Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 52:2 (Fall 1990)
Article: Alexandrian or Antiochian? A Dilemma in Barth’s Christology
Author: Hans Boersma

---

WTJ 52:2 (Fall 1990) p. 263

Alexandrian or Antiochian?
A Dilemma in Barth’s Christology

Hans Boersma

Already in the first volume of his Church Dogmatics Barth objects to the reproach of intellectualism leveled against primitive Christology.1 He defends traditional Christology against the charge that it engaged in “scholastic hair-splitting” (the formal objection) and against the charge that it was more concerned with metaphysics than with ethics, more with a physico-mechanical way of salvation than with a religious way of salvation (the material objection). Barth lashes out against the material objection, as brought forward by von Harnack, and says that it falls prey to “spiritualist moralism”: “It has a horror of physis, of externality, of corporeality; it cannot take breath save in the thin air of moral judgment and of powers of psychic experience. It does not know what to make of what the New Testament calls σῶμα, σάρξ, θάνατος, ζωή, ἀνάστασις and the like.”2

The lack of an ontological basis of much of nineteenth-century Christology is in Barth’s view the reason for its failure. It has attempted to circumvent, to conjure away the mystery of revelation as vere Deus vere homo. It is not surprising, therefore, that in his foreword to the volume on reconciliation, Barth notes that “throughout I have found myself in an intensive, although for the most part quiet, debate with Rudolf Bultmann.”3 Barth considers the demythologization of Bultmann to be on one line with the liberal theology of the previous century.

The picture of Barth relying on and in agreement with patristic Christology raises the question where the Anknüpfungspunkt with early Christology can be found. Waldrop has presented a strong case to regard Barth’s Christology—and consequently also the rest of his theology—as Alexandrian in character.4 He argues that Barth’s Christology does indeed have some Antiochian elements but that most of these elements can also be explained in an Alexandrian framework. Waldrop concludes that Barth’s

WTJ 52:2 (Fall 1990) p. 264

analysis of the unity of the person of Jesus Christ, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the nomenclature used concerning Jesus Christ indicates that Barth stands in the Alexandrian tradition.

Despite the generally favorable reaction to Waldrop’s publication there have been objections that the picture presented is anachronistic: Barth did not primarily turn to the early chur...

visitor : : uid: ()