Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans: Retrospect and Prospect

504 Pages·2022·32.427 MB·English

by  Christophe Chalamet, Andreas Dettwiler, Sarah Stewart-Kroeker

Karl Barth’s Epistle to the Romans
Theologische Bibliothek
Töpelmann
Edited by
Bruce McCormack, Friederike Nüssel
and Christoph Schwöbel †
Volume 196
Karl Barth’s
Epistle to the
Romans
Retrospect and Prospect
Edited by
Christophe Chalamet, Andreas Dettwiler
and Sarah Stewart-Kroeker
ISBN 978-3-11-075052-2
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-075290-8
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-075291-5
ISSN 0563-4288
DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752908
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License. For details go to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021952437
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie;
detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2022 with the authors, editing © 2022 Christophe Chalamet, Andreas Dettwiler,
Sarah Stewart-Kroeker, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
The book is published open access at www.degruyter.com.
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
Table of Contents
Editors’ Introduction 1
I Barth as Scriptural Theologian
Beverly Roberts Gaventa
Reading Romans on the Brink: The Continuing Challenge of Barth’s
Römerbrief 9
John M.G. Barclay
“For I am Not Ashamed of the Gospel”: Commentary as Interpretation in the
Römerbrief 25
Benoît Bourgine
La Bible pour penser 41
Andreas Dettwiler
Abraham als Glaubensparadigma nach Karl Barth’s Römerbrief (Röm 4) 57
II Hermeneutics and Metaphysics
Jean-Luc Marion
Barth sur l’être du monde devant Dieu. Ce que le Römerbrief permet de
préciserdans la Dogmatik 77
Jean Grondin
Le manifeste herméneutique de Karl Barth 93
Bruce McCormack
An Anti-Metaphysical Manifesto: Karl Barth’s Romans Commentary in its
Second Edition 109
VI TableofContents
III Historical Context
Peter Zocher
Vom «Schweizerwinkel» auf das «hohe, bewegte Meer». Karl Barth zwischen
Safenwil und Göttingen 123
Christophe Chalamet
Karl Barth and the Quest for a New World 139
IV Römerbrief, First edition (1919)
Günter Thomas
God’s Moving Presence in History. Karl Barth’s Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans of 1919 and its Problem-Creating Solutions 159
Matthias Gockel
“More than Leninism” –Karl Barth ’s Theological Socialism 179
V Faith and Resurrection
Hans-Christoph Askani
Das Wunder des Glaubens. Zu Röm 3,21–4,8 203
Pierre Manent
Réflexions de philosophie pratique sur la «foi seule» 213
Brandon K. Watson
Faith as Imperceptible Reality: Barth’s Understanding of Faith During the
Römerbrief Period 225
Elio Jaillet
L’exercice de la liberté, la vie du Crucifié Ressuscité. Rm 6,9 entre la
première et la deuxième édition du Römerbrief 241
Andrew J. Peterson
Faith, Love, and Extrinsic Grace in Barth’s Römerbrief 257
TableofContents VII
Mark W. Elliott
Barth (1919–1922) and the Power of the Gospel (Romans 1:16–17) 275
VI Ethics and Politics
Sarah Stewart-Kroeker
Karl Barth’s Commentary on Romans 8:18–25: An Ecological Reading 297
Claudia Welz
Das Problem der Ethik in Karl Barths Römerbriefkommentar – im Vergleich
mit Søren Kierkegaards Ethik der Liebe 313
Philip G. Ziegler
Ethics and the Catastrophe of Grace – Faith’s Obedience in the Ruins of
Religion 335
Amy Marga
Reading Karl Barth’s Römerbrief 1919 fora Postcolonial Era of
Theology 349
Matthias D. Wüthrich
Marcionism in Barth’s Theology? Clarifications and Developments 367
VII Religion, Liturgy and Theology
Pierre Gisel
Que penser et que faire de la radicalité à l’œuvre chez Barth ? 385
Declan Kelly
Existence Between God and the No-God 405
Cambria Janae Kaltwasser
At the “Zero-Point” of Faith: The Clash of Old Man and New in the Römerbrief
and Barth’s Later Doctrine of Sanctification 419
François Dermange
Calvin’s “Christian philosophy” in Barth’s Römerbrief 435
VIII TableofContents
Luke Zerra
Barth’s Römerbrief and Liturgy’s Formative Function: Critique and
Prospect 449
Anthony Feneuil
Did Karl Barth Put an End to Theology? 463
Contributors 477
Copyright of Images 483
Index of Authors 485
Index of Subjects 493
Editors’ Introduction
Someone isgoingup the stairs in a church’s tower… It is nighttime,completely
dark.Losinghisbalance,thatpersonfindssomethinghangingloosenexttohim
andholdsfastontoit.Butwhatheisgraspingisinfactthebellrope:heendsup
waking the entire town!
This is the image Karl Barth usedfor his commentaryon the apostlePaul’s
epistletotheRomans.¹Whatmighthavebeenonemorebookamongmanyoth-
ersinChristiantheologyatthetimeofpublicationbecameamajorsensation,in
theensuingmonths,intheworldofGerman-speakingtheologyandChristianity.
Certainly, Barth wanted his commentary to be read and heard. His long,
powerful lecture in Tambach in September 1919 on“The Christian in Society,”
only half a year after the publication of the commentary, certainly generated
the interestof a good number of readers.² But no one, including Barth himself,
could have foreseen its widespread and lastingeffects.
Why and how did the Römerbrief become a classic of Christian theology?
And what may this book have to say to us still today, one hundred years after
its publication in its first (1919) and second (1922) editions? Various answers
canbegiventothesequestions.Thepresentbookgathersafewsuchresponses,
writtenbybothseasonedandyoungerscholars,bytheologiansaswellasbyhis-
torians, philosophers and political thinkers.These essays were presented at an
international conference hosted by the Theological Faculty at the University of
Geneva (Switzerland) in June 2019.³ One of the key aims of the conference was
indeed to place scholars who represent these various disciplines – and do so
withgreatdistinction–inconversationwithoneanother.Ethicistswereencour-
 SeeKarlBarth,DiechristlicheDogmatikimEntwurf.ErsterBand:DieLehrevomWorteGottes.
ProlegomenazurchristlichenDogmatik(1927),ed.GerhardSauter,GesamtausgabeII.14(Zürich:
Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 1982), 7–8: „Blicke ich auf meinen Weg zurück, so komme ich
mir vor wie einer, der, in einem dunklen Kirchturm sich treppaufwärts tastend, unvermutet
stattdesGeländerseinSeilergriffen,daseinGlockenseilwar,undnunzu seinemSchrecken
hörenmusste,wiediegrosseGlockeüberihmsoebenundnichtnurfürihnbemerkbarange-
schlagenhatte“.
 Karl Barth, “The Christian in Society,1919,” in Karl Barth, The Word of God and Theology,
trans.AmyMarga(London,NewYork:T&TClark,2011),35–69.
 Only a few papers that were presented in Geneva are not included in the present volume.
Amongthem,wewishtopointoutMatthiasZeindler’sveryinterestingcontributiononBarth’s
critiqueofreligion,publishedas:“DieseverblendeteUnart.ReligionskritischeReligion,”inMar-
gareteFrettlöhandMatthiasZeindler,TheologieamNullpunkt.KarlBarthunddieKrisederKir-
che(Zürich:TheologischerVerlagZürich,2022).
OpenAccess.©2022ChristopheChalamet,AndreasDettwilerandSarahStewart-Kroeker,publishedby
DeGruyter. ThisworkislicensedundertheCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives4.0InternationalLicense.https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110752908-001
2 Editors’Introduction
aged to confront their approaches with Barth’s radical reconfiguration of theo-
logicalethics,scholarsinterestedinthegreeningoftheologywereinvitedtore-
flect upon the Swiss theologian’s insights on akeybiblical chapter such as Ro-
mans 8, experts in political science and political philosophy pondered Barth’s
views on political themes, and philosophers were invited to locate where, as
theyseeit,Barth’srealbreakthroughmightbefound,alreadyinthefirstedition
of the commentary.
Thismuchisclear:KarlBartheffectedanumberofimportantdevelopments
withhisbook,whichwashisfirstmonograph(manymorewouldfollowuntilhis
death in Basel on December 10,1968).
First,heshowedbothliberalandconservativetheologiansthatthequestfor
agenuinely theological interpretation of the New Testament was still both pos-
sibleandnecessary,evenforpeoplewhohavebeentrainedinthemodern,his-
toricalandcriticalstudyoftheBible.Itwasawell-knownfactthatmanyliberal
theologianswerenotateasewithatheologicalinterpretationoftheBible:their
focus,inmanyinstances,wasmostlydirectedatthecontextandsoatthehistor-
ical background of the text.Conservative Protestant theologians, for their part,
had difficulties paying attention to the lively, unceasing movement of God’s
word as well as to the human dimension of the text: they tended to tame the
text instead of letting it question their dogmatic presuppositions. Barth upset
both the liberals and the conservatives with his commentary – but he did not
want it any other way! Those who place Barth within the camp of “neo-ortho-
dox” are mistaken. He was never simply interested in bringing back orthodox
doctrines: the first aim of any theology must be to listen to the message of the
Scriptures.Iforthodoxdoctrinesconcurwiththismessage,thensomuchthebet-
ter. But one cannot begin by assuming that these doctrines correspond to the
Scriptures: this has to be established through a careful interpretation of the
texts. Biblical interpretation needs focus on the “matter” (Sache) that is both
somehow present in the text and presented by the text: exegesis must be sach-
lich,asBarthputitinoneoftheprefacestothefirstedition.⁴Thehistorical-crit-
ical method was thus not rejected at all (“The historical-critical method in the
studyoftheBiblehasitsrightfulplace,”hewroteinthePrefacetothefirstedi-
 ForadetailedandinsightfulanalysisofthevariousprefacesBarthwroteforthetwoeditions
ofhiscommentary,seeRichardE.Burnett,KarlBarth’sTheologicalExegesis:TheHermeneutical
PrinciplesoftheRömerbriefPeriod,WUNT2/145(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2001;alsopublished
byEerdmansin2004).