Father, in which there are no longer any princedoms, powers, and authorities, no greatness and splendour that would be secondary to the grandeur and splendour of God, in which therefore also the last enemy, death, is thus abolished.46
And this reality is not without its ethical implications. The Corinthians are to awaken to this reality, not as a matter of “intuition or enthusiasm,”47 but in the realization of “the relativity of their Christian religion,”48 which has its validity only in its coming fulfilment—the resurrection of all the dead and the abolition of death itself.
The Resurrection as the Axiomatic Basis for Theology
For Barth the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the necessary basis and touchstone for all Christian thought. In vv. 35–49 Paul engages, not in apologetics, but in a form of confessional argumentation that proceeds on the basis of the resurrection reality. Paul does not philosophize; he preaches. He does not attempt to represent the truth, to recast it in a different frame. He rather demonstrates “how we ought to think from the standpoint of Christ, of revealed truth.”49 To silence the objections raised by resurrection doubters Paul employs analogies to the resurrection.50 Note, however, Paul does not attempt to describe the resurrection; neither does he intend to prove anything in relation to the resurrection. Rather, these analogies serve to illustrate what is meant by the resurrection in which Christians believe. Analogy is not a means of discovery, but a means of denoting what has already been discovered.51 Analogy does not construct but serves its referent. Its purpose is not to adduce proof, but to create room in thought:52 “Nature can only offer analogies, similes; the rational contemplation of Nature can only make room for the truth of the Resurrection.”53
Paul’s first analogy of the resurrection has to do with “the change in appearance of the same thing in the order of time.”54 The analogy is one of a perishing (of a seed) followed by a new creation and a growing (of a plant identified with the seed). That is, “in the utterly inconceivable critical point between the before and after lies … a new creation.”55 Paul’s second analogy follows, having to do with “the variety of appearances of the same thing in the order of time.”56 Paul marvels that a single entity can appear simultaneously or sequentially in a variety of phenomenal shapes and forms, and by it illustrates that the resurrection as well is a change in the same human being from corruptible to incorruptible. Death is not only the end, but also the turning point of human being. And hence, if the body dies, i.e., ceases to be in this existence (corporeal and corruptible), the selfsame body also is transformed into a new existence (corporeal and incorruptible).57 The transition is from one form of bodily existence to an entirely new form, but nevertheless of bodily existence. This understanding is not deduced from the analogy, but from its unique and altogether prior and given analogue—the resurrection of the dead. Paul simply proclaimed the gospel that “we are men of Adam and are to become men of Christ as corporeal men.”58 In this manner, says Barth, “Paul preached the truth of the resurrection. In reply to the question, How? (verse 35), he points to the So, which is at least reflected in the growth and decay, in the being so and the being different, of visible things.”59
The Resurrection as Reality
Verses 50–58, in Barth’s view, have as their theme the relation of the “perishable and mortal body” and the “spiritual body,” i.e., the resurrection body.60 Barth describes this relation as an “identity,” though one that is “not given.”61 Barth insists that if we confess the revelation of God in Christ we place ourselves in its promise, not proleptically, but in the reality of the relationship. The resurrection, the “miracle of God” stands between the natural body and the spiritual body. It is this reality of the resurrection that undoes our human efforts to place ourselves in the resurrection reality, as if by means of anticipating the resurrection reality we can by-pass the death to which even such an anticipation succumbs. No, the reality of the resurrection is not “present” by our willing and doing, but only as “God’s gift.”62
For Barth the mystery that is disclosed in the resurrection is that of the synchronism or the simultaneity of the living and the dead. That is to say, the living and the dead are contemporaries; they share the same time—the time of the creation that is passing away. They belong on the same side of the dividing line, the other side of which is the resurrection. The living too, and not only the dead, undergo the miraculous transformation of the resurrection. The resurrection is not a restoration of the dead to the condition of the living. Rather the condition of both the dead and the living (mortal and corruptible) is changed in the resurrection.63 In the resurrection both the living and the dead are changed: “The resurrection, the crisis which concerns all men in all ages, means, as surely as it is God’s decisive word to mankind: ‘In Him they all live.’ ”64
It is in the light of the resurrection that we know both this identity and this synchronism: that though we are all presently dead, we are also all alive, but only as a reality given in hope. The past is no more certain a reality than is the present or the future. The reality that determines all other reality is not divided up into past, present, and future. The resurrection reality is the relationship of God to all time and space. What is known to us now only in hope is equally real and certain as what we know in present experience. We are thus, at the same time, the dead and the risen.
It is only with these victorious tidings that Paul is able to say death is swallowed up in victory. In speaking about this resurrection as reality, Barth draws attention to the present tense in Paul’s statement that God gives us the victory, and says that the reality of the resurrection is
a valid word spoken to us, not to be forgotten, not to be dragged down into the dialectic of our existence, not to be restricted, not to be weakened, not to be doubted. But just for this reason everything depends upon this “victory” being and remaining God’s gift “through our Lord Jesus Christ” present in hope.65
The nature of the resurrection is such that it cannot become an object of human judgment and predication. It does not fall within the realm of human scrutiny. Rather humans and human history fall under its rubric. The resurrection is dealt with adequately, says Barth, not when it is explained, but when it is testified and believed.66
Relation to Barth’s Later Work
While the ideas formulated in this commentary do not share the degree of refinement characteristic of Barth’s treatment of the resurrection in his later work, they are nevertheless remarkably mature, consistently anticipating their later more expansive explication. Throughout his career Barth’s emphasis upon the resurrection as the central axiom for all Christian thought and action remains firm. So, too, his depiction of the resurrection as the self-revelation of God, the ineffability of the resurrection as an event on the horizon of history and eternity, the radicality of the end and new beginning made of human beings in the death and resurrection of Christ, the parousia as the full manifestation of the reality already actual in the resurrection, and the critical force of the resurrection as the revelation of new humanity in Christ. While Barth will in the Church Dogmatics develop the theme in the more pneumatological terms of the movement of the crucified Lord to his own,67 his developed view retains much of the character of his earlier insights. Hence, The Resurrection of the Dead remains of great value both as an important source for understanding the fundamental nature of Barth’s earlier theological thought, and as a trenchant and rewarding engagement with the central affirmation of the New Testament: “He is risen!”
Prof. R. Dale Dawson
Tyndale University College, Toronto
FOREWORD
THE chapter devoted to the Resurrection of the Dead does not stand in so isolated a relation to the First Epistle to the Corinthians as at first glance might appear. It forms not only the close and crown of the whole Epistle, but also provides the clue to its meaning,
