The doctrine of election is a controversial doctrine that is rooted in Pauline theology (and the Mark-Matthew tradition), initially developed by Augustine's doctrine of predestination and later developed by John Calvin's doctrine of double predestination. Traditionally, the doctrine of election begins with God's pre-temporal absolute decree (decretum absolutum) that sorts all people into one of two exclusive groups: the elect and the reprobates. Theologians have debated whether God actively elects individuals from the mass of perdition (pace. Augustine) or God actively elects and rejects all individuals (pace. Calvin); and they debate whether God's absolute decree happens after he decided to create the world (infralapsarianism) or God's decree to elect individuals happens before God's decree to create the world (supralapsarianism). Regardless of these nuances, the doctrine of election teaches that all people will be elected or rejected before they are born, and no one absolutely knows whether they are elected or rejected, and so this absolute decree causes a theodicy problem that even Calvin confessed this was a horrible decree (but many adherents today are less cautious) 

Karl Barth discovered that we actually do know who is elected and rejected—it is Jesus who is both the Elected One and the Rejected One. The doctrine of election does not divide the world of humanity into two exclusive groups—the elected and the rejected—but actually describes Jesus Christ as both the Elected One and the Rejected One. Karl Barth is super-supralapsarian, because he believed the election of Jesus Christ, precedes all other decrees of God, and Jesus was elected specifically to be rejected in the crucifixion: "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8 KJV). Barth says that Double Predestination applies to Jesus alone, because Jesus is the only Elected One, and therefore Jesus is the only Rejected One. Barth explains that the election of Jesus means that Jesus was chosen (i.e. elected) to be crucified (i.e. rejected)--and Jesus alone fulfills this vocation. No one else is elected like Jesus, and no one else is rejected like Jesus. If there are elected individuals or rejected individuals, they are only elected or rejected in Jesus (Eph 1:4), are witnesses to Jesus. So Barth brilliantly and biblical reconstructs the doctrine of double predestination around the Jesus alone, as simultaneously as the Elected One and Rejected One. 

Karl Barth description of Jesus as the "Rejected One" is in the Church Dogmatics Vol. II/2 "§35.2 The Elect and the Rejected". I assemble quotations from this paragraph, to explain why Jesus is the Elected one and the Rejected One. Barth begins by explaining what it means to be rejected. Jesus is the one and only Rejected one, because he alone was rejected for the sins of others. No one else is rejected in the same way, and if any other individual is rejected, their rejection and suffering from it is only an echo of Jesus who is the one and only Rejected One.  

Karl Barth writes, "But, again, it is strictly and narrowly only in the portrait of the one Jesus Christ that we may perceive who and what a rejected man is. It is He who—just because of His election—is cast out from the presence of God by His righteous law and judgment, and delivered to eternal death. In the genuine fulfillment of genuine election it is His life which is truly the life of the man who must suffer the destructive hostility of God. The peculiarity of the position which He occupies among all others is that He took it upon Himself to be this man. God has made Him who is uniquely His Son and Friend 'to be sin.' It is He who is the rejected individual. If there are others who are also rejected, then it is only in the evil, perilous and futile misunderstanding and disregard of the fact that He alone is truly this; only in the godlessness which will not accept as a right the right which He has secured for them all." [1]

Only Jesus embodies rejection, no individual can do this. Other rejected individuals are false witness, they are not rejected in themselves, but instead their false witness points to the true rejection of Jesus Christ.

Karl Barth writes, "Rejected individuals as such (those who live the life of the rejected) are the evidence of the sin for which He has made Himself responsible, of the punishment which He has borne. In the last resort, in so far as it seems to indicate their own perdition and abandonment by God, their witness can only be false. For to be genuinely and actually abandoned by God, to be genuinely and actually lost, cannot be their concern, since it is the concern of Jesus Christ. Therefore even this false witness cannot help pointing to Jesus Christ as the One who properly and actually was the lost and abandoned sinner, whose shadow lies upon them. Thus, for all their godlessness, they are unable to restore the perversity for whose removal He surrendered Himself, and so to rekindle the fire of divine wrath which He has borne in this self-sacrifice." [2]

Rejected individuals are reluctant participants in Jesus' rejection, and therefore witnesses to Jesus' election. Barth surprises us by explaining that Jesus is the Rejected One who was rejected for all rejected individuals, in a similar way that Jesus is the Elect One who was elected for all elect individuals. 

Karl Barth writes, "In their sinning, and in their suffering as sinners, they can only be arrogant and yet reluctant participants in the rejection which He has averted from them by taking it upon Himself in the consummation of His election. They cannot help the fact that objectively and actually they are themselves witnesses to His election. It is not without Him that they, too, are what they are. It is only figuratively and secondarily that they can be what He alone is primarily and properly. He is the Rejected, as and because He is the Elect. In view of His election, there is no other rejected but Himself. It is just for the sake of the election of all the rejected that He stands in solitude over against them all. It is just for them that He is the rejected One (in His rejection making room for them as the elect of God), and therefore the one and only object of the divine election of grace." [3]

Jesus is rejected for the rejected, because he is elected for the elect, his rejection is the fulfillment of his election, and therefore all people are included in the election of Jesus Christ. In a surprising way, these actions stand together: Jesus brings the rejected and elected together and makes them  into brothers and sisters. Rejected individuals testify to Jesus who is rejected. and elect test to jesus election. We cannot understand the elect without the reject, and vice versa. 

Karl Barth writes, "Thus Jesus Christ is the Lord and Head and Subject of the witness both of 'the elect' and also of 'the rejected.' For all the great difference between them, both have their true existence solely in Him. It is in Him, who originally is both the Elect and the Rejected, that their mutual opposition finds its necessity. But it is not simply the relativity of their opposition which is established in Him, but also the fact that in all their opposition they are brothers, mutually related in their being and function, forming an inalienable and indissoluble unity. As the election of Jesus Christ finds its scope and completion in His representative rejection, and as conversely this very representative rejection confirms His election, so the elect and the rejected do not stand only against one another, but also alongside and for one another. Because they are not themselves Jesus Christ, but can only testify to Him, they stand both alongside and for one another without prejudice to their opposing character. They are mutually attached to one another. We can no more consider and understand the elect apart from the rejected than we can consider and understand the rejected apart from the elect." [4]

Jesus is the head over both the elected and rejected. The covenant includes both the elected and rejected. It does not depend on the faith of the elect or the faithfulness of the rejected, but upon Jesus alone.

Karl Barth writes, "Neither on the one side nor the other can we overlook or ignore the hand of the One who is Lord and Head of both. And in spite of every difference, on both sides it is manifest who and what this One is. The elect are always those whose task it is to attest the positive decree, the telos of the divine will, the lovingkindness of God. And the rejected must always accompany them to attest the negative decree, that which God in His omnipotence and holiness and love does not will, and therefore His judgment. But it is always the one will of the one God which both attest. Both attest always the covenant which comprehends both, whose power is neither based upon the faithfulness of the elect nor to be destroyed by the faithlessness of the rejected, whose fulfilment is indeed proclaimed by the blessing heaped upon the elect but also announced, and therefore not denied but made the subject of a new promise, by the curse heaped upon the rejected. It is for this reason that the relationship between faithfulness and faithlessness, blessing and curse, life and death, cannot be measured as if some were simply bearers of the first and others simply bearers of the second." [5]

There is no other individual than Jesus.

Karl Barth writes "If the proper object of His love is no other 'individual' than this One, then apart from this One there is none who can be consumed by the fire of His love which is the wrath of God. It is the function of the many elect and the many rejected to indicate this love of God in its twofold nature. And the authorisation under which the latter stand as well as the former is to live—in their differing functions—by the fact that God has loved and loves and will love this One, and them also in Him." [6]

Karl Barth extends the doctrine of election to all people, so that no one is excluded, giving it a universal scope. However, Karl Barth was not a universalist, and to learn more, read my other article on why Karl Barth rejected Universalism. Also, Karl Barth described the doctrine of election as "the sum of the gospel", so to learn more about how Barth's reconstruction of the doctrine of election specifically concerns us as individuals, see my related post. 

Sources:

1. Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God II/2. trans. G. W. Bromiley,  T. F. Torrance.  New York: T&T Clark. 2004. pp. 352-354.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.