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).