The Suffering of God in the Eternal Decree: A Critical Study of Karl Barth on Election by Nixon de Vera BTheol, MATS, GradCertTheol A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Divinity 21 February 2019 ABSTRACT This thesis seeks to provide a critical engagement with Karl Barth’s conception of divine suffering, as expressed in his doctrine of election in the Church Dogmatics (specifically II/1–2 and IV/1–2). The underlying research question is to ask whether or not Barth’s God is a suffering God and, if so, what precisely he means by that. The thesis engages with the contributions made by Jürgen Moltmann, Robert Jenson and, more recently, Mark Lindsay to this topic. Insofar as the research question intersects with Barth’s doctrine of election, the recent “Barth wars” (as represented by George Hunsinger on the one hand, and Bruce McCormack on the other) are necessarily alluded to, but are not a major focus. The interconnectedness of election, crucifixion, and (im)passibility in Barth’s theology is explored, in order to ask whether the suffering of Jesus Christ is also a statement about God’s eternal being. Barth’s consistency with patristic conclusions against, for example, modalistic Monarchianism is also briefly considered. What is discovered in this research supports Barth’s underpinning theme that God is truly the One who loves in freedom. It is in this freedom that this thesis argues that Barth’s God is impassible yet at the same time passible. 2 DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY I, Nixon de Vera, hereby declare that I have written this thesis and that the work it contains is entirely my own. I furthermore declare that this thesis has not been submitted for any other degree or professional qualification. ____________________ 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to God who has given me wisdom without finding fault on my part. Thanks to my wife Methyl for her untiring support in all aspects through the intense years of my research and writing. Thanks to my daughters Zenji and Yuji for their extraordinary understanding to bear with my busy schedule. Thanks to my supervisors Revd Prof. Mark Lindsay and Revd Dr Jason Goroncy for their untiring commitment to bring out the best in me as a scholar especially in Barth studies. Thanks to Revd Dr Christopher Holmes, Dr Scott Kirkland and Prof. John McDowell for their critical encouragement by approving my candidature. And also, thanks to Revd Dr John Capper and Revd Dr Michael O’Neil for their invaluable input to further improve this thesis. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . 2 Declaration of Originality . 3 Acknowledgments . 4 Introduction . 6 Chapter I: Election and Divine (Im)passibility in the Early Barth . 24 1 1922 Lectures on John Calvin . 24 2 1924 The Göttingen Dogmatics . 40 3 1936 Pierre Maury’s Lecture in Geneva . 52 Chapter II: Election and Divine (Im)passibility in Church Dogmatics II/1–2 . 77 1 Barth’s Treatment of Impassibility . 78 2 Election and Divine Suffering . 96 3 God’s Sovereignty in Sacrifice . 111 Chapter III: Election and Divine (Im)passibility in Church Dogmatics IV/1–2 . 137 1 The Relation of God to Outside Events and Actions . 138 2 The Relation of God’s Suffering to Jesus Christ’s Condescension . 141 3 The Relation of Jesus Christ’s Suffering to the God-self . 155 Chapter IV: Some Implications for the Doctrine of God: Impassibility, Election and Trinity . 202 1 The Faithfulness of the Suffering God . 203 2 God’s Perfection in Suffering . 216 3 The Eternality of Divine Suffering . 246 Conclusion . 267 Bibliography . 276 5 INTRODUCTION Interest in the Topic In February 2018, a Filipino woman, an overseas worker, was found dead inside a freezer in an apartment in the Middle East. The parents could hardly believe that her beaten body had been hidden there for over a year. I am lost for words whenever I contemplate that this tragic incident mirrors the suffering of countless household helpers worldwide from abusive employers. The horrific domestic and international violence makes the question of God’s participation in suffering as vital as it was when Jürgen Moltmann first wrote The Crucified God wherein he argued that God’s suffering in Jesus Christ is fundamental to our understanding of the image of God in us.1 The more I contemplate God’s reflected image, the more I think about how God relates with us, and, how God interacts in this world.2 God’s relation and interaction have always been a source of fascination and serious inquiry because of the good and bad things that happen day by day. But I am convinced that God’s will is for the welfare of humanity.3 With attention to God’s love, I have concentrated on what God has done for all in Jesus Christ – the Subject in God’s ultimate manifestation of love. That is why I wanted to study in depth about God’s will and whether such translates to having affinity with human suffering. So, I envisioned to write a thesis on this topic. When I enrolled for a PhD at the University of Divinity in Melbourne, Australia, Revd Prof. Mark Lindsay (at the time, the University’s Director of Research) introduced me to Karl Barth’s doctrine of election – a worthy starting point for my research interest. In preparation for engaging with Barth’s complex thought due to his dialectical theology, I had to consider first, and also 1 Jürgen Moltmann, The Crucified God, trans. R.A. Wilson and J. Bowden (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015), 227. 2 Nixon de Vera, “The Crack in the Rock: Seeing God through the Darkest Times,” Adventist World 5, no. 3 (March 2009): 12. 3 Ps. 138:8. 6 substantially, John Calvin’s teaching on predestination. It is due to the fact that Barth developed his doctrine of election by conversing with Calvin.4 Upon my exploration of Calvin and the Calvinist theology on predestination, I can say that although Calvin succeeds in helping us understand God’s judicial character clearly, he fails in explicitly showing us Jesus Christ’s unconditional commitment for humankind.5 It seems that I have been back to where I began – being uncertain of whether or not God is a suffering God. Then I had acquainted myself with Barth’s thought on this matter. Karl Barth (1886–1968), author of the monumental thirteen-volume work Church Dogmatics (CD), is one of the giants of twentieth-century theology and arguably the most influential yet controversial theologian of his era. One of the main reasons for his prominence is his reconception of the notion of election.6 Despite the vast array of attention on Barth’s work, there has been little substantial work undertaken on his understanding of divine (im)passibility.7 This thesis will investigate Barth’s doctrine of election from the angle of impassibility in order to offer fresh perspective on this matter, and to defend an argument which furthers conversation. I will argue that God is both impassible and passible in Barth’s mature doctrine of election. Definition of Terms In studying Barth, Thomas Weinandy’s perspective on impassibility is helpful in understanding and categorising how Barth conceives of divine suffering.8 Here God is conceived in terms of: (1) external impassibility, or the immunity to be acted upon from without; (2) internal impassibility, or 4 My essay is entitled: “The Controversy of a Calvinist Theology on Election,” (Research Essay, University of Divinity, 2015). Barth’s dialectical theology here is defined as a middle ground to positive and negative expressions of a certain theological thought or doctrine. In this thesis, it is Barth’s middle or balanced position in reaction to the doctrine of divine impassibility that will be critically explored. 5 Bruce McCormack, Karl Barth’s Critically Realistically Dialectical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 35. 6 Alister McGrath, ed., The Christian Theology Reader (West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2017), 76. Matthias Gockel, “How to Read Karl Barth with Charity: A Critical Reply to George Hunsinger,” in Modern Theology 32, no.2 (2016): 259. 7 Whenever the term (im)passibility is used, it refers to the impassibility and passibility of God. 8 This is because Weinandy converses with Barth on impassibility from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective – a source of inspiration for the Reformed treatment of impassibility. See Thomas Weinandy, Does God Suffer? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2000). 7 the inherent incapacity for changing the emotions from within; and (3) sensational impassibility, or the liability to feelings of pleasure and pain caused by the action of another being.9 This thesis will focus on the first category because in CD II/1–2 and IV/1–2, Barth engages with the doctrine of divine impassibility on the ground that God is immune from external actions and events. A passible God, then, would mean that God “is capable of being acted upon from without.”10 The ideas conveyed by the words “capacity” and “capability” however are deficient in speaking of God in Barth’s theology; thus the terms “decision” and “choice” in relation to being acted upon are the right fit for this enterprise.11 When the words “capacity” and “capability” are used to refer to God being affected, it denotes a potentiality in God to be affected by outside factors. These could be events and actions in time, or any element that is not from God.12 In this sense, God is somewhat dependent ad extra, which, as I shall argue, is not the case in Barth’s treatment of impassibility.