Barth takes a decidedly different approach to what the image of God in man is from the tradition. In fact, it seems a good deal of his influence is Dietrich Bonhoeffer rather than the Reformed confessions or even broadly Protestant dogmatic tradition. Whereas the tradition taught that the image consisted of original righteousness, holiness, and knowledge, Barth emphasizes the idea of relation in act.

The first principle to keep in mind, then, in understanding Barth’s doctrine of the image is that it is articulated in a thoroughly anti-metaphysical context. What does that mean? It means that Barth stands in the tradition of modern German protestant theology which grew increasingly suspicious of speculative medieval and Greek ontological formulations. This goes back to Schleiermacher and is a common concern through Ritschl and von Harnack. So, to put it simply, the image is NOT a substance or thing which man possesses. But if it is not a substance, a thing, then what is it?

That brings us to the second principle found in Barth’s doctrine of the image. The image is fundamentally a relationship. There is an I/Thou relationship in God. However, that relationship is not that of two individuals, but of one. In God there is contained in a whole the object-subject relationship. But this I/Thou relation in God has an analogue in man, who is himself relational.

That brings us to the third principle. Man images God by virtue of his male/female relation. Man confronts man in the male/female relationship. This is the I/Thou relationship which imitates God who is himself an I/Thou, object/subject, relationship. Barth makes much of this. This IS the image of God in man. Man is the imago dei only and in so much as he is male and female.

And, finally, the image of God is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is himself the I/Thou relationship. He IS the male/female relation in that he is never an abstract person. But is always an everywhere the groom of his bride, the community of faith. He is the I-groom in eternal relation with his Thou-bride. He is the the solution to the age-old subject/object relation. He IS the eternal divine I who eternally relates with the human Thou in the everlasting knowledge of God as the one who is with us in a third time of redemption.

Makes, sense, right? Um, er, or does it? You decide!

Christians should always be distinguished from unbelievers subjectively: they do all things by faith in Christ and for his glory. But as an objective matter, the standards of morality and excellence in the common kingdom are ordinarily the same for believers and unbelievers: they share these standards in common under God’s authority in the covenant with Noah (p. 31).

So far, for me, the book was reading along quite nicely. I was fully on board. In fact, I still find myself immensely appreciative of a 2K perspective, especially where they emphasize the spirituality of the Church and her status as a pilgrim people, sojourning and exiled on the earth. Furthermore, I have read Kline’s writings and am in general agreement with the way he relates the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants and covenants of common grace and special grace, respectively. Furthermore, I still have much more of DVD’s works which I need to read before offering a fuller and fairer assessment.

However, I am afraid that the above quote may prove to be an Achilles heel for his otherwise sound biblical-theological project. If by “objective standards” under which both believer and unbeliever stand, DVD means God’s natural law, or general revelation, then I cannot sign on to his claim. Allow me to give an example.

Let’s say I am a scientist at a pharmaceutical company (our gracious God knows we have plenty of those here in New Jersey!). Furthermore, there is another scientist in my lab as well, but she is not a believer. To be sure, as DVD points out, we will engage our cultural—common realm—work of performing experiments to find a drug for (let’s say) the common cold (suffered by both believers and unbelievers!) in radically different ways subjectively. Perhaps she will be work at her experiments so that she can receive a patent and score some big bucks. Or, maybe she wants to be famous. Or maybe she has a genuine love for humanity and is really sick (!) and tired of seeing humans suffer terribly from head colds and related diseases. But the Christian’s standard is not those things, subjectively. His standard, first and foremost, is to Glorify God in his work.

But objectively, can we say they both have the same standard? To be sure, God’s law written on their hearts is binding on the both of them. God’s created laws of physics and chemistry bind them both to do good and proper science. God’s moral law on their hearts and his image in them dictates how it is wrong to steal other people’s ideas and claim them as their own. But are there not also laws which are not given in natural law which are objective that also cause an antithesis between them in the lab? Take for instance the Christian Sabbath. It is an objective dividing marker which is not contained in general revelation or natural law (while the idea of Sabbath observance is, the Christian Sabbath on Sunday which is due to the resurrection of Christ is contained only in special revelation). The unbeliever in the lab should be resting on Sunday in worship of God, but she is at the lab ambitiously pursuing her patent. The Christian is at church. As an objective matter, their standards of morality are not the same. In other words, natural revelation/law alone is not always sufficient for morality in the public sphere.

That is only one example. What about family life? At best, natural revelation/law tells us in our conscience to be sexually faithful to our spouses. While that is necessary for both scientists (me and the unbeliever), it is not sufficient. There is more to marriage than sexual fidelity. The Bible (an objective form of morality) tells us that a husband is to love his wife, seeking to be tender to her. Furthermore, the wife is to be submissive to the husband as the church is to Christ. Now, that commandment is not in general revelation. And to be sure, the indicative which grounds these imperatives is redemptive. And the unbeliever knows nothing of redemption in Christ. Yet, would we say that the unbelieving scientist is not to be submissive to her husband because she is not a believer? Is she really guilt free for being at the lab advancing her career when her husband needs her back at home to take care of whatever it is that need taking care of? Would I be wrong to correct my fellow scientist telling her (in a loving and godly way) that she should not work on Sunday and that she should be submissive to her husband? Yeah, I know, in today’s world that would go over like a lead balloon. But the point is this: Does not God’s special revelation bind the unbeliever morally as much as does natural revelation? Is there really such thing as a common objective morality alone in the public sphere? Or, must special revelation always accompany it? Can we really make objective verses subjective distinctions in this way without compromising the antithesis which exists—objectively!— in the common realm between believer and unbeliever? The Bible does, will, and should make a visible, objective difference in the common pursuits of the believer.

For this reason, I am skeptical of DVD’s project at this point. Again, that is not to say he and the 2KT position in general are not making valid points. They are. And the church needs to hear them. But I do think this bifurcation of special and general revelation in the common realm unnecessarily throws a monkey wrench into the 2K works.

Even as I advocate strenuously for my own reading of Barth, I must calmly admit that the Church Dogmatics is patient of multiple interpretations. Even as I stand in the so-called revisionist camp, I am obliged to admit the viability of “traditionalist” readings. The force of this obligation does not bespeak interpretative humility or charitableness on my part, nor is it symptomatic of poststructuralist convictions about textual indeterminacy. Quite the contrary: it is an obligation grounded in the belief that varied, even conflicting readings of Barth’s magnum opus are a function of the text itself, are a consequence of Barth’s distinctive approach to dogmatic work (p. 157).

I think the next question that arises from Jones’ suggestion is, “Did Barth intend his text to have this effect or was it a failure to communicate his position clearly?” I know several readers of this site will have an opinion.

There have been good protestants who have maintained that this faith is not the antecedent of justification, but the consequent, that we do not believe in order to be justified but we believe because we have been justified, and that the faith referred to is the faith that we have been justified. The witness of Scripture does not appear to bear out this view of the relation of faith to justification. It is true, of course, that there is a faith which is consequent to justification. We cannot believe that we have been justified until we are first justified. But there is good reason for insisting that this reflex or secondary act of faith is not the faith in view when we are said to be justified by faith and that this faith by which we are justified is the initial and primary act of faith in Jesus Christ by which in our effectual calling we are united to Christ and invested with his righteousness unto our acceptance with God and justification by him. [pp. 128-129]

Murray links justification and faith, and he argues that faith must precede justification. For it is by that very faith that believers receive the righteousness of Christ that is imputed to them. Without Christ’s righteousness, there is no ground for justification. Murray then goes on to describe the character of this faith by which believers are justified.

It is an old and time-worn objection that this doctrine ministers to licence and looseness. Only those who know not the power of the gospel will plead such misconception. Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Justification is not all that is embraced in the gospel of redeeming grace. Christ is a complete Saviour and it is not justification alone that the believing sinner possesses in him. And faith is not the only response in the heart of him who has entrusted himself to Christ for salvation. Faith alone justifies but a justified person with faith alone would be a monstrosity which never exists in the kingdom of grace. Faith works itself out through love (cf. Gal. 5:6). And faith without works is dead (cf. James 2:17-20). It is living faith that justifies and living faith unites to Christ both in the virtue of his death and in the power of his resurrection. No one has entrusted himself to Christ for deliverance from the guilt of sin who has not also entrusted himself to him for deliverance from the power of sin. “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” (Rom. 6:1-2) [p. 131]

These are helpful reminders of the Bible’s teaching on the gospel. Indeed, we are justified by grace alone through faith alone; yet that faith is never alone. Believers are renewed by the Spirit of God and quickened to mortify sin and live unto righteousness. Nevertheless, let us never forget or compromise that wonderful alien righteousness from Christ which alone accounts for our right standing with God.

The idea of an antecedent being, who has antecedent thought and who therefore by His self-contained counsel determines whatsoever comes to pass, is abhorrent to both Barth and Brunner, and has been so at every stage of their thinking. There is no spot along the whole front of their theological opponents that is so constantly made the target of their most vigorous attack as the idea of a self-contained ontological trinity.

I think we should devote most of our attention to the distinction between historia and ordo salutis. In similar (perhaps more familiar) categories, we speak of redemption accomplished and applied. Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. has done the Church a tremendous service in his book Resurrection & Redemption.¹ In this work, Gaffin navigates the connection between Christ’s death and resurrection (historia salutis) and the application of that work to believers (ordo salutis). He provides insightful exegesis that demonstrates convincingly that Christ’s resurrection is simultaneously his justification (1 Tim 3:16), adoption (Rom 1:3-4), sanctification (Rom 6:1ff; Acts 20:32), and glorification (1 Cor 15:42ff; 2 Cor 3:17f; 4:4-6).

The fundamental category—the “ground” of it all—is Christ’s person and work, which is neither exclusively forensic nor renovative. From what I gather, it is possible we need further clarification regarding what we mean by forensic. It is a term referring to the procedures of law. It is often used to distinguish the Reformed from the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Reformed argue that justification is entirely extrinsic. It does not make one righteous in themselves, rather Christ’s righteousness is imputed, and justification is the acquittal of guilt on that account. Conversely, Roman Catholics argue that justification imparts grace. It makes the sinner righteous intrinsically.  I gather from my interactions with people on this subject that some prefer to invest the word forensic with the notion of monergistic. I do not find the two synonymous. For instance, regeneration is entirely monergistic, but in no way forensic; it is renovative—a work that changes the subject intrinsically.

I believe we can move forward in this discussion by further exploring what is entailed by Christ’s resurrection, particularly as his justification (1 Tim 3:16). I believe this may help to crystallize Dr. Horton’s concerns in his interview response. We ought to develop the sense in which we may speak of the open declaration of Christ’s righteousness in his resurrection. Specifically, we must detail the way this wonderful truth interfaces with preaching (cf. Rom 10:17). This may clarify how Christ’s justification in historia salutis relates to the believer’s justification in the ordo salutis.

For example, there is a real union with Christ in his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. As Christ accomplished his work, he accomplishes it for his chosen people. But there is also a real transition from wrath to grace in the life of the sinner saved by grace. There is no point when a declaration can be made to a sinner that their sins have been forgiven until they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness by faith. Christians are not justified in the preaching of the Word. They are justified when God acquits them of their guilt on account of an alien righteousness. To keep with the forensic/legal metaphor, without that righteousness, received by faith, there is no case.

In I Corinthians 11:7ff., Paul does expound the man-woman relationship as an instance of the image-glory pattern. However, he interprets the man(husband)-woman(wife) relationship not as that which itself constitutes man(kind)’s image-likeness to God, but, on the contrary (and excluding that possibility), as simply containing an analogy to the image of God in man. It is not that the man-woman relationship is an image-likeness of intertrinitarian relationships, but that the man-woman relationship mirrors the glory-reflecting relationship of mankind to God in which the image of God in mankind actually does consist. [Meredith Kline, Images of the Spirit (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999) 34.]

Kline is responding to several competing interpretations, including that of Karl Barth, who argues that the image of God is found as man and woman considered together. He recasts the discussion in light of his twofold conception of image. There is image-likeness and image-glory. Image-likeness is the reproduction of the original image (the analogue) whereas image-glory is a reflection of the original. Consider Moses’ face reflecting the glory of the Lord. Human reflect God’s glory as analogue images of Him. Similarly, the wife-husband relationship is yet another picture of how Christ relates to his bride—as original glory and glory-reflectors.