The First Testament Theology of “Kornelis Heiko Miskotte”

The First Testament Theology of “Kornelis Heiko Miskotte”.

A Dutch Kiwi looks at his life, and book: “When the Gods are Silent”, (Collins 1967)[1].

Abstract:

Post Enlightenment continental theology has in the last couple of hundred years or so, come through a vortex of life and experiences which occasioned a great deal of thought, refection and resolve for the Christian church. Much of that is also part of who and what we are and are becoming here in the Antipodes. One of the names that stand out from the rank and file is of course Karl Barth, the logician par example who re-appraised and re-contextualised Calvin’s Reformed theology (like Calvin did with St. Augustine) in a quite single minded focus of God through Jesus Christ; and in so doing issued a categorical “NO” to the direction of liberal theology developed from the preceding two hundred or so years.

Moreover, it was Barth’s thought that gave all of Christian theology a heart and soul that had the integrity and substance to face up to the lies and heresies implicit in Hitler’s Nazi pagan totalitarianism. It was due to that witness and focus- that he ended up with far more than just an appreciative hearing in the (fervently anti-Nazi) Netherlands after WWII; although it took some time for the often opiniated, and strongly Calvinist Dutch to come to properly understand and warm to him.

Prof. K.H. Miskotte unintentionally became one who eased and facilitated that process. In the lengthy process of setting down his life thoughts he used Barth’s thesis as one of his themes to lie alongside his other life convictions to chart a spirituality with an even broader spectrum and sense of imagination and concentrated thought, than Barth’s foundational and purely theological thought had exhibited. For Miskotte’s span of intellect and interest, and his Christian orientations were always far more than just theological in timbre.

In this last book regarded by many (though not by himself) as his major treatise, are the chrystalisations of his life and works.

His always pietist beliefs were from the very outset deeply sympathetic to Hebrew/ Jewish understanding of the ontological significance of the NAME of YHWH/ God; persé, it must be added, from an Old Testament hermeneutic perspective. The NAME of God as YHWH is the unpronounceable, humanly unaddressable and unfathomable One; spoken of and addressed as Adonai/Lord and in that very essential Jewish sensibility was the very equivalent for him with the reverence accorded to Jesus Christ as Lord of Creation.

Moreover, Miskotte was deeply disturbed and concerned about the malaise of non God-directed lives of European atheism, its nihilism and the concomitant results and tragic trends of WWII and the Holocaust, that he felt were symptomatic and representative of the phenomena and excesses of the  European Post Enlightenment climate that led inexorably to the new “German paganism”.

Before all of that, he remained a committed Dutch churchman/ minister/ and as such was a mover towards conciliation in parish, church and inter-faith dialogue, a peacemaker between the enduring schisms of Dutch Reformed Protestantism; but far beyond all that he was an “aesthete” of the very highest cultural and literary order.  

His span of thought was always more than complex, and thereby daunting; but it is also worthy of renewed consideration especially for anyone who desires to think outside the square of the enduring human status- quo of meaninglessness and aporia; and attractive to those within modernity who in contrast would see their lives shaped according to God’s order.        

Introduction:

Professor H.K. Miskotte from the Netherlands, a ‘Hervormde Kerk’ (Reformed) minister, wrote some significant theology in the 1950’s that went by largely unobserved by the English speaking theological world. The book “Als de Goden zwijgen” (see the English title: "When the Gods are silent" in the essay’s heading above) published in 1956 in Dutch, was his ‘magnum opus’ and which most succinctly expressed much of his accumulated thoughts and theology; it moreover became, in effect, a Karl Barth reader for post WWII Dutch Reformed theology. However his thought went further than the rigidity of Barth’s approach, in that he re-contextualised Barth’s ‘Krisis theology’ analogically alongside the earliest Old Testament/ TaNahK mode of Israelite reverence for the NAME, whereby YHWH/ God revealed God-self to the children of Abraham and Moses. He also felt ethics and any vehicle for legitimate human response to God’s revelational address was neglected and disallowed by Barth in his concerns to deny all vestiges of natural theology and to render any possible foothold for that endemic human trend. Whereas Miskotte’s main concern was, from the very outset in his theological development, always concerned for and with humanity in modernity- its rationalism, atheism, nihilism and conversely its religiosity and legalism to boot. He identifies and addresses that in an express sense of solidarity with much of the despair and loneliness that is in his view a ‘synonymous correlative’ with post-death of God focus of theology and the agnosticism of secular pluralism[2]. And it is completely within that forum that he remains an authentic Christian. His thoughts were therefore at the same time averse to- yet paradoxically acceptant if not adoptive- of European rationalism and religious doubt about God’s absence in human life and understanding; and he spurned the tendencies of Protestant ecclesial control to limit or bewail those patterns of continental nihilism. His message always had this dialectical twist of theist and immanent concerns and forms[3].

Surprisingly for Western and Dutch thought and philosophy his thought stands in marked attitudinal sympathy with Judaism and other Asian indigenous thought; though in the book he doesn’t broaden his thesis to include those avenues for consideration, even though he was very aware of- and sympathetic to- Javanese thought and Indonesian faith modalities in the dusk of Dutch colonialism just before WWII and shortly after[4]. Perhaps he died prematurely, and we could have expected even more. He emphasised and qualified both the “Yes” as well as the “No” of G-D to all people, be they Jew, Christian or Gentile[5]. In all of that he was from very early times most avowedly pro Semitic and a fervent Christian advocate for all to be like Jewish in attitude and stance (as in a grounded approach to life) and hence in unilateral attention on G-D; rather than accentuate the usual Christian route to try to wrestle G-D into our ethical situations through church, doctrine or dogma.

This viewpoint became one of his main characteristics eventually, yet he only came to this conviction from his pre WWII reading of Jewish philosophers and theologians Franz Rosenzweig, Max Brod and Martin Buber and realised that something very early in Christian history had gone hermeneutically very awry; and that in fact the earliest Jewish understanding evinced from the biblical record and hence its capacity to self criticism and greater real objectivity, was actually closer to G-D than what Christianity had been capable of understanding or had been able to tolerate. For he could clearly maintain that Jesus of Nazareth, before anything was a Jew; and that in the end this Jewishness was discounted and excised by anti- Semitist German paganism was an added factor for Miskotte to come to have a nearly obligatory sympathy for Jewish understanding and how the OT/ TNK featured as a platform for that understanding. He could not agree with the rational drift of OT theology of the liberal school of the 19^th century that saw the Gospel of Christ as a mere emancipatory vehicle for ever higher levels of human culture, and who in that drift would excise or negate all of Jewish faith and the OT as mere examples of primitive and legendary (and therefore discardable) origins and thereby how the very Word/ dbr of G-D was disallowed, as (admittedly an indirect) communication of G-D to humanity.

Miskotte instead shows in his theology how the purposive dynamic Spirit of YHWH/God continues to bring newness and purpose into all life (similar to Bultmann’s understanding of God’s kerygmatic “address”); even for our human modernity, that has grown to become mostly inure to metaphysical and mythic story, and concomitantly enslaved to a desert existence of rational enquiry that has become it very own determinant, and purposively stepped away from its own realtime contingent essentiality. Miskotte sees humanity as divorced- if not alienated from any quest for meaning, yet he always includes himself as fellow traveller within that very humanity- inclusive, if disparaging, of its nihilism, doubt, cynicism and loss of human meaning. Hence the title of the book, for here all gods, imagined or real are silent. Miskotte contends inadequate attention in terms of attitude to G-D, has had the effect to make Jesus the Jew an anthropomorphism, a mere metaphor and human construct; and hence G-D is only ever a mere shadow and surrogate product of human postulation.

He as a committed (though often misunderstood) Christian pastor appeals to all humanity in modernity, to Judaism as well as the enduring schisms of Calvinistic Protestantism to reappraise their own attitude and recover first held positions before the cosmic reality of G-D in the Spirit of Jesus the Messiah/Christ. He believed the chaos in the world, especially the rise of modern paganism in the European scene in the 20^th century should impel all people of faith to unite in solidarity in new re-appraised devotion to God.

*“He felt most of all that the God (sic) of Israel, was and is, in every culture experienced as being surplus to requirements.” G-D is always the *“unrealised Majesty”, and left on human sidelines or stowed away up in the mental attics[6].

Heiko Kornelis Miskotte died on the 31^st Aug. 1976 after some difficult final years. In a fitting eulogy at his funeral Ps. 90:17 the theme was:

*“Let the favor of the Lord our God (sic) be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!".

Miskotte had used the same scripture at the occasion of his retirement from the ministry[7].

Contexts:

 Miskotte was professor of dogmatics and ethics at the University at Leiden in the Netherlands from 1945-1960. Prior to this he was a minister in various churches in Holland and lastly, Amsterdam, from 1921-1942. During the war years and the Nazi German occupation of Holland he had a special responsibility to minister to Dutch intellectuals who had become estranged from the church[8]. His lifetime theological conclusions found their expression in the book: “Als de Goden zwijgen”, first published in Dutch in 1956, in German shortly after but in the English translation as “When the gods are silent”, not until 1967.

Despite his offering being now nearly 50 year old theological thought, in my view and many others in the Netherlands and Europe, Miskotte’s theology still is of great relevance for the Christian church today and surprisingly as well for many like me who have felt it increasingly necessary to see a life and faith as separate from denominational formats and to become more integrally related in solidarity with  humanity in the world of God. In particular, from that vantage point I find relevance in how Miskotte charts a way for deeper dialogue, understanding and tolerance for western Christianity with indigenous Christian faith expressions and belief, like here in Aotearoa/NZ, Australia or to other faith modalities that see themselves as implicitly other than those who have originated from the historical missionary and colonialist contexts from continental Europe. Yet this aspect has not seen any great theological  development as yet. This tolerance towards other thoughts we must emulate, to rise above schisms and religious intolerance to always endeavour to leave the last word with G-D. That is where his attention was always concentrated on, to consider the G-D angle in the divine/ human encounter through history and our time.

Prior to WWII Miskotte wrote extensively, battling Christian malaise and dogmatic adherence to literalist biblical formats as well as the schisms of thought in the Dutch Protestant Church; which moreover became increasingly intimidated politically from 1933 on, by the threat of Nazi totalitarianism to all strata of Dutch life. This was well before the ‘Silence of the Gods’ book; as his doctoral dissertation already in 1933 he had focussed (sympathetically) on “The nature of Jewish religion” (“Het wezen der Joodse religie”, for which in 1935 he won the Mallinckrode Prize from the University of Groningen, as the best theological contribution of the decade in the Netherlands), and in 1938 he strengthened that focus with a book entitled “Edda en Thora” where he set out the contrasts between Germanic and Israelite religion[9]. He predicted the evils of National Socialism and felt that the influence of the Germanic myths and mindsets of the German people predisposed them to be overwhelmed by the chaos that was to ensue from their ranks. He therefore came over time to be in good standing with Dutch Jewish people even before WWII and the Holocaust.

Miskotte sees humanity in three categories: Pagan, Jew and Christian, each as such is represented in either or all categories, i.e:  A Jew can manifest and adhere to pagan or Christian ethical norms, similarly like so with the others. Paganism is not to be simplistically confused with primitive tribal practice or beliefs; rather it can be very modern and is characterised by a foundational adherence to natural processes of logic and selfmade symbols. Though being of the authentic Jewish faith is the antithesis of Paganism as it is the religion of conversion and as living according to Godly dictates as evidenced in the TNK/ Masoretic Textus, and being a Jew is therefore at the very centre of what it can mean to be truly human, ethics here stem purely from obedience to the Lord of all (continuing) Creation, and anyone can thereby be deeply Jewish. Being a Jew is therefore for Miskotte not at all something identical to being a Hebrew of Israelite genealogical descent. Being a true Christian for him is an authentication and characterised by a willing and ready reception of the edicts and teachings of the Jew Jesus acclaimed as Christ[10].

Samuel Terrien, the eminent Old Testament scholar and theologian, regarded Miskotte’s work “Silence of the Gods” as a highly significant theological development; he felt the work was “highly original, suggestive and perceptive”[11]. Doberstein (the Dutch/ English translator) mentioned that upon publication of the German edition the book was regarded in Germany as the theological book of the decade (the 1950’s)[12]. Samuel Terrien’s own book “The Elusive Presence” was undoubtedly influenced by Miskotte’s innovative and insightful thought, particularly where Miskotte touches on the concept of God’s presence and its antithetical absence for human apprehension; the significance of the Name of God, God’s Hiddenness as well as the Presence of G-D.

Terrien also commented in the same article, that it was unfortunate that Miskotte’s effort was passed by largely unnoticed and went “unobserved”[13]. No doubt this was due to the book being initially only published in Dutch, later in German and only years later in English. Moreover in the English translation the style and structure seems often impenetrable and too “stygian” to quickly absorb or digest. Dutch language structure tends to introduce a theme and subsequently develop and give substance to that, which runs often counter to how English propositional thought is understood and framed. The difficulty may be more in how Dutch is so very different to English. While Miskotte’s style isn’t easy to digest even for the Dutch reader; this is especially problematic for the English reader, though with some perseverance the breadth of vision and the depth and scope of the discussion becomes obvious. However it is fair to say pragmatically and in hindsight, that had the English publishing date and marketing effort been closer to the Dutch or German editions it might have facilitated its reception in the English speaking world.

The book with its developed theme of the Word of G-D in terms of (the Jewish respect for) the NAME of YHWH/G-D became, through his identification with Karl Barth’s theological approach and understanding, a work that introduced  and opened up Barth’s thought to the Dutch Church; essentially it became a Dutch companion to much of Karl Barth’s thought. Barth’s theology was often strongly resisted by theologians in the Netherlands before WWII and it wasn’t until 1948 on his fourth visit to the Netherlands and his speech to the World Council of Churches then in Amsterdam, that his drift of theological thought became acknowledged and recognised as having been prophetic and relevant in the face of the pure evil idolatry of Nazism[14]. Miskotte in many ways paved that way, even though he was severely censured for it[15].  Immediately after the war, he with Dr J.J. Buskes and some other theologians wrote a journal: “In de Waagschaal” (In the Balance), wherein they attempted to renew in union the former opposed factions of the freethinking church and the more rigid Dutch orthodox Calvinists churches; not by discussion and resolution of the pro’s and con’s of any, but by renewed attention on the Founder of our faith through the mysterious Word of God that emanates from beyond the printed page. As chief-editor of the journal, Miskotte wrote[16]:

*“We aspire to be christians and being Christian is much more than simply having a conviction, based on the focus for having a ‘cogent understanding of being Christian in a contemporary world’ (welgesloten christelijke wereldbeschouwing- German: Kristliche Weltanschauung). We would coset no more confessional differences, in the sense that we do not want to endeavour to arrive at a broad nationalistic- and duly as- at a humanistic brand of Christianity that would surmount any of the divisions. We would rather endeavour to float in thought and speech and to thus proceed from a pure sense on being simply Christian in the very original sense of the word. Such a simple faith, instead of being obfuscating  would endeavour thus to rather enhance all human  contours in more simple, convincing and clearer fashion; and all that rather than to continue to resort to the negation and historicist purification processes respectively of the jewish and pagan elements within our Christian tradition. Authority comes from the Word of God (sic) and only that Word can free both pagan and jew from being bound to human notions of creation and idealism. The Word is well able to release the Christian from besetting pagan, jewish or christian factors- to gloriously recreate that person to become a disciple of Christ, even in his very thought processes”.

It was the war and the decade leading up to the war, that made such resolution eventually possible, the facing of nihilism, the stark portent of real or possible extinction, and the realisation that G-D does care and will nonetheless always be involved with creation, that G-D still takes the side of the oppressed and causes miracles, many miracles- even military, to bring order out of chaos. There is a G-D given order to things and G-D still vanquishes enemies that attempt to rebel against that. Miskotte points out that humanity has to come back to base and to come to their senses from time to time, it was a pity that it took such a terrible toll to bring the strongly partisan Dutch hard- nosed Protestant faith factions (stemming back to the schisms in the 17^th century at the Synod of Dordt) to some sort of congruency. In that reprove he was as uncompromising as Barth had been earlier[17].  

Miskotte’s theology was also the first thorough post-war theological development of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theological theme of how a “come of age” humanity[18] could continue to find answers to the increasingly sense of meaninglessness in post-Shoah/-Holocaust life in the world, and especially so in continental Europe. The whole area of meaning within society is still of the utmost relevance today, even amongst those in modernity sceptical of any hardwired divine beginnings[19], nonetheless the quest for meaning still seems to be at the root of things.

Bonhoeffer in his search for Christian relevance in a sceptical world, earlier had been adoptive of much of Barth’s theology in terms of human contingency and letting G-D be G-D, but in his more radical interpretation of that principle, became actively involved with Christian ethical resistance against the coercive usurpation processes of German National Socialism. In 1935 however, Barth had to leave Bonn and Germany and was in Basel for the whole of WWII, and out of Hitler’s reach; but it also removed him from the centre stage of any practical resistance in which he had earlier been one of the main protagonists of the Hitler regime; and a main architect of the Barmen Declaration.

Modernity, Natural Theology, Old and New Testament and other themes.

Ironically, in spite of the fact that human modernity has acquired an instinctive aversion to anything mythical or metaphysical[20], Miskotte addresses modernity as well as Christianity, on the very strengths of a First Testament theological appreciation, and then within a pertinent Jewish climate of biblical understanding! Of course, the merry mix of Hebrew legend, myth, poetry, wisdom, humour and irony as well as the historical memorial recounts makes the whole of the biblical story, especially in the First Testament such a captivating blend; at least to the believing initiate. Which is something that modernity, however well educated, remains mostly unaware of. I think therefore, in terms of Miskotte’s address to modernity persé, his appeal never seems to quite succeed. With the benefit of hindsight now we can see that modernity remains quite blasé about ultimate things and meaning in its continued and often confused self absorption.

Miskotte though comes at this from quite another angle, he sees theology/ theologians or the church for that matter as no different to anyone else in the world, and if G-D as Ultimate Reality is ‘world concerned’ then any proposals as coming from the Spirit of G-D are legitimate points for discussion between Pagan, Jew or Christian or any combination of the three. While it may seem to miss the mark of possible engagement it is at least honest, non- patronising and in theory (if not so much in practice) opens up the possibility for further dialogue. It reminds one, of the biblical invitation of G-D inviting humanity to “reason (even argue) together” (Is 1:18). Miskotte may be in the role of a catalyst here. De Kruijff notices this peculiar twist of Miskotte and explains that Miskotte understood European culture and modernity and its antecedents actually better than most scholars and philosophers, so we cannot say he was gullible in that respect. The explanation he felt was quite straight forward: real human reality and hence its true authenticity can only be derived from the only real G-D, and the address (kerygma) to humanity by this G-D is relayed through the Scriptures to humanity, which is for Miskotte in the first instance the OT , and especially that in TNK format and of Jewish esteem thereof.[21]  

Concerns for modernity aren’t his only platform; for Miskotte weaves three major concerns together which leads unfortunately to the impression of it being disjointed in its structure and approach. It is clearly far different from what we can expect from a classical systematic approach; as it always aims for far more, in the sense of a spiritual smōrgasbord. In his own estimation as well perhaps as that of Barth he was always more an artist/poet and a seer/ prophet merely than a pure theoretician and theologian and as such he embroiders and garnishes his proposals and thoughts. None of these planks of Miskotte’s theology simply arrived out of the blue. He cogitated, studied, read, absorbed and thought about each over a long period of time. They are then the fruit of his lifetime on offer:

·         As stated his primary concern was for human modernity in the grip of the pervasive climate of post Enlightenment loss of meaning, and then to identify what and how modern “paganism” occurs- and the remedy for it; all that from within the context of the concern and love of G-D for the world.

·         The adoption of Barth’s thought of endeavouring to see things solely from G-D’s perspective and centred in Jesus Christ- and to thereby not allow the processes of natural theology gain a foothold in theological thought and practice; which for them both was tantamount to the first step on a path of error and to the eventual  adoption (even subconsciously) of surrogate gods.

·         In a nearly contrived- yet audacious fashion Miskotte then weaves in the strand (into the weft of the first two) of the hermeneutical relationship (the continuity or lack of) between the Old and New Testaments, and how the lack of understanding between Old and New has led in Christianity to wrong notions about G-D, and to a less than proper (Jewish) notion for the human approach and understanding of the NAME of G-D, and hence its understanding of Jesus.

There are other subplots and concerns intermingled in the above already ambitious oeuvre;

·         His reliance on biblical exegesis and to then arrive at not only theological but also ethical conclusions, stem from his pietist origins and his devotion to the Bible as Scripture.  In such a methodology he is clearly different from Barth who in his theological formation doesn’t pay over-much attention to scriptural exegesis or to how his hard and fast view of revelation would impact on human response models and ethics. For Miskotte especially in the third and latter part of the book (but also in the whole of his life), exegesis and preaching are very much at the centre of Christian living. In terms of homiletic sermon preparation the book, finally in the latter end and Epilogue, he roots everything down what earlier has been mooted. These final series of exegetical/homiletical sketches from the FT are then ‘no mere out of synch’ attempts to do something orthodox, but to conclude and complete in an analogical manner a new way of thinking and approach in answer to G-D’s call to our lives.

·         The rise of National Socialism in Europe and its anti-G-D and anti- Jew ideologue, hijacked the ground of theological truth and the Lordship of Christ and subverted it with quite another Lordship paradigm. Ensuing ethnic cleansing Nazi programmes impelled Miskotte for the search for new solutions in re-appraised Christian thought and application to combat this long latent form of modern paganism.

·         For Miskotte any resolution was to be neither on orthodox fundamentalist grounds, nor via nihilist modernist nor by any “ist” or “ism” for that matter; as Scripture was never meant to an inerrant vehicle or grid to simply relay a hard and fast revelation of G-D to the world; but neither he felt should it be mutilated and stripped by inexorable historical critical means to end up as an empty shell- a liveless carcase without flesh and blood.

In that regard we might take a quote from JJ Buskes, a fellow theologian of his era, but In my view which is equally applicable to how Miskotte would have thought; who was before anything else a committed Christian cast upon G-D, and who remained an exegete of Scripture with a focus on Jesus Christ as the revealed WORD of G-D:

*“For the rest I am wholly agreed with Banning, when he says: ‘The centre of our concern in the midst of the twentieth century is the question about and how the modern secularised world can still be confronted with the central biblical proclamation.  The problem may- and cannot (simply) be a liberal theology in opposition to one of orthodoxy, but rather a centrist as well a biblical one which surmounts the polarity of both liberal and orthodoxy’[22].

While his theology can be viewed as overly ambitious it still issues a profound sense of challenge to modern sensibilities and can make the various connections relevant even to people outside faith parameters.

However in doing all that, I have to admit his charge and address is more than somewhat diffused, as well as apologetic while always remaining complex. His thesis loses some focus, as the message strangely in the end seems less focussed to those estranged from the church through philosophy and science, therefore not so much to human modernity (his first stated reason); but rather ends up as an injunctive and sometimes didactic fashioned address to the theologian/ preacher of the church. If he had used much of his Epilogue as Foreword or Introduction, as the end is where he makes his final connections, his thread of argument would have been easier to follow; at least for the reader of the English translation. Suffice to say his mind is clearly in solidarity with modernity outside the church, yet his pietist upbringing, convictions and devotional life anchor him to remain within church parameters. 

Modernity, Old and New Testaments and their univocal concern.

If the book had been written fifty years later it would be avowedly post-modern in orientation. In that respect it was a work before its time. Miskotte discusses the origin, effect and understanding that the name ‘YHWH’ had for the Hebrew. In  its historical time Israel came to regard and understand G-D as the One who is always in an “á -priori” position; we might say in Aotearoa/ NZ as in “tapu”/ sacral context to a beholding humanity, and hence far above all other mere gods, framed as mere idols within human understanding. The approach and attitude to YHWH/G-D therefore stands in a different dimension and sphere altogether to how especially a NT driven Christianity has often tended to frame and own the human address re G-D. He lays open the relationship of the FT and “Christ” and suggests that any understanding of “Christ” shouldn’t become a grid to re-interpret the FT. A correct understanding of who and what “Christ” is meant to be, can only come to a beholding humanity, from its understanding of- and through- a FT framework of understanding[23].

For me it’s real appeal lies in how Miskotte believes the faith modalities of Christianity and Judaism can essentially stand together as partners in renewed pertinence for modernity and not something to be summarily relegated to the margins of existence.

It is worth emphasising that the book’s release in the 1950’s positioned it geographically and in terms of timeline close to the ravages upon Jewry of the Holocaust in Europe, Holland and Amsterdam. In Amsterdam alone a Jewish population of over 100,000 was reduced to a bare 10,000 after WWII. This despite the fact that the Anne Frank story was repeated in hundreds if not thousands of homes and hiding places all over Amsterdam and Holland and in how many ordinary Dutch people helped at least in saving that pitiful remnant. Miskotte’s pastorate in Amsterdam was centred in the famous “Westerkerk” not far from the house, where Anne Frank and her family et al, then went into hiding. Miskotte’s family themselves harboured a Jewish girl during the whole of the War, whom they saw married after the war. Miskotte was involved in Dutch resistance against the regime for the whole of the war, and was chosen to give the church’s address of praise (entitled: “God’s enemies are vanquished”)  in May 1945 for the “Bevrijding” (Setting Free) of the nation of Nazi occupation, which was attended by the then Queen Wilhelmina (who had spent WWII in exile in the UK), from the Nieuwe Kerk on the “Dam” in Amsterdam[24].

In the Second World War much virulent pro- Nazi and anti-Semitist ideology as well as theology was published, and much diatribe came forth from German Protestant theology (Evangelische Kirche) that was totally compliant to the Nazi state and system. Its sycophant theology endeavoured to strip the FT of its Jewish heritage and mythic significance; Jesus became totally Aryanised and was no longer Jewish; although that was in less drastic measure always the status quo of the belief of many Christians in much of Europe (not only in Germany) even centuries before! Barth, Bonhoeffer, Niemöller and others formed the Confessing Church, the only church and Christian movement to stand in principled reaction against Nazism’s coercive and pure evil stranglehold upon all genuine Christian witness and humanity in Germany. Bonhoeffer was executed by the Gestapo right at the end of the war for allegedly being involved with the plot to assassinate Hitler (he only was aware of something being afoot); while the WWI German war hero, and U boat captain/ turned churchman Niemöller was incarcerated from 1938 onwards in Sachsenhausen and Dachau during and narrowly escaped being murdered by the SS. Barth was stripped in 1935 of his theological chair in Bonn and had to go back home to continue his teaching from Basel in Switzerland.

Jewish affinity for Christians, possible avenues for inter-faith dialogue

Miskotte’s theological understanding then ought to be seen in the very first instance as a fervent readdress and charge of admonishment to Christian European theology as well as to European modernity, who all had been in his view far too acquiescent in the lead up to the rise of National Socialism (the new unadulterated and arrogant paganism in Miskotte’s estimation); and his thought may thus serve as an apology from Christian theology to Jewry. Whilst Judaism, still today, is generally very wary of any ready Christian regret for former anti- Semitist behaviour and pogroms in history[25]. Miskotte at least, as a Christian theologian has received real esteem and kudos from the Jewish people in the Netherlands. Much of that esteem is due to his theological understanding and personal identification of the TNK/ the Hebrew canonical texts, and with his adoption of a more innate Jewish understanding of those texts, as well as his involvement with Jews before, during and after the war.  Much of that adoption of a Jewish stance came to him from his reading the Jewish (never quite christian) philosopher Franz Rosenzweig and the Jewish/ Czech author and Kafka biographer Max Brod, who brought home to Miskotte that Jews think differently than people in modernity- pagan or Christian. For the Torah dictates a phenomology quite distinct from the status quo of western modernity in respect of humanity qua G-D.

This means in effect that this early theological understanding  from the 1950-60’s still can have deep significance today in the progress it endeavours to put into effect to areas of convergence between the First Testament/ TNK understanding of Judaism and to what the New Testament orientation of the Christian Church really could or might have been about.

An underlying concern of his work is his recognition that there is in fact in Christianity a neglected foundational framework based on the fact that the OT has never been allowed to function as a FT or for that matter in any such a function as a (more) authentic template for the early Christian apostolic kerygma[26].

As such he provides many helpful insights that not only aid interfaith dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, but perhaps in time may be also helpful analogically to other world faith contexts and aid cross-dialogue there.

For theology in Aotearoa/ NZ it could also chart a fresh and credible methodological approach for theological progress between Maori religious faith and Pakeha spiritual modalities that remain often at an impasse with each other.

For Miskotte’s re-appraisal of the FT makes christological refocus an imperative. Many people Christianor otherwise, especially non- Western, with innate sympathies for the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and not wanting to decry or argue anything about of the spiritual luminosity of the man, his words and his concepts of God’s Kingdom, or his actions; at the same time feel the Chalcedonian and Christological antecedents so peculiar and pertinent to early Christianity shouldn’t be brought to bear on them as necessary and rigidly held imperatives. Their quarrel is not with Jesus, nor with the conclusions persé of doctrine etc. but just with the hard and fast way the Christian faith has often propelled Jesus into a place and position (one that He most assuredly would not have welcomed for himself) that brooks no argument or dissension. Here Miskotte feels the crux of Jewish attitudinal stance in faith in the TNK/FT context stands in a better position to discern the nature of Divine address, the nature of Jesus, announcing states of Shalom and integration with Creation and the World that YHWH/G-D declared as tov/good and stand as primal ontological causatives for humanity to consider and become thankful for.

Especially in this time where political Israel faces Palestinian and world pressure for the right of self determination for all people, the rise of Islamic militancy and Jihad, makes Miskotte’s thought more than just relevant; as to his belief as to how religious dichotomous views and beliefs between Christian and Jew, Jew and Moslem, Moslem and Christian may be surmounted. Rather than try to solve human conflict, war and social breakup from any in-situ position by way of tinkering with the externals; only if the conflict between G-D/ YHWH/ ALLAH and humanity is tackled head-on, can humanity come to shalom, peace and hope in life on earth. There is too much tragedy, greed, injustice, lust for power and domination, and corruption in high places in the world to not reunite in our commonality as human beings under G-D /YHWH/ -LL-H (ALLAH).   

The “zin” and aims and purpose of the book: Modernity and Old Testament.

  

The Old Testament based elucidations of Walter Brueggeman now, often bear a startling resemblance to the nature of Miskotte’s earlier thesis and concerns[27]:

*“This word from God is not about patriarchalism or any of those matters to which we object, but it is the recognition that holiness from God lives at the very core of reality and will not be framed or tamed for our preferred world."

Miskotte likewise makes it clear throughout his theology that G-D will be G-D in the face of all human pretence to the contrary, the autonomy of YHWH/ G-D will be what it will be. The subtitle of the initial Dutch edition was: “Van de zin van het Oude Testament “, which can be translated as: ”About the meaning of the Old Testament”; though ‘meaning’ doesn’t quite cover the meaning of ‘zin’. ‘Zin’ in Dutch is for English understanding: a mix of ‘purpose or intent, sense or even ‘deeper meaning’, in the sense of significance. ‘Zin’ has the notion of a beholder seeing the logic or meaning in a proposition, but it also gives a hint that the subject under human scrutiny may well have some primary ‘intent’ of its own. So it is that ‘zin’ is the driver in the sense of ‘address’/ kerygma for human understanding of the Word of G-D, primarily through the TNK/ FT. However it also tells one in heuristic fashion that something of primal significance exudes from the Scriptures beyond the mere written page.

Because for Miskotte YHWH/G-D is purposive and has intent in its dynamic purposes (i.e: its ontological, cosmic, timelessness and pneumatological totality) for the world and humanity within it, so it is with NAME and the Word that issues from human understanding/knowing of that source, hence the Scriptures for Miskotte are imbued with that same Spirit[28].

All this represents the Divine pole and  in antithesis to this the human pole in the book focuses on the place and stance in terms of suspicion and doubt, vagueness and the lack of sense of belonging of contemporary modernity especially  in respect of how all things metaphysical, legendary and mythical are viewed.

Miskotte discusses the effects of the Enlightenment on Western thought and shows how resultant rationality and reason have all but eliminated the need to think of God, in his words: “the gods have been silenced”[29]. The “modern man” is typified as[30]:

“the man who no longer believes in the biblical sense of the term....but he is equally deaf to other gods and free from the binding power of godlike values. He is the man who no longer responds to any spiritual appeal. He lacks even the ability to do so.”

He points out the irrevocable and disastrous side effects of that philosophical trend in and for modernity have been states of atheistic and nihilistic despair and individual loneliness. He suggests here that in any absence of G-D or removal of the G-D metaphor, human invocation will ever be to the gods of people’s own making. Only when denouement sets in, that in fact their gods are actually but human manufactured gods (of wood stone, metal or plastic, economy, lifestyle, patriotism, nationalism or religion) representing the symbols of adoration and lordship of its new paganism. Only when this sinks in that these are all but surrogate human constructs only then can real faith in G-D start to come into real effect.  He believes such faith ought to be analogically congruent to First Testament principles and the human attitudinal stance of Israel in respect of YHWH/ G-D.

While the first part of the book was an attempt to address those in the Western world who “on the fringes of culture and church” have fallen into or lapsed into a “lethargy of atheism and nihilism”[31]; in some measure at least Miskotte also believed that modernity is entering a philosophical re-evaluative stage or phase. To that extent at least, his notion of modernity’s “fourth man” hasn’t quite degenerated into a robotic life and existence[32]. We might now notice that the hermeneutic deconstructionist approach of Ricoeur dovetails to some extent, for theology at least, into some such fresh re-appraisal, be it only from the human perspective. Miskotte with Barth and later Ricoeur share concerns that any interpretation of the Bible should focus on a reality behind the text which should command our attention rather than a pursuance of the text itself; even though that could be seen as a return to “a second naivety” kind of mindset[33].

Karl Barth from that has been dubbed as the first of the post-modernists[34], in that he: “anticipated much of the postmodern critique of Enlightenment reason while vigorously opposing the nihilist presumption that there is no ground of truth”, others may have wanted to pigeonhole him in some such fashion; he himself felt that any “ism” especially of orthodoxy or modernity missed the essence of his rationale, Miskotte here is a fellow pioneer in a similar sense.

In theory at least Miskotte informs post-modernity of the fact that scientism and human rationality cannot give answers to many crucial human questions of life and existence, and that thus we (as Miskotte sees himself equally as co- human) are presented with a window of opportunity for a reworded and reworked Christian gospel to authentically front the “come of age” mentality of modernity.  Miskotte is then a ‘baanbreker’ (one who treads the deep snow hard for the sleds to follow, i.e: Dutch for pioneer).

This first part of the book then concentrates on the answers G-D continues to provide in revelation to humanity, and in particular (which is quite audacious example of lateral thinking on Miskotte’s part) how YHWH/ G-D of the First Testament can have renewed relevance for our modernity, wherein it’s mythological and legendary content should be seen as enrichment to stir human imagination rather than something that renders human contemplation as entirely sterile and irrelevant. The oral nature of any legendary transmission needs to be re-appropriated by modern humanity in the telling and re-telling of our human stories, where in suspense, analogy, emotion as well as anger, indignation and lament, all can again be fresh metaphors to give coherence to our now modern human existence[35].

He here points out that G-D’s revelation will always be operative despite the run of human agnosticism contrary to that effect, and particularly that as such YHWH/G-D, is always creative, purposeful and  dynamic; quite in distinction to the disinterestedness and ‘apatheia’ from the perspective we have of the Greek pantheon of gods of the human predicament of despair and purposelessness.

In Exodus 32, G-D seems hurt by Israel’s rejection in the desert, he conversely appears gratified that Moses seems to want a deeper and more meaningful association. This not so indifferent G-D who pervades the universe and all human life in their joy, surprise, solace, compassion and company, can by definition not be relegated by mere humanity in real existential terms to a Kantian “upper story” or to but “noumenal” categories. For this is how and where G-D as Being is devalued to become simply the human focus of attention of   a mere surmised surrogate figure the which (not- the who) in turn becomes  simply non-thinkable or even non-mentionable.

He therefore draws the inference in his theology that if humanity thinks it can consign G-D to an upper-story existence, it concomitantly has had to cope with lower story restrictions in life as to the (discovery even) of the extent of meaning in life; that in their essential rational disallowance by secularity are not valid to be levied. This then impacts on a sense of life without goodness, love, mercy, forgiveness as justice is a welter of human notions of what is appropriate in the existentiality of life.

Miskotte notices that this doesn’t sit right with modernity either, it is as if there is a deep-seated notion that humanity might deserve better, but in truth without mental assent of G-D’s involvement humanity since the Enlightenment have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no cerebral or rational escape. Humanity in real terms since Kant and Hegel have endeavoured to box on regardless without any metaphysical referral or appeal. This is like pulling the plug on a electrical tool like a laptop, for awhile it will keep operating but eventually without the facility to recharge it will be a lifeless piece of junk. For in the third part of his book Miskotte suggests in a rather novel twist that the way this new gospel is to reach and touch and affect modern man can well be based on the shock and provocation that G-D’s address will always occasion as being implicitly counter to human ideas of autonomy.

In Miskotte’s address to the modern world, he shows how the FT particularly can continue to be ultimately relevant for humanity bound and beset by philosophical hopelessness and despair. Yet in doing so he doesn’t hunt down the weak spots of modernity in any sort of exploitative manner. Like Dietrich  Bonhoeffer he is not interested in the process of “Schadenfreude”, the prurient chasing down and laying bare of human shortcomings. For better or worse we are all encumbered and are tagged with the same notion of being worldly modernists, be it Jew/ Gentile or Christian, Moslem or whatever, we all are jointly complicit in patterns and acts in our lives, as simple pure sinners.

He fully concurs that humanity has, by dint of reason and self imagined sufficiency and materialism, brought itself into a maze not necessarily of its own choosing but nevertheless hasn’t found a way out, nor is it looking, as it feels there is most probably no way out. Here the analogy of the black cat in a black room to be caught by a blindfolded person is moot. Philosophy is said to be acquiescent at long last, about there being no cat, while theology still lives in hope of eventually cornering it. However Miskotte points out black room or blindfold or not, humanity cannot hope to disallow in essence what G-D in fact would set and hold in place, i.e: hope for a world in ‘shalom’ congruity with itself and its origin and for its future. And that this eternal plan of G-D for humanity has been all along without the agenda’s of confinement or constriction of thought and being, nor for the darkness of meaningless existence at any given point. Since Kant and Hegel humanity has endeavoured to cope without G-D, as a “come of age” generation. None of the philosophers have endeavoured to look or include the G-D angle and perspective

Humanity has managed or contrived to position itself  analogically á la Samuel Becket’s play “Waiting for Godot”, where Godot (little God) somehow never turns up despite ostensibly earlier vague promises that there would be some sort of a return. In this play, the lack of hope and the cynic despair and incipient pessimism that things will never work out (not at all any longer that things might work out) is a hint that it is all due to the breakdown of culture and tradition in the twentieth century. Moreover the ineffectual existence of the tramps’ and the clown’s culture and past (“Vladimir”, “Estragon”, “Pozzo” characters in the play), spell out that utter futility is the content of existence. Miskotte would have agreed with Becket and his play “Waiting for Godot“ as to how the mindset at least of the Western world, regards the area of meaning of life, though Miskotte has an answer while Becket remained vague and evasive and coy about what the play was about; which aided the mystique of his work.

It is interesting that our antipodean outlook of “she’ll be right” and giving folk “a fair go” and even of not”dobbing your mate in”, in essence may differ from continental Becket’s depiction of human conjoint and individual meaninglessness. In that, perhaps here subconsciously the idea of G-D hasn’t been quite relegated to discardable categories, that there are some things that are essentially right and true; moreover Maori and aboriginal notions of spirituality certainly don’t have that imbued notion, nor is there the antecedent history of the Enlightenment’s awakening of the rational western mind to contend with. At least not to the same pervasive degree as it has done in continental Europe. 

Aotearoa/ New Zealand as well as Australia escaped the direct effects of WWI and WWII, even though it stood by England/ Allied forces courageously in two bloody encounters with Germany and the Axis forces of evil, and suffered great human cost of young lives and collateral damage from those courageous commitments; yet our home- soil and infrastructures were left largely unscathed in terms of gross social human dislocation, civilian casualties and the destruction of homes, towns etc.

Here in the South Pacific the taniwha still leap and the corroboree is still being danced and dreamtime is still going for free; the gods here are anything but silent; even though many of the white western/ Pakeha majority may regard all such mythical to-do with cynical or wry amusement and even derision. Even the most  common of people here still  see prayer as relevant if mostly only in the last resort, and most turn to acknowledge the notion of G-D as the holder of their future especially at times of death, sorrow and gross injustice.

Colin Brown makes a mention of this underlying sense of reality still being part of most people, the philosophers may well have attempted to define the things about human consciousness, yet in the end miss the mark to some significant degree or other[36]. Miskotte here instead puts the idea forward that faith in G-D (in response to G-D’s call and address of our lives) remains a realistic option to have and can provide a way of escape out of the labyrinth. His work has a deep theological significance as he dares to outline that the meaning behind the words of Scripture are the link to actual person of G-D as the NAME. Miskotte holds that we shouldn’t think back to G-D, in terms of an ontological “essence” for the thought of G-D as that is the beginning of the religious process where humanity frames up and constructs its idea about the Deity, and ends up with but surrogate notions of mere gods, human constructs that are at best ‘fata- morganas’[37] of wishful projections of thought. Here Miskotte follows Barth without too much demurral, albeit in less trenchant fashion.

H.K. Miskotte’s son, Professor H.H. Miskotte made a tour of Aotearoa/ NZ in 1993 and analysed the NZ scene in terms of its green image and environmental commitment, its beauty of nature, Maori and Pakeha stances to stewardship etc. As a professor of Practical Theology in the Netherlands, he better than most people, has a deep understanding of the thought and theology of his father; and like his father was adoptive of Barth’s foundational reasonings. In his book he points out (in a somewhat á-Thomist theological given of the proofs of God) that an understanding of Creation cannot be arrived at through a primary identification in pantheistic sequence or even through a sense of awe for nature[38], for in the first instance:

”The Creator and his creation cannot be demonstrated in nature. The Creator is not self evident in ‘creation’ misunderstood as ‘nature’.” 

 

He then explains that this nuanced tendency as being diametrically opposed to all natural theology was the crux of his father’s theology and which was based on the view that it was only when Israel was struggling with YHWH/G-D in the desert[39], that it was then that the important Covenant relating narratives came into effective and cognisable existence. He quotes his father to point out that it is only ever by an understanding of G-D the Creator wherein G-D is the first principle and hence from that as a fixed corollary that humanity in whatever form becomes respected; that it is only then, we can come to a full appreciation of nature, and that human blessing and divine shalom can only then ensue for which scriptural doxologies in the end can become moot patterns for human praise (Gen 1 and Col 1: 16-17 and Eph 1: 3-14). This then charts a path from theology to spirituality, and in such a structured spirituality all modernity may also partake without further ado. Creation is the symphony in which all humanity may take part as equal players.

In that pertinent process of correcting and reversing the notion of the movement of general thought, he makes the FT equivalent in authority to the NT.  He was not unduly worried that such a reemphasised FT would in fact “devitalise” the New, because Miskotte holds both the testaments are “univocal” in their regard for the juxtaposition of heaven and earth, transcendence and immanence and so on.

While this reversal of the direction of thought, sets the understanding of NT into a totally different light and context, he feels both Testaments are vehicles for conveying the essentiality of Divine Revelation as personified through Jesus Christ to humanity[40]. Here though, Jesus stays intently and pertinently Jewish and for Miskotte never becomes tied to the apron strings of the Christian procession of Church, thought, doctrine and dogma, as everything of Jesus as the “Son of Man” in his teachings and message of the kingdom of YHWH/ G-D presents the very base from which all consequent thought resulting in doctrine and institutional structures was derived and should be held in á-priori standing within that framework of understanding. For Miskotte- christological formulas and understanding are but the inevitable constructs of the human mind within the Christian tradition and shouldn’t feature in the first instance for the direct family association YHWH/ G-D has always had in mind for all humanity[41]. Brueggemann here later reiterates Miskotte’s earlier concerns and insights, for if the christological grids feature as a hermeneutic vehicle that overcomes the á-priori warrant of Old Testament “protest against (the) common theology” we disallow the Divine processes  of the need for embrace of pain and we become uncritically acceptant of the secular and human norms of human life and discourse. We have then unwittingly already entered into the maze of human perplexity and face a void bereft of meaning.

Likewise for Miskotte the revelation of God through Jesus Christ is to be seen as the clear historic grounding of an erstwhile and cosmic diachronic ‘principle-intent’ that has always been part of the YHWH/ G-D plan for all of humanity; and not to be regarded as a caesura or hiatus in the history of humankind apart from that eternal intent and providence[42].

Trinitarian thought, for the association of how Spirit, transcendence and immanence can be held together for human thought, needs to remain a fundamental characteristic of Christianity- whether in Western, Asian or other indigenous modalities- otherwise they will eventually denigrate and erode to only ever be various manifestations of natural theology or divinations of pantheistic human thought.

Hence the processes of logic and thought about the nature of G-D as perceived in Jesus as Christ remain ever valid moot patterns and pathways to follow for believers of whatever race, culture or epoch. There should be tolerance shown to allow diversity of thought in allowing facets of understanding to challenge our set in stone pre-suppositions. The apostle Paul while in fervent disagreement with Peter, Mark and  Apollos could see that all were credibly engaged in spreading the Good News  and that they most essentially had a unilateral focus on what mattered most.

Once we accept Miskotte’s approach, the form and givenness of Jesus as the Christ then should not be read back into a FT predictive format nor be stripped back to aid a de-mythologized process in any way (as Bultmann did, in his gallant efforts, to clarify what Jesus meant), but could become better discerned by adopting glasses with a FT resolution.  But that is only possible when one is willing to be known by   G-D, whereupon any subsequent and further understanding of G-D by humanity only may ensue (the actual process of knowing of each other by each other). Here the mythological and legendary character of any of the scriptural texts don’t need to intrude any longer on human rationality, but should be seen in terms of an analogical pattern to be applied in parallel to modern contexts.

The FT is not thereby arbitrarily dispensed with by a more perfect end time apocalyptic of the NT. Instead both Law and Gospel point in the first instance to an underlying unity of how the NAME of G-D  addresses Christian, Jew and other goyim/ gentiles alike.

Inspiration, the essence of G-D’s influence upon the written Word.

However this then brings up the question of what the inspiration of the Christian Scriptures is supposedly all about, as clearly for Miskotte things like prophecy, should not be read back into an OT hermeneutic understanding. Prophecy in the FT, he feels, should be seen as in a metaphor of “expectation” and in terms of forthtelling (rather than foretelling) of Divine concerns and their concomitant consequences and in the NT to be seen and recounted in the metaphor of “recollection”. The nailing down of what G-D’s inspiration can amount to in terms of Talmudic commentary, or Christian doctrine and dogma, i.e: by Jew and Christian alike runs counter to how G-D wants to be understood, for it asserts human mastery upon the boundaries of Divine revelation. In any such process, or even of any inkling of directional shift in such fashion, the Spirit of G–d slips out the back door.

 I think in this Miskotte would have agreed with Bultmann, of how much of the evident authorial theology and its gradual formation within the authors of the later NT is inspired as of right. Paul’s free inclination to change the hermeneutic of the OT Hebrew horizon to frame his own new theology and preferences is a case in point[43].  The process of how inspiration became essential for biblical authority in the western church was due to the perceived danger of the heretical and often enthusiasitic charismatic movements around Asia Minor and the Northern coastal regions of Africa.  In particular Marcionitism and Manichaism with their Gnostic rejection of a lesser and despotic god and a Demi-Urge that they felt pertained solely to a primitivity of the OT, consequently rejected any reference to the OT in its own held view of Scripture. The result of that led to the Christian codification processes of the Christian Scripture and at least ensured the OT as being within the canon[44]. Though the Jews in their Diaspora and their faith adherence to YHWH/ TNK/ Talmud/Mishnah became totally denigrated by the theological fromation processes of the Great Church of the West.   

At any rate Miskotte refuses to put a NT gloss on the FT and moreover suggests that the FT in actual fact is the medium and place from which the NT should derive its own salient character, and that Christian interpretation has paid scant regard to that first given from its earliest history. He argues that all too often the FT derives meaning for the Christian church through the lens or filter of a NT pre-understanding that in his estimation has arrived at a totally inherent false concept of   G-D:

“Formerly the OT was placed lower than the New, because it spoke of God in such anthropomorphic terms; but now we are rather inclined to regard this as a spiritual necessity, indeed a spiritual enrichment”[45].

G-D, revelation and associated effects and relevance for today.

I am sure Miskotte’s  system of re-appraisal brings a host of difficulties to bear for those with a more fundamental and understanding of the scriptures as the Word of God as being inerrant if not infallible for life and worship. It is clear that many of the NT writers regarded the Hebrew scriptures as plain prophecy for the imminent expectation of a new cosmic order and reign of G-D’s Kingdom, and that seems to be taken as status quo by the majority of professing Christians who on the whole are of the lesser inquisitive variety. Miskotte while always a pietist and totally committed to the viewpoint that the Bible as the Word of God was inspired, was by the same token well beyond any fundamentalist and rigid inerrant stance of scriptural understanding.

For Miskotte revelation is not contained by Scripture. They don’t coincide though they are always closely related. We can only appreciate the extent of revelation through the scriptural attestation that is concomitant of it. Pure revelation  and the perceivable boundaries of any formula of it as containment by humanity are reserved exclusively in Jesus Christ as witnessed by the apostles and foreshadowed through the OT prophets. The scriptures are therefore the word about the Word regarding THE WORD[46].

 For Miskotte’s theology displays an ardent and constant attention on the G-D of Israel, the object of the Jewish devotion of Jesus and the Apostles. The Church was for him a temporary phenomena, much like the views and influence of Dr D.H. Gunning before him[47]:

“I believe, that the confessing church is an actual situation that has to accede to the Lord’s leading as to the confessing community. The Church is always but a needy transient prefiguration of the actual Kingdom of G-D. If the Church aspires to more, for something more concrete, for more than a mere perishable Tabernacle; then the Church will invariably tend to dominate and control that inner search for truth and reality that is G-D bourne within that community.”  

Therefore I am uncertain on how Miskotte’s thesis will be received by the same still so oriented Church, a large part of which hangs doggedly unto the view of the inerrancy as well as the pure verbal inspiration of scripture[48]. Though Miskotte puts his points well, the results in modernity and in the abrogation of human rights in war, ethnic cleansing and political suppression strongly suggest things haven’t been right ever since Jesus was hung on a cross to die. What the Christian church has done and how it chose to exercise its thought over the years has been shameful and is therefore in need of a thorough and foundational re-appraisal. The one Miskotte dares to posit, is in my view worthy of further attention and study. Having said that it is clear that Miskotte runs here on a road between the rigidity of a literary and verbal inerrant view of scripture which merges revelation and scripture, and the tolerant literary critical school that excises scripture as readily as orthodoxy would set things in concrete. Both trends cease to stay subjective and hence are more than a warranted objectivity in regard to G-D and thus delegitimize any consequent address G-D has or might have had in mind.

We have seen how Miskotte argues that revelation for the church is not solely resident in the NT, for he believes the term “Law” and “Gospel” have an inherent distorted perspective.  He clearly wants to disassociate himself from such a bias, which he believes carries a faulty concept of how G-D should be regarded[49]. In his schema both Law and Gospel have the same intent, are merely subject to the same phenomology of G-D’s revelation and not the origins of it and therefore should be read within that frame of understanding. Law and Gospel are the prisms through which outside light from beyond humanity becomes distilled and perceptible. Theirs is a crucial task to bring the mysterious Word into focus:

 Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.^[50]

He elaborates that revelation cannot be understood in linear historical progressive or heuristic fashion in either Testament. This he feels is a purely western concept of revelation; instead he puts the FT can radically free us to assume a new position in attitude to the One, the Name who causes revelation to come to a beholding humanity:

“(Is there to be a trust) that here (in the scriptures) at last the riddles of life will find their solution? No, rather the trust that, while the gods are silent, the Name rises above us,....But in the presence of that Name, (Abraham, Moses and David et al) found fulfilment and expectation in the Voice that cleaves the spectral silence between heaven and earth to find its mark in the hearts of men (sic)”[51].

In spite of his desire to see Judaism and Christianity converge in their joint devotion to G-D as the father/parent/source of being for all people and of Jesus as Son of Man proclaimed and held as Christ in the Christian communities; Miskotte is not inclined to romanticize the Judaism of the FT. He feels the FT upbraids both Jew and Gentile, is critical of temple and synagogue, church and denomination. Though he sees the misuse of the NT in history, whereby the OT stands beholden to NT framework of understanding acted as a spur towards anti- Semitism and recognizes similarly the elevation of the Talmud as the Jewish co-equivalent counter to that early and deplorable Christian trend. Here the NT and Talmud respectively aren’t disallowed or of no value, but their validity needs to be reset to a proper á-priori FT context.

With that strongly put proviso also points out that Gentile and Jew have essentially far more in common than they have historically allowed; and that in time G-D through the Hebrew Scriptures will lead Judaism to the same future with G-D as that for Christians with their Scriptures. For he holds that the Christian Church can no longer expect to subsume Judaism (or presumably other world faiths and expressions as well) into its unilateral plans for salvation as interpreted in exclusive (often NT driven) fashion by Christians. Those days of heady triumphalism are well and truly over, too many pogroms, too much- ecclesial domination, colonialist excess, ethnic cleansing and holocausts have followed on from that all too rigid theme. Freedom becomes disallowed when thinking is other than YHWH/ G-D dependent.

It is clear that for Miskotte, Judaism is called to salvation along with the church on different yet parallel pathways and most likely, he feels, in different time frames.  True Judaism and true Christianity are in partnership:

“In order to discern the open secret of the outgoing of the Word, the synagogue must be seen to be a real partner accompanying us along the way[52].

Both faiths are to unfocus (i.e: not discard) from doctrine, dogma, Talmud and even scripture when these seem to steer away from stated objective of the real essence of God’s Word as Voice emanating from  G-D as NAME to us. Rather, both are to focus instead intuitively on that Name and Word of YHWH/ G-D[53]. The church and synagogue are only interim structures in G-D’s future:

“The eschatological expectation of Jesus Christ will cause the things of this world to be put in a proper loving, discerning and understanding perspective, because there is within that stance a core of understanding that in the coming Kingdom all that will be included and absorbed.”[54]

For Miskotte the underlying sacral unity of the FT and NT are not then to be cognitively understood or grasped and handled, and will refuse to be subject to such human process. We may instead come to recognize and say that from our faith tradition and history that G-D wills to be present with us in human fashion, by virtue of G-D’s own volition. Similarly but earlier Bonhoeffer saw G-D as Spirit immanent within all human community and omni- operative within the centre of all the various strata of human life. That is, a concept of G-D emerges, that through the human response to the Divine revelation, achieves for that in- faith person or community, some kind of cogent form or discernible shape and direction. Paul could write of his ardent desire that Christ would be formed in the early believers. It is clear that Miskotte has that same desire for modern humanity, Judaism and Christianity.

ln terms of dialogue between Judaism and Christianity- Miskotte’s thesis intends that intent concentration is to be directed by both faiths, at the intent and purposive “Someone Other” behind the written word; and in particular what precedes and is antecedent to doctrine, dogma and particularly the Christology of the Christian church. The outcomes of this christology have often been a scourge to cudgel humanity into christian religious conformity. By the same token, commensurately for Jewry there is the onus to re- focus on what constitutes the Divine precedent of Torah, Talmud and Mishnah and Rabbinic commentaries, and to notice where adherence and belief can often end up in systems of perfunctory and fastidious stipulation and legalism. Both Christian and Jew/ Gentile, modern or ancient, are prone to sin without exception.

Unfortunately there has been great reluctance in both human religious streams to abandon those tools and avenues that historically have been ingrained. A lot of that reluctance is based on human dis-trust. Because of the Gentile world’s persecution of Jewry in history, it is natural that Judaism has difficulty to contemplate any accommodation to pure apocalyptic Christian messiahship apart from the ever ardent Zionist associative expectations of land, people and future.

These things may well be a bone of contention, yet when either faith can come to levy attention on what actual Lordship (of G-D in Christ) and what Christ the Jew from Nazareth as Messiah really means to humanity and each individual within that, and specifically to Judaism and Christianity as first respondents, they may not be very far apart at all:

“This twofold faith is a trust in and a giving of oneself to history, no not a trust in history but rather in the acts of the Lord, or more precisely in the Name”[55].

Hence he clearly has adapted Barth’s dialectic theology to his FT view of the needed attitude of the human response to the Name, while at the same time broadening that perspective exegetically and setting it analogically alongside the notion what proper theological thinking of the reality of G-D can be about.

Miskotte’s theology is pertinently an ‘analogy of faith’, whereby Anselm’s thought of “Something greater than which cannot be conceived of” is reappraised and paraphrased rather than the natural theological notion of Aquinas and his partly Aristotelian notion as in “analogy of being”.

·         Analogy of faith would be in waiting upon divine appearance, while dependence on the thought of being would have the corollary of thought of impressing things upon G-D, and hence upon people. Both the Catholic and Protestant faiths, as well as Judaism for that matter, exhibit such historical models of control.

·         If we look at that in terms of divine election, for that is and always was the ultimate human concern of Jew and Gentile, we see that there is some sense of neo-orthodoxy in a re-appraised doctrine of ‘Augustinian/Calvinistic election’ by Barth, although it really goes much further than that. It leaves the prerogative of election finally to G-D, not because it is something for the 'too hard basket'; but that any election is to be understood as of a prolepsis in Jesus, where the Son in his death and resurrection filled that role for humanity and G-D[56].

·         Miskotte, like Barth therefore feels that G-D from any outset is more tilted to an inclusivist general notion of election rather than a exclusivist prescriptive idea, but mostly that, this whole (vexed) area should be left for G-D to solve and deal with in G-D’s timing in place, from that more complete conclusion on election he dares to posit that a parallel wired election agenda may be what G-D has in mind for human futures, whereby  both Jew and Gentile (and Christians  among them) become a redeemed people. 

I get the impression that he believes that only thus can further/continuing Divine dynamics (revelation is inexorable in its coming) become pertinent in any human sphere. While he argues in analogical and more or less linear terms and dimensions to arrive at initial and proper understanding he then colours the scene by suggesting that any subsequent to earlier enlightened revelation by God will be multi-hued, involving, inviting and challenging the full gamut of human artistry, imagination, energy and thought but all such human endeavour will flow only out of a proper and re-appraised regard for creation, the environment and the care for people.   

The book therefore seeks to be an “applied theology”; i.e:  it seeks to accommodate itself in a biblical sense to the perceived needs of modernity, but at the same token Miskotte clearly feels that true spirituality and its proper human response  can in the final analysis only come through clear theological understanding.

While he is deeply congruent to- and adoptive of many facets of Barthian theology; his empathy with Hebrew thought forms, and Judaism in particular, gives M’s theology of the “Word”/ “dbr”/ NAME a more acceptable and less trenchant or polemic tone and emphasis, although it has a repetitive refrain right throughout the book.

He advocates a move from human dis-trust to a model of surrender in trust not to other faith  modalities or to more, or better defined human constructs or ecclesial structures and traditions but to the One, the NAME of whom we may finally come to know and who holds human futures open.

For in all human life, the inexorable prompting of the Spirit that is mysterious in its origins will always be pertinently Other than human comprehension can surmise or contain. It is therefore moot to talk about human surrender to that Spirit tugging at human heartstrings. In that quest for human surrender a host of things may become clear, but most of all that YHWH/ G-D will always be who YHWH/ G-D will be, primarily the head of the family as abba/ Parent. De Kruijff in his excellent dissertion on Miskotte, suggested that Miskotte very early in his ministry and formation of theological thought believed that liberal theology foundered, by way of its inherent dominant human preoccupation of rationality, and thereby surrendered the right to call G-D “Father”, and hence had no inherent ground to resist the rationality of growing nihilism in Europe. Whereas those theologies that remained ethically concerned were able to understand humanity in its growing loneliness and individuation[57]. 

If humanity wants to apprehend it on its own terms or from a different perspective it cannot do so, without it becoming a religion; because that by doing so the very true core of human spirituality (negated by humanity mostly at every turn) is thereby self obviated and disallowed, and humanity can only be what it limits itself to be. The way back from unbelief is not just a return to G-D on G-D’s terms, but is simply the only way back into G-D’s family on the strength that such a process of conversion of thought has been G-D’s intention all along from the beginning of time and thus we become more than we thought we were, before that turn around. True Spirituality was the ‘first avowed intent’ by G-D all along, from the beginning of Time and the cosmic order. Our human agreement or disagreement doesn’t alter that fact; for this process will play out in every human life before G-D as the Judge of us all.

This is of course is simply part of what the Christian gospel has always been about; but Miskotte develops this as he stresses that to believe anything about God at all, western humanity (including Christianity) particularly must endeavour to re- learn and become adoptive of Israel’s FT attitudinal stance to God. This is the most remarkable aspect of Miskotte’s turn of thought, in a reversed sense it smacks of the Pauline observation from Romans of Jesus being the cornerstone that the builders rejected and which was to be the cornerstone that would support the building of faith. Here Miskotte suggests that the Jewish true adherence to the Word is actually coincidental with faith and belief in Jesus as Saviour/Lord.

Here his theology is particularly relevant for faith dialogue in Aotearoa/ NZ, where western theology needs to divest itself and strip down to a non-colonialist mindset in terms of being able to understand other formats of approach not only in terms of political domination and governance but also primarily in faith and belief, as well as in the cadence and rhythm of such life. It is quite clear that Hebrew faith in YHWH closely parallels ancient as well as contemporary trends in Asian theological thought as well as ancient story and cultural antecedents Maori regard dearly as in tapu/ holy or sacred contexts:

“Rational theology, that is, theology intent on exploiting human reason to let the mystery of Being yield to human understanding, does not seem to conform to the ways in which God relates himself (sic) to the world.”[58].

The attentive Maori/ Pakeha reader will have noticed many another facets in this treatment up to this point ring an echo in our historical antipodean walk before G-D.

Professor H.H. Miskotte draws a conclusion for Aotearoa/ NZ in his book, echoing his father’s concerns that:

“Theological thought about the Spirit of Sanctification, The Lord of Israel in action on earth, will profit from careful study of the Old Testament”[59]

As I have stated above, Miskotte develops the Barthian- Anselmian principle of “faith seeking understanding” that a right attitudinal stance of humanity to YHWH/ G-D can lead to greater human cognitivity of the human self and of G-D. While modernity has justifiably grown cold spiritually because of all the humbug of centuries of Christian religious posturing it has also forgotten about the YHWH/G-D of the Bible, about what G-D’s character, attitude and expectations are or could possibly be. Modernity has reckoned with the human pole and found it bankrupt; but in terms of the story and metaphor of the prodigal son it hasn’t invested ever much thought on how the father felt, feels and operates. It is still only ever through proper regard for the Deity in a Father/Parent/ Mother capacity or metaphor (not in any particular order) that normalcy can return to life. Indeed it is tragic that the family relationship has been neglected by humanity in its own self obsession, and ever growing loneliness and individualism. It reminds me of a car window sticker in the 70’s: “If you feel far from God, guess who moved”.

I will now as an Epilogue (making this essay similar in structure as the book) discuss some of Miskotte’s exegetical examples in Part Three that point out from Scripture how the  will and mind of God aren’t partisan to any human hermeneutical mores or norms nor for that matter what goes for Christian or Judaic biblical understanding[60], and to then evaluate what the characteristics of Miskotte’s theology could suggest to modernity half a century further on in time.  

There is no pretension here from Miskotte for it to be anything like a proper theological systematic framework but in his own words they are mere “sermon sketches” comprising insights from “various disciplines” of theological exegetical endeavour. Though I find them to be needful- to understand his earlier development of the Hebrew angle better- and its consequent analogical application to our modern outlook. It merely but also significantly stamps a seal on the thesis.

The Face of YHWH-

Ex 33:12-16[61]:

12-Moses said to Yahweh, ‘See, you yourself say to me, “Make the people go on”, but you do not let me know who it is you will send with me. 13-Yet you yourself have said, “I know you by name and you have won my favour”. If indeed I have won your favour, please show me your ways, so I can understand you and win your favour. Remember, too, that this nation is your own people.’14- Yahweh replied, ‘I myself will go with you, and I will give you rest’. 15-Moses said, ‘If you are not going with us yourself, do not make us leave this place.16- By what means can it be known that I, I and my people, have won your favour, if not by your going with us? By this we shall be marked out, I and my people from all the people on the face of the earth’.

Miskotte believes before anything else that the FT tells a story, it was after all in the first instance a collection of verbal traditions and poetry retained by prodigious memories. From the outset there is to be a ready willingness from the human side to enquire into the nature of the Divine/ human interface, even at the call to attention in the Decalogue where the injunction is for Israel to listen and hear there is the thought of voluntary surrender for the individual to become claimed by YHWH[62].

Before that eventually became an underlying philosophy and inextinguishable knowledge with Israel; here in Exodus the antithesis to that is posited.

So much so that YHWH apparently has second thoughts re the mooted plans for the election of Israel and that rejection is being considered by the Lord (v3, 5).

Moses becomes concerned and in his expressed concern seems to persuade YHWH to attempt a new start, a new beginning, in fact a renewal or a re-iteration of the earlier Abrahamic covenant. Such a shift in focus is not merely warranted or occasioned because of the thought of any need to assuage those within the predicament of unfaithfulness, but he appeals instead to the fact of G-D’s own un-variableness and the constancy of G-D’s own character, with whom there should be no shadow of turning.

The word “know” has the sense of grasping or understanding and it is such knowledge of Moses by YHWH/G-D and in the process of YHWH/G-D allowing G-D-self to be known and understood by Moses (as far as that is humanly possible, and therefore with qualifications attached) that restructuring of the association of YHWH/G-D and the people takes place.

In the end of the pericope the tent of the kbd/ shekinah/ presence of holiness and the pillar of cloud at the tent site were a tacit reminder to Israel of G-D’s continued presence (albeit for the time – a tenuous arrangement). The people are through this now in total dependence on YHWH and cast upon their advocate and mediator Moses (v7-17).

The narrative becomes intriguing when we examine the shift in mood of YHWH from anger and disillusionment to one of decisiveness and forthrightness, and how Moses becomes a catalyst in that movement. The narrative shifts gear abruptly from a YHWH not wanting anything ever to do with these people (with an associated lack of identity this would have meant for Israel), to one of continued presence and involvement.

In the moving and accommodation by G-D to the mediatorial function of Moses[63] there is a sense of unmasking. Through Moses it appears that the people start to perceive the real character of YHWH, as they are exposed to themselves as to their true wilfulness and selfishness and can begin to perceive how that figures with G-D. This G-D is apparently not at all like the gods from Egypt, inure and indifferent to any human predicament or rebellion. Such growing perception by the people (however much sobering and instructive that would have been) is however merely assumed in the narrative rather than stated, and is totally enveloped within the pertinent personal identification of Moses with the people in his conversation as their representative with YHWH.

Moses the liberator here moves from the function as arbitrator to become a burden bearer, and finally as an advocate for the people to YHWH. While he stresses his own commitment with the people he at the same time evolves to become as friend and advisor to G-D. Moses here informs G-D, that the real essence of who G-D is has been taken on board by the people of whom he is the spokesman and with whom he identifies, simply because G-D knows him by name (c.f.  v. 13 with v. 16). The inference is that because God knows and understands Moses and is thereby irretrievably connected with Moses, the people likewise through Moses knowing and understanding them are also connected to G-D.

Therefore Moses reassures G-D, in that G-D should now know that as Moses is known by YHWH (perhaps as a variant heuristic development on the “I am that I am” from the earlier burning bush)[64]    G-D’s obligation is now to the people, so that in time they may know G-D more as well.

Something cosmic and lasting happens through the dawning of this realisation over time, no “goyim”, no other people can fully fathom the extent of meaningful relational depth that is thus engendered between Israel and YHWH, as G-D finally assures Moses of his continued presence with him and his people, by allowing Moses to experience the glory of his passing by being covered shielded by G-D’s hand in a cleft of rock. Hereby the seal is set, covenant is enacted in terms of the “knowing” of one another of God and Moses, that an everlasting association of ensuing companionship is a given. 

Miskotte then sums up:

·         The coming and dawning of this new G-D understanding for the people has been enabled through the people’s growing understanding of the man Moses as mediator. His often reluctant and unwilling performance nevertheless becomes a restorative paradigm and model to follow that augurs in new possibilities, enacts and sets in place new ethics and morality on the way to a joint future of G-D with G-D’s own special people.

·         The Name and the Face of G-D have become concepts that are pregnant with meaning, evocatively setting up the contrast of meaningless earlier past times and recent happenings where the people’s wilfulness of self absorption was set into a collision course with the intended paths of providence G-D had in mind.

·         Now at least Israel is on its way to discover her own distinct identity in YHWH.

God’s standards as an affront to modern sensibilities:

He hereby suggests that something unchanging and universal has begun, true self-knowledge now can become possible for modernity as well:

“We stand aghast at the temerity with which Moses insists that the apostasies which occurred (only) so recently shall be accepted and transformed (so soon) into a knowledge of God’s nearness”[65].

Miskotte believes the way the FT. narrative here operates can be seen as an affront to our modern senses of right and wrong, about the seeming irrational way the character of YHWH seems to stand in stark antithesis to how modern human reason and propriety/ prurience operate. This sense of modern and often involuntary reaction, shows that the text actually sollicits a reaction; which in itself is odd for modernity to have or detect about itself, as the modern presumption was all along that without any moral plumblines nothing should be explicitly either wrong or right.  

Maurice Andrew an OT theologian from Otago, NZ has also noticed this reaction within modern people and calls this what people exhibit a sense of “scandalization”, whereby people- through the introduction of something they cannot process in life- then react in some involuntary manner[66]. One only has to read or hear the news to feel “scandalized” and its concomitant reaction of indignation and outrage. The news wouldn’t exist weren’t it for that involuntary phenomena. It is what occurs despite the fact that rationality would maintain that meaninglessness is what typifies modern life, hence no ultimate values are inherent within social ethical behaviour and morality. Thereby Miskotte suggests modernity is still somehow connected to the claims and life of G-D by pointing out the inconsistencies of theory and actual life.

John 1:1a, 4. and Psalm36:9

John 1: 1a, 4- “In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God.......and that light was the life of men, a light that shines in the dark,

Ps 36: 9- “yes, with you is the fountain of life, by your light we see the light.

The final two sketches are a depiction of the congruence of the “Logos overture” of John’s Gospel- and John’s theology- with that of Hebrew understanding in Ps. 36 of human life, light and comprehension. New sight will let in light and understanding of G-D for humanity.

In particular here he draws from the NT text the refrain that the Word of G-D is in á-priori standing to a beholding humanity and that it thus stands in an independent position to all else in creation, cosmos and time. He then draws the analogy that the significance of the NAME for Israel has that same connotation as what the Word may have for modernity, in that it issues forth life, light and understanding. We may begin to lay claim to the opening of fuller potentialities (v9b: by your light we see the light). Thus in both Christianity and Judaism within modernity the coming of G-D has purpose in the sense that humanity may find personal and communal fulfilment along that road; rather than constitute a mere escape from meaninglessness. In the Psalm all creation gives witness to G-D, who always is to be thought of as totally “Someone Other”, yet at the same time constitutes the crux of everyone and all things[67].

I would have to curb my overall enthusiasm with his theology in that the analogy he draws here still comes across to Kiwis as an imperative that may be analogical to human address by G-D; which can be excusable when G-D does the stipulating, but tends to be received as didactic or patronising on the strength of any human say-so. Dutch do have a trend to be deeply logical in thought, life and often assume too readily that other people operate similarly. What we have learned here on the flipside geographically of Europe; is that Pacific thought instead is often protective (even ranging to a  xenophobic degree) of its own laisséz-faire approach to life. Logic tends to lean to facilitate progress in others and this is precisely what would grate with Kiwi theological understanding as to how Miskotte brings his thesis forward.

From this viewpoint the lack of variation of the development of that theme seems to become coercive and somewhat prescriptive and even repetitive. Karl Barth’s earlier hard and fast “revelational absolutism”, which was polemic against any notion of the constructs of natural theology, tended to have the same effect on people.

Yet it is clear that for Miskotte the narrative of the FT as well as the NT gives rise to the meaning of the truth for modernity to be applied in an analogical sense, yet the text itself will always point us on to the reality of G-D behind the texts. In that token the Word as defined and contained in Jesus Christ is the embodiment of that reality of G-D for humanity in and outside the Church.

He intends to show from this that human attitude and orientation towards G-D or YHWH should not be merely about becoming satisfied with the effects of G-D coming to humanity in revelation, but that in any credible human response to G-D we rise above what we deemed ourselves to be, or thought we could be- and what we were to be about, we again are on the way to become gardeners for God.

Conclusions:

The significance of Miskotte’s theology is that he doesn’t just reiterate or advocate a human return to theistic categories, in spite of his understanding that is G-D is that theistic transcendental “Someone Other”. He has the courage and the intelligence as well as undoubted scholarship to step away from accepted frameworks towards a new hermeneutic of biblical understanding that promises further understanding of G-D; by way of former avenues that were generally bypassed, ignored or totally neglected.

This makes him a thoroughly modern theologian. He seems to advance on a path, opened initially by Barth, Bultmann and Bonhoeffer, and which only much later in the west Gadamer, Kaufmann and Ricoeur in terms of philosophy and hermeneutics would approach and develop. His trinitarian emphasis and contextual tolerances may also serve to revive interest in modern Catholic spirituality, the heritage of which is common to all Christians, as it dates back to those ancient pre-Reformation times when we were nearly all Catholic, belonging, for better and for worse, to the Great Church of the West.

His theology points the way to how Judaism and Christianity can work towards a greater family sense of coherence. Miskotte does so at the risk of being labelled a heretic by orthodox Christianity, which may still be locked into the patterns of adherence of some chistological exclusivism.

Yet I feel he here ploughs up such grounds of objection daringly and expertly (and it is high time the paddocks of such outmoded conservative christianity received some new pasture).

For us in this country his sympathetic ear, commitment and attitude towards Judaism based on FT principled based theology can be very helpful to understanding our bicultural context better and help Pakeha to be more sensitive in that respect for the future, and it may be also offer an framework that can be a springboard for indigenous Maori and perhaps Aborigine Christian theological formation.

Miskotte shows the theological world that progress is possible within the dialectic of a credible reappraisal of FT theology and at least a refocused christological rationale. His theology demonstrates that one cannot ever be only concerned with critical literary and tradition/historical exegesis; but must endeavour to now also root those results down into commendable and understandable human response models involving all of our faculties to do justice to the beauty inherent in G-D’s munificence of blessing and presence towards humanity:

“And precisely in so doing (the use of critical research of the biblical scholars), like a good conductor, (Miskotte) brings into accord what various others have recognized in detail, but without seeing the direct mutual (Jewish and Christian) relationship”[68]. 

For me as a Dutch but now Kiwi man, born in Amsterdam in WWII on the very same day an Australian soldier named John Hurst Edmondson from Wagga-Wagga died at Tobruk on the North African coast  (the first Australian VC in WWII- posthumously decorated); and thereby I am indebted to faith & life on this side of the globeand and remain instinctively attracted in my Christian convictions and thought (like Miskotte) to Barth’s theology of true human freedom and the centricity of Jesus Christ in all life and history. There is much like appeal and flavour to Miskotte’s observations and conclusions. My personal family exposure to the Holocaust during WWII and the persecution of Jewry seemingly forever before- by the structures of the Christian faith in the ‘G-D focussed Jew from Nazareth’ whom I profess to be as our Lord/ adonaj, shapes my theological convictions in the premise that the whole Christian system needs glasses with better resolution. I believe that Miskotte offers us a credible starting point in the theology he put before us.

It admittedly sets that theological understanding up as an ‘applied corrective’ in its re-address of the autonomy of the FT texts, and that may be hard to digest for some, but there is no patronising intent from Miskotte in this. In all he shows commendable empathy in how Judaism and Christianity have too much in common to neglect possible constructive dialogue even longer; in spite of the dreadful anti- Semitism that Christianity wrought upon Jewry for century upon century that would render that a valid excuse for Judaism. He also points out in how that in the main came about from aberrant readings and construction of the NT, that very quickly in from early church times, became bereft of a FT mindset and framework and included a latent bias, in its subsequent writings by a new found faith, against the nature of the very womb of the faith from whence it sprang. The Church subsequently pronounced that bias that existed, as normative, and hence sacralised and codified it in terms of inspiration and as being directly derivative and descriptive as truth as an inerrant Word of G-D. Yet the expression that a totally fresh New Covenant was always G-D’s intention is clear, yet not dismissive of the Law as such but merely judgmental of a slavish supercessionist performance of it (and thus belittling of its intent) as early as Jer. 31. It can said then that both Judaism and Christianity are looking for YHWH/ God on such realigned but respective horizons [69]:

There are then many further remaining polarities for the Church and Synagogue to grapple with between what constitutes “a credible FT theology and a (refreshed) systematic Christological rationale”, yet in terms for interfaith dialogue in the world the pioneer theology of Miskotte reframes devotion to G-D and sets a great benchmark for Christian tolerance and spirituality. His thoughts, piety and perspectives, theological thought should hold dear and deserve further attention.

Martin Kessler in his book on Miskotte, notes how Hinrich Stoevesandt who edited and translated much of Miskotte’s writing into German, paid tribute to the man who complemented and developed the work and thought of the 20^th century continental theological greats, like Karl Barth, Friedrich Gogarten and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and in many ways stood amongst them as an equal[70]:

 “Miskotte was a theologian with heart and soul. However, he was at the same time, in his flesh and blood, a man of culture, an aesthete of the highest calibre, receptive to the language of nature, equipped with fine hearing and an almost inexhaustible capacity for the assimilation of the emotions of the human soul and its expressions in painting, music and above all in poetry, a born ‘naturalist’ as he calls himself in one of his letters.”

The Rev. Dr. J.J. Buskes, in the end a re- Reformed Dutch minister- a life-long pacifist as well as ardent socialist- wrote in his obituary and admiration for the stature of the man:

“The awakening and the renewal of the church consists for him as nothing other than the discovery of the independent creational existence of Jesus Christ. The confession of that is the foundational task for the church”[71].

G.G. de Kruijff, sums his theology up early in his book:

Miskotte pictorialised the structures of human spirituality in three ways, those of Pagan, Jew and Christian; he took full part in European culture and signalled from within that the emerging new paganism, the false pretense of what represents itself as christian culture and the destitution of nihilism which threatens all of European culture; (while) in the midst of that culture he lived with the Scriptures and proclaimed the gospel “as one who serves”. The pulpit in the church was for him at the same time his “Areopagus in the world.” [72] 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Buskes, J.J. Hoera voor het Leven (‘A Hurray for Life’). De Brug - Djambatan N.V., Amsterdam z.j. [1959];

bron/ source: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/busk005hoer01_01/colofon.htm.

De Kruijf, G.G. “Heiden, Jood en Christen, een studie over de theologie van K.H. Miskotte” (‘Pagan, Jew and Christian, a study about the theology of K.H.Miskotte’*), Ten Have, Baarn, 1981.

Eliot, T.S. “Selected Poems”- Choruses from the Rock, p.126, 127.

Kessler, M. “Kornelis Miskotte, A Biblical Theology”, Susquehanna University Press, 1997.

Miskotte, H.H. “ God’s Own Green Paradise”,

Miskotte, K.H. “When the Gods are silent”, Collins 1967.

Miskotte, K.H. “Het wezen der Joodse Religie” (‘The nature of the Jewish Religion’), Amsterdam 1932.

Song, C.S. “Third Eye Theology”, Orbis Books, 1979.

Terrien, S. “Biblical Theology- The Old Testament (1970-1984)- “A Decade and a Half of Spectacular                 Growth”, pp127-35, in “ Biblical Theology Bulletin”, Vol. XV, Oct 1985, no 4.

---

[1] Subtitled in the Dutch edition as: ‘About the sense of the Old Testament’, where Sense as “significance” or “meaning”, my rendering of the meaning of “zin” in the Dutch language. See also below p.10 on the meaning of “zin”.

[2] As Barth reappraised Calvin to re-contextualise the Gospel for the 20^th century, so Miskotte builds on- and complements Barth to make God’s concern and love for the world and humanity relevant even for those most disinterested, and requalifies the human angle before Barth finally clarified his own contextuality of approach about the humanity of God. One can read Barth without Miskotte, while there is no doubt Barth incorporated much of Miskotte in his later (more relaxed) theology; but one cannot read Miskotte without running into Barth at many of the various intersections; though it was clear that Miskotte had trouble with Barth’s lack of emphasis on human ethics and his theology in Romans until he had some face to face dialogue with him. They stayed firm friends ever since, and always had a profound respect for each other.

[3] G.G. De Kruijff, Heiden Jood en Christen, een studie over de theologie van K.H. Miskotte, Ten Have, Baarn, The Netherlands,1981 (Pagan, Jew and Christian, a study about the theology of K.H.Miskotte-any of my translation is marked as * after this) p . 13, quotes a typical example of this “yet” and “not yet” contrast from one of Miskotte’s sermons: *“My friends, the theme for this morning is: “living sincerity”, and I want to try to make it clear to you and myself that (such) sincerity is only alive and worthy (of its name) if it is born out of a suffering sense from history and is observant of the Word that healingly dissects that history.” Here suffering and sincerity are held in dialectical tension and don’t become resolved in any sense of synthesis.

[4] His theology therefore from the very outset presents a suitable template to promote dialogue between cultures in bi- or multicultural societies like New Zealand and Australia, where indigenous faith desires autonomous relevance from other than purely western approaches of theological thought to shape their own destiny.

[5]From here on, I have used the word “G-D” for the Deity as which is in keeping with how modern Judaism gets around the difficulty of writing down of what essentially for humanity is the un-utterability of any human address of yhwh/ G-D, as any glib use of the NAME tends to erode the á-priori sanctity status of the G-D-head, and puts the human subject in an unwarrantable objective stance. New Testament is abbreviated to “NT”. Old Testament to “OT”, and my hermeneutic statement of the Old as a “First Testament” by “FT”. The canon of the Hebrew Masoretic text as “TNK” or “TaNahk”.

[6] Insights by G.G. De Kruijf: *Heiden, Jood en Christen, Ten Have bv, Baarn, 1981, pp. 214.

[7] Ibid, pp. 34-5.

[8] Miskotte, When the Gods...xiii/iv- Foreword by J.W. Doberstein

[9] In “Edda en Thora” he approaches Judaism in a phenomological manner and introduces Jewish thinkers like Franz Rosenzweig, Ernst Bloch and Martin Buber in such a sympathetic manner that Jews became surprisingly attracted to his Christian viewpoints and perspectives; in that he held that the Torah (“Thora”) is  a typological charter for all humanity, and still now calls Israel (as well as the rest of humanity) away from human pluralismc and secular oriented formats  and in particular what he felt was “new paganism”, i.e:  the very fundamentals of Hitler’s  National Socialist doctrine and the which  the German poem “Edda” promoted. These writings were published at the onset of Hitler’s rise to power, in prophetic anticipation of the storms to come.

[10] De Kruijf, p. 9.

[11] Terrien, “Biblical Theology- The Old Testament, (1970-1984)- A Decade and a half of Spectacular Growth”, 129 in Biblical    Theology Bulletin Vol. XV, Oct 1985, no.4.; Also in a review on Terrien’s , “The Elusive Presence” from Theology Today, Vol,37, no1, April 1980, where Patrick D. Miller points out the implicit similarity from Terrien and Miskotte on the primary and ontological attention of Israel upon the Name of yhwh: ”In an assessment of various currents in the theological interpretation of the Bible, he both criticizes the notion that covenant provides the foundation of Old Testament theology and puts forth a preliminary case for the presence of God as the central concept and reality to which Scripture points”.

[12] In Miskotte, When the Gods...ix, n.1.

[13] See Terrien, “Biblical Theology- The Old Testament (1970-1984)- A Decade and a Half of Spectacular Growth”, 12, in “Biblical Theology Bulletin” Vol XV, Oct 1985, no.4.

[14] J.J. Buskes, Hoera voor het leven, p.91 (*“A Hurray for Life”) bron/ source: http://www.dbnl.org/tekst/busk005hoer01_01/colofon.htm: *“Barth presented then his speech: “The chaos of this world and God’s plan for salvation”, was all very agreeable to many but by the same token equally disagreeable to as many others there. He begun with the question whether it might not be better to begin with God’s plan for salvation, and to only thereafter try to sort the world’s chaotic state, and held furthermore that we have to continually focus on the fact that God’s plan for salvation is actually God’s plan and not some one or another ‘Christian Marshall’ plan, that has to be enacted by us humans, as if God is actually dead”.

[15] Ibid, p.83: *“the resistance (against Barth’s Krisis theology), that we experienced, was unimaginably great, greatest apparent in the Reformed circles”. The political/ theological situation in the Netherlands before the war was one of careful and ‘sycophant to German’ public speech, in its concern of not wanting to offend rampant National Socialist ideology , with the hope that the country might remain neutral as in WWI. However after the German invasion the die was cast and henceforth, dissent had to be done in secret and “underground”. This then is the background of Miskotte’s theology, one that was wrought in the middle of ever increasing chaos, a prophetic voice that tolerated no other Lord/ Ruler and certainly no Führer, but always with unilateral focus on the foundation of God’s other kingdom as pronounced by Jesus Christ. The strongly socialist dominee J.J.Buskes remained, in spite of the abrogation of human rights and freedom of speech, a pacifist; Miskotte, like Barth (both also socialists) couldn’t support any “isms”, yet in adherence to the Word of the God of Creation felt ethical resistance could legitimately before God culminate in military action and the overthrow of evil regimes.

[16] Ibid p. 212, my free translation.

[17] Joshua Lim in Reformed Blogging quoting Berkouwer, G.C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (London: Paternoster Press, 1956), 388-89: “Nor does it become clear why so sharp an attack upon him is being conducted by most of the prominent liberal theologians. Apparently they recognize that in Barth’s theology they are coming into contact with a form of theological thought which they cannot merely subordinate and work into their own theological system.”

[18] equivalent to what Miskotte quoted from Max Weber “the fourth man”.

[19] See Essay: “Something rotten in our sterile world” in Spectrum pp12-13,  Elizabeth Farrelly, Sydney Morning Herald, May29-30, 2010, wherein she suggests that universal human “moral disgust” is on a evolutionary pathway from “hardwired” beginnings to a “transcendent purpose” driven elicitation: ”As meaning-needy creatures we feel moral disgust- the theory goes- at those things that seem to render life meaningless”.  What Farrelly doesn’t open up, is the question where any such vague “transcendent elicitation” for humanity has its origins.  

[20] By the latter part of the 19^th century European sociologists like Weber were already well aware that mysticism and other deep socially in-bedded legends ran counter to the rationalization processes of budding modernity; this then is not a modern notion, in other words there was a growing awareness and disquiet, even then, that human life was far more than what human reason could encompass. The basic post-modern concepts of Paul Ricouer et al are therefore not all that original.

[21] De Kruijf, pp. 40-41: *”What needs to be kept in view (here),  one could nearly call a phenomenology of  Holy Script”, and: *“ It is about the translation of the kerygma, which is that what the Scriptures carries and maintains”.

[22] By ds J.J. Buskes (a colleague of Miskotte) quoting Dr.Banning.

[23] Here “Christ” is meant  the understanding the early Christian communities came to over time in regards of Jesus as Messiah initially (“Christ” later to Hellenist Jews) in the course of writing the gospels and some earlier texts (that later became assembled and codified in NT. format). See Bultmann, “Jesus and the eschatological Kingdom”, where he traces the process of how the suitability of the Messiah/ Christ metaphor, with its OT expectations and dreams for Israel, became a growing conviction and from this the FT and the notion of G-D suffered interpretative ‘read-back’.  Miskotte points out the danger in doing that is, that we end up with different gods altogether, and from such a stance anti- Semitism is only around the corner; see also Kesler, pp. 25-27 & N.A. Dahl, The Crucified Messiah, pp.24-8.

[24] Miskotte, p.25-27, also De Kruijff, p.27, where Miskotte preached the thought that it needs more than just some reflection to call any people the enemy not only of the Dutch nation but especially as the enemy of G-D, but that in fact was the situation then, he felt. And that in the face of such terror (because in Nazism we see centuries of harboured and latent hatred for the Jews and their God) was brought out into the open. Hence local factionalism should henceforth adopt a new fresh approach in any human contemplation of G-D and the world and abandon its trivial ecclesial self obsessions and parochial quarrels.

[25] Paul Morris, “Jesus , justice and Judaism”, Stimulus Vol 13 no2, 2005, 2-9

[26] See de Kruijff, p. 31- quoting Dutch theologian and ds. F.H. Breukelman’s observation from his book: De weg der verwachting (*The way of expectation), Baarn, 1975, p.37: *”It is a theme in the whole of Miskotte’s proposal, that the ecclesial doctrines have never been actually based on structures with scriptural backing, because the Old Testament has never really functioned as a window from which the apostolic kerygma has to be explained”.  

[27] See Brueggemann’s web- blog: "Wondrous solidarity, Devastating Starchiness" from The Threat of Life.

[28] See also W. Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms, pp. 20-28, where in his Introduction to the Psalms of Israel he charts the nature of the human processes  from places of disorientation to orientation as patterns within all historical continuums, and where life in orientation means lining oneself up in the very first instance with God’s intentions of blessings of Shalom and Sabbath where things aren’t so much a quest as an enduring status quo without the need for human ‘angst’. Brueggemann view (p.28) here resembles Miskotte’s refrain in the proposal that in the Psalms there runs a “deep conviction  that God’s purpose for the world is resilient ---and thus are anticipatory of what surely will be”.

[29] Miskotte, p. xvii.

[30] Kessler p. 25.

[31] ibid p.xvii; also pp1,2, here Miskottes’s use of Weber’s “fourth man” is like Bonhoeffer’s “man come of age”, unsure, totally adrift, agnostically inert to any idea of G-D.

[32] Immanuel Kant was the first of the German philosophers in the 19^th century to hold that a “come of age” humanity had no further need of the God factor. Bonhoeffer much later used that as a catch phrase in an  acknowledgment of that human premise and concluded modernity had come totally adrift in its thinking, and that the answer remained that God’s own surrender in Jesus Christ was still at the centre of all human life, latent but always potentive, as the death of Christ on the Cross should be seen to be effectually salvific in diachronic fashion in time and space and not in some disputable or dubious historical context framed solely by human logic and reason, be it Christian or pagan.

[33] See  “Theology Today”, Vol 48, no 4, Jan 1992, Book Review by Charles M. Wood on M.I.Wallace’s book:”The Second Naivete': Barth, Ricoeur, and the New Yale Theology”, 482ff.

[34] Postmodernism is a rather hazy notion of a place where modernity has arrived at. Being a “postmodernist” is about jettisoning modern historical  and rational disseminative rationales and opting for more holistic inclusionary models of thought in any human discipline or endeavour, see also Christian Century on Barth and Postmodernism and Gary Dorrien: ‘The ‘Postmodern’ Barth? The Word of God As True Myth’. Barth has been stereotyped as post-modern by critics of the trend of postmodernism, neo- Calvinist by critics of Calvin and his rigid notions of pre-destination, neo-orthodox by modern theological and liberal humanists; perhaps then we may assume he had something cogent to say to any or all those so critical.

[35] Brueggemann:   Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text, pp. 18-9, 21: "Old Testament theology, as distinct from sociological, literary, or historical analysis, must assume some realism in the text - that the poets and narrators in Israel do, in fact, speak the mind of God. God's mind is not closed on this question, because God in Israel must decide about the practice of contractual theology and the embrace of pain that permits and requires life outside the contract...."

[36] Brown, “Christianity and Modern Thought, Vol. I, Apollos, (Inter Varsity Press), 1990, p. 338,  where he poses the question about the process of human and ecclesial  control of  the underlying beliefs and questions that all people continue to ask in spite of any dominant philosophy or theology to the contrary. But it is also the recognition that systems of control will continue to exert themselves upon those trends over time and the historian/ theologian needs to take that on board as well, and endeavour to come to a view (by way of hermeneutical progression or  by way of introducing a dialectic sidestep of lateral thought) that ends up as being more true, than before the proposition was tackled .

[37] Sam Keen, a modern American philosopher/ theologian issues a similar challenge for people to focus on the ultimate nature of the universe as by being held by something profoundly Sacred, a Being/ Someone Other/ “call (it) what you will”/ “G-D- otherness”. For him also any attention on god(s) framed within human metaphors ends up in systems and institutions that invariably seek for power and systems of control to dominate and usurp much of human freedom; conversely he also decries the atheistic totalitarian grid of Richard Dawkins et al as : “a curse on both their houses”, see:  ABC broadcast transcript May 2010.

[38] H.H. Miskotte, Gods own Green Paradise, p. 169.

[39] Ibid. p 126

[40] ibid p.xiii.

[41] W. Brueggemannn echoes the same concern that the Old Testament stands as a New Testament antecedental verity for Christian theological thought see his Old Testament Theology: Essays on Structure, Theme, and Text, pp. 18-9: "The laments are not widely used among us, not printed in most hymnals, not legitimated in our theology. Many Christians think the laments are superseded by some christological claim. We have in practice reneged on the bold break made in Israel's protest against the common theology. Unwittingly, by silencing the break of embraced pain, we have embraced the uncritical faith of structure legitimization. Much biblical faith, as commonly held, has in fact become a support for the status quo by using a theological mode that understands God primarily in the categories of structure legitimization. Such a move is reflected in both liturgical use, where the laments have largely fallen out of the repertoire, and in popular theology as reflected in the catechisms, to say nothing of popular proclamation."  

[42] De Kruijf, p. 50, quoting in n. 82 a reservation of Berkhof on this characteristic aspect of Miskotte’s understanding wherein the OT retains revelational warrant at least to the same extent as the NT as Scripture and thus (merely?) reflects the underlying intent of yhwh/ G-D (my translation):  “...there is therefore no any history as revelation as such, but a God who through his (sic) Word articulates such an occurrence and thus makes history”.

[43] The question whether Paul’s theology came from a consensus of the Christian community or whether his theology informed and educated that community, has never been wholly resolved. I am inclined to think from the different foci of Paul and Peter re the adherence to Jewish practice versus the desire to present a new free modality of faith for the early Christian community, that there was more theological shaping of the Christian community from Paul than the converse; except for the ready association of Jesus as Messiah in other than terms of political freedom and  the association of land, for that is recognizable as a trait that came from the early Jewish Christian community rather than from Paul or Peter persé. Much later the label of divine inspiration was the basic factor for recognizing a book's canonicity, and divine inspiration itself rested by consensus on whether the text had apostolic backing or other authoritative credentials, pointing to the lordship and messiahship of Jesus. In many ways canonicity was theologically a total human construct and bears little resemblance to the writings Jesus or Paul had in mind, if indeed they had any collection of books in mind, but the Torah, the psalms of David and the prophetic record. Though the fact that teaching and its authority to do so was already a factor in the early church can be seen in the spirited reasons Paul gives for his credentials as an apostle. In any case Paul shows that Scripture can lead to various interpretations and applications which may all be equally valid to the questions under scrutiny.

[44] Marcion's Canon: Marcion of Sinope was the first well-known heretic in the history of the early church. Marcion was the first Christian leader in recorded history to propose and delineate a canon (about 140 AD) which included 10 epistles from St. Paul as well as parts of the Gospel of Luke which today is known as the Gospel of Marcion. In so doing, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought right till today. After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the 'measuring stick' ('canon' is the Greek translation of this phrase) of accepted theological thought, and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. The effect of Christian canonization then came about from opposition to the heretical canonization efforts of Marcionitism.

[45] Ibid, p.173.

[46]See de Kruijf,p.38 and n. 10 quoting from Miskotte, “Als de goden zwijgen..”p.93 (my translation): “From this definition it appears, that he places emphasis on the apostles and the prophets as intermediary agencies, (for) between ‘the word’ and ‘THE WORD’ there is also still ‘the Word’, wherewith (he) means that what occurs when the scriptures refer to sayings like when the prophet says: ‘the word came unto me’.

[47]  See J.J. Buskes, Hoera voor het Leven (A Hurray for Life) , p54-55 (paraphrased in my translation)and also: ”I (Gunning’s view) regard a pure church order as a necessary principle, though I see that order as only good and fitting , if it doesn’t obstruct  the Holy Spirit’s  lead and right to govern it.  Accordingly I believe it is necessary for discipline to be exercised but such discipline through doctrine and confessional credo’s etc. ought not to put obstacles in the way in regard to the universal eschatological expectations by way of dominating decrees, which should as a matter of course be crucified by all true believers as soon as they manifest themselves”.

[48] This fundamentalist tendency is because of the fear that any understanding and perception of the Bible would erode to  some personal subjectivity- accept this but discard that, classify this as legend and embroidery and that as fact and truth, this as miracle while that as authorial theologizing. And there is some justification for such apprehension and fear, however to hold everything within a straightjacket of verbal inerrancy and the view to elevate that then to infallible categories ends up with an insoluble dichotomy where subjectivism is turned into its opposite of human objectivism; ironically with humanity still very much in charge of- and about G-D; and hence G-D’s Word becomes effectively sidelined by both factions.

[49] ibid, p.108,109 n 13.

^[50] The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Heb 4:12

[51] ibid, p.115.

[52] ibid, p.312.

[53] ibid, pp 132, 160 where Miskotte holds that human encounter with G-D will always be on G-D’s terms, but comes through to the intuitive side of human life, rather than in a pedagogical, didactic or rational sense.

[54] See Buskes (whose theology reflects much of Miskotte’s thought)  p. 75.

[55] ibid, p.314.

[56] Web page:”According to Barth, “The doctrine of election is the sum of the Gospel.” His approach to predestination is based on two main assertions: (1) Jesus Christ is electing God; and (2) Jesus Christ is elected man. For Barth, predestination is eternal in that it precedes time. Predestination is also Christologically based. Jesus is the subject in election in that He elects others. Jesus is also the object of God’s election. Barth explains what God elected in the eternal election of Jesus Christ. “God elected or predestinated Himself” (Church Dogmatics II/2, 162). There are two sides to the will of God in the election of Jesus Christ. In fact, there is a “double predestination” (CD II/2, 162). In the election of Jesus Christ, God positively ascribed salvation and life to man. Negatively, God ascribed reprobation, perdition, and death to Himself (CD II/2, 163). Positively, at Calvary, God said Yes to His Son and humanity that is in Him. Negatively, God elected Himself to be man’s Partner and took upon Himself the rejection, death, and hell that man deserved. CD II/2, 171.” God wants all people to be saved, and to this end Jesus came. There is no such thing as foreordination to evil or damnation. That is simply an unfortunate Augustinian inference that Calvin set in concrete. To Barth, God is Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer, not the opposite.

.

[57] De Kruijff, p. 19, * and paraphrased.

[58] See Song, “Third Eye Theology”, p.45, see also the African and Japanese theologies (resp.) of John Mbiti, and Kosuke Koyama.

[59] H.H. Miskotte, p 172

[60] Miskotte, pp. 309-318.

[61] ibid. pp388-396. Ex 33 from the Jerusalem Bible

[62]   Deut. 6:4-שְׁמַע, יִשְׂרָאֵל:  יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ, יְהוָה אֶחָד. Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

[63] ibid. p302

[64] ibid p.393.

[65] ibid p.395

[66] I am not sure exactly where I found this quote but it is from: Andrews, M.E., ‘The Bible in a Changing New Zealand’, in: Religious Studies in Dialogue, Essays in Honour of Albert C. Moore, ed. M.C. Andrew, Peter Matheson, Dunedin 1991,

[67] Miskotte. pp. 474/5.

[68] ibid p. xii, quote from Gollwitzer.

[69] It brings many NT. held principles into question, in spite of that Miskotte stresses that concentration and devotional focus are to be directed to  yhwh/ G-D in the first instance as Jesus himself suggested the Shema of the Decalogue was the greatest interpretative key to life with yhwh/ G-D for our human way. It is clear that in his vision of cosmic new beginnings Jeremiah did not envisage any abrogation by any messianic format,  for the Law of Moses as the covenant accord with Israel was immutable; but that the intent of the Law might become evident.                                                 

[70] Kessler, p. 27.

[71] source: J.J. Buskes, Hoera voor het Leven. De Brug - Djambatan N.V., Amsterdam z.j. [1959], p.214 (my translation).

[72] De Kruijff, pp. 13-14*.