when it comes to the lights, words, and truths of the created world in the doctrine of reconciliation, Küng accused Barth of not publicly admitting his retraction of his former position against natural theology and analogy of being.64 The following statement convinces Küng of Barth’s own correction of his former protest against the natural theology. “Dangerous modern expressions like the ‘revelation of creation’ or ‘primal revelation’ might be given a clear and unequivocal sense in this respect” (CD IV/3.1:140).
Moltmann goes a step further, regarding natural theology as the goal of Christian theology rather than regarding natural theology merely as the presupposition for Christian theology. Hans-Joachim Iwand becomes a mentor for Moltmann’s eschatological understanding of natural theology: “Natural revelation is not that from which we come; it is the light towards which we move. The lumen naturae is the reflection of the lumen gloriae. . . . The theme of true religion is the eschatological goal of theology.”65 At issue for Moltmann is to see that “natural theology is only as yet an advance radiance of the eschatological theology of glory.”66 Therefore, natural theology can be seen as the advance radiance and promise of the kingdom of glory, not as “a forecourt of revealed theology,” but “as a fore-shining of revealed theology’s eschatological horizon.”67 When natural theology is understood as a theologia viae concerning the sighing of creation (Romans 8), Moltmann renews natural theology in light of theologia publica, which is in turn sensitive to and responsible for the political arena, natural scientific findings, and the life of the earth.
According to Barth, the world is in need of parables and capable of being a parable for the kingdom of God. Under the real promise of God’s future, this world becomes transparent to God’s invisible presence and potentially a parable in reflection of God’s in-breaking reality. In asking whether it might not be that Jer 31:34 is in the process of fulfillment, Barth answers with his public and universal theology.68
Karl Barth and Israel
It would be difficult, in fact, to understand Barth without reference to his reflection on Israel. The synagogue and church are called to listen anew to the divine Word and to a completely new decision of responsibility.69 When it comes to Barth’s doctrine of Israel, Klappert illustrates and illuminates various models. First, he looks at negative models: (a) the model of substitution (or replacement), and (b) the model of integration. This model can be called the viewpoint of religious indifference in that it is a way that denies the dependence of Christianity on Judaism or on the election of Israel. In other words, Christianity has no more or less to do with Judaism than with Buddhism or communism.70 Some elements in Barth’s doctrine of Israel are sharply charged with supporting this direction. When it comes to the history and life of Israel, Barth argues that the history of Israel is the history of expectation of their crucified Messiah. According to Barth, the church is the aim and ground of election for the people of Israel. From this comes the view that Israel, as such, is a vessel of dishonor. While Israel is the witness to divine judgment, the church is the witness to honor and divine mercy (CD II/2:259–61).
(c) According to the model of typology, Israel is a type of the church and of the salvation that is ultimately represented by the church. It refers to the model of “fore-portrayal pointing to a superior counterpart.”71 Israel and its institutions—their whole history—serve only as figurative types of the church that finally brings God’s salvation. Israel’s history and institutions are regarded as types of the church and its salvation. This model can be called the viewpoint of inheritance in a way that interprets the history of Israel as the prehistory of Christianity, in that Judaism is perceived as an anachronism. (d) In the model of illustration, Israel is understood as an exemplary negative foil of human existence, whereas the church is the stage that overcomes it. This model can be called the viewpoint of necessary contrast in a sense that understands Christianity in basic contradiction to Judaism and views Jewish existence only as a foil. If the Israelite is symbolized in the figure of the Pharisee, so the Christian is symbolized in the figure of the Good Samaritan.
(e) The model of subsumption speaks about the destruction of the special election and covenant of Israel on the one hand and the subsumation of Israel’s special status under generality valid for all on the other hand. According to Käsemann, in contrast to Bultmann’s existential-anthropological understanding, Paul’s teaching on justification is to be understood in a cosmic framework (on the basis of Rom 1:28–3:20; 5:12–13; 8:18ff). At stake in Paul’s teaching on justification is primarily God’s reign over the world and concrete individuals.72 In Käsemann’s framework of justification, Israel is subsumed and classified under the universality of justification of the ungodly as its consequence.73
In a turn to positive models, several ideas emerge. (a) We first mention the model of complementarity: Israel and the church are understood as people of God who supplement and complement each other in competition, coexistence and pro-existence. This model is practiced for the purpose of dialogue between Jews and Christians, between synagogue and church. In it, Israel and the church can be seen as partners in solidarity and as the coexisting community sharing an eschatological-messianic horizon of hope. (b) In the model of representation, the relation of the church to Israel is understood as that of deputyship. In this understanding the Gentiles enter provisionally in place of Israel, who does not recognize the Messiah. The Israel-remnant is the placeholder for the whole of Israel, and the Gentiles as the latecomers represent placeholders for the synagogue’s majority among which the Gentile provisionally participates in Israel’s election.74
(c) In the christological-eschatological–dependence or participation model, the church is dependent upon the election of Israel, which is proved in Jesus Christ, and the promised fulfillment of this election toward Israel, not only in the past, but also in the future. What is at stake is not the context of a universal eschatology of creation but a particular and universal eschatology of Israel (Mark 13:10, 26–27; Acts 1:16ff; Rom 11:25–26; Eph 2:11–12). The christological-participation model provides a basis for the Gentles to participate in the history of God’s election of Israel.
In dealing with the various models of the relation of the church to Israel, Klappert categorizes Barth’s doctrine of Israel as a tension between a christological-eschatological–participation model and an ecclesiological-integration model. Because of this unresolved tension in Barth’s thought, Barth expresses his doubt about Jewish-Christian dialogue, while at the same time calling for ecumenical dialogue and rejecting a Christian mission to the Jews (CD IV/3.2:877). Although Klappert is aware of Barth’s decisive rejection of Christian anti-Semitism, he understands this rejection as a tension, conflict, and impasse in Barth’s doctrine of Israel.
When it comes to Karl Barth’s treatment of Israel in his doctrine of election (CD II/2), it was formed between the winter semester of 1939–1940 and the winter semester of 1941–1942. This doctrine of election was comprised at roughly the same time as the Wannsee conference on January 20, 1942, during which time the Final Solution of systematic execution of the Jews was organized and planned. It is unlikely that Barth knew of any details of genocidal activity when he was engaged in his reflection on Israel in CD II/2. Although Barth has a positive approach to the Jews—because of some elements of his integration model—he argues that the Jewish form of the community has a different function from the church. Compared with the service of the church for the witness to God’s mercy, the distinctive witness of Israel
