resurrection is the remedy, as it were, for death. Barth proposes that the resurrection “is the answer to death’s terror, the terror that this life someday comes to an end, and that this end is the horizon of our existence.” (p. 151) For Barth, then, death is both the end and the beginning for humanity. It is the end because “it is the wages of sin.” However, it is the beginning for the Christian because of the doctrine and New Testament witness of the resurrection. For Barth, bodily resurrection and life everlasting signify the conquest of death and life’s completion. (p. 151) Perhaps this is the reason that he refers to it as the “horizon of our existence.”

“Practical Eschatology”

Paul’s discourse on resurrection in 1 Cor 15, says Barth, “deals with the most positive subject that can be imagined.” (That Karl Barth believes the resurrection of the dead to be the centre and basis of Paul’s preaching is indisputable. 1 Corinthians 15, he claims, deals with ‘the most positive subject that can be imagined’ and is the ‘very peak and crown of this…Epistle.’”) Resurrection, for the Christian, is positive because the shadow of death cannot touch it. In fact, Barth echoes Paul when he says that the Christian hope at its actualization will result in death being swallowed up in victory. Consequently, death will die to itself, and the resurrected body will be glorified. Thus the eschatological distinction of death literally dying at the eschaton is both a practical and glorious expectation that the believer looks forward to, or at least is supposed to look forward to.   

Resurrection at the Eschaton

It is no surprise that, for Barth, the resurrection of the dead cannot be spoken of without reference to Jesus Christ. Barth speaks of the resurrection of Christ in terms of power and that the power of the resurrection as mysterious. (CD IV/2, p. 307.) Always the Christocentrist, Barth looks to the risen Jesus Christ for the power to believe in the resurrection. Unlike his contemporary Bultmann, who superciliously and unabashedly regarded the resurrection of Jesus Christ as mere mythology, Barth sees the resurrection of Christ as an objective reality which is rooted both in history and theological validity. For this reason he authoritatively quotes Paul’s discourse on the resurrection in Rom 6 and 1 Cor 15 in both his Dogmatics in Outline and The Resurrection of the Dead, both which are fairly short books that can be read in a couple of hours. The following discourse from Paul deals with the believer’s relationship to Christ’s death, resurrection, and new hope for life, all of which Barth draws upon:

… [A]ll of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death;…we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection…Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Rom 6:3-11)

Barth’s treatment of this passage concludes that the Christian who believes Paul’s words “is already beginning here and now to live the complete life.” But more than that, the Christian is epistemologically warranted to believe not only in the resurrection of Jesus, but also in the general resurrection of the dead. The passage implies that the two are necessarily connected.

The theory that Barth proposes in his exposition of 1 Cor 15 is important to include at this point. “Barth thinks that Paul’s opponents accepted the resurrection of Jesus as an isolated fact, but failed to perceive its centrality and significance.” For Barth, the resurrection of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead at the eschaton are interlinked, and thus they cannot be considered mutually exclusive. The Corinthian error, therefore, was to disregard the idea and significance of bodily resurrection. Barth says that this is why Paul focused so much on “Death and the Dead, in sharp contrast to the abundance of the possibilities of life…” in light of the resurrection of the dead. (The Resurrection of the Dead)

“Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised.” (1 Cor 15:12-13) The words of Paul here in vv. 12-13 are demonstrative of Barth’s point about the resurrection of the dead being a central hope of the believer. He believes that the exegesis and hermeneutic of this verse demand its meaning about the reality of the resurrection be taken seriously. If these verses point to a superfluous mythology or inward experience, then the statement, Barth says, “‘Christ is risen’ then means, fundamentally, as much as little as ‘Christ is not risen.’” Barth, here, includes an interesting perspective. Like Paul, he believes that if it is the case, as some Corinthian Christians assert, that there is no resurrection of the dead, then there is a problem with believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ for two reasons.

First, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then there is a philosophical problem with asserting the resurrection of Jesus as a reality. “If no dead are to arise except One, then the resurrection of even this One is an offence dispensable, unimportant, a foreign dualistic element in a philosophy otherwise uniform, and regarding which it is only a question of religious tactics whether we amiably lend it a poetic interpretations or bluntly deny it.” (Barth is obviously taking a shot at Bultmann here) Without making it explicit, one wonders whether Barth is foreshadowing Hume’s skeptical argument about the conformity of nature as legitimate if the general resurrection is not believed. Additionally, there also seems to be a rejection here of mythical interpretations like Bultmann’s, as already mentioned.

Secondly, Barth concludes that if the general resurrection is rejected, then there is a particular problem with the idea of special revelation. The revelation of God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ is negated if this is the case. Paul says simply, and Barth affirms, that “if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.” At this point, Barth’s perspective on the resurrection is clear in that he is Pauline. He accepts Paul’s logic that Jesus’ resurrection and the general resurrection are integrally related. Denying one leads to denying the other.

Conclusion

The subject of bodily resurrection is a doctrine that Christianity must proclaim and hold to as a dogmatic doctrine. Karl Barth, like Paul, views the general resurrection to be inescapably associated with Christ’s resurrection. The two resurrections’ are therefore complementary and revelatory. Nevertheless, the subject of death still looms on the horizon, so to speak, in light of the general resurrection. But for Barth, death is the ultimate loser. (Seriously, it is literally the ultimate loser.) Though death is the reality of the here and now, Barth affirms that it will also die. To this, Barth calls on the Christian not to look back at death, but to look forward to the light of Christ. Thus, Barth’s perspective on physical death is not to disregard its heinousness, but to look forward to the resurrection as its conqueror.

Likewise, the subject of death in light of the resurrection at the eschaton is centered on the personal and objective reality of Jesus’ resurrection. The Christian hopes for resurrection at the eschaton because of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. To this Barth proclaims that “Eschatology, rightly understood, is the most practical thing that can be thought.” It is truly practical because it provides the answer to death, but only through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Theological Critique

Karl Barth’s perspective on death and resurrection is theologically multifaceted to say the least. It also seems that any treatment of Barth’s eschatology within his larger theology must be done in humility due to the fact that so many have interpreted his theology in various ways (e.g., as foe-Van Til, Pinnock, Gerstner, Berkouwer; and as friend-Bloesch, Bromiley, Brown, Ladd, Packer). Thus, my critique will modestly put forth both some advantages and limitations of Barth’s perspective on eschatology as it relates to the subjects of death and resurrection.

Eschatological Advantages

One of the most important advantages that Barth emphasizes in his eschatology is the terrifying reality of death. By proposing death as something that persons should be existentially terrified at, Barth calls attention to the universal problem of which all humanity faces-physical death (stop here and think about your mortality. How long do you have to live?). And instead of sidestepping or spiritualizing the subject of death, Barth boldly confronts the issue and gives not just his own systematic perspective, but a genuinely biblical one. This “Crisis of Death,” as Bleosch rightly labels it, is practically understood by Barth’s distinction of looking forward toward the horizon of life. The Christian is to look forward to the only answer to the reality of death-resurrection. Thus, I believe that Barth would fully agree with the statement that “death is not a friend or brother but ‘the last enemy’ (1 Cor 15:26; Rom 6:23). The sting of death can be overcome only in Jesus Christ.” (Bloesch, The Last Things, p. 125)

This brings us to the second and perhaps most important advantage for Barth’s conception of death and resurrection. The person of Jesus Christ is the hope that Christians have for the resurrection and life everlasting. George Hunsinger, a significant Barth scholar, says that because Jesus “completely embraces our destruction, carrying us to death in his death” we will surely “be raised in and with him to newness of life.” This Christological perspective is the key to Barth’s thought. From his perspective there is no room for a “disjunction between Christology and Theology.” Yet, everything is dependent on Jesus Christ. Thus, if Jesus is the resurrection and the life, and the resurrection according to Barth is the answer to death’s terror, then indeed Jesus’ death and resurrection is the centerpiece of majestic resurrection passages such as 1 Cor 15 and Rom 6.

The idea of completeness and incompleteness is also apparent in Barth’s treatment of death and resurrection. It was said earlier by Barth that “The man who does not know what death is does not know either what resurrection is.” Barth believes this is true; however, he also postulates that humanity’s want for completion and wholeness in the present life must be believed in light of the resurrection. Barth says that “it must be believed, in death’s despite.” But surely the believer does not believe in resurrection as a “thing” but in Jesus Christ as the life and resurrection (John 11:25). Here, Barth does a particularly good job of focusing on the person of Jesus Christ for the meaning of the resurrection.

Eschatological Limitations

Although Barth proposes that the issue of resurrection is both practical and positive, one could say, at least from my thinking, that his practical perspective should integrate some of the more pressing issues that theologians/laity have found to be barriers for belief in the resurrection. Surely it is probably the case that Barth speaks about these in his Church Dogmatics as well as in other places, but in Dogmatics in Outline and The Resurrection of the Dead, where he has a direct opportunity, he does not.

What are some of the practical pressing issues, then? For one, Calvin, in the Institutes addresses the question about physical bodies being “consumed with rottenness” at death, and then thinking about this in terms of the resurrection. (3.25.3) This is surely a question that many people (e.g., Corinthians) have put forth. Even so, Calvin’s answer is that we must first presuppose that our finite minds cannot apprehend this mystery; but if we try, we must look to Christ’s resurrection and the omnipotence of God for the answer. On this point Calvin’s answer is certainly theologically coherent, but the question still remains: how can something as corruptible as the flesh be resurrected? How can a body which has returned to the earth, so to speak, be raised from the dead? Bloesch says it well, “Evangelical theology speaks not of the resurrection of the flesh but of the resurrection of the person. It entails both soul and body.” (Last Things, p. 122) Perhaps Bloesch, here, makes explicit what Barth makes implicit, namely, that God does not just raise the flesh, but the whole person, which is more than just flesh and bones.

Another possible limitation has to do with a point that Barth references in various places. He makes the assertion that the believer who believes in Christ has been put to death in Christ and thus is “already beginning here and now to live the complete life.” It might be advantageous for Barth, here, to define what he means. Surely there is something to be said about the “now and not yet” nature of the resurrection and life everlasting, but he could expound on this point a little more. To be fair, however, he does allude to the Heidelberg Catechism: “In Jesus Christ I am no longer at the point at which I can die; in Him our body is already in heaven.”

So here is my conclusion: one could certainly write volumes on the subject of death and resurrection from a Barthian perspective, but this critique of Barth is meant merely to show how immense the topic seems to be. In any case, my overall impression of Barth is that he is truly an evangelical theologian who takes the biblical witness seriously when it comes to the resurrection. Thus, he is to be commended for upholding this beloved Christian doctrine. 

Bibliography and Resources for Further Study

Barth, Karl. Dogmatics in Outline. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.

______. The Resurrection of the Dead. Translated by H. J. Stenning. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003.

______. The Humanity of God. WKJP, 1960.

______. & Rudolph Bultmann. Edited by Bernd Jaspert and Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Karl Barth and Rudolph Bultmann: Letters 1922-1966. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

______. The Theology of Schleiermacher: Lectures at Gottingen, Winter Semester of 1923/24. Dietrich Ritschl, ed. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

______. Church Dogmatics. IV/2. 

Bloesch, Donald G. The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.

Bolich, Gregory G. Karl Barth & Evangelicalism. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1980. 

Calvin, John. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006.

Dawson, Dale R. The Resurrection in Karl Barth. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.

Hunsinger, George. “Karl Barth’s Christology.” In The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth, ed. John Webster. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 

Sider, Ronald J. “St. Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV 1-19.” Novum Testamentum 19.2 (Apr 1977): 124-141.

Schurr, George M. “Brunner and Barth on life After Death.” Journal of Religious Thought 24.2 (Issue 2 (1967/68)): 95-110.

7 Responses to ““Looking Forward in Spite of Death” Karl Barth’s Confrontation with the Reality of Death and the Hope of Resurrection”

1. David W. Congdon says:

   June 22, 2009 at 12:42 pm

   This is very good. Thanks.
2. philhigley says:

   June 23, 2009 at 2:31 pm

   Thanks for the comment, David. Barth is a tough guy to figure out, to be sure; very complex and very multidimensional. Yet I think that’s why I enjoy his perspective on so many things.
3. J.R. Diener says:

   June 26, 2009 at 4:55 pm

   Good post, I’ll have to start reading more of Barth’s work.
4. Andrew Esqueda says:

   July 23, 2009 at 6:09 pm

   Phillip, nice job on this blog post. I am currently getting the same degree you have from Fuller. And I hate to ruin your dreams but I have benched over 300 lbs. numerous times. Anyway excellent post.
5. philhigley says:

   July 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm

   Haha, great comment, Andrew!

   You’ll have to read my update of that section then. I think I might have met you before. What church do you go to?

   BTW, I can actually get 300lbs for about 8 reps currently. My max is near 355lbs, hehe.

   Later
6. Andrew Esqueda says:

   July 27, 2009 at 11:46 am

   My wife and I haven’t really found a church yet. We got to Christian Assembly sometimes, but are to fond of it and when we feel up for the drive we go to Bel-air Pres.
   That’s pretty good for eight reps. I haven’t had a gym since I have been down here so my strenght has gone down hill. But, at one time I hit 355lbs 5 times on smith-machine incline. Check out my blog sometime, I just started it and i am trying to keep up with it but school gets in the way sometimes.
   aworldofinsight.blogspot.com
7. Andrew Esqueda says:

   July 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm

   Hey Phillip, I actually just revamped my blog and changed the name. Check it out

   theo-blogology.blogspot.com