Updated: May 15th, 2019

Is the Bible the Word of God? Karl Barth answered No! because "the Bible is not in itself and as such God’s past revelation" [1] and that "we thus do the Bible poor and unwelcome honour if we equate it directly with this other, with revelation itself." [2] and "the direct identification between revelation and the Bible which is in fact at issue is not one that we can presuppose or anticipate." [3] Barth did not believe that the Word of God was simply identical to the Holy Bible or any other printed book, and to believe a printed book collecting dust on a shelf is the Word of God is pure superstition. Hence, that old family bible laying dormant in an attic box among mothballs is not the Word of God.

Barth then argues the Bible becomes the Word of God when it is proclaimed by the living human voice of the Church, and only in that event may the Bible be rightly called the Word of God. Barth explained "the Bible, then, becomes God’s Word in this event, and in the statement that the Bible is God’s Word the little word 'is' refers to its being in this becoming. It does not become God’s Word because we accord it faith but in the fact that it becomes revelation to us." [4] The Bible does not become the Word of God when it is read by a human voice, but only has a human voice proclaims it in the church.

The Word of God therefore is in threefold form, consisting of the past revelation of Jesus, the written human witness in scripture, and the preaching of the Bible in the church's proclamation. The written form of the Word of God does not exist in the bible apart from revelation and proclamation, and likewise proclamation does not exist apart from the written and revealed forms, and lastly the revealed form does not exist apart from the written and proclaimed form. Karl Barth's doctrine of the Word of God in threefold form is not easy to understand, but I will attempt to explain it in simple terms.

Karl Barth believed that the Word of God is Jesus, not the Holy Bible (Martin Luther and many other theologians believed this as well) and the Word of God is in threefold form (as I mentioned before) of revelation, scripture and proclamation. Or in another way of speaking, in the appellation of 'Jesus', the father of Jesus and the spirit of Jesus are also included, such that in Jesus the entire Trinity is revealed. In Jesus, the fullness of God in threefold form of the Trinity is revealed (c.f. Colossians 2:9), and so Barth concludes that the Word of God is in threefold form likewise, specifically in the forms of revelation, scripture and proclamation, and these three forms are analogous to the Trinity of god the Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively. The written form of the Word of God is the witness of the scriptures (i.e. the Bible), and proclaimed form is the preaching of the Church, and the revealed form is the events and acts of God (in Jesus) to which the scriptures witness and the church proclaims, and these three forms of the Word of God are unified.

Barth explains the analogy of the Word of God in threefold form to the three modes of being of the Trinity as follows:

There is only one analogy to this doctrine of the Word of God. Or, more accurately, the doctrine of the Word of God is itself the only analogy to the doctrine which will be our fundamental concern as we develop the concept of revelation. This is the doctrine of the triunity of God. In the fact that we can substitute for revelation, Scripture and proclamation the names of the divine persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit and vice versa, that in the one case as in the other we shall encounter the same basic determinations and mutual relationships, and that the decisive difficulty and also the decisive clarity is the same in both—in all this one may see specific support for the inner necessity and correctness of our present exposition of the Word of God. [5]

The Word of God in threefold form is also unified in a similar way as the three modes of being of the Trinity are unified. For instance, the written form of the Word of God never exists apart from the proclamation form or revealed form, and this explains why the Word of God does not exist in an unread book collecting dust on a bookshelf. So the Bible becomes the written form of the Word of God as it witnesses to revelation and as it is preached in the Church. Barth provides three key statements for understanding the interrelatedness of the three forms of the Word of God:

The revealed Word of God we know only from the Scripture adopted by Church proclamation or the proclamation of the Church based on Scripture. The written Word of God we know only through the revelation which fulfills proclamation or through the proclamation fulfilled by revelation. The preached Word of God we know only through the revelation attested in Scripture or the Scripture which attests revelation. [6]

I've unpacked these three statements into the following formulas to illustrate the trinitarian interrelation of the forms:

#1. (Proclamation → Scripture) → Revelation

#2. (Scripture → Proclamation) → Revelation

#3. (Revelation → Proclamation) → Scripture

#4. (Proclamation → Revelation) → Scripture

#5. (Revelation → Scripture) → Proclamation

#6. (Scripture → Revelation) → Proclamation

Formulas #3 and #4 (derived from the second statement) show that Scripture never exists without Proclamation or Revelation, and likewise the other formulas demonstrate that Proclamation and Revelation do not exist apart from the Scripture as well. When these six formulas are combined, then their unity is shown.

In the following quotation, Karl Barth explains that the threefold form of the Word of God does not mean there are three different forms of the Word of God, but the Word of God exists in three ways of being that are unified.

We have been speaking of three different forms of the Word of God and not of three different Words of God. In this threefold form and not otherwise—but also as the one Word only in this threefold form—the Word of God is given to us and we must try to understand it conceptually. It is one and the same whether we understand it as revelation, Bible, or proclamation. There is no distinction of degree or value between the three forms. For to the extent that proclamation really rests on recollection of the revelation attested in the Bible and is thus obedient repetition of the biblical witness, it is no less the Word of God than the Bible. And to the extent that the Bible really attests revelation it is no less the Word of God than revelation itself. As the Bible and proclamation become God’s Word in virtue of the actuality of revelation they are God’s Word: the one Word of God within which there can be neither a more nor a less. Nor should we ever try to understand the three forms of God’s Word in isolation. The first, revelation, is the form that underlies the other two. But it is the very one that never meets us anywhere in abstract form. We know it only indirectly, from Scripture and proclamation. The direct Word of God meets us only in this twofold mediacy. But Scripture too, to become God’s Word for us, must be proclaimed in the Church. So, to give a survey of the whole, the following brief schedule of mutual relations may be drawn up. [7]

Karl Barth introduces his doctrine of the "threefold Word of God" in the first part of his Church Dogmatics (CD I/1) and I recommend reading it to learn more about Karl Barth's Doctrine of the Word of God. To learn more specifically about Barth's views of scripture, and how the Bible has an indirect identity with the Word of God, then I recommend read the Church Dogmatics Vol. I/2 §19-21.

Sources:

1. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Volume I, Part 1, trans. G. W. Bromiley, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. (London, New York: T&T Clark, 2004), pp. 111.

2. Barth. Ibid. p. 112.

3. Barth. Ibid. p. 113.

4. Barth. Ibid. p. 110.

5. Barth. Ibid. pp. 120-1.

6. Barth. Ibid. pp. 120-1.

7. Barth. Ibid. pp. 120-1.