Introduction

Barthian theology, as part of Reformed Theology, has been long marked by radical revision of classical doctrines that define the Christian tradition. Most notably amongst these revisions in his Church Dogmatics is the rejection of angelology as a ‘discipline’, and more particularly his overt avoidance of metaphysical and ontological discourse regarding angels as Beings. Barth restricts the study of angelology to that which is revealed within Scripture and refuses to engage in the speculative—the perhaps, what-if nature of angels (viz., an application of determinism) are obsolete within Barthian dogma—and notably only assesses through the perspective of his Christocentric and epistemologically restricted theology. For Barth, all created Beings, including the angels, are contingent upon God and thus subordinate to His ultimate revelation in Christ, the revealed. This rejection of a distinct and ontologically self-sustaining angelology thus proposes a question for Barthians of whether angels are to be regarded as a) beings in their own right, or b) purely symbolic constructs that act for God’s creation narrative.

Barth’s radical theology of Creation (creation & contingency)

Central to Barth’s theology is the profound commitment to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo—creation out of nothing. For Barth, God is indeed alone the Creator, thereby all creatures exist solely by His Will and act of creation. Thus, he rejects any notion of creation as a necessary emanation or a divine overflow, which has been most common in certain fields of classical theism (alongside some pantheists and panentheists). Instead, creation is an act of divine freedom: creatures only exist because God wills them to exist in relation to Himself. In his Church Dogmatics, Barth makes clear that to him creation is not a self-sustaining nor autonomous order. All created beings, then, including angels, are entirely and utterly contingent upon God’s ongoing creative activity. Creation is the stage for the revelation of God’s Will and glory, most particularly through the mediation of Christ the Son.

“Creation has no independent existence but is a movement of God in which creatures exist, not for their own sake, but for the glory of God.” (CD III/1, p. 37)

It is clear that Barth’s understanding of creatureliness is intrinsically related to divine sovereignty. Angels, as part of creation, are not independent entities in any form but rather dependent on God’s Will. In the Barthian sense, angels are truly contingent beings, and they are creatures that—like humanity—exist for the glorification of God and the revelation of His Will through Christ.

Angels in Christocentrism

The Christocentric focus of Barth provides the foundational structure of his theological method, extending to his angelology. Under this, the central act of divine revelation is not within the creation of angels but in the person and works of Jesus Christ. Christ, as the definitive revelation of God, is hence the final Word of God to Humanity (Hebrews 1:1-2). Therefore, any theological reality, including angels, must strictly be viewed through Christ’s incarnation and revelation. These are the grounds upon which Barth rejects the speculative and/or metaphysical elaboration of angels that would allow them to be positioned as mediators of Divine Revelation in their own right; Barth holds that God’s self-revelation in Christ is truthfully unmediated by angels or any other being:

“There is no other revelation of God than the revelation of God in His Word, which is Jesus Christ. There is no other way of knowing God, and no created being can mediate that knowledge.” (CD I/1, p. 271)

If angels exist, they then, for Barth, most certainly do not serve as independent mediators between God and Humanity. At most they are capable of functioning as witnesses to God’s self-revelation within the Son, but this is limited; never are they independent agents who mediate divine truth in their own right. Alongside Barth’s rejection of metaphysical speculation on angels, his rejection of natural theology—where humans are capable of knowing God through reason or nature alone—accompanies it nicely, as well as his insistence that the only valid source of theological knowledge is the divine self-revelation in Christ.

Angels as Barthian theological symbols

In Barth’s theology, angels are most largely viewed as symbolic representations of the divine Will and action within the world. They are not ontologically separate from the created order, but instead, they function as signs pointing toward the ultimate reality of God’s revelation in Christ (theological pointers). This view aligns with Barth’s wider theological prospective that places an emphasis on the symbolic and revelatory functions of created Beings as opposed to their ontological nature—Barth insists upon the mysticism as a necessity. To him, the focal theological task of the angels is to point beyond themselves towards Christ, as Barth notes in Church Dogmatics III.3:

“Angels are not independent agents; they are messengers, pointing us back to the true revelation in Jesus Christ.” (CD III/3, p. 65)

The symbolic role of angels as theological pointers to Christ is consistent with Barth’s emphasis on the Christocentrism of theology with the Logos at the center of all. Angels do not have a substantive existence beyond their function within the overarching narrative of divine revelation. Angels are not Beings at all, they simply are, and they are in order to serve God and Humanity in an effort to point towards Christ—nothing more. Though angels are revered amongst many Christians and even understood by atheists as saintly, holy beings, that are to be understood as superior to Humanity, perhaps even perfect and sinless, they are in reality no holier nor grander than any other created reality. They are painfully contingent, temporal and oriented toward Christ as the final and fullest revelation of God.

The implications of the absence of an angelology

Barth’s approach to angelology is not non-existent, but it is most certainly very simplistic. The negation of any metaphysical or ontological questioning allows a non-obfuscation for the entirety of angelology—yes, creating a clear approach, and a clear ‘non-answer’, but does so by restricting any questioning as it is, to Barth, irrelevant questioning that is futile under the mystery of God. For Barth, angels cannot be studied in isolation from the divine narrative of creation and revelation. They cannot be understood as autonomous, independent entities, nor do they posses a nature that exists beyond the revelation of God in Christ; they are most like machine is to man, even if they are perceived to be like disciples were to Jesus.

Yet, even with these restrictions, questions are still proposed about the very nature of angels in Barthian methodology. Are they “real” Beings in the traditional sense, or then, merely theological symbols as they act strictly as pointers to the fuller revelation of Christ? Barth’s rejection of all speculation very implicitly suggests that angels are best understood not as Beings or ontological entities with any sense of Being, but only as theological constructs—real in the sense that they do function within the narrative of revelation, but also decidedly not real in the sense that they exist independently from the Creator as things may appear to suggest, in some cases.

Perhaps reviewed in a more poetic sense, it certainly creates a duller picture. That angels, these pure Beings close to God—whether those that enact his Will through war, Saint Michael, or those that carry His throne, the Thrones—whatever angel it may be, that they are not saintlier than us for they are not Beings, not truly, there is no capacity for sin or sinlessness to be held. They simply are.

Back to Barth—his critique of angelology also influences his doctrine of Creation. Since angels are then to be seen as contingent Beings, their role within creation is entirely subordinated to the narrative of the Will. The creation of angels is not for their own sake; the creation of angels is to serve the greater purpose in the revelation of His glory. There is no place for distinct angelology in any Barthian approach, and no possibility of angels holding capability for divine action.

Conclusion

The Barthian doctrine of Creation provides a key framework for understanding the minimalistic approach to angelology, or lack thereof, within his theology. Instead of treating angels as autonomous and ontological Beings capable of being assessed in nature, Barth understands them as creatures subservient to the Will of God, created for serving specific purposes and not for their own good, with their overarching purpose to be a theological pointer towards the fullest revelation. There is no revelation within the existence of angels; they are no more a creation than Humanity is creation, and even then, they are less than. The Christocentric approach of Barth’s theology will forever limit any capacity of the prospective existence and roles of angels, since they will always act within the much larger context of Christ and creation’s dependence on God’s Will.

Such an approach may be seen in many ways. But regardless of its reception, what can certainly be said is that it invites a rethinking of angelology as a discipline, derived from its origins most notably within medieval thinking. All focus is diverted to the primacy of divine revelation with the purpose of angels in such a grand context is negligible. And so, angels are not real, and instead shall only act as pointers to the fullness of God in Christ, for all time.

References

• Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics III/1: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 1. T&T Clark, 1958.
• Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics I/1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, Part 1. T&T Clark, 1956.
• Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics III/3: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 3. T&T Clark, 1960.