Barth and Hegel on the Resurrection


Today I began reading CD IV/1. I generally try to read some scholarly articles to have a better framework for tackling Barth’s Dogmatics. I just read an article by Adam Eitel entitled The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Karl Barth and the Historicization of God’s Being. It’s an excellent article that is very clear and concise. He works through Barth’s understanding of the resurrection in CD IV/1 and discusses the implication it has on the trinity, election, and the historicization of God’s being. He puts Barth’s doctrine of the resurrection in conversation with Hegel’s Lectures of Philosophy of Religion Vol. 3 noting the striking similarities between both Hegel and Barth’s understanding of the resurrection. Eitel follows McCormack’s understanding of the election in which God’s self-determination (i.e. election) precedes God’s triunity. It can be found in International Journal of Systematic Theology 10(1), January 2008.


2 Responses to “Barth and Hegel on the Resurrection”

  1. Troy Polidori Says:

    Jeremy, so what are your initial thoughts on the Hunsinger/McCormack debate? Eitel’s article was very influential for my own thoughts as to how to fit Hegel and Barth together (“a little bit of Hegeling” as Barth called it).

  2. Jeremy Says:

    Well I feel a little bit unprepared to answer this question insofar as I’ve yet to complete Barth’s CD IV. However, I have read the majority of the back and forth between Hunsinger, McCormack, Molnar, Gockel, etc, including McCormack’s all-important essay Grace and Being.

    I really like McCormack’s idea that a decisive break occurs in Barth’s CD II/2, a break that has significant implications for the whole of Barth’s theology. Personally I did feel that CD II/2 seemed to be a major departure from the more conservative (classical) metaphysics we see Barth employing in CD II/1. I’ve been more persuaded by McCormack’s articles (and in my mind even if he departs somewhat from Barth) I think his project is perhaps truer to the spirit of Barth’s dogmatic (i.e. his Christocentric and actualistic focus).

    I’ve also read Hunsinger’s articles and been a bit displeased with the discourse of the debate. Part of me might be more likely to side with McCormack because I’ve been frankly frustrated with the level of rancor I detect in Hunsinger’s articles. One should especially read his long review of Jenson’s ST (which I will be reading next year), which struck me as profoundly uncharitable to the point of being a willful distortion of Jenson’s project.

    I’ve reflected a bit more here on this debate. I’m also eventually going to be reading McCormack and Hunsinger’s works in the near future.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: