The Epistle to the Romans

Karl Barth is considered by many people to be one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century. He was a pastor, professor and a prolific writer, his commentary on Romans being the work that introduced him to the world. My introduction to Barth came through some excerpts of his Church Dogmatics while I was in seminary and then from reading a collection of his later sermons. I recently read Eugene Peterson's memoir and he noted that Barth's Romans commentary exerted a powerful influence on his own early ministry. I have always enjoyed Peterson I took his recommendation and dove into Barth's Romans for myself. Having finished, I can perhaps best describe Romans as a sort of cross-country trip, one which exposed me to a vast landscape and nearly overwhelmed me with visual images, pictures that will have to be studied again and again to fully appreciate all that they contain.Barth's work here is significantly different from a traditional commentary of either an exegetical or expositional nature. The former often address significant issues of culture, the historical setting and language as they bear on our understanding of the text, while the latter provide the manuscript of sermons preached from the text. An example of a work of exegesis of Romans is the recent volume by Leon Morris, while an excellent exposition is James Montgomery Boice's Romans, which runs four volumes. Barth's method is more akin to opening his Bible, reading a chapter and then going back, paragraph-by-paragraph, phrase-by-phrase, writing as the Spirit leads him in understanding the words of Paul.Barth's comments on Romans are extensive, expounding on Pauls' 16 chapters of Biblical text over the course of 500 pages. Part of this length is due to Barth's style. When I write I may introduce a new thought with a question, while Barth frequently uses 3 or 4, or more questions, a technique that does aid in understanding the relevance of Paul's words for Barth's time, and ours as well. These questions are then answered in depth. Barth ultimately published six editions of his commentary, the second being a significant reworking of the original, while the remaining editions being what Barth considered to be minor updates. He was well aware that his writing had a lot to offer to the pastors and theologians of his day and he had the freedom to follow each new thought for as long as he felt was necessary.While I have a graduate degree in divinity I often felt a bit underpowered, intellectually, to follow and apprehend Barth's line of reasoning. One thread that did emerge early in the commentary is Barth's deep love for Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and the understanding of God's work in Jesus in the act of his death-and-resurrection as the defining moment in all of human history. Writing on Romans 5:6, "For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ died for the ungodly," Barth says, "Everything shines in the light of His death, and is illuminated by it. No single passage in the Synoptic Gospels is intelligible part from the death." (159)Writing a bit further, of the new creation in Christ that believers become when they grasp Christ by faith, (Romans 5:9-11) Barth says, "To the question, Whence are we? - which is the question of all questions - we receive the answer which is beyond all answers: We are they who have been justified by God," adding later on the same page, "As the beloved of God we have no alternative but to love Him in return. In the dawning splendor of His glory, we have no alternative but hope." (163) I have read that Barth was considered by some to be soft on the theme of universal salvation, i.e. that while his theological grounding was in the Reformed tradition, he personally held to the belief that ultimately God's salvation would be known by all people, rather than a particular group chosen by God, as affirmed by the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort. When he writes of the church, from Romans 9-11, Barth seemed to lean towards universal salvation, although without explicitly saying so.Barth discusses Christian ethics from Romans 12 and in that discussion something jumped out at me that has profound pastoral implications. In a section on the theme of grace he writes, "Grace means also the possibility, not of a `good'(!) conscience, but of a consoled conscience." (428) We who know God through our faith in the finished work of Christ know that we will continue to sin against God, a God who continues to hold us and forgives us nonetheless. God forgives our sins. He removes them from our presence. But the sure grasp of this knowledge in our minds, the removal of our sin from God, does not remove the memories that we have of our sin. In Christ we are not changed existentially from `bad' to `good.' In the knowledge of who we are before God we are not so much `bad' as `broken.' And Barth reminds us that in our brokenness, through the work of Christ, we are consoled and comforted as we receive God's mercy. This is a bit of the Good News that we need to be reminded of each day, sometimes many times each day.Barth has written a commentary of profound depth and in my first reading of it I just managed to get my feet wet in it. Should I at some time teach or preach from Romans this would be a good reference to consult in addition to other commentaries, rather than using it as a primary resource. Paul's letter to the Romans is a very rich text and I think Barth has given me a good resource from which to approach the letter in smaller parts, as I continue to study it for my own spiritual growth.

Good and vigorous edition of Barth's work raising vital questions on religion knowledge as opposed to knowledge of God coming from God. Important but difficult reading which all people should read.

I have re-read Karl Barth's Romerbrief after many years. He wrote it early in his career after WorldWar I, and it reflected the tremendous potential for evil that was evident in that war, and thatrefuted all claims to optimism in human progress. This is not really a commentary, although itis structured as one, by going chapter by chapter and breaking up the chapters into several versesat a time. The only sections that I would describe as "exegesis" are found mostly in the footnotes,which go into detailed linguistic analysis.It is rather a theological manifesto, and Barth seemed to know that it would be effective, althoughthis is the 6th edition. Most 20th century theology, both Catholic and Protestant, whether liberal,neo-orthodox or whatever, was in response to this great work. It is the classic of the century, certainlyin terms of influence, and arguably in terms of eloquence and spiritual intensity. Barth arguespassionately to remember the difference between God and man, which is overcome only in Christ,a difference both ontological and moral. As an example of Swiss Catholic responses, Hans Urs vonBalthasar addressed the pure nature question in Theology of Karl Barth, and Hans Kung attemptedto reconcile the Catholic and Barthian views of justification in his most important work.Chapter 1 of Romans describes the relentless list of how bad things have gotten because of sin andrebellion against the Creator. Chapter 2 shows that there's no excuse and no advantage for eitherJews or Gentiles. Barth briefly goes into natural theology, even though he rejects the notion of theanalogy of being. Chapters 3 through 8 give a full theology, with original sin, the faith of Abraham,grace, baptism, sin and the Spirit. Chapters 9 through 11 are about Israel, and Barth applies Israelto the Church. Again, there's no advantage before God, but one must remain in the Church, becausethat's where God offers the no that is ultimately the yes in Barth's dialectical approach. Chapter 12moves from doctrine to ethical applications, and Barth points out that there's no separation betweenthe two. The controversial chapter 13, on acknowledging the government, is not about legitimacy-for no human effort is legitimate-but revolution is a temptation, because it is closer to the truththan the legitimacy of the powers that be. The later chapters distinguish between the weak andthe strong. Barth always challenges us that being "right" isn't an advantage before God, when itjust makes us proud to confirm our own opinions. Therefore agreeing with St. Paul's Epistle tothe Romans and being "right" about it is just another temptation. Barth applies this principleto the Reformers and the Reformation as well.

The book is a classic. As such it deserves a modern English translation. The 1930's translation is way out of date. In those days it was OK to leave Latin quotes untranslated. You cannot do that now. It was also still (just) possible to solve the problem that English does not have separate words for you plural and you singular by using ye and thou, which the translator does frequently. You can't do that in 2021. Publisher please commission a new translation.

I've just finished this and I loved it. The adjectives in the title express it all really...I read his 'A Shorter Commentary on Romans' last Christmas and enjoyed that, so I set myself to crack this one and it was well worth it. I've come to it via his shorter one and Brunner's 'The Mediator', and altho Barth protests in one of the prefaces (all six from all six editions are included!) that he shouldn't be read thru the spectacles of Brunner, I must say I found Brunner very helpful to getting a handle on what Barth's central message was.Anyway, this blows away so much - everything in fact, even itself! That is what is so valuable and entertaining and edifying about it. The book itself does not stand anywhere. Most people write their books as the answer, or definitely part of an answer to a question and so they want it to stand with the integrity that they believe it has. This is their written conviction. Barth lacks no conviction or integrity, but his insight is what makes the difference: nothing stands and we don't speak the truth. Only God is truth and we, if he allows, are echoes, or, as he puts it, 'significant' in acts or words. But only God is good and eternal. This book must fade to nothing if it is accurate, and this is the power of Barth's understanding! And it can only be accurate at best (which nothing truly is anyway) because God alone and what he does and says is truth. Barth appeared to have a strange, transcendent humility that was probably a reflection of his vision of the all-powerful, transcendent God that he worshipped. It is this humility that was one of the most affecting aspects of this book for me. When we say something, we want to really say it! But Barth wanted to say nothing and be nothing and because of this he says it all!I was left flattened in parts of this book by the power and majesty of God. For that it's worth 5 stars. I look forward to exploring more of his work.

One of Karl Barth's great works. His approach is different from most, his thinking is fresh and outside of the box.

Ordered it as a used book at a cheap price. It's brand new. Barth is a critical thinker who causes others to think, as well. A great commentary!

A lot easier to understand than I was led to believe.