THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ANHYPOSTASIS AND ENHYPOSTSASIS IN KARL BARTH’S CHRISTOLOGY By: James P. Haley Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Theology at Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Prof. Robert R. Vosloo March 2015 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. December 2014 Copyright © 2015 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved 2 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za To my wife and children for their love and patience. 3 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Table of Contents: Abstract 8 Chapter One – Introduction 10 Chapter Two – Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis: Historical Formulation and Interpretation 2.1 Introduction 25 2.2 Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis: Patristic Period Formulation 2.2.1 Prelude 30 2.2.2 John of Caesarea 33 2.2.3 Leontius of Byzantium 37 2.2.4 Leontius of Jerusalem 43 2.2.5 John of Damascus 50 2.2.6 Conclusion 53 2.3 Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis: Scholastic and Post-scholastic Period Formulation 2.3.1 Prelude 56 2.3.2 Lutheran Interpretation and Development 57 2.3.3 Reformed Interpretation and Development 64 2.3.4 Conclusion 67 Chapter Three – Karl Barth’s Interpretive Construal of Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis 3.1 Introduction 70 3.2 Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis: Interpretative Development in Barth’s Christology 3.2.1 The Humanity of God in Romans II 72 3.2.2 Lutheran and Reformed Influence 80 4 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za 3.2.3 The Göttingen Dogmatics 87 3.2.4 The Church Dogmatics 95 3.3 Conclusion 104 Chapter Four – Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis: Revelation of Jesus Christ as the ‘Word became flesh’ in Barth’s Christology 4.1 Introduction 105 4.2 Theological / Philosophical Method and the Revelation of God in Karl Barth’s Christology 110 4.2.1 Theological / Philosophical Revelation and the Marburg School 111 4.2.2 After Marburg: Theological / Philosophical Revelation in Karl Barth’s Christology 114 4.3 Anselm: The Grounding of God’s Self-Revelation in Karl Barth’s Christology 123 4.4 ΈέThe ‘Word Became Flesh’ as Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis in Karl Barth’s Christology 134 4.5 Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis: Ontology as Dialectic in Karl Barth’s Christology 145 4.6 Conclusion 159 Chapter Five – Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis: Coalescence of Christ’s Divine and Human Natures in Barth’s Christology 5.1 Introduction 162 5.2 Jesus Christ: Revelation as Covenant 165 5 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za 5.2.1 The Election of Jesus Christ 166 5.2.2 The Covenant Keeper in Jesus Christ 172 5.3 Jesus Christ: The First Adam 177 5.4 Jesus Christ: Humiliation and Exaltation in Convergence 184 5.5 Jesus Christ: Integration of Person and Work 194 5.6 Jesus Christ: Eternal Redeemer 200 5.7 Conclusion 207 Chapter Six – Barth’s Christological Method in View of Chalcedon: Its Nuance and Complexity 6.1 Introduction 209 6.2 How Did Karl Barth Interpret Chalcedon? 211 6.3 Barth’s Appropriation of Anhypostasis and Enhypostasis with a View to Chalcedon 216 6.4 Conclusion 243 Chapter Seven – Conclusion 244 Bibliography 249 6 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Opsomming: Hierdie verhandeling is ʼn kritiese analise van die belangrike rol wat die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur in Karl Barth se Christologie speel. Die studie bestaan uit vyf gedeeltes. Eerstens ondersoek hierdie verhandeling die historiese ortodokse verstaan van die konsepte anhypostasis en enhypostasis om die menslike natuur van Christus te verduidelik, en die Chalsedoniese definisie van die twee nature in die patristieke, skolastiese en postskolastiese periodes te verdedig. Histories gebruik ortodokse skrywers anhypostasis en enhypostasis deurgaans as outonome konsepte, met enhypostasis wat verwys na die realiteit van Christus se menslike natuur in gemeenskap met die Logos, en anhypostasis wat verwys na die wyse waarop Christus se menslike natuur geen bestaansrealiteit los van hierdie gemeenskap het nie. Karl Barth gebruik beide anhypostasis en enhypostasis as ʼn tweeledige formule om uitdrukking aan die menslike natuur van Christus te gee en gaan hiermee verder as die historiese ortodoksie posisie, wat ʼn unieke eienskap van sy Christologie is. Tweedens evalueer hierdie verhandeling Karl Barth se unieke interpretasie van die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur as ʼn tweeledige en kongruente formule om te verduidelik hoe die menslikheid van Christus in samehang met Sy goddelike wese bestaan. Derdens volg hierdie verhandeling die historiese ontwikkeling van anhypostasis en enhypostasis in Karl Barth se Christologie en die ontologiese funksie wat dit in Barth se ontwikkeling van die openbaring van Jesus Christus as die ‘Woord wat Vlees geword het’ verrig. In sy breek met liberale teologie beklemtoon Karl Barth dat die openbaring van God uitsluitlik in die persoon van Christus voorkom, en dat hierdie openbaring ontologies in die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur gegrond is. Vierdens, identifiseer hierdie verhandeling die temas van vereniging tussen die goddelike en menslike nature van Christus, waar Barth Christus se menslike natuur as anhypostasis en enhypostasis in Sy rol as bemiddelaar van versoening tussen God en mens beskryf. Vyfdens evalueer hierdie verhandeling Barth se kritiek op die Chalsedoniese definisie van die twee nature, wat uit sy verstaan van die anhypostasis en enhypostasis van Christus se menslike natuur voortspruit. Terwyl Barth wél Chalcedon aanvaar, wil hy graag op meer presiese wyse die eenheid van goddelike en menslike nature in Christus, as die handeling van God se openbaring as die Seun van die Mens in Sy verheerliking, beskryf. 7 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract: This dissertation is a critical analysis of the significance that the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature play in Karl Barth’s Christology. It does so in five parts. First, this dissertation examines the historical orthodox understanding of the concepts anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the human nature of Christ, and defend the Chalcedon definition of the two natures in the patristic, scholastic, and post-scholastic periods. Historically, orthodox writers consistently express anhypostasis and enhypostasis as autonomous concepts, where enhypostasis refers to the reality of Christ’s human nature in union with the Logos, and anhypostasis expresses Christ’s human nature as having no subsistent reality outside its union with the Logos. Karl Barth appropriates anhypostasis and enhypostasis as a dual formula to express the humanity of Christ, which moves beyond historical orthodoxy and is unique to his Christology. Second, this dissertation evaluates Karl Barth’s unique interpretation of the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature as a dual and congruent formula to express how the humanity of Christ exists in union with His divine essence. Third, this dissertation follows the historical development of anhypostasis and enhypostasis in Karl Barth’s Christology and its ontological function in Barth’s development of the revelation of Jesus Christ as the ‘Word became flesh’. In his break with liberal theology Karl Barth emphasizes that the revelation of God is made manifest exclusively in the person of Jesus Christ, which is ontologically grounded in the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. Fourth, this dissertation identifies the themes of coalescence between the divine and human natures of Christ where Barth expresses Christ’s human nature as anhypostasis and enhypostasis in His role as the mediator of reconciliation between God and humanity. Fifth, this dissertation evaluates Barth’s critique of Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures expressed through the anhypostasis and enhypostasis of Christ’s human nature. While Barth does not disagree with Chalcedon, he desires to express more precisely the union of divine and human natures in Christ as the act of God’s revelation, as the Son of Man, in His exaltation. 8 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Definitions: Anhypostasis: The first half of the dual formula intended to express the human nature of Jesus. The anhypostasis expresses the doctrine that the human nature of Jesus has no subsistence (an- hypostasis) apart from the union with the Logos. Enhypostasis: The second half of the dual formula intended to express the human nature of Jesus. The enhypostasis expresses the doctrine that the human nature of Jesus has its being ‘in’ the subsistence (en-hypostasis) of the incarnate Son of God. 9 Stellenbosch University https://scholar.sun.ac.za Chapter One – Introduction Karl Barth’s theology continues to demand our attention well into the twenty-first century, and not without good reason. Barth’s clear break with liberal theology and his unique Christological method still draws us to what he has to say about the person of Jesus Christ as the revelation of God. For Barth, Jesus Christ is indeed both the subject and object of divine revelation as the mediator of reconciliation between God and humanity. In this indissoluble union of human essence with the eternal Logos the man Jesus of Nazareth in fact ‘becomes’ one with the Logos of God. “Jesus Christ very God and very man” does not mean that in Jesus Christ God and a man were really side by side, but it means that Jesus Christ, the Son of God and thus Himself true God, is also a true man. But this man exists inasmuch as the Son of God is this man—not otherwise…Thus the reality of Jesus Christ is that God Himself in person is actively present in the flesh.