Barth and Zionism

Review Article
Karl Barth:
Supersessionism and Israel, Yeshua and God’s Election –
a Dialectical Balance?
P.H. Brazier
Katherine Sonderegger, That Jesus was Born a Jew: Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Israel, (Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1992), pp. viii, 194.
R. Kendall Soulen, ‘Consummation at the End of Christendom’, pp. 81-106, in The God of Israel and
Christian Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), pp. xii, 195.
Mark R. Lindsay, Barth, Israel and Jesus (Barth Studies Series; Aldershot UK / Burlington VT, USA,
Ashgate Publishing, 2007), pp. xx, 124.
Mark R., Lindsay, Reading Auschwitz with Barth: The Holocaust as Problem and Promise for Barthian
Theology (Princeton Theological Monograph; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, Pickwick Publications,
2014), pp. xvi, 185.
Mark S. Gignilliat, Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel: Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah, (Barth
Studies Series; Aldershot UK / Burlington VT, USA, Ashgate Publishing, 2009), pp.xiv,167.
Carys Moseley, Nations and Nationalism in the Theology of Karl Barth (Oxford: OUP, 2013),
pp. x, 219.
K EY WO R D S
| Yeshua–Jesus–Messiah | The Universal Christ |
| Salvation–Redemption | Supersessionism–Election | The Bible | Karl Barth |
| Israel–Israelitisch | Nations–Nationalism | Dialectic–Antinomy |
The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics

Vol. 3, 2015, page A15
RA16 T h e E v a n g e l i c a l R e v i e w o f T h e o l o g y a n d Po l i t i c s
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
IN T RODU C T ION
The aim of this review essay is to examine the responsibility that underpinned Barth’s massive
position of the Swiss Reformed-Evangelical Church Dogmatics (Kirchliche Dogmatik, circa
theologian Karl Barth (1886–1968) on Israel 6 million words!),1 issuing from the analogia
and the Jews, and to consider the development fidei. Yeshua, the Messiah, the Christ, is risen!
of scholarship on Barth’s position over the last He is risen indeed.
quarter of a century, focusing on recent studies. Karl Barth’s enterprise dominated the
Initially, we will establish exactly what Barth’s theology of the twentieth century, and in
doctrine on Israel (ancient and modern, ideal particular the European religio-cultural
and realized) and the Old Testament was, and landscape leading up to Vatican II: Pope Pius
how he regarded – teleologically – the ancient XII commented in 1951, that Barth was the
Hebrews and Jews. greatest theologian since Aquinas;2 no mean
Born in the second half of the nineteenth compliment. (Judging by Barth’s severe
century, into a Europe dominated by agnostic criticism of philosophy, and scepticism of the
liberalism and global-empire building, Karl natural theological enterprise, he would have
Barth achieved the near impossible, by turning preferred to have been aligned with Anselm,
the European (and to a degree American) or any number of Patristic philosophers
theological status quo away from Friedrich and theologians, and less with the pseudo-
Schleiermacher and G.W.F. Hegel and back Aristotle!). What was of greatest importance
to Christ. When asked by the eminent logician in Barth’s work? Arguably, his bringing the
and mathematician Heinrich Scholz (originally doctrine of the Trinity back into the frame as
trained in theology) what was the basis on the ground of all theological endeavour.3 The
which theology operated as an intellectual
discipline in the university, Barth is reported to 1 Karl Barth, The Church Dogmatics (14 Vols. translated
and edited G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh:
have answered, assertively, ‘the resurrection of T. & T. Clark, 1936–77). References hereafter are given as
Jesus Christ from the dead.’ With Barth there CD, followed by the volume, section number (§) and page
reference from The Church Dogmatics (UK, 1st edition,
was no beating about the bush, no obfuscatory hardback, not the new translation, paperback 31 volume,
embarrassed apologetic squirming, no hedging edition).
2 Quoted in Karl Barth Fragments Grave and Gay (The
around religious emotionalism, no putting any Fontana Library of Theology and Philosophy), London:
notion of a ‘god’ into a box to be analysed from Collins, 1971, p. i. For a theological biography of Barth
see: Eberhard Busch, Karl Barths Lebenslauf: nach seinem
the safe, secure position of the Enlightenment- Briefen und autobiographischen Texten (München:
Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1975); ET: Eberhard Busch, Karl
endorsed human intellect. Nor did he seek Barth His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts
refuge from the question by invoking an ill- (trans. John Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1976). For
an introduction to Barth’s theology see: John Webster,
defined semi-divine substance, invisible, but as Barth (series, Outstanding Christian Thinkers; London:
comforting as a goddess of human desires, nor Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd, 2000).
Pope Pius XII (1876-1958; pontiff 1939-1958).
yet in paradox and mysticism. No, to Barth the 3 Colin E. Gunton, the late professor of Systematic
resurrection was the only basis on which you Theology at King’s College London, a noted Barthian
scholar, had to fight for acceptance of the doctrine of the
could do theology as a distinctive Wissenschaft: Trinity. An anecdote that illustrates the liberal malaise
all was related to this single event which had that had engulfed predominantly Anglican theology from
the 1960s is that early in his career one of Gunton’s older
cosmic implications. Herein lies the intellectual colleagues at King’s, commented to him that believing in
the Trinity was like believing in pixies!
The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

P. H . B r a z i e r, R e v i e w A r t i c l e RA17
K a r l B a r t h : S u p e r s e s s i o n i s m a n d I s r a e l , Ye s h u a a n d G o d ’s E l e c t i o n -
triune God is the starting point; revelation Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian
(a posteriori – after the Christ event), not Theology.
speculation, for Barth, is the foundation of But first, what was Barth’s position on these
theology, not questions about this or that ‘god’, issues: the eternal Israel, the ancient Hebrews,
or whether God might exist, or be allowed to the modern Jews, their unique status as God’s
exist. The Immanent Trinity from whom issues chosen people, and on the post-war, essentially
the action we perceive as the Economic Trinity secular, nation state of Israel?
was the ground of his theological enterprise;
the Economic Trinity is then known through
KA RL BA RT H
the Word of God (John 1, etc.) the Alpha and A N D I SR A E L I T I SCH
Omega, Yeshua the Jew, the Messiah, Jesus the
Christ, Incarnated, Crucified, Resurrected and Barth acknowledged the indisputable election
Ascended, and awaiting us in the Eschaton. of the ancient Hebrews and the Jews as the
This is the reality of all legitimate intellectual chosen people of God, yet also the undeniable
endeavour, the reality of all God-talk, and the failure of the Jewish people now to accept and
nature and teleology of humanity itself. Thus acknowledge the Christ, their Messiah: born
Barth was out of step with most of what the Yeshua the Jew, crucified and resurrected,
Enlightenment had established as an acceptable for all of humanity’s potential salvation.
basis for theology. So, if Barth almost single- Barth develops a kind of dynamic theology
handedly (not forgetting his colleague and friend whereby the history of the ancient Hebrews,
in ministry and theology, Eduard Thurneysen) the progress of salvation history, the Christ
brought the triune God back to centre stage, event, are all time-bound, particular, and
and since it is moving towards half-a-century yet also universal, where the first axiom – of
since his death, a central question is, whither crucial and fundamental importance – is God
is Trinitarian theology to go after Barth? But, speaking to Israel. For Barth, as Colin Gunton
more pertinently, how did Barth overcome the has identified, ‘the first commandment makes
inherent anti-Semitism of European religion it a different sort of science to all others. You
generally, the marginalization of Yeshua the might say history is similar but the point Barth
Jew specifically? In answering this question is making is the distinctiveness of theology.’4
we can consider three recent books, studies Barth himself on this question commented,
of Barth’s theological enterprise: Mark R. ‘The fact that God does not permit Israel, the
Lindsay’s Barth, Israel and Jesus, Mark S. righteous, or the Church to perish means that he
Gignilliat’s, Karl Barth and the Fifth Gospel: cannot allow them to go their way un-accused,
Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah, and un-condemned, un-punished; so grace includes
Carys Moseley, Nations and Nationalism in the a kind of holy judgement.’5 Israel’s calling is
Theology of Karl Barth; in setting the scene, eternal: ‘This is the point about Israel; Israel is
we can examine two original studies from called to be God’s people.’6 Barth relies heavily
over twenty years ago, which laid the ground
rules for studying Barth and Israel: Katherine
4 Colin E. Gunton, The Barth Lectures (London & New
Sonderegger, That Jesus was Born a Jew: Karl York: Continuum, 2007), p.50.
Barth’s Doctrine of Israel, and R. Kendall 5 Barth, CD II/1, §30, p. 357.
6 Gunton, Barth Lectures, p.111, on Barth, CD II/2.
Online ISSN: 2053–6763 © King’s Divinity Press, King’s Evangelical Divinity School
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, in particular in this election; everybody is amongst the
the fact that Israel has been chosen and cannot elect – in Christ.11 He commented, ‘Both Jews
be rejected, unchosen, or de-selected, but also and Gentiles are shut up by God in the same
that the Gentiles have been chosen temporarily prison – then the prison opens and again they
in order to invite Israel to come, to reconsider, are all together. Because God has determined
and turn to the Messiah, Yeshua, one of them:7 the Gentiles for the mercy in which they now
this is the primary mission of the Church: to participate and the Jews for future participation
the Jew first, then the Gentile! (Romans 1:16.) and the same mercies.’12 So for Barth there are
Israel has set the terms by not so much rejecting two communities (Israel and the Gentiles) but
the Christ but by not accepting, just yet. This they are one community in the sense that they
is resistance—for a time. This is no rejection of are both in different ways called and elected.13
Israel, wrote Barth, but a temporary set-back. Barth never ceased to emphasize the fact –
Israel’s election is particular but of universal lost in much European theology from the time
intent: Abraham is called that all nations might of the so-called Enlightenment – of Jesus’s
be blessed, thus Israel is called on behalf of all Jewishness. Yeshua the Messiah is Jewish flesh;
nations.8 All have committed disobedience, and we are saved by Jewish blood; atonement is
all may know God’s mercy (Rom. 11:30–32.) grounded in the shedding of blood: holy Jewish
This position is, for Barth, universal in intent blood. (And this assertion was before the Second
and is grounded in Israel’s election as God’s World War and the holocaust, and the guilt-trip
chosen and beloved. Barth commented: many Europeans experienced following the
discovery of Hitler’s death camps). If we ignore
Israel is the people of the Jews who resists
its election – it doesn’t reject – it resists or marginalize His Jewishness, then,
it, the Church is the gathering of Jews
The Church’s whole doctrine of the
and Gentiles called on the ground of its
Incarnation and the Atonement becomes
election.9
abstract and valueless and meaningless to
the extent that this comes to be regarded
Some of the Gentiles, for Barth, accept this as something accidental and incidental …
election, but Israel still resists (widerstehen, sich [Jewishness] prevents this rounding of the
widersetzen): the two sides of this are brought picture of Jesus into a kind of ideal picture
of human existence.14
out by him. But where does this leave Israel?
Israel, for Barth, is still Israel. Even in its refusal For many in a late twentieth- and early
it is still the people of Yeshua, Jesus the Messiah, twenty-first-century post-modern generation,
the anointed one, the resurrected universal this very Jewishness thwarts the attempts
Christ (Χριστός): ‹the electing God and the by Enlightenment-led theologians and
elected community embrace even this Israel philosophers – for example, Schleiermacher
that steps into the void.’10 Israel’s resistance is
therefore not the final word.
11 There is a long discussion of the biblical evidence
Therefore, for Barth, even Israel is included for this: Barth, CD II/2, §34, p. 305 ff. However, it may
be argued that Barth falls short in acknowledging the
wilfulness of humanity in resisting this election and
7 Barth, CD II/1, §30, p. 148 ff. therefore its salvation.
8 Barth, CD II/1, on Romans 11:30–32 12 Barth, CD II/2, §34, p. 305; Romans 11.
9 Barth, CD II/2, §34, p. 236. 13 Gunton, Barth Lectures, pp. 118-119)
10 Barth, CD II/2, §34, p. 303. 14 Barth, CD IV/1, §59.1, pp. 166 and 167.

Figure 1. Max Klinger, Christ on Mount Olympus (1897). Fresco on plaster.

Christ as a blond-haired pale-skinned Aryan, a fair-haired-blue-eyed young man
and Hegel, or today’s self-confessed liberals, also culture. An example of this was Max Klinger’s
multi-faith religionists – to remove Jesus, the Christ on Mount Olympus (1897): Jesus as a
historic Yeshua, from his Jewish roots.15 Jesus’s wise Germanic religious leader, a blond-haired,
Jewishness is a stumbling-block to those who pale-skinned ‘Aryan’, a fair-haired-blue-eyed
would seek to reinvent Him into an archetype young man conversing with young Greek men
of ideal human – for example the idealized and women (an early version of Hitler’s vision
super-religious shaman Schleiermacher tried of the Darwinian triumph of the ideal human, a
to make Jesus into: Christian pseudo-divinity German, representative of an obedient German
without Jewish flesh. This heresy is epitomized Christian and a German Christianity: do we
by Germanic art in the late nineteenth and see here god-like Germanic flesh in the place
early twentieth centuries. For example, such of incarnated Jewish flesh?). (See figure 1.)
idiomatic imagery reached its height in German Barth’s agenda is to work explicitly against this
civic religious art where Jesus was often reduced heterodox humanism that had come to represent
to a mere human presented with neo-Classical European theology. Colin Gunton, writing on
pagan imagery derived from Greek and Roman Barth’s emphasis on the central importance of
Yeshua’s Jewishness and the danger of reducing
15 Gunton, Barth Lectures, p. 165. Jesus to an idealized human, asserted:
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
Figure 2. Hermann Otto Hoyer, Am Anfang war das Wort (In The Beginning Was The Word)
Oil on Canvas, c. 1930.
You must not produce some ideal of throughout its history.17 It is of fundamental
humanity which is independent of importance, and this is clear from Barth’s early
the israelitisch equivalent of the New
Testament. Therefore, of course, you rule
works (the two commentaries, for example, on
out all forms of Docetism – the doctrine the Epistle to the Romans, 1919 and 1921) that
that Jesus only appeared to be human – and we are talking about a Jewish Messiah, sent for
you do that by keeping the Old Testament the lost sheep of Israel. Yes, He is representative
in the picture.16
of universal humanity, but this is a Jewish
Barth commented that by retaining the Old Messiah who represents God’s purposes for
Testament, the adherents of the New Covenant the world, purposes that teleologically will be
are protected against all of the multiple forms realized through what He did: first through
of Docetism that have bedevilled the Church Israel, then through the resurrected Christ, and
finally through his present people, the Church
(both Jew and Gentile).
16 Gunton, Barth Lectures, p. 165 (referring to CD IV/1,
§59.1, pp. 160 f.) 17 Barth, CD IV/1, §59.1, p. 168.

In 1934 Barth was largely responsible for to remember that this is the man who in front
the writing of the Barmer Erklärung (The of thousands in 1946, in Germany, in the ruins
Barmen Declaration), which explicitly rejected of the once magnificent, beautiful and palatial
the National Socialist Party, repudiated Hitler’s Kurfürsten schloss in Bonn, in the land that
messianic pretensions, and rejected the Third gave us the Holocaust, stood, and in a lecture,
Reich. It also lamented the influence of Nazism asserted to people who were just recovering
on Germanic Christianity. The declaration from the destruction of Nazi Germany, the
argued for the allegiance of the Church to absolute ground for our faith in the ancient
Jesus Christ – God incarnate – and therefore Hebrews, the Old Testament and the Jews. Let
all who claimed to be Christian should resist us consider Barth in full flow, pressing home the
and repel false ‘gods’ and false lords, such as importance and significance of Israel in relation
the Führer (Barth is reputed to have personally to Yeshua – Jesus the Messiah. Speaking of the
mailed a copy of the Barmen Declaration to evil that had engulfed Europe over the previous
Hitler). Within months, Barth was dismissed two decades Barth insisted,
from his post as professor at the University of
... right from its roots it [National Socialism]
Bonn, and was exiled from Germany (returning was anti-Semitic, this movement was
to his native Switzerland), for refusing to realized with a simple demonic clarity,
take an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler. Most that the enemy, to them, was the Jew. Yes,
the enemy in this matter had to be Israel.
academics whether they agreed with National
Because in this Jewish nation there really
Socialism or not had capitulated; Barth could lives to this day the extraordinariness of
easily have done so, so as to maintain his the revelation of God.
exalted position, his chair at the University of Jesus, the Christ, the Saviour, and God’s
Servant, is the one who sets forth and
Bonn, but he did not: history judges the others, reveals the mission of the nation of Israel;
Barth stands clear of the compromise. A few He it is that fulfils the Covenant concluded
years earlier Hermann Otto Hoyer had painted between God and Abraham. When the
a picture of Hitler in full rhetorical preaching Christian Church confesses Jesus Christ
as Saviour and the Servant of God for us,
mode entitled, ‘Am Anfang war das Wort’(‘In for all men, also for the mighty majority
the Beginning was the Word’): according to of those who have no direct connection
Hoyer’s twisted version of John’s Gospel, the with the people of Israel, then it does not
Word did not descend into Yeshua the Jew, but confess Him fully, because He was a Jew
(as if this ‘Jewishness’ in Jesus were a
into the Aryan-European pagan supremo-’god’- pudendum, which we had to ignore!). No!
and-führer, Adolf Hitler. (See figure 2.) nor can the view be that we believe in Jesus
Christ, who was just an Israelite, a Jew, by
accident, but who might quite as well have
sprung from another nation. No!, we must
WH Y BARTH AND WH Y
strictly consider that Jesus Christ, in whom
YESH UA TH E ISR AE LITE ? we believe, whom we Christians drawn out
of the heathen call our saviour, whom we
praise as the consummator of God’s work
Those who criticize Barth for not reflecting the on our behalf: He was of necessity a Jew.
current politically correct apologetic position We cannot be blind to this fact; it belongs
devoid of value and meaning towards the Jews to the concrete reality of God’s work and
and towards the state of Israel, would do well God’s revelation. For Jesus Christ is the
fulfilment of the covenant concluded by
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
God with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and religious independence to Israel, independent
it is the reality of this covenant – not the of the Christ event. Published nearly a quarter
idea of any or every religious covenant –
which is the basis, the meaning and goal of a century ago her findings now have the
of creation, that is, of everything that is colour of a particular post-1960s generation
real in distinction from God. The problem (she, likewise, identifies the particular post-
– if there is one – of Israel is, since the WWII central European position of Barth’s
problem of Christ is inseparable from
it, the problem of existence as such. The generation!), but her research is impeccable.
man who is ashamed of Israel is ashamed She considers Barth’s Epistle to the Romans, and
of Jesus Christ and therefore of his own the absolute assertion of the missed Messiah;
existence.18 (See figure 3.) she analyses the Church Dogmatics thoroughly
to ascertain the philosophical and theological
So, the self-revelation of God is in the person of
roots of the election of Israel but also Barth’s
Jesus Christ who was formed from God’s chosen
apparent aversion to Jews despite his assertion
people. So if there is – from the perspective of
of them. Sonderegger then considers in detail
neo-Pagan European religion – a problem with
Barth’s doctrine of Israel, and in particular
Israel, then this problem is with existence itself:
the election of the chosen people and their
it represents the krisis of humanity. For Barth,
present standing. This is all weighed against
if you deny Israel, you deny yourself as made in
what she terms Jewish-Christian solidarity
the image of God. Most of the critics of Barth’s
(the ecumenical efforts of assorted tribes of
regard for Israel hold a religiously syncretistic
religious professionals). Reliant upon closer
view, which expects Barth to write in an isolated
inspection of Church Dogmatics, her conclusion
pluralistically self-contained mode oblivious to
and evaluation considered the relationship of
contradiction and objective truth.
Barth’s doctrine of Israel as the divine act of
Relative to the enormous body of scholarship
justification by Grace. For Sonderegger Barth is a
on Barth generated over the last half a century,
fully dogmatic theologian, with an authoritative
very little has been written on Barth’s doctrine
doctrine of Israel framed by his understanding
of Israel, particularly considering the very
of the chosen people. That Barth draws Israel
heavy Christocentricity of the fourth volume of
into the ‘compass’ of Christology, refashioning
the Church Dogmatics. It was not until the early
election and reprobation into the form of the
1990s that studies began to emerge.
covenanted people, is clear; however, the Jews,
Sonderegger Sonderegger asserts (summarizing Barth), pass
away to rise with Christ (i.e. Yeshua the Israelite!).
Katherine Sonderegger in That Jesus was This can be seen by some as anti-Semitic, yet
Born a Jew: Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Israel,19 Barth set his face against German anti-Semites,
offered a nuanced view of Barth’s doctrine, particularly when confronted by the Nazis’
but questioned whether Barth really did give pogroms, and he stood in solidarity with the
Jews. The problem comes in Barth’s refusal to
countenance the Christian religion and Jesus as
18 Karl Barth, Dogmatik im Grundriß (München:
Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1947), p. 67. My translation, but yet another parochial world religion that must
with Barth’s emphasis. assert no truths that upset or contradict other
19 Katherine Sonderegger, That Jesus was Born a Jew: Karl
Barth’s Doctrine of Israel, (Pennsylvania State University
religions. Barth scorned liberals, whether so-
Press, 1992).

Figure 3. Karl Barth (1946): “He was of necessity a Jew. We cannot be blind to this fact. He belongs to this
concrete reality of God’s Word, and His revelation ... The man who is ashamed of Israel is ashamed of Jesus
Christ and therefore of his own existence.”
called or self-confessed, who rejected Jesus’s Soulen

divinity while celebrating Judaism as a quaint
ancient religion. Sonderegger notes—
R. Kendall Soulen presented a chapter/essay
In the Israellehre of Karl Barth, in the
on Barth and Israel in The God of Israel and
mastery, power, and elegant description
of the one community of God in Christ, Christian Theology: ‘Consummation at the End
Christian theology can look forward and of Christendom.’21 Soulen, in a sub-section
back, taking up into its doctrinal thought entitled ‘Barth on Consummation’ presents
the weight, significance, and gracious
condescension of its Messiah, Jesus, born
an accurate and detailed reading of Barth on
a Jew, and straining ahead to grasp the Israel.22 Soulen outlines how, for Barth, human
mystery of the two forms of Israel and the history is defined by creation and covenant
Church, each called and created by God, and the key lies with Abraham, and God’s
each determined for its own task, and each
waiting in its own place for that one day commitment to redeem through the long
when God will be all in all.20 centuries of salvation history. However, Soulen
accuses Barth of what he terms, Economic
21 R. Kendall Soulen, ‘4. Consummation at the End of

Christendom’, in The God of Israel and Christian Theology
(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), pp. 81-106.
20 Sonderegger, (1992), p. 179. 22 Soulen (1996), ‘Barth on Consumation,’ pp.85-89.
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
Supersessionism. Soulen writes of three forms audience: what is important is God’s judgement
of supersessionism: Punitive Supersessionism, and the individual’s eternal place post mortem.
Economic Supersessionism, and Structural So what importance does elected status hold in
Supersessionism.23 The use of the term a religious context? In this context we must note
‘economic’ appears to invoke triune language, Barth’s oft-asserted comment that all religion is
and perhaps it is the Immanent Trinity that unbelief.25 As Christians we are enfolded into
should be being considered, not solely or by the covenanted, chosen people of God. History,
necessity the Economic Trinity.24 Despite Israel’s for Barth, ended with the Christ event: we live
apparent rejection of the Messiah two thousand in the working-out of salvation, awaiting the
years ago, is not Israel eternally elected, is not last word. Soulen:
Israel’s election part of the eternal counsels
For Barth, God’s covenant with Israel
of God? Does the election of the Church marks the point at which God’s work
replace this eternal immanent election? Is this as Consummator initially engages
a fair reading of Barth – that all the Jews will humankind in concrete, historical form.
(p. 86.)
eventually accept Christ because the Church has
... the covenant so established, Barth
theoretically superseded within the economic insists, is eternal; it cannot be abrogated or
working out of salvation in the world? This is set aside. (CD IV/1, p. 23). (p. 87.)
perhaps not wholly accurate: for Barth, reading ... For Barth, therefore, God’s fidelity
from Scripture, all will be transformed and all to the consummation of the world can be
will be changed (1 Cor 15:51f.), there will be nothing other than God’s fidelity to God’s
eternal covenant with the people Israel.’ (p.
neither Jew nor Gentile, Christian or Pagan, 89.)
the boundaries, even the racial divisions will
disappear: with and in the eschaton. Therefore Argument then ensues over the role and place
within the Immanent Trinity Israel is eternally of Israel after the crucifixion-resurrection.
elected, Israel stands eternally. Barth rejects However, it can be stated that perhaps Barth
Punitive Supersessionism (that Israel is totally places too great a stress on the individual Jesus
rejected as a punishment), however, Barth does Christ, rather than on his context as a Jew and
accepts the apparent paradox of Economic his belonging in a Jewish community, in the
Supersessionism because of the universality of covenanted nation. Barth, Soulen notes, argued
Christ’s redemption, but Israel does still abide: that Christ does not destroy God’s covenant
watching and waiting, awaiting the coming of with Israel but fulfils and confirms it. Perhaps
the Messiah. It is perhaps important for Barth’s Soulen focuses too much on the temporal
critics to note (though Barth would perhaps not reality – the ‘this world’ – of Israel (p.91) and
have quoted this particular parable) that Yeshua not on the eternal in his criticism? Soulen’s
the Jewish Messiah spoke the Parable of the work, though now nearly twenty years old,
Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25:31-46) to a Jewish firmly established many of the ground rules
23 For a brief explanation see, Theological Studies website: 25 See, Barth, CD: I/2, §17 ‘The Revelation of God as
http://www.theologicalstudies.org/resource-library/ the Abolition of Religion’, p. 280; see also, II/1, §25 ‘The
supersessionism/325-three-categories-of-supersessionism Fulfilment of the Knowledge of God’, p.3; II/1, §26 ‘The
24 The Economic Trinity is the operation of triune Knowability of God’, p.63; II/1, §. 27 ‘The Limits to the
persons of God within the world; the Immanent Trinity is Knowledge of God’, specifically, pp. 179-256; I.2, §17 ‘2.
the inter-relationship of the triune God in eternity, within Religion as Unbelief ’, p. 298-325, and IV.1, §57 ‘The Work
God’s self, so to speak. of the Reconciler’, p. 45.

and structures for examining Barth and Israel. the Third Reich and the Holocaust, but the
It furthermore raised pertinent questions with question of Barth’s position towards Israel in
universal implications, in particular the real and the post-war years still needed to be addressed
temporal nature of Jewish flesh and calling and succinctly. Lindsay asks whether Barth’s own
how Israel stands in relation to the Church. theologising in the aftermath of the Holocaust
take that horrendous event into account in his
later writings on Israel and the Jews, therefore
he explores potential answers through an
BART H, TH E STATE OF ISR AE L, analysis of the doctrine of reconciliation.27 First
AND JE SUS we have an introduction to Jewish-Christian
relations since 1945 (an analysis of obstacles
Lindsay along the way, an enquiry into confessional
mea culpas – effectively church statements
Mark R. Lindsay (Director of Research at MCD addressing the Holocaust). This leads neatly
University of Divinity, University of Melbourne) and logically into material on Barth and the
in Barth, Israel and Jesus, has tackled what Jewish people (in effect, the historical debate
in many ways is the most difficult Barthian and the context of controversy. These reveal
subject – with considerable political implications Barth’s ambiguity and how scholars have
(and yes, theology, like the Bible, is political, understood him, an understanding that has not
Barth knew and understood this): Lindsay has always taken into account Barth’s personal
traversed the minefield of post-modernity in relationships with Jews). The question of Israel
examining the question of Barth and Israel. inevitably leads, for Barth, into the question of
What the Barthian scholarly tradition makes and value accorded to natural theology. Here
of Barth’s relationship to, and his doctrine of, Lindsay’s analysis and thesis really take off,
Israel varies according to the current Zeitgeist, for this is at the heart of the question – what
and for that matter the personal politicized he terms a case study of the Holocaust as a
prejudices of academics who often seem bent theological locus. Lindsay then moves into
on point-scoring and advancing their status Barth’s understanding of and relations with
than in objectively explicating Barth’s position. the idea of the state of Israel, the recreation of
So what do we make of Lindsay’s Israel: the state in relation to Barth’s doctrine
scholarship? First, this is in effect the second of creation (De Gubernatione and the King
volume in Lindsay’s work on Barth and Israel. of Israel); the role of Israel as witness in what
The first volume26 was from his doctoral work is termed the rule of God; and what Lindsay
on Barth’s opposition to Nazi antisemitism and succinctly defines as and explores under the
the Holocaust, after which he realized that to title, political support for Israel as a theological
complete the job this volume was needed on necessity. We now near the heart of the thesis,
Barth’s mature work. Lindsay notes how the the point at which Lindsay makes a brave
debate has been focused on Barth’s theological effort to extend the debate beyond the work of
stance towards the Jews during the period of Katherine Sonderegger and also her criticism
26 Mark R. Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity: The Theological

Basis of Karl Barth’s Opposition to Nazi Antisemitism and
the Holocaust (Oxford: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2001). 27 Barth, CD IV/1, 2 and 3.
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
of Barth.28 Lindsay explores the function of Christian community is nothing without

Israel in Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation, Israel. Sonderegger is correct to say that for
Barth the Synagogue has no independent
which posits a Christological election as the
existence. What she has ignored, however,
presupposition of dialogic possibilities, which is that for Barth the Church has no genuine
neatly leads into the – to adapt, as Lindsay independence as the people of God apart
does, a Barthian axiom/soundbite – Jews in the from the Synagogue. (p. 105).
far country, seen in relation to the royal man
Perhaps Lindsay needs a stronger ecclesiology
and the ministry of the reconciled community
in this book: either Christ Yeshua the Jew was
(but which community: Christian or Jewish, or
the incarnate Son of God and the church is
Christian-Jewish?). Lindsay opens by asserting
His temporal body, which places, relativizes
that,
(but does not deny!) Israel in relation to the
We come in this chapter to the crux of the body of Christ (whether ecclesia invisibilis or
issue with which we have been dealing to
ecclesia visibilis), or He was not and we can
this point, the question whether or not
Barth’s theological understanding of Israel try to live happily ever after in self-contained
and the Jewish people was affected by inward-looking religio-agnostic communities
his reflections on and experiences of the pretending that all religions are equal in
Holocaust and the re-emergence of Israel
the hope of offending no-one, and ignoring
as an independent nation-state. More
particularly, if his Israellehre 29 was affected, their contradictions. Alternatively, we can
how did this understanding manifest itself acknowledge a degree of almost dialectical
in arguably the most ‘Christian’ of all complementarity which must stand within time
doctrines, the doctrine of reconciliation.
(p. 87.)
until the eschaton. Complementarity because
the two sides must stand as complementary
In the conclusion Lindsay does his best to theses; postlapsarian humanity will find it
advance beyond the impasse: does Barth fail impossible to derive sufficient truth and
to see Israel and the Jews independently of understanding from the observations and
the Christian revelation? (Should he – if we information – theologically – of both Israel and
accept the Israelite nature of Jesus, and the the Church. Sufficient, that is, to truly assess
truth of the Christ event?) Sonderegger’s the question: we have partial descriptions of
claim that Barth fails to accord post-biblical the two because we are in salvation history,
Judaism (issuing essentially from the inter- we await the final completion in the eschaton;
testamental community and from the fall of this is why – to coin a Barthian phrase – we
Jerusalem) religious significance, independent are living in Krisis. The German word Krisis
of the Church is, to me, treated ambivalently holds to more than the English crisis because –
by Lindsay: he neither denies nor asserts, but particularly in Barth’s theological usage: God is
walks an academic path: humanity’s Krisis, its urgency, its promise, and
its threat; without God’s revelation we can cosily
In truth, however, the dependence is
mutual. In Barth’s view, Israel does indeed move on at our own pace, losing ourselves in
find its essential being in solidarity with lifestyle consumerism, trying to build the world
the Christian community; but equally, the around us to our satisfaction, happily inventing
our own religion. When God takes hold of us
28 Sonderegger (1992).
we are forced into the urgency of facing the
29 Israellehre, Barth’s teaching about Israel.

reality into which we have sinned ourselves.30 understanding and its doctrine of God. Lindsay
This emphasis on Krisis is so often an offensive therefore explores the relationship between
position to post-modern religious relativists, Barth’s massive corpus and a post-Holocaust
because it fails to acknowledge Israel and the understanding; he extrapolates a dialogue
Church as independent and self-contained, demonstrating how Barthian scholars and
autonomous and equally valid (valid, but the Church in all its forms need to gain some
without truth claims, so that all religions can understanding of the implications of Hitler’s
get along nicely together). Lindsay’s work so-called Final Solution, but also to balance
tries bravely to steer through the minefield, it with Barth’s call for a return by Western
but not without explicit drive Barth would Christians to the Jews as the chosen people, to
have given it. Nonetheless this is a bold and Israel, and to the whole Bible. Lindsay here,
important study, well researched, scholarly. in the opening section, is prepared to face the
Sadly it will be ignored by ecumenicists and tremendum (the terrible, the overwhelming
religionists who try to close their eyes to Barth, nature, of the holocaust). Lindsay then moves
who hide from the difficulties of the Israel- on to what he terms ‘the Barthian Barrier.’ That
Jewish question because of Western liberalism, is, Barth’s position on natural theology and how
even post-modern sentimentality, in the light this affects an understanding of the Holocaust,
of two crucial twentieth century events: the or the Shoah as witness (the extent to which the
horrendous, nihilistic evil of the Holocaust, and Holocaust testifies positively to God, yet also
the crisis of relations between the state of Israel negatively to humanity’s depravity). Lindsay
and its neighbours. then considers the dialectics of revelation (that
Lindsay has recently continued this work is, deliberates in ‘conversation’ with Eliezer
with a monograph examining in detail the Berkovits32), but insists on the proclamation
precise theological nature of the Holocaust of the solidarity of crucified suffering; finally
in the context of Barth’s systematic analysis: he issues a caution to post-Holocaust theology,
Reading Auschwitz with Barth: The Holocaust that is, a warning that we may say too much
as Problem and Promise for Barthian and over-emphasize the Shoah. This dialogue
Theology.31 Here, the impact on theology of does expose flaws not only in post-Holocaust
the Holocaust – the Shoah – of the Jews must theology but also in Barth’s failure to confront
for Lindsay be seen as profound, with far- the Shoah – for Lindsay – directly, or fully.
reaching consequences for the church’s self- Lindsay is right that Barth failed to confront the
Holocaust directly as the later volumes emerged,
30 See, Barth, Der Römerbrief (Zweite Fassung 1922; after WWII, of The Church Dogmatics (because
Theologischer Verlag Zürich (TVZ): Zürich, 1999), p.
532. This is Barth’s commentary on Romans 14:1 to
Barth rightly gives little or no ground to natural
15:13 ‘Der Krisis des freien Lebensversuchs’ (‘The Krisis theology: the analogia fidei is the sole ground
of Human Freedom and Detachment’), p.532. See also,
Nicolaas Bakker, Der Krisis in der Offenbarung Karl Barths for understanding God’s actions in the world,
Hermeneutik, dargestellt an seiner Romerbrief-Auslegung* not an event such as the Shoah, although, of
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974. *: ‘The
Crisis in Revelation - Karl Barth’s hermeneutics embodied/ course, it was horrific and shocking, diabolical
represented in his interpretation of the Epistle to the
Romans.’
31 Mark R. Lindsay, Reading Auschwitz with Barth: The 32 Lindsay pays special attention to Eliezer Berkovits,
Holocaust as Problem and Promise for Barthian Theology Faith After the Holocaust (New York: Ktav, 1973), also,
(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, Pickwick Publications, Eliezer Berkovits, With God in Hell: Judaism in the Ghettoes
2014). and Deathcamps (New York: Hebrew, 1979).
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
and nihilistic – tremendum), but his approach isolates all academic disciplines, any move that
was, nonetheless, far more enlightened blurs the edges of individualistic specialized
than many of his contemporaries. However, focus is to be applauded.) Therefore this work
Lindsay’s conclusion is more positive: acknowledges and complements Barth’s premise
Without resorting to a natural theological
that the Bible is a unique means by which God
epistemology, and thereby risking letting communicates His presence to His church:
the Shoah become too decisive a word theological explication cannot therefore be
for the church (as though there were no separated from exegesis. If exegetical analysis
other), Barth’s own theological grammar
allows him to affirm much of what the is disconnected from witness and illumination,
post-Holocaust movement has wanted to then what is left is (as Barth never ceased to
say, yet avoiding the danger that some have assert in his mature years) antiquarian studies,
fallen into, of allowing the Holocaust to say which are often of little value! For example,
too much. (p. 168.)
‘Barth understood the deadly effect of Old
Testament [antiquarian] scholarship on the life
of a preacher who must engage these texts as
ISAIAH the word of God for the people of God.’ (p. 23.)
Gignilliat therefore asserts that in this context
Barth sees the Old Testament as confessional
Gignilliat
and classical (this separates Barth from the
religionsgeschichtliche Schule33 tradition). In
Mark S. Gignilliat’s, Karl Barth and the Fifth
Barth’s day rejecting the confessional and
Gospel: Barth’s Theological Exegesis of Isaiah,
classical effectively marginalized a concept
clearly sets the Book of the Prophet Isaiah in
of truth, yet nowadays Postmodernism and
a Christian context; however, declaring it the
the relativity of truth generated by humanity’s
fifth Gospel raises serious questions about
Fall actually aids Barth: ‘The Old Testament
supersessionism, which are not really tackled
is what it is because the self-communicative
here, and neither is the question of Barth’s
God has deemed it to be so in relation to God’s
doctrine of Israel. The ground of Gignilliat’s
revelation of himself in Jesus Christ. To seek
work is in the history of interpretation. This is
verifiability outside this realm is to abstract
a work which charts the relationship between
the discussion into philosophical categories
exegesis and dogmatics, and is not shy to
foreign to God’s revelation of himself.’ (p.59.)
expose the failure of historical criticism, seen in
But this does not stop Barth rejecting elements
the limitations of an hermeneutic of suspicion.
of the Old Testament generally and certain
Gignilliat therefore faces the pertinent question
aspects of Isaiah specifically, which Gignilliat
of how to do theological exegesis – he is also
deftly handles. All this, and more, is brought
critically aware of the need to engage the text
together in the final chapter which forms an
rather than losing oneself in a constant analysis
extended conclusion. Here Gignilliat considers
of method. This is a work primarily about
listening to how Barth engaged as a theological
witness with the text of Isaiah. (This listening 33 The history/science of religions school, based on a
comparative-historical method for the study of religion,
is a dialectical relationship between exegesis which emerged amongst a group of German Protestant
and theology and given the specialization that theologians associated with the University of Göttingen in
the 1890s.

Figure 4. The young Karl Barth (1919): “The ancient Hebrews should not become Germans,
rather the Germans should become ancient Hebrews.” (c.1913.)
the theological implications of Barth’s Isaianic the analysis of Isaiah 48 – a central text from
exegesis: Barth may have had no single uniform the perspective of theological exegesis – is
methodological approach to the Book of Isaiah considered by Gignilliat insufficient).
yet there is a single identifiable motif (typically This is a highly considered work that
Barthian) of Yeshua the Jew, born of Jewish identifies an important omission in Barthian
flesh, rooted in the soil – the promised land – studies – the Hebrew heritage of Yeshua the
of the Old Testament. This does allow Barth to Jew, and the prophetically Christological
focus on Isaiah’s prophetic Christology without nature of Isaiah. Theological exegesis (rooted
overtly reading an assumed Christological patristically in a style which fell out of fashion
conclusion from the text (does this issue from with the so-called Enlightenment) is receiving
a respect for the text along the lines of form more and more attention. Most readers of
criticism?). Therefore Gignilliat concludes that Barth’s theological exegesis focus on the New
‘Barth’s theological exegesis of Isaiah is multi- Testament leaving his theological exegesis of
layered and multi-functional’ (p. 139); he is, the Old Testament in undeserved ignominy.
however, aware that not all of Barth’s reading Gignilliat’s addresses this short fall.
of Isaiah is persuasive (he identifies Barth’s
interpretation of Isaiah 24 as wanting, and
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
TH E NATIONS criticism, particularly in relation to Genesis

and the Acts of the Apostles. Moseley places
Moseley great emphasis on Barth’s critique of German
nationalism whereby the answer to National
Carys Moseley in Nations and Nationalism in the Socialism is to define and recognise nationhood
Theology of Karl Barth, takes Barth’s criticism of as distinct from the state. Does this work? If the
German nationalism – the corrupting influence key is found in the Pentecost narrative (Acts 2)
of Nazism on the German Protestant Churches then this leads, as Moseley demonstrates, to a
– as her starting point. This criticism may have doctrine of creation: the election of Israel is part
become fashionable after the Second World of the election of the community of the people
War, but Barth was issuing such a criticism of God. Thus the apparent division of the people
from the pulpit already in the early years of the of the world into nations leads us to recognise
twentieth century (before the First World War)! nations as communities of people who are
Mosely notes: called to seek God, no more than that:
[Barth’s] notebooks preparing for Nationhood . . . is understood as the
confirmation classes for teenagers are sphere of the divine command, as a human
valuable evidence of the development of construction. Barth tacitly accepts the view
his theology, given that he saw the task of derived from his plain reading of Scripture
theology as being connected to worship, that the division and re-division of human
preaching, and teaching within the church history into nations is postlapsarian . . . The
before it was an academic discipline. Pentecostal narrative is the transformation
Even at this time Barth was critical of of Babel, not its simple reversal, as people
the nationalist and anti-semitic bias in from every nation can now hear the Gospel
German theology, for he says ‘The ancient in their own language. (p. 203.)
Hebrews should not become Germans,
rather the Germans should become ancient
Hebrews.’34 This expresses the Pauline tenet Do we see Israel, from the Western perspective,
that Gentiles are grafted onto the wild olive as essentially an ideal, or as the confused reality
tree of the true Israel by faith in Christ. In of an actual nation state? Moseley deals deftly
the 1930s, Barth would come to articulate with these questions, as also she does with the
this position with much greater dogmatic
sophistication. (p. 38.) (See figure 4.) question of whether the Jews are a race or a
religious people. (p. 122f.) And where does this
Furthermore, she analyses the historical leave the secular nation state of Israel today,
overview of Barth’s understanding of nationhood relative to the ideal of Israel to be realized in
in his early and middle periods, laying emphasis eternity? The jury is still out for most. Likewise,
on the pneumatological roots in his exegesis of Isaiah’s criticism of the nations and what little
the Pentecost narrative. Therefore this situates value can be accorded to them is often at best
the importance of Israel in the concept of overlooked, at worst omitted from studies:
nationhood. Barth’s analysis is shown by Moseley Surely the nations are like a drop in a
to be by default biblically sourced, an analysis bucket; they are regarded as dust on the
that side-lines the ‘corrosive effects’ of source scales; he weighs the islands as though they
were fine dust. ... Before him all the nations
34 ‘Die alten Hebr[äer] sollen keine Deutschen warden, are as nothing; they are regarded by him as
aber Sie alten Hebräer.’ Moseley is here quoting from, Karl worthless and less than nothing.
Barth, Konfirmandenunterricht 1909-1921 (Zurich: TVZ, (Is. 40:15 and 17).
1987), p. 2.

C ONC LUSION grounded his doctrine in the early Church and

the Patristic tradition of creedal Christianity.
Barth’s anti-supersessionist position is
As a student Barth conformed to his theological consistent from circa 1913 through to his
heritage in nineteenth century neo-Protestant death in 1968. The expression of this rejection,
Liberalism; however, as a young pastor in a complemented by the affirmation of the Jews’
depressed mining/working-class valley he covenant with God and Israel changes over
became ‘Comrade Barth, the Red Pastor.’ Part the decades: it become more nuanced, and
of this reaction to his Liberal heritage was to theologically explicated. His early declaration
espouse veiled Marxism, but also to give equality was in some ways a pseudo-Marxist reaction to
to the ancient Hebrews, the Old Testament, his nineteenth-century Liberal neo-Protestant
and the Jews who were his contemporaries. By heritage, whereas the later pronouncements
comparison, the exponents of the nineteenth- are presented as deeply considered systematic
century Liberal heritage, to which Barth was theology.
subjected as a student, sought to Germanize An often over-looked element in Barth’s
the ancient Hebrews, and also Aryanize Jesus: dialectical theology is this antinomy:
in response we noted how Barth’s reaction was Supersessionism and Israel, the Church’s
to state that the ancient Hebrews should not authority balanced by the continuation in
become Germans, but the kaiser’s Germany equality of Israel and the exalted status of the
should rediscover their heritage in God’s Jews as the chosen people in the promised
chosen people! (See figure 4.) After the Second land. Yeshua and God’s Election – how do we
World War, and in the light of the Holocaust accept the paradox of this dialectical balance?
and the founding of the modern nation state We cannot close the antinomy, we must stand
of Israel, supersessionism fell out of favour in and await its conclusion in the eschaton. Soulen
the West. However, Barth had already rejected noted how one of Barth’s students – Dietrich
supersessionism during his first ministry in the Bonhoeffer – admonished ‘that we must not
mining village of Safenwil, (before not only the speak the last word before the last but one’!35
Second World War but the First!), he grounded A reasoned analysis of Barth’s position is
this rejection of the Germanizing of the Jews by that his theology is not, and cannot be classified
referring to the Bible, and the self-revelation of as, supersessionist: Israel, it can be argued,
the one true God. Barth was ahead of his time; has self-elected to take a back seat since the
one only has to assess his comments on and the Christ event. This does not amount to the
place awarded to Israel in his first edition of The Jews being superseded: they are still eternally
Epistle to the Romans (1919) to see this. Unlike elected in the Immanent Trinity, and if they had
his Liberal critics he achieves this equality not accepted Jesus – Yeshua – as the long-awaited
by rejecting the divinity of Yeshua, Jesus Christ, Messiah, the Christ, then salvation history
reducing him to a holy man, a prophet, so as would have been the same, but the working-
to give equality to all religions and religious out would have been different over the last
perceptions, no, but by paradoxically giving two thousand years. We noted earlier Barth’s
equal elected status to both Israel and the severe criticism of religion, which did not stop
Church. Barth was ahead of his time, but also
35 Soulen (1996), quoted on p. 174.
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
short of the churches. While some Christians BI BLIO GR A PH Y

may criticise Israel for failing to acknowledge
and turn to the Messiah, it is only fair to note
that much of the time the churches fail to give Bakker, Nicolaas, Der Krisis in der Offenbarung
appropriate acknowledgement to the Christ Karl Barths Hermeneutik, dargestellt
event (which hardly puts them in a position to an seiner Romerbrief-Auslegung
believe they have superseded the Jews!). So (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
does supersessionism end up as an argument Verlag, 1974).
between two failing and inadequate religions Barth, Karl, ‘Concluding Unscientific Postscript
that focus too much on their own self-interests on Schleiermacher’ in The Theology of
Schleiermacher: Lectures at Göttingen,
and the all-too-worldly? Is supersessionism
Winter Semester 1923-4 (trans. Geoffrey
merely an argument over who is the present Bromiley; Grand Rapids: William B
recipient of God’s favouritism: two bright and Erdmans, 1982).
precocious children, both of whom have been
-----., ‘Die Menschlichkeit Gottes’ (‘The
top of the class, who both believe – whatever Humanity of God’) a lecture delivered
happens – they are teacher’s favourite? at the meeting of the Swiss Reformed
Barth refused to iron-out the difficulties, he Minister’s Association in Aarau, 25th
refused to force a conclusion: neither liberal September 1956: originally published as
Judaism nor liberal Christianity could begin to a monograph Die Menschlichkeit Gottes
approach the truth about the dialectical standing by Evangelischer Verlag A. G. Zollikon-
between the Church and Israel, however much Zürich, 1956, p. 6-7 (ET: John Newton
this relationship appeared contradictory, the & Thomas Weiser, The Humanity of God
(Westminster John Knox Press: London,
relationship between them was symbiotic. These
1960)
studies by Lindsay, Gignilliat, and Moseley –
-----. ‘Evangelische Theologie im 19.
whether of the eternal Israel, the Book of the
Jahrhundert’ an address delivered at the
Prophet Isaiah, the role of the nations in God’s
meeting of the Goethegesellschaft in
purposes – exemplify Barth’s conclusion that Hannover, 8th January 1957, originally
the Synagogue not only has no independent published as Evangelische Theologie
existence from God’s self-revelation, but also im 19. Jahrhundert, a monograph by
the Church has no genuine independence as Evangelischer Verlag A. G. Zollikon-
the people of God apart from the Synagogue. Zürich (ET: Evangelical Theology in the
There is still much to Barth’s understanding of Nineteenth-Century, Thomas Wieser
Israel, and the respect accorded to the Jews, the (ed.), 1960)
deference to the historical Israel and the ancient -----., ‘Fate and Idea in Theology’ (English
Hebrews, and to the place of the modern nation translation of ‘Schicksal und Idee’, lecture
state of Israel, that has yet to be explicated. delivered at the Hochschulinstitut in
Lindsay, Gignilliat, and Moseley’s work, Dortmund, February to March,1929),
in H. Martin Rumscheidt (ed) The Way
building on the perceptions of Sonderegger and
of Theology in Karl Barth: Essays and
Soulen, is a good start in what will be a fruitful
Comments (Introduction by Stephen
analysis of Barth and Israel. W. Sykes; Allison Park, PA: Pickwick
Publications, 1986).

-----., ‘The First Commandment as an -----., Fragments Grave and Gay (The
Axiom of Theology’ (ET: of ‘Das erste Fontana Library of Theology and
Gebot als ein Axiom der Theologie’ essay Philosophy; London: Collins, 1971).
from 1933), in H. Martin Rumscheidt -----., Konfirmandenunterricht 1909-1921
(ed) The Way of Theology in Karl Barth: (Zurich: TVZ, 1987).
Essays and Comments (Introduction
by Stephen W. Sykes; Allison Park, PA: -----., Natural Theology – Comprising Nature
Pickwick Publications, 1986). & Grace by Professor Dr Emil Brunner
and the reply No! by Dr Karl Barth
-----., Der Römerbrief (Erste Fassung 1919; (translation by John Baillie of Nein! a
Herausgegeben von Herrmann Schmidt, pamphlet originally published in 1934
Gesamtausgabe, Akademische Werke; by Karl Barth; and Natur und Gnade, by
Theologischer Verlag Zürich (TVZ): Brunner likewise a pamphlet from 1934;
Zürich, 1985). London: The Centenary Press, 1946).
-----., Der Römerbrief (Zweite Fassung 1922; -----., The Church Dogmatics (14 Vols.
Theologischer Verlag Zürich (TVZ): translated and edited G. W. Bromiley
Zürich, 1999). ET: Karl Barth, The and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Epistle to the Romans (trans. Sir Edwyn Clark, 1936–77).
Hoskyns, 1933; Oxford : OUP, 1968).
-----., Unterricht in der christlichen Religion
-----., Die protestantische Theologie im 19. 1 (Erster Band: Prolegomena 1924 –
Jahrhundert (Zürich: Theologischer volume 17 in the Gesamtausgabe, Karl
Verlag Zürich, 1947). ET: trans, Brian Barth GA 17 = GA Abt. 2; Zürich : TVZ,
Cozens and John Bowden, Protestant 1985).
Theology in the Nineteenth-century
(London: SCM Press, 1959). -----., Unterricht in der christlichen Religion
2 (Zweiter Band: Die Lehre von Gott/Die
-----., Dogmatics in Outline – Lectures on Lehre vom Menschen – volume 20 in
the Creed (trans. G.T. Thomson; London: the Gesamtausgabe, Karl Barth GA 20 =
SCM Press, 2001 [1949]). GA Abt. 2, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag
-----., Dogmatik im Grundriß (München: Zürich, 1990).
Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1947). -----., Unterricht in der christlichen Religion
-----., Ethik (writings from 1928-31; 3 (Dritter Band: Die Lehre von der
hrsg. von Dietrich Braun; series: Versöhnung/Die Lehre von der Erlösung
Gesamtausgabe, Akademische Werke), (Eschatologie) 1925/1926, – volume 38
Zürich: Theologischer Verlag , 1973). in the Gesamtausgabe, Karl Barth GA 38
ET: Karl Barth, Ethics (edited by Dietrich = GA Abt. 2, Zürich : TVZ, 2003).
Braun, trans Geoffrey W. Bromiley; Berkovits, Eliezer, Faith After the Holocaust
Edinburgh : T.T. Clark , 1981). (New York: Ktav, 1973).
-----., Fides quaerens intellectum – Berkovits, Eliezer, With God in Hell: Judaism in
Anselms Beweis der Existenz Gottes im the Ghettoes and Deathcamps (New York:
Zusammenhang seines theologischen Hebrew), 1979.
Programms (München, C. Kaiser, 1931.
ET: Karl Barth, Anselm : Fides Quaerens Busch, Eberhard, Karl Barth His Life from Letters
Intellectum (London : S.C.M. Press, and Autobiographical Texts (trans. John
1960). Bowden; London: SCM Press, 1976).
Vo l u m e 3 , 2 0 1 5 , p p . A 1 5 - 3 4
-----., Karl Barths Lebenslauf: nach seinem Talmage, Frank E., Disputation and Dialogue:
Briefen und autobiographischen Texten Readings in the Jewish-Christian
(München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, Encounter (New York, NY: KTAV, 1975).
1975). Webster, John, Barth (series: Outstanding
Gignilliat, Mark S., Karl Barth and the Fifth Christian Thinkers (London: Continuum
Gospel: Barth’s Theological Exegesis of International Publishing Group Ltd,
Isaiah (Aldershot UK / Burlington VT 2000).
US, Ashgate Publishing, 2009).
-----., Paul and Isaiah’s Servants: Paul’s
Theological Reading of Isaiah 40-66 in
2 Corinthians 5:14-6:10 (The Library
of New Testament Studies; London:
Continuum, 2007).
Gunton, Colin E., The Barth Lectures (London P. H. Brazier
& New York: Continuum, 2007).
Lindsay, Mark R., Barth, Israel and Jesus (Barth Paul Brazier is an independent theologian and
Studies Series; Aldershot UK / Burlington scholar who lives in London, U.K. For the last
VT US, Ashgate Publishing, 2007). sixteen years he has been the full-time care-giver
-----., Covenanted Solidarity: The Theological to his wife who has epilepsy. His doctoral work was
Basis of Karl Barth’s Opposition to Nazi on the influence of Dostoevsky on the young Karl
Antisemitism and the Holocaust (Oxford: Barth. He is editor of the late Colin E. Gunton’s work
Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2001). (The Barth Lectures, also, Revelation and Reason).
He has published widely in theology and philosophy
-----., Reading Auschwitz with Barth: The
including an in-depth systematic analysis of C.S.
Holocaust as Problem and Promise for
Lewis’s theology (C. S. Lewis: Revelation and the
Barthian Theology (Martin Rumscheidt,
Christ, 5 vols., Wipf and Stock, 2012-2014)—
Foreword; Princeton Theological
www.cslewisandthechrist.net.
Monograph, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2014)
Moseley, Carys, Nations and Nationalism in the
Theology of Karl Barth (Oxford: OUP,
2013).
-----., Nationhood, Providence, and Witness:
Israel in Protestant Theology and Social
Theory (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
Cascade Books, 2009
Sonderegger, Katherine, Systematic Theology
(Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015).
-----., That Jesus was Born a Jew: Karl Barth’s
Doctrine of Israel (Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1992).
Soulen, R. Kendall, ‘Consummation at the
End of Christendom’, pp. 81-106, in The
God of Israel and Christian Theology
(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress,
1996).

Barth and Zionism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barth and Zionism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Barth and Zionism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Article

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

Figure 1. Max Klinger, Christ on Mount Olympus (1897). Fresco on plaster.

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

called or self-confessed, who rejected Jesus’s Soulen

21 R. Kendall Soulen, ‘4. Consummation at the End of

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

26 Mark R. Lindsay, Covenanted Solidarity: The Theological

of Barth.28 Lindsay explores the function of Christian community is nothing without

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

TH E NATIONS criticism, particularly in relation to Genesis

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

C ONC LUSION grounded his doctrine in the early Church and

short of the churches. While some Christians BI BLIO GR A PH Y

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

The Evangelical Review of Theology and Politics Volume 3, 2015

You might also like