Karl Barth and Supersessionism

By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.

Karl Barth’s massive impact on theology in the twentieth century extended to the areas of Israel and the church.[1] His views on these subjects were related to his position on election. Barth (1886–1968) saw an essential connection between Israel and the church that was based on the elect one, Jesus Christ. According to Barth, there is one elect community of God. This community in its form as Israel represents divine judgment; in its form as the church it represents divine mercy:

The election of grace as the election of Jesus Christ, is simultaneously the eternal election of the one community of God by the existence of which Jesus Christ is to be attested to the whole world and the whole world summoned to faith in Jesus Christ. This one community of God in its form as Israel has to serve the representation of the divine judgment, in its form as the Church the representation of the divine mercy. In its form as Israel it is determined for hearing, and in its form as the Church for believing the promise sent forth to man. To the one elected community of God is given in the one case its passing, and in the other its coming form.[2]

For Barth, Israel is representative of those who reject their own election while the church consists of those who live in light of their election. As he states, “Israel is the people of the Jews which resists its election; the Church is the gathering of Jews and Gentiles called on the ground of its election.”[3] Summarizing Barth’s view, David E. Holwerda observes, “Jesus Christ is the Elect One, but what is elected in Christ is a community with a twofold form, Israel and the Church.”[4]

Like Augustine, Barth believed that Israel’s existence and unbelief functioned as a sign. Israel’s unbelief exemplified the sorry state of humanity in its rebellion against God.[5] In contrast to some theologians such as Kant and Schleiermacher, though, Barth placed a high importance upon Israel’s role in the history of redemption. As Michael Wyschogrod states, “Because he reads Scripture obediently, [Barth] becomes aware of the centrality of Israel in God’s relation with man and with the very message that Christianity proclaims to the world.”[6]

In sum, Barth’s views on supersessionism can be summarized in two assertions. First, he rejected punitive supersessionism in which national Israel is viewed as being permanently rejected because of its disobedience. As John J. Johnson states, “For Barth, the Jews were, are, and will remain the chosen people of God—nothing can alter this divinely ordained fact.”[7] In his Dogmatics in Outline, for example, Barth asserted that Israel’s continuing existence in light of ongoing persecutions is the only “visible and tangible” evidence of God’s existence.[8] 

Second, Barth affirmed a form of economic supersessionism in which Israel’s unique role came to an end with the death and resurrection of Christ.[9] He stated:

The new Israel . . . is not (like the old Israel) a “nation,” a natural society . . . but a people gathered solely by the preaching of the Word and the free election and calling of the Spirit. The first Israel, constituted on the basis of physical descent from Abraham, has fulfilled its mission now that the Savior of the world has sprung from it and its Messiah has appeared. Its members can only accept this fact with gratitude, and in confirmation of their own deepest election and calling attach themselves to the people of this Savior, their own King, whose members the Gentiles are now called to be as well. Its mission as a natural community has now run its course and cannot be continued or repeated.[10]

Summarizing Barth’s economic supersessionism, Soulen writes: “Christ’s death and resurrection bring Israel’s career as a natural people to an end. Thereafter Israel’s sole legitimate destiny is to be taken up into the church, the new and true Israel, where the significance of its identity as a carnal people is permanently transcended.”[11]

Barth’s economic supersessionism is also connected to his Christology in which all human history, including Israel’s history, is viewed as culminating in Jesus Christ.[12] With Barth’s christocentric emphasis, God’s covenant with Israel is fulfilled in Jesus. Thus, Israel’s distinct role comes to an end. Its place is now taken by the church. For Barth, as Soulen points out, “The church supersedes Israel as a community of witness by testifying to God’s covenant in its definitive christological form.”[13]

By rejecting punitive supersessionism and affirming economic supersessionism, Barth promoted a more positive view of the Jewish people[14] than did either Kant or Schleiermacher. Although still promoting a form of supersessionism, Barth expressed both a love and respect for the Jewish people. As Peter Ochs writes, Barth’s “dialectical and ambivalent theology of Judaism displays to the modern reader the classical sources of both Christian supersessionism and Christian love of the people of Israel.”[15]