chapter iii

Secondly, the doctrine of reconciliation is central because Jesus Christ is God the Reconciler. Without doubt, the whole revelation is centered in Jesus Christ, and His mission is the restoration of the covenant relationship by accomplishing the reconciliation between God and man in His act of atonement. [14] He is the actual reality of “God with us” [15] and the covenant of grace. [16] Barth therefore understood the whole of dogmatics, [17] and especially “the doctrine of reconciliation, as Christology,” [18] and actually integrated Christology into the doctrine of reconciliation, because Christology and soteriology were inseparable in his view. He also included hamartiology and ecclesiology within this doctrine, for sin is recognized only in Christ and the covenant community exists only for the realization of His reconciliation. This concentration and integration of Christology, hamartiology, soteriology and ecclesiology in one locus [19] makes the material centrality of the Versöhnungslehre indisputable.

Thirdly, the doctrine of reconciliation is central because the act of reconciliation occupies the historical center of the covenant history revealed in the biblical revelation. Because Barth understood theology as the critical self-examination of the Church proclamation in respect to its agreement with the biblical revelation, [20] he recognized three divisions of theology--biblical, practical and dogmatic theology. [21] The special function of dogmatics is the question of content as a whole. [22] To talk a whole necessarily requires a right order and this is none other than the revealed order of the covenant history in the Scripture, [23] if the absolute authority and source of dogmatics is biblical revelation. [24] There, creation is the first, reconciliation the center, and redemption the last. Therefore Barth regarded the Versöhnungslehre as the formal center of dogmatics.

The Method of the Loci

Contrary to his clear affirmation of its centrality, however, Barth strongly emphasized that “dogmatics cannot be a system of atonement,” [25] because it will necessarily produce a biased dogmatics. He fundamentally rejected the very idea of dogmatics as a system of Christian thought, [26] for the Word of God may not “be condensed and summarised in any view, or idea, or principle,” [27] whereas a system requires “a structure of principles and their consequences, founded on the presupposition of a basic view of thing.” [28] Such systematization, he said, would entail the end of theological freedom as well as the loss of the objectivity of dogmatics, [29] because it is “self-will.” [30] Theology, however, has to be an act of faith and obedience, [31] bound by its object [32] and balanced by its centre. [33] Of course, this does not mean that he completely rejected the dogmatic method [34] itself or the need of a well-ordered presentation of the content of the Word of God as a whole. Dogmatics is to be objective and scientific--not arbitrary. [35] Moreover, some kind of systematization is inevitable with respect to an effective presentation of the Word of God as a whole with definiteness and coherence. [36] The question of the order of presentation is particulary essential.

Therefore he preferred the method of the Loci, [37] which presents doctrines like chapters of history or articles of confession, i.e., “alongside and co-ordinate,” not principal and subordinate. [38] Because theology is Rede von Gott and God is triune, Barth understood that dogmatics has to talk about God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and accordingly divided it into three loci on the basis of the trinitarian distinction and co-equality. [39] On the other hand, because dogmatics is based on the self-revelation of God in the Scripture which reveals the creation, reconciliation, and redemption of God, he formulated the subjects of the three loci as God the Creator, God the Reconciler, and God the Redeemer, per appropriationem. However, there are some aspects of the content of the Scripture which are not covered by those three, e.g., the common themes of the triune God and His election which is prior to those acts. So Barth added the doctrine of God proper as “the fourth point.” [40] Concerning the order of the four loci, he preferred to start with the doctrine of God, rather than the doctrine of creation, reconciliation, or redemption, because to begin with any particular act invites the danger of systematising dogmatics around that first idea. [41] The other three loci were then naturally arranged following the historical order of revelation. [42] The Prolegomena, of course, were written before the four loci of dogmatics, because a preliminary discussion about the dogmatic method, criterion, subject-matter and its task was necessary. [43] His Church Dogmatics was thus arranged in five volumes--the Prolegomena and the four loci, i.e., the doctrine of God, creation, reconciliation, and redemption.

However, has Barth successfully overcome the danger of systematization? The general response is quite negative, for his dogmatics has been appraised as “highly systematic.” [44] This problem is most seriously present in the doctrine of reconciliation, for it has the most complex construction in the whole dogmatics, as we have seen. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to integrate four loci, i.e., Christology, hamartiology, soteriology and ecclesiology, into one locus without a forced systematisation. Moreover, a comparison of its three parts (IV/1, IV/2 and IV/3) in their tables of contents easily reveals its highly systematic construction, which is too neat and symmetrical to give the impression of arbitrariness. We will now proceed to the question of whether it is really arbitrary, especially in relation to the problematic doctrine of vocation and its relationship to that of sanctification.

3.1.2 Vocation and Sanctification

As the organizing principle of the Versöhnungslehre, Barth adopted Christology because he understood not only the doctrine of reconciliation but also the whole dogmatics as Christology. [45] Christology is the foundation and source of the whole doctrine of reconciliation, for Jesus Christ is God the Reconciler. Because salvation presupposes sin but our sinfulness is not recognised without the grace of Christ, he placed hamartiology between Christology and soteriology. [46] He then presented soteriology as the objective reality of reconciliation, and this was followed by the subjective application of reconciliation to the Christian community and to the individual Christian. [47] In the structure of his doctrine of reconciliation, therefore, the doctrine of sanctification is not limited to the soteriological discussion in §66, which is only its objective aspect, but it also includes its Christological foundation (§64), hamartiological presupposition (§65), and especially its subjective aspect applied to the community (§67) and to the individual (§68). Therefore, the doctrine of sanctification includes the whole volume of IV/2. [48]

The Problem of Barth's Christological Structure

However, we are confronted with some difficulty to agree with his Christological structure, as he attempted to fundamentally alter the structure of traditional Christology. [49] In general, Christology has traditionally discussed the person of Christ as God and man, and then the work of Christ, i.e., his three offices, two states, and atonement. But Barth raised a strong objection and insisted that it would be abstract and even dangerous to separate the person of Christ from His work. [50] So he attempted first to “organically relate” [51] the two natures and the two states of Christ and formulated the combination in terms of the humiliation of the Son of God and the exaltation of the Son of Man. [52] But, it is in the further combination of the two natures and three offices that makes general acceptance hardly possible, for it is an implausible combination of two and three. As pointed out earlier, he gave priority to the works and activities of God, and therefore the “three” offices of Christ actually forms the basic structure of his Christology. He resolved the problem of combining the three offices with the two natures by creating “the third christological aspect,” i.e., Jesus Christ as “the God-man” or “the Mediator.” [53] Of course, dividing the discussion about the person of Christ into three parts, i.e., the divinity, humanity, and unity of Christ, is quite understandable as a normal procedure. But to combine the three offices with the three aspects of the two natures is neither necessary nor plausible. It is problematic when we cannot find any necessity or justification for the third combination upon the internal identity between the third christological aspect of unity and the prophetic office. [54] In fact, all the three offices belong to Jesus Christ as a uni-person of two natures. Further, if the unity of the two natures makes a separate aspect, why should unity of the three offices not be accorded a separate discussion? But this problem is extended to all of the component doctrines of this locus, since the forced threefold structure of the unified Christology has been adopted as its organising principle. As a result, all sub-loci uniformly have a threefold structure--pride, sloth, and falsehood (hamartiology); justification, sanctification, and vocation (soteriology); gathering, upbuilding, and enlightening (ecclesiology); faith, love, and hope (individual appropriation).

Of these, the three-fold division of soteriology into the doctrine of justification, sanctification, and vocation raises the most serious problem, because it differs not only from traditional soteriology but also from his earlier soteriology, where he recognised only justification and sanctification, [55] whereas in his original plan for the Church Dogmatics, he listed four, i.e., “calling, justification, sanctification, and perseverance.” [56] Now it becomes three in accordance with the threefold division of Christology, and the new doctrine of vocation makes us wonder how it can be appropriated into Barth's theological system.

The Teleological Perspective

However, the theological aim is noble and worthy, for the strange and weighty introduction of the Berufungslehre (the doctrine of vocation) was sincerely intended to emphasize and complement the missing element in the traditional doctrine of reconciliation, that is, its eschatological, teleological, and universal aspects. When Barth understood reconciliation as the telos and eschaton of creation, he certainly included its eschatological aspect of future fulfilment in the concept of reconciliation. Therefore, this third discussion is essential, [57] not only for a natural transition to the doctrine of redemption, [58] but also for a proper view of our reconciliation from the eschatological perspective of its telos and eschaton, which is the reconciliation of the world. So his order of understanding is always backward and eschatological, and this perspective is crucial especially for the correct understanding of his doctrine of reconciliation. He clearly shows his basic approach to the doctrine of reconciliation in the following statement: “Our theme is the reconciliation of the world with God in Jesus Christ, and only in this greater context the reconciliation of the individual man.” [59]

Also, he found the Christological ground of its eschatological perspective in the prophetic office of Christ, [60] as he connected the prophetic function with “the revelatory character of reconciliation.” [61] With deep regret for the lack of this aspect in traditional theology, which accepted only the munus duplex, i.e., the kingly and priestly offices of Christ, [62] and therefore treated soteriology “only in two categories” of justification and sanctification, [63] Barth strongly advocated the “restoration of the doctrine of the munus Christi propheticum.” [64] He regarded it not only as a biblical necessity but also as the ultimate demand of the historical development in the post-Reformation Church history. [65] According to his detailed historical analysis, [66] the Church has continually endeavoured since the Reformation to recover the true Word of God and proclaim it to the world with a view to the teleological direction of mission and ecumenism as a positive reaction to the strong wind of secularization that happened in the European context. Further, he identified it as a task of a Reformed theologian, because it is an unfulfilled Reformed heritage, which Calvin first discovered but had been neglected to give a proper weight in the Reformed theology. [67]

Therefore, Barth accepted it as his own task and attempted to add the teleological, eschatological and universal perspective to traditional Reformed theology. It is thus the “eschatological orientation” or “teleological direction” [68] which is really distinctive in Barth's theology. In fact, the proper doctrine was already established in the theology of the Reformers, but it is eschatology that fundamentally differentiates Barth from the Reformers, since it is the post-Reformation discovery. [69] He was even tempted to attempt “a consistently eschatological systematisation of dogmatics,” though he refrained from it because of the perceived danger of system. [70] It is therefore to be deeply regretted that he could not write the eschatological volume of the Church Dogmatics. However, the eschatological, teleological and universal perspective has consistently and dominantly shaped his theology since the Römerbrief, perhaps even prior to it. Therefore, his whole theology, especially his doctrine of reconciliation, has to be seen from this perspective. For our study of sanctification this means that a preliminary understanding about the event of vocation for its proper view is required.

How and What

What is vocation and how is it related to sanctification (and justification) within the total structure of his doctrine of reconciliation? For Barth, while justification and sanctification is “the What” of reconciliation, vocation is “the How” of its application. [71] Our reconciliation, which consists of justification and sanctification, was already accomplished in the past event of the Cross, but vocation concerns the question of how it is revealed, declared, and realised to us. As “reconciliation is not a dark or dumb event, but a perspicuous and vocal,” [72] it has a revelatory character in itself. [73] So he could say that “the justification and sanctification of man include his vocation,” [74] though reconciliation and its revelation are different matters. [75] Defined as “the event in which the grace (charis) of God which justifies man before Him and sanctifies him for Him finds its counterpart in the gratitude (eucharistia) of man,” [76] vocation is “a temporal event” [77] and a “subjective experience” [78] in which “the living Jesus Christ encounters definite men at definite times in their lives.” [79] Therefore, vocation is temporally preceded and materially presupposed by justification and sanctification. [80] Further, as this event of encounter not only “makes Himself known to them” but also “claims” the justified and sanctified sinners as His covenant partner, [81] it is a call to participate actively in the history of His Kingdom. So, it is a concrete and historical event, which is “not merely spiritual but moral, social and political.” [82] Also, vocation is “a pneumatic reality,” as it is the direct call of Jesus Christ as the Contemporary of the called in the form of His Spirit, i.e., the Holy Spirit. [83] As a temporal and historical as well as subjective and pneumatic event, his doctrine of vocation generally includes all modes of subjective application, i.e., not only calling but also illumination, awakening, adoption, mystical union, conversion, regeneration, and even perseverance in the traditional soteriology. [84] In fact, his concept of vocation is a very profound and comprehensive idea: an extended “process” with its beginning, sequence, and goal, encompassing both ideas of vocatio unica and vocatio continua, i.e., “the event of vocation...as once-for-all (unica) and yet also as a sequence of new and further callings subsequent to the once-for-all commencement.” [85]

Further, it is not an empty and purely formal idea but has a specific direction and concrete content, as form and content can not be separated. The vocation of man, according to him, is primarily a call to be a Christian, [86] and it means a call to fellowship with Jesus. [87] However, because the biblical concept of koinonia presupposes “a definite order” between two free persons, [88] it is a call to the discipleship of Jesus Christ, [89] and not an undefined fellowship. Therefore it is a call to accept the Lordship of Christ [90] and serve the calling of a covenant partner for the common cause of His Kingdom, i.e., the reconciliation of the world. [91] So he concluded that it is a call to be a witness, as Verbi divini ministri, [92] “proclaimers of the reconciliation of the world accomplished in Him” and “heralds of His person and work,” [93] that is “the primary determination” of the Christian existence. [94] It necessarily involves “the secondary determinations” of Christian affliction and personal liberation, which are indispensable in being a witness of Christ. [95] As a whole, he conceives vocation as “an event which is just commencing and not in any sense complete,” [96] that is, always “in the process of accomplishment.” [97] In this context he could contend that the purpose and goal of the justification and sanctification of man is his vocation. [98]

However, this raises at least two complications for our study of sanctification. When Barth describes the relationship between justification/sanctification and vocation as the already accomplished reality of reconciliation and its subjective application or as commencement and goal, he restricts the idea of sanctification to its objective side, while vocation is understood only subjectively. As a principle, it contradicts his structural plan for the doctrine of reconciliation, in which soteriology is supposed to treat the objective aspect and its subjective application is to be discussed in the following sections. [99] Though this principle is not adhered to so faithfully in the soteriological sections due to the inseparability of both sides of one reality, confusion results when the objective side of the one is related or compared with the subjective side of the other, or vice versa. Another problem concerns the teleological character of vocation. Though the doctrine of vocation was specially designed to emphasize this aspect, the teleological perspective is not a matter of vocation only. As we shall see in our discussion of §66, and as we have already seen in the last chapter, his doctrine of sanctification is fundamentally grounded upon this teleological motif. If this telos-orientation of our sanctification is “not self-evident,” [100] what is the ground for the teleological discussions of sanctification which dominates the whole of §66? In fact, this problem has resulted in the correspondence of two sections, the doctrine of sanctification (§66) and vocation (§71): particulary §66.3 (the call to discipleship) with §71.3 (the goal of vocation), and §66.4 (the awakening to conversion) with §71.2 (the event of vocation), and §66.6 (the dignity of the cross) with §71.5 (the Christian in affliction). Therefore, the distinction between sanctification and vocation is quite ambiguous. However, we will proceed with our study of sanctification with the positive view [101] that the materials in the doctrine of vocation as well as the other sections in IV/3 will enrich our understanding of Barth's doctrine of sanctification when they are properly correlated and complemented. On the other hand, sanctification also has to be properly correlated with justification in the unity of the doctrine of reconciliation of Karl Barth. Moreover, if vocation deals with how reconciliation is applied while justification and sanctification are concerned with what it is, the correct knowledge of the relationship between justification and sanctification is more direct and crucial for the proper understanding of sanctification. §66 thus begins with this question.

3.1.3 Justification and Sanctification

There is a popular misunderstanding that Karl Barth is a theologian of justification rather than a theologian of sanctification. This is quite understandable, because he is well known as a theologian of grace who strongly emphasized the salvation sola fide in opposition to human attempts at self-sanctification. Also, Hans Küng's well-publicized study of Barth's doctrine of justification [102] may have strengthened the impression, given the lack of a popular study on his doctrine of sanctification. As a matter of fact, Küng has overstated as if justification is central in Barth's doctrine of reconciliation, as the Catholic theologians have so tended. [103] However, it is not true. Although Barth attached a great significance to justification, he gave no less importance to sanctification. Rather, he strongly criticized the idea of the centrality of the doctrine of justification. [104] After all, he was a Calvinist who emphasizes sanctification in balance with justification. What is his view, then, on the relationship between justification and sanctification?

Two Aspects of One Reconciliation

First of all, justification and sanctification are two aspects of the one event of reconciliation. Because Jesus Christ accomplished our reconciliation with his atoning death on the Cross once-for-all, there is only one event of reconciliation including both aspects, i.e., justification and sanctification. [105] Therefore, they are “inseparably” [106] and “indissolubly bound up” [107] in one and the same event. When he used the terms like “Aspekt (aspect),” [108] “Skopus (scope),” [109] “Tragweite (range),” [110] or even “Blick (look),” [111] they are the matter of viewpoint. The one reality of reconciliation as viewed from one side is justification and the same reality as viewed from the other side is sanctification. [112]

From the perspective of justification, the reconciliation of God is the unconditional pardon of sin [113] and the reinstatement of the new right [114] on the grounds of God's right of judgment. [115] Therefore, he understood justification not as a “state” but as a “history” or “transition” [116] from totus peccator to totus iustus. [117] As such it “has a terminus a quo and a terminus ad quem,” “a beginning and a completing,” [118] though “the divine judgment is a single act and therefore one which cannot be divided or separated, a strictly coherent history.” [119] But this dramatic history of transition is not perceptible to us, [120] because it happened in the history of Jesus Christ. Here the problem of “iustitia aliena” arises but the divine right of judgment effectively validates the imputation of our sins to Jesus and “iustitia Christi” to us as “nostra, mea iustitia.” [121] In virtue of “God's participation in man, His identification with him, His intervention for all men,” [122] His history replaces our history and therefore “the to-day of our true and actual transition from wrong to right, from death to life” is “the to-day of Jesus Christ.” [123] The gracious judgment of God and thus the justification of all sinners have already occurred in the atoning death of the Cross “as the central event of all human history, referring to all the men who live both before and after.” [124] When someone believes it, its “subjective realisation” [125] takes place in the particular man. However, because the justification already accomplished in the event of reconciliation is “total justification,” [126] “not partial but total, not relative but absolute,” [127] faith may not be misunderstood as a “way of salvation” [128] or “means” of self-justification. [129] On the contrary, faith is the “humility of obedience,” [130] the “abdication” of any vain-glory, including the “pride of faith,” [131] “opposition” to any works-righteousness [132] and creation of a “vacuum” in the sense of “emptying” of even “mystical self-emptying.” [133] It is nothing other than a recognition of his sinfulness, [134] the confession of “a bankrupt sinner,” [135] and the tearful appreciation of God's gracious pardon. Positively, faith is to “witness” “in the most profound thankfulness” [136] that Jesus Christ is our justification, as the “Selbstbeweis” (self-demonstration) of the justified man by Him. [137] Therefore, Barth concluded that sola fide means “solus Christus” and “sola iustitia Christi.” [138]

On the other hand, the reconciliation of man as viewed from the perspective of sanctification is the introduction of “a new man” and “the new Existenzform of a faithful covenant-partner.” [139] When Barth said that sanctificatio might just as well be described by regeneratio or renovatio, or by conversio, or by poenitentia, or comprehensively by Nachfolge Jesu, [140] he understood sanctification as a general description of whatever is related to the new existence of a reconciled man. Accordingly, between justification and sanctification there is a shift of perspective from God to man, i.e. from God's turning to man to man's turning to God. [141] However, it is not a voluntary turning of man by himself but God's gracious conversion of man to Himself. [142] To emphasize the fact that “God is the acting Subject” in the sanctification of man also, Barth kept the term “sanctification” as “normative,” for it immediately recalls the divine initiative in contrast to the other descriptions. [143] As clearly declared in Lev. 20.8, “I am the Lord who sanctifies you,” the Bible always says that it is God who sanctifies us and not we ourselves. [144] As stated above, sanctification does not happen as a separate event after justification, but both happen together in one and the same event of reconciliation accomplished on the Cross. Therefore, its subjective realisation happens also when one believes that his sanctification occurred already in Jesus Christ. In this sense, sola fide applies not only to justification but also to sanctification.

Before describing the relationship between justification and sanctification, Barth expressed his consent that “I am particulary happy to record my general agreement” with Alfred Göhler and especially G. C. Berkouwer. In his Faith and Sanctification, Berkouwer sharply pointed out that sola fide is the “foundation” and “superstructure” of sanctification [145] and therefore the bond between faith and sanctification is “our only safeguard,” [146] because there is no other sanctification but Jesus Christ. [147] Berkouwer thus correlated justification and sanctification in the unity of faith in Jesus Christ. Göhler also emphasized in his Calvins Lehre von der Heiligung that the formal principle of Calvin's theology is the Verbundenheit (connectedness) of all doctrines without any Zentrallehre (central teaching), [148] and that the doppelte Gnade (twofold grace) of justification and sanctification is an inseparable Einheit (unity) because they are grounded upon the justice and love in the Einheit Gottes (unity of God). [149] No doubt, Barth appreciated their emphasis on the idea of Einheit. So he definitely rejected the “dualism” that justification and sanctification happen as two separate events and that their objective accomplishment and subjective realization occur as two different events. [150] They are only different aspects of reconciliation in “the simul of the one event” [151] --“simply looking at it from a different angle.” [152] The one event of reconciliation includes the two aspects of justification and sanctification, and each aspect has “both an objective and a subjective side.” [153] The subjective realization applies not only to sanctification but also to justification, because it is not a transcendental concept or romantic hypothesis but an actual “reality” of the justified man [154] who has been “summoned to, and made able and ready for, the action of humility which corresponds to this recognition and confession.” [155] Both aspects are related and connected very closely--“more closely united than in a mathematical point” [156] --and very dynamically, like a strongly stretched “bow” which itself is and generates a powerful action. [157] And their dynamic unity is grounded in Jesus Christ, for He is our justification and sanctification, so that his humanity and divinity, or his humiliation and exaltation are to be distinguished but not to be separated or isolated. [158] Such a separation entails “unavoidable dangers” and he observed that it “has actually overwhelmed the Church and theology with very serious consequences,” since it either isolates God as working alone and results in the idea of His “cheap grace” and therefore an “indolent quietism,” or it isolates man as working alone and invites an “illusory activism.” [159] Following Calvin, he concluded that there is “no justification without sanctification” and “no sanctification without justification.” [160] Therefore, any discussion of justification or sanctification must be correlated to each other in the unity of the one event of reconciliation in Jesus Christ.

Distinction and Order

However, Barth also advocated their distinction upon several grounds. First, the Bible distinguishes sanctification from justification. [161] Secondly, the asunchutos and atreptos principle of “Chalcedonian Christology” requires their unconfused and unaltered distinction, because justification and sanctification are incorporated into the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ respectively and the creed subscribes to the latter distinction. [162] Thirdly, our epistemological limitation demands their distinct treatment, for “we cannot see it all at once, or comprehend it in a single word.” Here again his principle of dialectical theology that the one truth for God inevitably becomes two for man due to the human limitation when it is revealed to man emerges. The one event of reconciliation appears as the twofold grace of justification and sanctification as well as objective reality and subjective realisation, and therefore one may not attempt to synthesize them. [163] Fourthly, the human response to the one divine act of reconciliation appears in two distinct forms, i.e., faith and obedience. [164] Therefore, he strongly criticised the “monism” that merges one into the other as an attempt to synthesize the two. [165] In his analysis, Roman Catholicism and Rudolf Bultmann tended to merge justification into sanctification so that they promoted sanctification-monism in which justification is merely “the beginning of sanctification.” [166] As a result, the sovereignty of the grace of God is significantly de-emphasized and it instead becomes self-sanctification of man. On the other hand, “the young Luther and Zinzendorf and H. F. Kohlbrügge” tended to merge sanctification into justification so that they promoted justification-monism [167] in which sanctification is merely “a paraphrase of justification.” [168] Of course, they were successful in emphasizing the pure grace of God, but such a monism failed not only to appreciate the twofold grace of God as revealed in the Word of God which offers the richness of reconciliation but also to admonish believers effectively to obey the sanctifying command of God. [169] Moreover, he criticized it for misleading Christians in the idea that there is no distinct Christian norm of life and therefore may be sought elsewhere, for it gave the wrong impression that the competence of Jesus Christ extends only to the forgiveness of sin. [170] Therefore, Barth emphasized their “nicht Identität (non-identity)”: [171] “justification is not sanctification” and “sanctification is not justification.” [172] This entails that they are not “interchangeable,” as the one cannot be deduced from, merged into, replaced by, or explained by the other. [173]

We are still left with the question of the ordo between justification and sanctification. Resenting the contemporary loss of leadership of theology to psychology, Barth fundamentally disapproved of the idea of ordo salutis, for it is “psychologistic” as it makes the human feeling and perception as normative. [174] But it does not mean that he absolutely denied the existence of ordo itself. Rather, he regarded it as “necessary” for the proper understanding of their mutual relationship. [175] Because Barth understood justification and sanctification as occurring simultaneously, he rejected the idea of the ordo salutis as a temporal sequence of several events for the fulfilment of total salvation. However, as they are “two genuinely different moments” of the one event, [176] the idea of a temporal order cannot be entirely excluded. The term “Moment” certainly implies a temporal idea and Barth himself recognised that justification is “the first” moment and sanctification “the second” [177] as far as their “execution” is concerned. [178] Because justification is God's turning to man while sanctification man's turning to God, there must be an executional order--God turns first to man and then turns man to Himself. Also, there is a certain temporal order in the event of Jesus Christ, i.e., first his humiliation and judgment and then exaltation and glorification. In fact, what he meant by the “simul” is “simul et coniunctim,” “inseparabilia,” [179] or “zugleich und miteinander (simultaneously and together),” [180] for justification and sanctification belong together conjunctively to one and the same event and therefore they may not be regarded as two separate and disconnected events. [181] But within the whole event of reconciliation, they are two different moments in its execution. To avoid the misunderstanding of temporal separation, however, Barth employed a new term “Sachordnung (order of substance).” [182]

The intentional order, however, is contrary to the executional order: sanctification is intended first in the gracious election of God and then justification to solve the problem of sin. [183] Also, because sanctification is concerned with the telos of reconciliation, [184] Barth held that “teleologically sanctification is superior to justification.” [185] Concerning the logical order, he maintained that justification is the “Grund (ground)” and “Voraussetzung (prerequisite),” while sanctification is the “Ziel (goal)” and “Folge (consequence).” [186] So he gave the structural “priority” to justification over sanctification. [187] He therefore concluded with “twofold answer” that “both are superior and both subordinate,” [188] “according to the different standpoints from which we look.” [189] To answer the question of their mutual relationship, he depended greatly on Calvin with reference to A. Göhler and G. C. Berkouwer. He called Calvin “the theologian of sanctification,” [190] with a deep appreciation of “the primacy of sanctification in Calvin.” [191] But he found that Calvin could correlate the justification and sanctification with such a free and balanced treatment when he started from the “basic act” of “participatio Christi.” [192] So Barth also started his doctrine of sanctification from Christology as its foundation in §64. We will now go back to the beginning of IV/2 and follow his order of treatment.

3.1.4 The Christological Foundation

In Barth's view, Christology is “the key” to the whole mystery of reconciliation. [193] Since Jesus Christ is not only our justification but also our sanctification (1Cor 1.30), he based the doctrine of sanctification also on Christology. [194] How did Barth then relate Christology to the doctrine of sanctification? It is doubtlessly a matter of crucial importance, because it deals with the question of “transition” from Him to us. However, such a transition has already happened to us as a “fact”--an “absolutely given” “actuality,” and therefore it demands “only development and explanation.” [195] He thus explained it in terms of the election, incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Son of Man.

Exaltation of Humanity

Our participatio Christi is the gracious pre-determination of God in His election, in which God has primarily elected Jesus Christ for the reconciliation of His co-elected people. Because he was elected as the incarnated Reconciler, his true humanity was “the primary content of God's eternal election of grace.” [196] For it is in his exalted humanity that God determined for us “to participate in His own holiness and glory.” [197] Therefore, Barth laid the Christological foundation of sanctification upon the humanity of Jesus as the Son of Man and its exaltation, [198] whereas he found the Christological foundation for the doctrine of justification in the divinity of Jesus as the Son of God and its humiliation. For him, the Christological term for sanctification is the “Erhöhung” (exaltation) of the man Jesus, as “the type and dynamic basis” for the sanctification of man. [199] Due to the historical background of “theological humanism, moralism, psychologism, synergism, and ultimately an anthropocentric monism” in the modern liberal theology, the very concept of the exaltation of man might cause a negative feeling, [200] but Barth reproached a “reactionary” theology and stated that “there is no theology without risk.” [201] Moreover, the positive doctrine of sanctification is not only “inescapably posed by Holy Scripture,” “but very seriously by the history of the Church.” [202] In particular, it is “a powerful Reformation impulse,” given a special importance by John Calvin and the Reformed Church. [203] Besides, the exaltation of man does not even remotely imply some kind of “deification” or “divinization” of man, [204] because it happens in Jesus Christ, so that “man himself is exalted, not as God or like God, but to God,” [205] and it is essentially related to the humanity, not to the divinity of Jesus Christ.

The eternal election of grace, which presupposes the true humanity of the Reconciler as well as the participation of His people in His exaltation, is finally realized in the event of incarnation, as “the historical fulfilment of the concept of true man.” [206] In this majestic act, God becomes man and the Creator creature, though God “assumed” humanity into His divine being “as well,” rather than changing Himself into a mere man, “ceasing to be God.” [207] As God wills “to co-exist as the Creator with creature,” [208] this assumptio carnis opens “a completely new dimension” of world history for the actualization of new humanity. [209] It signifies the promise of a fundamental alteration and exaltation of “the humanum of all men” as such. [210] Therefore, he understood the incarnation as “the ratio essendi, the ground of being, of the true man, the man Jesus,” [211] as well as “the ratio cognoscendi, the ground of knowledge, of this man.” [212] The unio hypostatica that happened in the event of incarnation is unique and distinct, [213] i.e., “sui generis,” [214] but the exceptional relationship between Jesus and His community is “indirectly identical” with it, because He is one with them as the Head of His body. [215] In this unity of the “totus Christus--Christ and Christians,” “the community of Jesus Christ can be that which the human nature of its Lord and Head is.” [216] So this whole Christological discussion is for him an exposition of Eph 4.15: we “may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ.” [217]

Because He assumed our humanity, “He exalted human essence into Himself”; [218] because He united Himself with us, we are united with Christ. This unio cum Christo is the secret of our history, for “His history is our history of salvation which changes the whole situation.” [219] Further, “primarily and finally we ourselves are what we are in Him.” [220] A true knowledge of ourselves as such is, therefore, possible “only indirectly” in relation to our knowledge of Jesus Christ, as “in Him we are hidden from ourselves.” [221] So, Barth recommended “a liberating thinking” of renouncing our direct and independent self-knowledge, [222] concluding that “if we are to see ourselves we must not look at ourselves but look at Him,” [223]

However, a serious question arises in this context, because it seems that Barth mixed up two different identities--Christ and ourselves. As O. G. Otterness pointed out, as we are not Jesus Christ, His sanctification is “not our own.” [224] He also raised the criticism that, as a result, “Barth never seriously confronts the question of how sanctification takes place in the historical existence of the believer.” [225] However, Barth was not unaware of this identity problem but devoted the whole second half of §64 [226] to the problem of the transition from Christ to ourselves. While his discussions of the election and incarnation of the Son illuminated the aspect of our passive unio cum Christo in the grace of God, the following discussions of His cross and resurrection concentrate on the other aspect of our active participatio Christi as our response to His amazing grace, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

As stated above, Barth's Christological presupposition of our reconciled reality is that our true identity is “hidden” in Christ. Why is it hidden? Here he distances himself from his earlier position of dialectical theology. This hiddenness or concealment is neither “a kind of protective garment or cover,”