Abstract

Karl Barth departs from historical Protestant orthodoxy in his unique adoption of the dual formula anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the union of divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ. For Barth, these concepts help explain why the person of Jesus Christ must not be viewed statically in his being as the God-man, but dynamically in the event of God’s movement of grace towards humanity. As such, Barth applies these concepts in his analysis of the Chalcedon definition of the Jesus Christ who exists as one person with two natures. In so doing, Barth further develops Chalcedon’s definition of the two natures of Christ based upon the hypostatica unio. Not only must Chalcedon be interpreted through the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as event, but also event in the union of this human essence as the Son of Man as it participates in the divine essence. For Barth, the emphasis is not the combining of divine and human essence into one being, but that the eternal Christ has taken to himself human essence as the one Reconciler.

Highlights

  • Karl Barth’s expression of the humanity of Christ as anhypostasis and enhypostasis reaches its apex in the Doctrine of Reconciliation (CD IV) where Barth develops Jesus Christ as the servant as Lord.[2]

  • Karl Barth departs from historical Protestant orthodoxy in his unique adoption of the dual formula anhypostasis and enhypostasis to explain the union of divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ

  • For Barth, these concepts help explain why the person of Jesus Christ must not be viewed statically in his being as the God-man, but dynamically in the event of God’s movement of grace towards humanity. Barth applies these concepts in his analysis of the Chalcedon definition of the Jesus Christ who exists as one person with two natures

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Karl Barth’s expression of the humanity of Christ as anhypostasis and enhypostasis reaches its apex in the Doctrine of Reconciliation (CD IV) where Barth develops Jesus Christ as the servant as Lord.[2]. For Barth, Chalcedon helps explain the humanity of Christ as being in action given its two-fold definition of the two natures as: unconfused, immutable and indivisible, inseparable. This establishes a critical point in Barth’s ontological development of the humanity of Christ. Barth deals with what it means that the human essence of Christ is brought into union with his divine essence as the exalted Son of Man in dialogue with the Chalcedon definition of the two natures.[3]. My objective in this paper is to: 1) evaluate Karl Barth’s interpretation of Chalcedon given the backdrop of anhypostasis and enhypostasis; and 2) examine how Barth uses these concepts in his critique of the Chalcedon definition of two natures, which become the ontological grounding to explain the act of God’s revelation of Jesus Christ in the hypostatica unio

How Did Karl Barth interpret Chalcedon?
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.