Der Römerbrief (Zweite fassung) 1922

by Karl Barth

Karl Barth (1886-1968) studierte Theologie in Bern, Berlin, Tubingen, Marburg und war von 1909 bis 1921 Pfarrer in Genf und Safenwil. Mit seiner Auslegung des Romerbriefes (1919, 1922) begann eine neue Epoche der evangelischen Theologie. Dieses radikale Buch trug ihm einen Ruf als Honorarprofessor nach Gottingen ein, spater wurde er Ordinarius in Munster und Bonn. Er war Mitherausgeber von Zwischen den Zeiten (1923-1933), der Zeitschrift der Dialektischen Theologie. Karl Barth war der Autor der Barmer Theologischen Erklarung und Kopf des Widerstands gegen die Gleichschaltung der Kirchen durch den Nationalsozialismus. 1935 wurde Barth von der Bonner Universitat wegen Verweigerung des bedingungslosen Fuhrereids entlassen. Er bekam sofort eine Professur in Basel, blieb aber mit der Bekennenden Kirche in enger Verbindung. Sein Hauptwerk, Die Kirchliche Dogmatik, ist die bedeutendste systematisch-theologische Leistung des 20. Jahrhunderts.

Genres: Theology, Religion, Christian, Biblical Studies, Christianity, Philosophy, Nonfiction

581 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1918

About the author

Protestant theologian Karl Barth, a Swiss, advocated a return to the principles of the Reformation and the teachings of the Bible; his published works include Church Dogmatics from 1932.

Critics hold Karl Barth among the most important Christian thinkers of the 20th century; Pope Pius XII described him as the most important since Saint Thomas Aquinas. Beginning with his experience as a pastor, he rejected his typical predominant liberal, especially German training of 19th century.

Instead, he embarked on a new path, initially called dialectical, due to its stress on the paradoxical nature of divine truth—for instance, God is both grace and judgment), but more accurately called a of the Word. Critics referred to this father of new orthodoxy, a pejorative term that he emphatically rejected. His thought emphasized the sovereignty of God, particularly through his innovative doctrine of election. His enormously influenced throughout Europe and America.

Reviews

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a devastating book; one that should not be described as anything other than חֵרֶם To completely and utterly destroy and hand over to the LORD. Barth does indeed do precisely that, as he razes hell on the historical critical method to the left, and conservativism to the right. He opposes the Statism to the right and the Socialism to the left. This truly is theologizing with a hammer.

His interaction with theologians and philosophers from Overbeck to Nietzsche, Luther to Kierkegaard, Kant to Zwingli, is outstanding. He quotes Calvin with ease, and fluidly interacts with the German scholars of his day, not loath to go against and critique popular liberal opinion.

Themes such as the Kierkegaardian understanding of God as "Absolute" and as a Being of an "infinite qualitative distinction" between man, viz., that He is "Wholly Other," permeate through the entire dialectical crescendo. Adam and Christ in the non-historical sense; Faith and Grace in the non-historical sense; Election as an eternal "Moment." The Church of Jacob as invisible and the seen visible Church of Esau. The Strong man and Weak man: the parable of faith! Yes, Barth's dialectic presented here in his Epistle to the Romans should not go away, and indeed it will not. This is not a book bound by time, but is indeed timeless and existentially crushing for the subject who dares to venture thither.

As we hear about wars and rumors of wars—and the historical dialectic propels the movement of geo-political events of our κόσμος forward in rapid successive, exponential fashion—we stand condemned under the κρίσις of all humanity: under His veritable and unequivocal "No." It seems humanity today is heading for destruction faster than ever before—for no human reaction, no human revolution done within the realm of ερος or inside the parenthetical boundaries of history can bring about divine change! We must tarry, and wait for that divine "—" to level all things. As it stands, we can only weep and cry out: "O Lord, please save us all."

-b

[Josh Issa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I… finished Barth’s commentary on Romans. That’s crazy… at this point I’m a full Barthian.

This commentary on Romans was an absolute masterclass in modern exegesis. I was blown away by how Barth centralizes the crucified Christ as the source of all our knowledge of the God who is unknowable apart from Him.

[I do have to dock a star for mild supersecession in chapters 9-11].

“For the wrath of God cannot be His last word, the true revelation of Him! 'Not-God' cannot seriously be named 'God' Nevertheless, it is, in fact, always God against whom we are thrust… The wrath of God is the righteousness of God - apart from and without Christ.”

“That is God is not liable to the "flux of history”. His action can neither. he perceived everywhere not be dismissed as being nowhere. It can be neither described historically, nor dissolved in a myth, nor treated pragmatically. In Jesus, and precisely in Him, the Love of God breaks through all historical and psychological analysis, and in directness and in mediation transcends both, for His bound neither to this or that thing nor to this or that place.”

“There is in the Fullness of God no election AND rejection, no Gentile AND Jew, no outer AND inner. All are one in Christ Jesus. Negatively, therefore, the end of the Church - the Crucifixion of Jesus is the action of God, by which He frees Himself from every limitation which men impose upon Him. It is the possibility and reality of the divine election by grace, of man's reconciliation with God.”

“Love, because it sets up no idol, is the demolition of every idol. Love is the destruction of everything that is like God: the end of all hierarchies and authorities and intermediaries, because, in every particular man and also in the 'Many', it addresses itself, without fear of contradiction - to the One.”

[Bethany · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a light read. The language is convoluted, the ideas are complex, and the exegesis of Paul's letter to the Romans is far more theological than historical-critical. "Engrossing" is the wrong word for it ... "all-consuming," perhaps, does it justice. I heard one reader describe the experience of reading it as going under water. It's a good description as long as "going under water" includes "being held under water and then released at the last possible moment."

I don't generally throw myself into theology, but Barth's writing has a certain draw to it. Even after finishing the book, I was terrified that his theology is correct.

[Dane Jöhannsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful for understanding Barth's theology. Not so helpful for determining the meaning of Romans.

[Simon Emmerich]

Es ist schwer, einem so einflussreichen Buch eine Bewertung zu geben. Ich muss sagen, dass ich Barth wirklich gerne lese und ich glaube, dass Barths Religionskritik heute neu gehört werden muss, wo Gott oft zu einem harmlosen, stubenreinen Haustier domestiziert wird, das mir in schwierigen Zeiten hilft, aber mir nicht als ‚fremd' und ‚anders‘ entgegentritt . Gott ist Gott und wir Menschen sind Menschen. Gott ist nicht ein Ding unter Dingen. Nicht Gott hat uns, sondern wir haben auf Gott zu hören. Nicht wir haben Gott erwählt, sondern er hat uns erwählt. Und genau für diesen Hinweis, dass das Nein! Gottes, das uns alle unweigerlich ereilt, im Moment des Hörens, der Augenblick des Ja! ist, dass also nur der verurteilte Mensch der begnadigte ist, feiere ich Barth, denn es gibt kaum einen Theologen, der es gewagt hat, die 'extra nos' unseres Glaubens so stringent zu explizieren wie er es in seinem Römerbrief tut. Ich denke, darin stecken wichtige Gedanken, vor allem für Predigt und Gemeindebau, aber auch für die Liturgie. Wir müssen im Gottesdienst über unsere Sünde sprechen können und Raum für Buße haben.
Wer eine ausführliche Exegese des Römerbriefes sucht, wird sicher bessere Kommentare finden, obwohl ich ab und zu das Gefühl hatte, dass Barth mir den ein oder anderen Abschnitt als erster überzeugend erklären konnte.
Wie es sich für ein gutes Buch gehört, gibt es viel zu bejahen und ebenso viel zu verneinen. Aber ich denke, das wäre auch ganz im Sinne Barths! Ich kann daher jedem empfehlen, einen Blick in dieses Buch zu werfen.

[Ian Wraga · Rating 5 out of 5]

I still remember the very afternoon I opened this book up for the first time. I was a junior in college studying abroad at Oxford, and I was in one of those fancy British libraries that they filmed Harry Potter in. It was a picturesque moment with the light shining through the window, but the pages of this book were stirring up a dark and gloomy storm of destruction against both the antiquated superstitious fundamentalism and impotent liberalism which clouded my perception of the gospel and thus my very experience of reality itself. Reading Karl Barth elucidated the ruthless, persistent, insistent, and inevitable (and I think almost in a Deluezean fashion of difference and repetition) encounter with the 'krisis' of the gospel that everyone who’s had a serious experience or relationship with Christianity is plagued by.
This book was a peak, but it was also the beginning of the end. The gospel throws your life in a buzzsaw and Karl Barth like Grünewald’s John the Baptist will stand there pointing at it and saying I told you so.

[Christ-pher · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a devastating book, devastating in the intensity of its faith and the thrust of its questions. Reading it it much like reading Kierkegaard, in that you can be stunned and humbled by how it approaches its core issues even without sharing its Christian belief. I found myself wishing that the evil right-wing ideologues who have co-opted American Christianity could be confronted, from within the faith, by a voice of such stark intelligence and integrity. But, in less temporal terms, and more important, I felt deeply moved by Barth's own theological momentum as he wrestles with a key Christian text and comes to terms with what he calls "an irresistible and all-embracing dissolution of the world of time and things and men...a penetrating and ultimate KRISIS...a negation by which all existence is rolled up."

[Harrison Kretzer · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The warning is uttered against any position or manner of life or endeavor that WE think the satisfactory and justifiable, as though WE were able in some way or other to escape the KRISIS (judgement) of God”

After 13 chapters of in-depth analysis, this was Barth’s preface to chapter 14 - to which I found to be one of the best summaries of the Epistle to the Romans. Our religious actions and choices do not justify us before God and other - only God does.

This book took me a while to get through (partly bc I was reading so many other books at the time) because, at times, it was difficult to understand what Barth was talking about. However, when he would clarify his points (or repeat them a million times) I found myself greatly challenged and encouraged, not even from what Barth said himself, but the truth that he was extracting from the Scriptures.

Lastly, it was obvious that Barth was well read, especially with Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. While I’ve read zero Nietzsche, his references to Dostoyevsky made me smile each time because I knew what he was talking about (I think).

Onto the next book!!

[Mohammad Mahdi Fallah · Rating 5 out of 5]

تفسیری بسیار درخشان از فقراتی از کتاب مقدس که عمیقاً تأثیرگذار و موجه می‌نماید. بارت در این رسالۀ مختصر در حقیقت بسط ایده‌ای را پیش میکشه که به اذعان خودش مدیون کی‌یرکگور است: یعنی ایدۀ فاصلۀ نامتناهی بین انسان و خدا. در حقیقت پرسش محوری بارت در این رساله تلاش برای پاسخ گفتن به این پرسش از خلال خوانش فقراتی از کتاب مقدس است و به‌نظر می‌رسد که این مسیر کاملاً کامیاب بوده است.

پ.ن: چقدر جای چنین تفسیرهای دقیقی در میان سلسلۀ تفاسیری موجود قرآن خالیه.

[Peter · Rating 2 out of 5]

Short version:
Barth is still relevant today(!) as he preaches that “both sides are bad”, the Weimar Republic and the Nazis. Query which one soon after tried to intimidate, imprison and eliminate his co-religionists—IT WASN’T THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC, YOU SOFT-HEADED IDIOT.

Long version:
It was helpful to read Peter Berger’s “The Sacred Canopy” at the same time as Barth’s “Epistle,” because Berger’s last chapter on secularization of religion explained much of the background of Barth and neo-orthodoxy that I had only had intimations of when reading “Bonhoeffer” and trying to understand the U.S. neo-evangelical movement today. Please see my review of The Sacred Canopy for more on that.

The first 200 pages of Barth’s “Epistle” drive home one point above all, that man cannot speak of God. This raises (but does not beg—that is a debating term) the question of why this book was written. The answer is that although Man cannot speak of God, it turns out he, Man (and, in this case, Karl Barth), cannot resist the sinful pull of his desire to nonetheless grind his particular political axe. Barth bobs and weaves with an aplomb that would make most beltway pundits green with envy as he buries the point that he wants to make deep within his discussion of Christian ethics at nearly the end of the book, after an exhausting 400 plus pages of innumerable odd similes and some downright weird analogies all in service of an effort to explain a paradox that is based on a questionable premise.

According to Barth, the modern world (i.e., Germany, and Italy and parts of greater Europe, as its upper middle class got comfortable with fascism and the Nazi program [I read the 1933 edition]) is bad. The industrial capitalists and bankers who thrive in the revitalization of Germany are bad, the Bolsheviks that urge revolution are bad, the government is bad, the whole human construct of rules and ego is all horribly corrupt. And yet Christians are supposed to quietly go along, follow the doctrine of love of their fellow man.

Really, Karl? You really seriously expect, after condemning government and revolutionaries so roundly, you really expect, after repeatedly explaining how man is inexorably sinful and egotistic, you really seriously expect that you can say something like “even the best government is evil,” and people will agree, then turn around and say, “and/but we will not act on that belief.” Well, maybe you were right. Because while there were Christians who went to jail and to concentration camps under the Nazis, the bulk of the Christian population followed along.

No, it was only later, Karl, when Obama was elected, that suddenly the neo-orthodox wing of the American Protestants starting pulling out your neo-orthodox Archimedian point from its context and arguing that Obama’s government was just like Nazi Germany (see my review of Bonhoeffer) that the fundamental political shit started hitting the proverbial fan.

I will not take up space listing the ways in which contemporary evangelical political movement contradicts the Pauline teachings of this, his Letter to the Romans, the ur-text of Christianity itself. Nearly one third of the more than 500 pages of my copy are dog-eared and have marginalia noting the contradictions. Suffice it to say that Barth’s repeatedly elucidated and accepted Christian facts that all political movements, ipso facto, feed and are fed by Man’s ego and sense of superiority, and that Man has no standing to speak of God at all, apparently do nothing to cause the modern neo-orthodox movement to hesitate from going full force into the political fray.

When they say that gay rights and abortion are destroying the country, they may have a point (i.e., that the easing of social license may have unknown, and not immediately perceptible, adverse effects on an individual’s subconscious and conscience), but the point they may have is not the point they put forth as the reason, because that point may not be strong enough to win a political following. Onward Christian soldiers, indeed. They are hiding their motivations, as Keirkegaard said, even from themselves. The truth is not in them. To be fair, Paul never said they had to be honest. In fact, I believe elsewhere he advocated being snake-like. So, there you have it. Res ipsa loquitor.

[Eric Richter · Rating 3 out of 5]

Had to set this aside half way through because it was above my reading level and I have a degree in sociology and am fairly well read in 19th century theology and philosophy. Barth explains through exegesis and metaphor many wonderful and inspiring ideas, but they tended to be so complex and varied that I found a hard time linking them together in my mind to make a solitary stream of thought. I would almost call this book a waste of time if you aren't ready for the mental toll it will bring. But if you are, you will find delight in the mystery of Christ that Barth presents here.
On Barth himself, I get nervous about reading him, not because of theological error but in his consistency of action during hitler's reign. I've read elsewhere that Barth did not rail against the tyrant and even questioned Christians who did at times. This includes Bonhoeffer, who was even considered to be Barthian in perspective, but fought desperately against the nazi regime. It scares me to read this because he presents such a large and heavy presentation of Christ, but did not so clearly present the fruit in more than words. I hope that for those of you who see my review take it as an encouragement to love those Christians who you know. You are blessed to have those around you and it is only by grace that you have them there. Love them well, by this the world sees who we belong to (see john 13).

[Stratkey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Barth was a genius, and his emphasis on the sovereignty of God is a welcome refrain in this individualistic culture, but his infatuation with the Kantian bifurcation of the noumenal and phenomenal, and his subsequent disparagement of human knowledge were simply unpalatable---and frankly un-Pauline---to me. I'm told he changes his tune a bit in the later books of the Church Dogmatics, so I'll have to see, but for starters, this book didn't really endear me to Barth. However, if you find yourself entranced by 19th century liberal German theology, Barth is just the cup of cold water for you.

[Jackson Swain · Rating 5 out of 5]

Does this even qualify as “commentary”? There are virtually no historical-critical elements whatsoever, no questions of context, no musings on who Paul was or what occasioned his letter to the Romans. What we get instead is a dense philosophical monolith laid atop the matrix of Paul's most famous epistle.

I read another reviewer who wrote that they were "terrified Barth's theology was right” (they also gave the book 5 stars). I think I understand what they mean. Barth ruthlessly strips Christianity of any and all sentimentality, any ability for the Christian to hide or justify themselves in the fortress of religion or piety or human progress. All we have is Christ. The good news can be terrifying at first.

It's hard to rate something like Barth's Römerbrief on a scale of 1-5. I'm giving it 5 stars simply because I would recommend it to everyone willing to put in the time. There were a few passages I found questionable, and many, many more passages I found totally electifying. One thing is certain: Barth swings a heavy axe, and he strikes something much deeper and much more consequential than you find in the average Biblical commentary.

[J. Alfred · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book is like being lost in a dimly lit underground area where all the signs seem to be pointing the wrong way. And yet, if you keep at it, you start to think that the labyrinth you're lost in appears to be a pretty impressive mine, and you start noticing gold everywhere. By the end of it, you're wondering how you're going to take any of this treasure out with you, because it seems way too heavy to carry around.
And yet, even though this is a really rewarding book, I fault it on two counts: One, though Barth is insistent about morality in commenting on the chapters where Paul is, his applications are impossible. Right? Like, in layman's terms, Do what you've been doing but mean it differently, and throw Fear and Trembling in there. But I guess that's the point the whole time. And Two, though he creates what seems to me to be a coherent reading of Romans, his black-is-white-which-is-black style doesn't account for much of the rest of the Bible. Right? (By which I mean, Right? As in, I definitely might be reading things wrong. PS, Can anybody be a Barthian? Wouldn't you just be a Calvinist who shrugs a lot? ISN'T THIS ALL OF US ALREADY)

[Sabrina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Barth needed an editor. He also comes from a certain context and place of privilege that he (somewhat understandably) does not check. Still, there are some gems.

[Pietro Caliceti · Rating 5 out of 5]

Potente

[Riley Brysch · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent book about Barth's theological musings inspired by Romans, but overall not a very helpful commentary for breaking down the text of Romans. This commentary was at its strongest in the first half, but most of the other portions of it are going off on unnecessary and sometimes arguably irrelevant tangents. This book is overhyped and has the equivalent coherency as listening to your 90 year old grandpa tell you stories about his life.

[Drew · Rating 5 out of 5]

took a little over three and half months to get through and it is the best book I have read. life changing. full stop.

[Fr. Thomas Reeves · Rating 4 out of 5]

I stopped reading at about 150 pages, but will continue to use this book as a reference work as I exegete and engage the book of Romans in my ministry and in my theological development.

I so appreciate Barth's Christ-centered soteriology and his very OTHER, transcendent God. That said, I am struggling a bit with his seeming need to make salvation so esoteric that it smacks of an etheral form of Gnosticism. Of course, this is seen in other places where he works out his "dialectic theology" (and perhaps this theology finds it's rational end in Bultmann?). It seems erroneous to this reader that the incarnation, the cross, and the resurrection would be so "other" as not to occur in time and space. I believe the Patristic Fathers and Magisterial Reformers would agree.

That said, Barth's Doctrine of God has greatly encouraged this reader in seeing the Triune God in much more of his majesty, and it is a mistake of many that Barth does not respect and try to do justice to both Holy Scriptures and a historic orthodoxy. That said, Barth's modernistic shaped Biblical Theology, could use a dose of humility and pause regarding those on whose shoulders he builds; those in the past that enable him to have a scriptural text or theology by which to begin his work.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think it is generally a bad idea to interpret scripture through a Kantian lens. It leads to some troubling conclusions. Barth had a brilliant mind; far more so than my own. Nobody is arguing against that. Historically, I appreciate that he fought adamantly against the liberalism of his day. However in doing so he created a liberalism all his own. This earns three stars from me, not because I agree with Barth (I don't) but simply for the historical significance of this most famous work of Barth. If anyone desires to critically understand 20th century neo-orthodoxy and its subsequent influence on modern liberal theology they must spend a lot of time getting to know Barth. This commentary is a good place to start.

[Denis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I literally have no words to describe this book. As it has already been said it is no light read and has to be read with a pencil in hand. I've heard many people talk about Romans and I've read many studies on the epistle, but this has to be the deepest one. It definitely felt like reading the best theologian of the 20th century, a God given mind.

I'm also impressed with the English translation. It's never easy to translate German written at this level.

[Niel Knoblauch · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book has had a significant impact on my theology. I took forever to read it - but that is because I tackled it with pencil and ruler. While I did not agree with everything Karl Barth says (or his emphases) in this book, it contains more than enough jewels to warrant 5 stars.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the book that let the theological world know who Karl Barth was. This led off his reaction to the theological liberalism of the 19th century which he thought to be bankrupt.

[Pat · Rating 3 out of 5]

My brain hurt after 1/3 of this one, and I'm not sure I'm clever enough to need this level of exegesis. Count the cost before you undertake this study.

[Cris · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most profound commentaries of Romans you will read. Everytime i read it it challanges provokes and refreshes my thinking.

[Samuel Sammy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one fried my brain. Excellent thinking. Complex development of thoughts and ideas. I’ve never come across any writing that dealt so thoroughly with Romans. Brilliant!

[Nolan Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

A philosophical commentary more than a exegetical commentary. However it was a very interesting read.

[Donner Tan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karl Barth's Romans commentary was an important book that helped reverse the tide of liberal Protestantism in the 20th century. I read it partly out of historical curiosity and partly to get a handle on Barthian theology, which I learned was nearly as pivotal to modern (progressive) evangelical scholarship as Aquinas was to Catholic theology.

As with most of the reviewers here, I found the reading tough and had to make a few attempts to really get into it. Barth in his preface to the 2nd edition actually spent nearly one whole page defending the abstruseness of his writing against critics who charged him for being overly bombastic! Somehow I felt strangely comforted by both the critique and his defense : while simplicity is good, oversimplification falsifies.

I found that one of the keys to understanding Barth is his 'theology from above' approach. He repeatedly invokes the Kierkegaardian insight of the 'infinite qualitative distinction' between God and man as a lens to understanding spiritual perception. It is by faith and faith alone that one can properly apprehend spiritual reality. One does not work his way up the mountain of theology by his (unaided)intellectual effort or religious piety. Instead, it is through a supernatural encounter with God that the gospel can be grasped in all its mystery (think of the paradox of the Incarnation for example or the mystery of the atonement)

Barth does not seem to condescend to unbelievers by appealing to reason or experience since human will and perceptions are essentially fallen but bases his epistemology almost exclusively on divine election/revelation. In this regard, he stands squarely within the Reformed tradition which holds a high view of divine grace, leaving no ground for human boasting.

The letter to the Romans had been used historically as a revolutionary tool against the pelagian heresy and medieval Catholicism. It is amazing to see how Barth uses it against liberal Christianity, which basically reduces the gospel to anthropology and a civil religion. Barth's 'theology from above' approach basically calls us back to the transcendent nature of the Christian faith, 'which no eyes have seen or the ears heard'.

Barth writes with great passion and unapologetic fervor. One does not read this commentary with a cool head as one would read an exegetical work replete with lexical treatment and historical reconstruction. Rather Barth writes as if he is preaching, bringing the letter of Paul alive to his readers with great urgency. One has to keep pace with the rhetoric to get it, like riding a bicycle (keep pedaling to avoid falling off !), even when one is tempted to pause to consider a ponderous turn of phrase.

I finished it in a couple of days and will likely go back again and again, to soak in this theological tour de force for a deeper grasp of Barth's ideas and passion. Not your average devotional reading but one that can deepen and enrich our reading of Romans as well as Barthian theology.

[J. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Karl Barth’s commentary on the Epistle of Romans really begins the theological world in the 20th century. Barth is by far the most influential and important figure for theology in the 20th century. Barth’s commentary is preceded by much contemplation and theological development after his beloved professors gathered in Germany and signed in support of the Kaiser during World War I. Barth believed the immanent theology of his professors needed to be questioned. Barth departs from his training in theology Schleirmacher and introduces a dialectic. Schleirmacher errs on immanence and Barth would go in the other direction and err on transcendence. According to Barth library theology’s prolegomena and theological method was antropocentric. Barth attempts to present a transcendent God who reveals himself sovereignly not in the Sacred Scriptures, nature, or conscience but in this supra temporal event called Geschichte. Barth departs from the traditional treatment on our theological loci, denying metaphysical distinctions necessary to maintain not only the Creator/creature distinction but also the Creator/creature relation. Barth introduces some sort of deism, of a God who has not revealed himself nature, because of his transcendence. Obviously this position is refuted by nature and scripture. This book is helpful to understand Barth theology, but not helpful on its treatment on our theological loci.

[Joshua Reynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

Barth's study of Paul's epistle to the Romans is more than a commentary on a human text. It is a statement of dogmatics in the light of Scripture as a whole. Barth reveals a high view of Scripture as the revealed word of God to lost humanity. His approach to exegesis is deeply Christ-centered. He considers the doctrine of justification by faith alone as taught by Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers to be one of the principal articles of faith in the light of the cross. And he develops an interesting approach to the doctrine of 'double predestination' with a decisively Christocentric focus. Barth throws down the gauntlet to the liberal theology of his time and advances a return to orthodoxy in his study of Paul's theology. He presents a God who is 'wholly other', uncanny, and different from the world of becoming. A God who is utterly transcendent, God-like, and divine. This is not to say that Barth merely regurgitates the theology of the Reformers. On the contrary, he restates the theology of the Reformers for the 20th century. It is dogmatics with relevance. Though Barth can be a challenging read at times, his study of Paul's epistle to the Romans remains clear and readable throughout. I would highly commend it to pastors, students of theology, and interested lay folk and would heartily remind readers that they are dealing with one of the most explosive texts in 20th century theology. Handle with care!