A Barth–Benamozegh–Vanhoozer Alignment
Abstract
This study proposes a theological rapprochement between Karl Barth, Elijah Benamozegh, and Kevin J. Vanhoozer through the shared motif of revelation as divine speech. Barth’s Church Dogmatics redefined the Trinity as God’s act of self-disclosure rather than a metaphysical abstraction. Benamozegh’s Israel and Humanity presents the Torah as the ongoing theophany of the divine davar (word), in which covenant mediates revelation to Israel and the nations. Vanhoozer’s canonical-linguistic theology translates this dynamic into contemporary evangelical terms by framing Scripture and doctrine as speech-acts in the drama of covenant. Together they recover a triadic pattern—Speaker, Word, and Spirit—that mirrors the Hebrew categories of Av, Davar, and Ruach. The paper argues that Barth’s Trinitarian grammar, Benamozegh’s Kabbalistic monotheism, and Vanhoozer’s communicative hermeneutics converge in a single vision: the One God who continually speaks His covenant into being.
⸻
1. From Ontology to Revelation
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity emerged within Hellenistic categories of ousia (essence) and hypostasis (person), eventually ossifying into metaphysical formulae divorced from Israel’s living experience of revelation. Barth’s protest against this tradition re-situated theology within the biblical economy of speech and covenant. In Church Dogmatics I/1, he declares: “God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself through Himself. He reveals Himself.” ¹ Revelation thus is not a secondary act but God’s very being in motion.
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity emerged within Hellenistic categories of ousia (essence) and hypostasis (person), eventually ossifying into metaphysical formulae divorced from Israel’s living experience of revelation. Barth’s protest against this tradition re-situated theology within the biblical economy of speech and covenant. In Church Dogmatics I/1, he declares: “God reveals Himself. He reveals Himself through Himself. He reveals Himself.” ¹ Revelation thus is not a secondary act but God’s very being in motion.
This shift aligns unexpectedly with rabbinic and Kabbalistic notions in which God’s unity (echad ) is relational and dynamic. In Jewish theology, the divine is encountered through dibbur (speech) and ruach (breath)—modes of self-communication rather than static attributes. Benamozegh, writing in 19th-century Livorno, would call this the Torah of the Elohut—the eternal manifestation of God’s unity through His speech to Israel.² Both thinkers displace ontology with revelation: being is relational speech.
⸻
2. Barth and the Recovery of Dynamic Monotheism
Barth’s “Trinitarian formula” functions as a grammar of revelation. Father, Son, and Spirit are not three parts of God but the threefold rhythm of divine address—Speaker, Word, and Act. For Barth, “The revelation of God is identical with God Himself.” ³ Revelation is therefore event, not information.
Barth’s “Trinitarian formula” functions as a grammar of revelation. Father, Son, and Spirit are not three parts of God but the threefold rhythm of divine address—Speaker, Word, and Act. For Barth, “The revelation of God is identical with God Himself.” ³ Revelation is therefore event, not information.
This event character restores the biblical sense of covenant (berit ). The God who speaks in Christ is the same God who spoke to Abraham and Moses. Barth’s rejection of natural theology—his insistence that knowledge of God arises only through God’s own Word—echoes the rabbinic conviction that the Shekhinah (indwelling Presence) reveals itself solely through the Torah. He effectively re-Hebraizes theology, even as he confines revelation to its Christological culmination.
Yet his pattern—Speaker, Word, and Spirit—already resonates with Israel’s scriptures:
• The Voice that creates (Gen 1:3 ),
• The Word that commissions prophets (Jer 1:2 ),
• The Spirit that animates (Ezek 37:9–10 ).
• The Voice that creates (Gen 1:3 ),
• The Word that commissions prophets (Jer 1:2 ),
• The Spirit that animates (Ezek 37:9–10 ).
Barth’s Trinity is thus a return, albeit unacknowledged, to Israel’s triadic monotheism.
⸻
3. Benamozegh and the Theophanic Continuum of Torah
Elijah Benamozegh (1823–1900) envisioned Judaism as the universal matrix of divine revelation. In Israel and Humanity, he argues that the Torah is not a national code but a cosmic covenant: “The Word of God (davar Elohim) is perpetual revelation; its light shines through every people according to their capacity.” ⁴
Elijah Benamozegh (1823–1900) envisioned Judaism as the universal matrix of divine revelation. In Israel and Humanity, he argues that the Torah is not a national code but a cosmic covenant: “The Word of God (davar Elohim) is perpetual revelation; its light shines through every people according to their capacity.” ⁴
Drawing upon Kabbalistic triads—Keter (source), Tiferet (beauty/word), and Malkhut (presence)—Benamozegh sees within the One God an eternal rhythm of emanation analogous to the Christian Trinity but expressed in Hebrew metaphysics. The Sar haPanim (Prince of the Presence) or angelic Face of God, the Memra (Word), and the Ruach ha-Kodesh (Holy Spirit) form a dynamic field of divine self-manifestation.
Unlike pantheism, this is emanational monotheism: God remains utterly one even in self-revelation.
Benamozegh thus anticipates Barth’s relational ontology. Where Barth speaks of revelation as the triune act of self-giving, Benamozegh speaks of the Torah as God’s eternal speech—the logos ensarkos of Judaism. Both refuse the dichotomy between transcendence and immanence; both see revelation as the form of divine life.
⸻
4. Vanhoozer and the Canonical-Linguistic Covenant
Kevin J. Vanhoozer (b. 1957) reframes revelation within the post-linguistic turn of modern philosophy. In The Drama of Doctrine he contends that “doctrine is direction for fitting participation in the drama of redemption.” ⁵ Drawing on speech-act theory (J. L. Austin, John Searle), he describes Scripture as a complex communicative act in which God performs what He says. Revelation is therefore performative: God promises, commands, and accomplishes by speaking.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer (b. 1957) reframes revelation within the post-linguistic turn of modern philosophy. In The Drama of Doctrine he contends that “doctrine is direction for fitting participation in the drama of redemption.” ⁵ Drawing on speech-act theory (J. L. Austin, John Searle), he describes Scripture as a complex communicative act in which God performs what He says. Revelation is therefore performative: God promises, commands, and accomplishes by speaking.
Vanhoozer’s triad—Author, Text, Reader—maps neatly onto the theological triad of Speaker, Word, Spirit. God the Author utters His Word in Scripture and history; the Spirit enables the ecclesial reader to perform that Word. The canon becomes a covenantal script.
This model provides the hermeneutical bridge Barth lacked and Benamozegh foresaw. It translates divine revelation into communicative action without collapsing it into mere symbolism. Where Barth insisted on revelation’s objectivity and Benamozegh on its continuity, Vanhoozer shows how revelation continues—through ongoing participation in divine speech.
⸻
5. Converging Grammars: Davar, Ruach, and Panim
All three thinkers share an underlying grammar traceable to Hebrew revelation:
All three thinkers share an underlying grammar traceable to Hebrew revelation:
1. The Divine Word (Davar) — The speech that creates and commands. Barth’s “Word of God” is Benamozegh’s Torah ha-Olam and Vanhoozer’s illocutionary act. It is both propositional and personal, the self-articulation of the divine I AM.
2. The Spirit (Ruach) — The breath that animates and interprets. For Barth, the Spirit actualizes revelation; for Benamozegh, it is the Shekhinahthat indwells; for Vanhoozer, it is the perlocutionary force enabling performance.
3. The Face (Panim) — The presence that reveals. Here lies the Sar haPanim of Jewish mysticism, the Christ of Barth’s revelation, and the interpretive presence of the Author in Vanhoozer’s hermeneutics. Revelation is face-to-face communication (panim el panim; Exod 33:11).
These three elements form a covenantal syntax: God speaks (davar ), breathes (ruach ), and shows His face (panim ). The result is not a static trinity of essences but a triadic speech-event that sustains creation and redemption alike.
⸻
6. Revelation as Covenant Speech and the Trinitarian Drama
Combining Barth’s theology of event, Benamozegh’s metaphysics of emanation, and Vanhoozer’s communicative theory yields a unified vision of revelation as covenantal speech. Each adds a necessary dimension:
Combining Barth’s theology of event, Benamozegh’s metaphysics of emanation, and Vanhoozer’s communicative theory yields a unified vision of revelation as covenantal speech. Each adds a necessary dimension:
• Barth: the ontological seriousness of revelation—God is what He does.
• Benamozegh: the continuity of revelation—God always speaks through Israel and the Torah.
• Vanhoozer: the hermeneutical participation of the community—God’s speech invites performance.
In this synthesis, revelation is the ongoing conversation between God and humanity that constitutes both covenant and history. The divine Word is not once spoken but continually enacted. Jesus as Sar haPanim becomes the covenant’s audible face, not its interruption. The Spirit (Ruach ha-Kodesh) universalizes this speech, drawing all nations into Israel’s dialogue with God (Isa 2:3 ).
Thus, the Trinity can be described in Hebraic terms as the eternal covenant within God Himself—the Berit Elyonah—mirrored in creation. The Father speaks the Word; the Word manifests the Face; the Spirit seals the hearing. This is covenantal monotheism expressed trinitarianly.
⸻
7. Toward a Shared Future: The One God Who Speaks
Recovering revelation as speech re-opens the dialogue between Christianity and Judaism. Barth retrieved the form of Hebrew monotheism but limited its scope; Benamozegh preserved the continuity but lacked an evangelical grammar; Vanhoozer supplies the communicative logic that can translate between them.
Recovering revelation as speech re-opens the dialogue between Christianity and Judaism. Barth retrieved the form of Hebrew monotheism but limited its scope; Benamozegh preserved the continuity but lacked an evangelical grammar; Vanhoozer supplies the communicative logic that can translate between them.
A theology of covenantal speech allows Christians to confess the triune God without severing the Jewish root, and allows Jews to affirm God’s manifold self-revelation without fear of tritheism. Both can say, with the Psalmist, “The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty” (Ps 29:4).
In a world deafened by abstraction, this shared confession recalls that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob still speaks—panim el panim—and that revelation is not a closed book but the living conversation that sustains creation.
⸻
Endnotes
1. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), p. 295.
1. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), p. 295.
2. Elijah Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity, trans. Maxwell Luria (New York: Paulist Press, 1995), p. 72.
3. Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, §8.1.
4. Benamozegh, Israel and Humanity, p. 119.
5. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005), p. 45.
6. See Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels (New York: The New Press, 2012), pp. 44–48, on Jewish triadic monotheism.
7. On Sar haPanim and the Face of God, see Targum Jonathan to Exod 33:14 and Zohar I 23b.
8. For Barth’s covenantal ontology, cf. Church Dogmatics IV/1, §57.
9. Vanhoozer’s use of speech-act theory draws on J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962).
10. Cf. Isa 55:11—“So shall My word (davar ) be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty.” This verse encapsulates the shared thesis of all three theologians: divine speech is covenantal performance.
