1

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
The thought of an almighty God revealing Himself to man is both inconceivable and
inescapable. Revelation, Gods personal communicating of Himself to His creatures, who would
otherwise have no knowledge of His presence or plan, provides several seemingly confusing
concepts which challenge serious thought. God is unseen physically, but He is present here and
beyond the realm of space and time. While Gods capacity surpasses any limitation, His intimacy
and personal involvement can be traced to the inner most part of man. He has revealed Himself
to mankind in both general and specific ways. Still, a thorough explanation of His personhood
would be inexpressible to human thought. While general revelation is equally important, this
research will be limited to Gods special revelation of Himself to mankind. The claim that special
revelation makes is that God has shown or made Himself known at specific times and to
specific peoples.1 God has specifically or particularly revealed Himself in many ways.
However, for the purpose of this paper,

Thiessen, Henry. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1949, 10.

2
the following three means of revelation will be examined: the inspiration of Scripture, the
incarnation of Christ, and the personal experience of man.
Both Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann were very influential on modern theology.
Bultmann has been called the greatest New Testament scholar of the twentieth century by
some, while Barth attempted to be a recognizable alternative to the radical theology of Bultmann.
Barths theology was culminated in his greatest contribution, Church Dogmatics.2 Barth was
somewhat concerned because of the influential effect Bultmanns theology seemed to carry and
the lasting results his theology would inevitably have on the church.3
Seeking a greater understanding of the theological positions of Barth and Bultmann on
the subject of Gods special revelation should prove to be insightful. While an understanding of
the foundational precepts of these models is imperative, the researcher will also search the
framework and attempt to explore their views on a broader scale, including their differences and
commonalities. Major influences on and effects of their views on the whole of the doctrine of
revelation in modern theology will also be explored.

Perrin, Norman. The Promise of Bultmann. New York: J.B. Lippincott Company,
1969, 11.
Green, Cliford. Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1991, 21.

3
CHAPTER TWO
REVELATION: THE INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE
General
The writings of the Old and New Testament were divinely revealed through the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul, himself, claimed to have been given the gospel from God. He
and the apostles were not teaching their own opinion. Instead, they spoke a message direct from
God.4 This combination of inspiration and revelation is named concursive inspiration by
Erickson, describing the merging of the two divine acts into one at the point of Scripture. As
authors of Scripture wrote, God placed within their minds the thoughts he wished
communicated.5
Rudolf Bultmann
Rudolf Bultmanns view of the New Testament was that of an obsolete piece of irrational
literature, meaningless in a modern context of society. He believed that in order to find a kernel
of eternal truth hidden within the mythological husk of the New Testament, the reader was
forced to penetrate the written Word to find the contemporary revelation of God to mankind.6
From Bultmanns theological standpoint there was little hope for any direct revelation of God
from the Bible. Gods word to man was veiled or hidden from view or immediate reach.
Therefore, God was not revealed but concealed by human words and limited by the human
sphere in which it was present. Bultmann has asserted that statements made by men in the

4
5

Enns, Paul. The Moddy Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1989, 83.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1983, 213.
Grenz, L. Miller and Stanley. Contemporary Theologies. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1998, 42.

4
scriptural texts should not be considered as legitimate as the direct statements from Christ
Himself because these human statements would be clouded by a carnal opinion and personality.7
Bultmann was also convinced that the New Testament was unreliable because of a
Hellenistic mythical influence he felt was present throughout. He felt this negative influence or
philosophy corrupted Gods Word and brought about the requirement of demythologization on
the New Testament texts. Bultmann believed that, though myth may be used in some manner to
deliver Gods revelation, it can never be the revelation of God itself. While Bultmann felt the
Bible contained the Word of God, hidden and concealed from the eyes of man, he would never
agree that Scripture as a whole was the inspired revelation of God to mankind. Everything
seemed to need an explanation with Bultmann. He wrote very little about faith, but he seemed to
place a greater emphasis on fact, even doubting the factuality of the historical record in the New
Testament. Much of this is due to his existential approach to the interpretation of scripture.8
Karl Barth
Barthian theology has been referred to as a theology of the Word, but this term does not
entirely refer to the Scriptures. In fact, Barth understandably paralleled the Word of God
primarily with Jesus Christ. While he did not hold to the complete inerrancy of Scripture, Barth
was convinced that the elimination of the human relativity of the Bible may lead to the
elimination of the very thing the Bible was intended to bear witness to: the revelation of God.9
Unlike Bultmann, Barth felt that the human aspect of inspiration was not only beneficial, but
perhaps imperative. Barthian theology went through stages, including a turn during the Great
War which brought a greater focus on revelation. Barth concluded that the written Word had only
7

Johnson, Roger A. Rudolf Bultmann: Interpretating Faith for the Modern Era.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991, 136.
Painter, John. The Origins of Demythologizing. Australian Biblical Review,
Rev 33, October 1985, p 2-14.
Grenz, 16.

5
one theological interest, and on this issue he offered no compromise. The one interest of the
Bible is in God Himself.10
However, part of this interest in the person of God is His desire to reveal Himself specifically to
mankind. Barth appealed to the totalizing sufficiency of Gods revelation in the Word.11 He
found Himself in the center of a debate between two opposing sides. Barths doctrine of the
three-fold Word did not fully comply with either of the opposing opinions. He claimed that
revelation, scripture, and preaching were all in one the Word of God, trinity in unity.12 The
Protestant scholastics attempted to minimize the importance of Gods written Word by doubting
the validity of the humanity of the word, but Barth accused the orthodox dogmatists of rejecting
revelation itself by obscuring the hiddenness of Gods revelation in scripture. He credited them
with creating a paper pope by reducing revelation to the words in scripture.13 While Barth, unlike
Bultmann, held to the total inspiration of scripture, he did not feel the notion of an inerrant text
was necessary or warranted for the purposes of divine revelation.14

10

11
12
13
14

Dorrien, Gary. The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2000, 70-71.
Dorrien, 77.
Ibid, 75.
Ibid, 77.
Hart, Trevor. Regarding Barth: Toward a Reading of His Theology. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999, 45.

CHAPTER THREE
REVELATION: THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST
General
The pinnacle of special revelation lies in the God-man, Jesus the Christ, who offered man
a revelation of Almighty Gods existence, nature, and will. Jesus was not only sent by God, he
was God in flesh present with man. He is the most verifiable proof for Gods existence in the
history of man, having lived a perfect life among men. The revelation of God in Christ is the
most profound fact in history and deserves the most careful consideration.15
Rudolf Bultmann
Bultmanns understanding of divine revelation in the person of Jesus Christ was
undoubtedly clouded by his exclusively existential paradigm. He saw Jesus as a verifiable
historical figure who was truly crucified upon a Roman cross, but Bultmann could never accept
Him as the actual Son of God who came to pay our sin debt literally. He was convinced that the
greatest need was not to believe the fact of the historical events of Christ.

15

Thiessen, 14-16.

7
Rather, the crucial matter of faith for Bultmann was the experience of the message of the Christ.
Needless to say, he also refuted the literal resurrection and ascension of Jesus as well.16 Bultmann
saw the record of Christs life as a mixture of actual history and unrealistic myth. However, this
German theologian seems to be easy to misunderstand. For example, he considered Christs
death on the cross the event in which God has chosen finally to reveal himself.17 It seems as
though Bultmann was convinced that Jesus was part of the revelation of God to mankind, but the
extent of his conviction is undoubtedly confused. He felt that the idea of a pre-existent son of
God who enters the world to redeem humans is drawn from Gnosticism.18 Bultmann was not
concerned with the historical Jesus that so many scholars were seeking to discover. He could
not trust historical record because it always held potential for contamination by human sources.19
Much of his reluctance with Gods revelation through the incarnation was a direct result of his
view of scripture. With a low standard of validity of the historicity of the gospel record,
Bultmann had little foundation on which to stand when referring to Christ. His theology is
amazing due to its lack of divinity and biblical confirmation.
Karl Barth
According to Barthian theology, the hidden God is apprehended indirectly in Christ.
However, no continual relationship or communication between God and man exists. He saw
Jesus as the divinely positioned crossroads of known time and unknown eternity, where
humanity met deity temporarily.20 This meeting between God and man was dependent entirely on
the Son of God. Man could not reach nor learn anything about God personally without His act of

16
17
18
19
20

Grenz, 45.
Perrin, 69.
Grenz, 41.
Johnson, 96-97.
Grenz, 15.

8
revelation. God was self-revealed in the person of Jesus, the Word. Through the Word, the
unknowable God entered the world in a knowable, conceivable form.21
At its inception, Barthian theology was closely paralleled by Bultmann on the issue of the
Easter event. Unlike Bultmann, Barth did affirm the resurrection as a real objective event in his
latter years. According to Barth, the incarnation of Christ alone is the path to true knowledge of
God.22 If the hidden God has not revealed himself in Christ, then the world has not been
reconciled to God. This human being, known a Jesus of Nazareth, was not only the Son of God,
but he was the eternal Word of God, God in flesh. Barth was willing to credit full deity to the
physical man Jesus, refusing to consider the exclusively existential option of Bultmanns
theology.23 Barth summed up his stand quite simply by stating that, The Christ is the revelation
of God. And here I confess that I simply do not understand him.24

21
22

23
24

Hart, 13.
Xiaofeng, Liu. Chinese Theological Review. God is God: In Memory of Karl
Barth, 1989, 75.
Green, 201-202.
Johnson, 60.

CHAPTER FOUR
REVELATION: THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF MAN
General
Personal experience can be ignored or abused when speaking of special revelation. Some
go to an extreme view of total experiential revelation, while others say experience means very
little. However, personal experience is undeniably the most essential aspect of the inspiration of
scripture.25 Miracles, personal relationship, and spiritual growth are all aspects of this channel of
communication from God to man. God can and wants to be sought after, not in symbolism but
experience. Isaiah 55:6-11says to seek God while He may be found because it is one of
Gods ways to make Himself available.26
Rudolf Bultmann
The special revelation of the hidden God is not knowable by man, being grasped in
limited words or propositions. Instead, Bultmann said it is continually opened up to new heights
and depths, enlightening man.27 This is in stark contrast to the

25
26

27

Thiessen, 16.
Blackaby, Henry T. The Ways of God: How God reveals Himself Before a
Watching World. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2000, 6.
Johnson, 51.

10
Barthian theological concept of a one time revelation. Scarcely is he known than he again
disappears; and we once more stand in the presence of the unknown God, with whom we must
wrestle anew till he gives himself to be known and speaks his name.28 While Bultmann went too
far with the existentialistic view, there is much validity to the experience of God revealed to man.
An affirmation of faith to many, experience is common on some level to all who believe in God.
Every child of God has experienced God in some respect. God is known to faith as one who is
encountered. While ones experience cannot be denied, it also lacks proof for affirmative
conclusion.29 Bultmanns theology has influenced even the most conservative of denominations
in recent years. The criterion controversy among the Southern Baptists is one such example. At
the root of this issue was the conflict between the actual words of scripture and the past
experience of the reader of scripture. Ones understanding of who Jesus is based on their
experience was placed in contrast to the biblical standard. Those who hold to Bultmanns view of
the inspiration of scripture, would claim that experiential understanding of Jesus holds more
validity than the biblical texts. They would absolutely reject the scriptures absolute authority and
the totality of divine inspiration. While this issue seems rather new to some, its root can be
followed back for many years.30
Karl Barth
Barth was not willing to walk far down the road of experiential revelation. He did see
Jesus and history as being objective to ones experience to a degree, but he saw no possible
compatibility between the reality of justification in Christ and location in human experience. The
justification event was an uncontrollable election made concrete in Gods revelation through
28
29

30

Johnson, 49.
Stagg, Frank. Polarities of Human Existence in Biblical Perspective. Smith
and Helwys Publishing, Macon, GA, 1994, 93
The Baptist Faith and Message, 2000.

11
Christ. Placing the emphasis on human experience rather than divine intervention offers undue
credit to man.31 Mans existence, through experience is moving forward through existential
choices, toward a final, culminant essence, of Christ-likeness.32 So concrete revelation for Barth
cannot be found in a personal experience with God, a mythological sphere, or a knowledge of
Gods future intent. Rather, the verifiable historical record of Jesus is Barths source of choice.33
Barth seemed to view mans limited experience with God as a result of revelation more than a
means by which revelation is received.

31
32
33

Hart, 60-61.
Stagg, 94.
Hart, 58.

12

CONCLUSION
Revelation, the answer to mans problem of ignorance about God, is much more detailed
and diverse than some might think. In Rudolph Bultmann and Karl Barth the researcher finds
two distinct theologies when considering the doctrine of special revelation. The conclusion has
been made that while Barth was committed to the Scripture to some degree, Bultmanns
commitment was tied more to the experience of man. Barth was convinced that the biblical
record was a reliable source for history and verifiable evidence for the Christian experience.
Bultmann began with personal experience that he believed would help lead the reader to a
greater understanding of the revelation hidden within the Scripture.
Both Barth and Bultmann had some since of Jesus being the Word

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Blackaby, Henry T. The Ways of God: How God Reveals Himself Before a Watching World.
Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 2000.

13

Brunner, Emil. The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1949.
Coppedge, Allan. Portraits of God: A Biblical Theology of Holiness. Downers Grove, Illinois:
Inter-Varsity Press, 2001.
Dorrien, Gary. The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology.
John Knox Press, 2000.

Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster

Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody

Press, 1989.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2d ed. Grand Rapids,

1983.

Michigan: Baker Books,

Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books,
1992.
Farley, Gary. The Doctrine of God. Nashville: Convention Press,

1977.

Ford, David F. The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to

Twentieth Century. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1989.

Christian Theology in the

Ganssle, Gregory E. God and Time. Downers Grove, Illinois:

Inter-Varsity Press, 2001.

Green, Clifford. Karl Barth: Theologian of Freedom. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Hart, Trevor. Regarding Barth: Toward a Reading of His Theology.
Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Downers Grove,

Humphreys, Fisher. Thinking About God. New Orleans: Insight

Press, 1974.

Johnson, Roger A. Rudolf Bultmann: Interpreting Faith for the

Fortress Press, 1991.

Modern Era. Minneapolis:

Lewis, Gordon R. and Bruce A. Demarest. Integrative Theology: Knowing Ultimate Reality
the
Living God. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Academie Books, 1987.
Miller, Ed. L. Questions That Matter: An Invitation to
Hill, 1998.

Philosophy, 2d ed. Boston: McGraw-

14

Miller, Ed. L. and Stanley J. Grenz. Contemporary Theologians.

1998.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

McConnell, Francis. The Diviner Immanence. New York: The

1906.

Methodist Book Concern,

Perrin, Norman. The Promise of Bultmann. New York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1969.
Stagg, Frank. Polarities of Human Existence in Biblical
Georgia: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 1994.

Perspective. Revised ed. Macon,

Stewart, Melville Y. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology of

Contemporary Views.
Sudbury,
Massachusetts: Jones and
Bartlett Publishers, 1996.

Journal Articles
Painter, John. The Origins of Demythologizing. Australian Biblical Review, Rev. 33, October
1985, p 2-14.
Stinson, Charles. On the Time-Eternity Link: Some Aspects of
Eschatology. Religious Studies, 13, 1977, p 49-62.

Recent Christian

Wells, Harold G. Karl Barths Doctrine of Aalogy. Canadian

1969, p 203-213.

Journal of Theology, 15 JI-O,

Xiaofeng, Liu. God is God: In memory of Karl Barth. Chinese

66-76.

Theological Review, 1989, p

15

CONTENTS
COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION OF GODS SPECIAL REVELATION:
BARTH AND BULTMANN
CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

CHAPTER TWO

The Inspiration of Scripture

CHAPTER THREE

The Incarnation of Christ

CHAPTER FOUR

The Personal Experience of Man

16