Barth delivered his exegetical lectures on Ephesians as he made the transition from the pulpit in Safenwil to the podium in Göttingen. They reveal his theological concerns at the time as well as his determination to read and interpret Scripture as a church theologian. The exposition consists of a detailed exegesis of the Greek text of Ephesians 1:1–23, originally delivered as thirteen lectures, including a summary of Ephesians 2–6 in the final lecture. Because Barth delivered the lectures shortly after completing his Epistle to the Romans, it is not surprising to find significant continuity between the two works. For example, readers acquainted with the Romans commentary will recognize signature dialectical expressions, such as “God is God” and “the impossible becomes possible.”1 Likewise, distinctive philosophical concepts from the earlier work appear here: Søren Kierkegaard’s notion of “indirect speech” and Franz Overbeck’s concept of “the original” (Ursprung) to describe the creature’s relationship to God. However, the Ephesians lectures also reveal Barth breaking new ground. The theme of the knowledge of God is far more prominent here than in Romans, partly because of Barth’s engagement with Calvin (he was preparing the 1922 Calvin lectures while delivering the Ephesians exposition) but also because of the prominence of γνῶσις in the text that was before him. Calvin’s influence is evident as well in Barth’s careful attention to the grammatical, philological, and structural details of the biblical text. Describing Calvin’s “objective study” of the Bible, Barth notes in the Calvin lectures: “We can learn from Calvin what it means to stay close to the text, to focus with tense attention on what is actually there . . . , to track down every detail . . . , to stick with the text and to follow wherever it leads.”2 Accordingly, in these lectures on Ephesians, Barth manages to maintain traction with the biblical text as he explores its contemporary meaning.
What kind of exegesis is Barth attempting in the Ephesians lectures? Barth used the term Erklärung to describe this particular genre of biblical interpretation and to distinguish it from Kommentar or formal commentary.3 His explication of the text follows the lectio continua format. Two reading strategies are evident throughout the lectures. One move consists of grammatical, philological, and structural analysis. In this posture, Barth stands at the podium with the Nestle edition of the Greek New Testament before him and at his disposal an array of modern critical commentaries and New Testament introductions by Dibelius, Jülicher, Weiß, von Soden, Kühl, Harnack, Holzmann, Meyer, and Beck in addition to Luther’s commentaries on Ephesians and Calvin’s Opera Selecta. At this point the exposition resembles a lively conversation as Barth takes his place in the interpretive tradition. Scholarly debate about the text, however, is kept to a minimum in order to maintain focus on the text itself. In a second interpretive move, Barth deploys various forms of “ingenious” paraphrase (Bultmann’s locution) to reexpress the meaning of the text.4 At this point he relies on dogmatic categories, dialectical language, and philosophical concepts to explore the text’s entailments for present Christian existence. Chiefly, however, he uses intratextual allusions to create a web of biblical associations, which reexpress the meaning of the passage within the larger context of God’s saving purposes.5 Along the way, the lectures crackle with direct address, admonitions about the ministry (“Think about the meaning of the pastoral vocation to which you aspire”),6 and polemics with faculty members (“Is [the resurrection of Christ] ‘only a picture’?”7—referring to a lecture delivered the previous day by Walter Bauer). In short, Barth adopts in the Ephesians lectures a form of theological discourse that allows him to engage with issues of New Testament scholarship while honoring the kerygmatic nature of the biblical text.
Barth’s primary concern in the work of exegesis was to listen to the Sache or subject matter of the text. He likened this activity to listening for the sound of someone scratching on the wall, as if from within a prison cell.8 He was always trying to find a way to allow that voice to be heard, returning to the same text repeatedly, listening afresh and in new ways. In his 1921–22 reading of Ephesians, verse 1:3 emerges as the interpretive key to everything that follows: “Blessed be God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing, in heaven, in Christ.” This verse, he notes, “sets the tone for the entire epistle.”9 It witnesses to the divine action, which proceeds from God, sets the creature in motion, and directs the creature to the glory of God. In the following paraphrase of the verse, he summarizes this movement and states the exposition’s main theme: “We are created by God, from whom we come [von Gott her] and for God, toward whom we are moving [auf Gott hin]. We are standing on the ground of the beneplacitum Dei; we are moving toward the goal of the gloria Dei. The knowledge of God is the presupposition, and the knowledge of God is the goal of all human being, having, and doing, including our present speaking and hearing of divine things!”10 This theme reflects two of Barth’s central theological concerns during the early period: to establish divine prevenience as the basis for the creature’s encounter with God and to map out the relationship between divine sovereignty and human freedom.11 We should understand Barth’s approach to Ephesians in light of this concern. He reads Ephesians 1:3 as an indication of the movement from divine action to creaturely existence, and the exposition of the text of the epistle is an attempt to trace this movement.
My translation of Barth’s lectures on Ephesians from 1921 to 192212 is designed to enable the reader to “hear” the lectures as his students heard them.13 The Greek text of Ephesians is retained, in accordance with Barth’s delivery, demonstrating how his translation conveys crucial interpretive and exegetical moves.14 Latin and French citations are also included in the body of the text, with standard English translations provided in the endnotes. Where no standard translation exists, I provide my own. The German text is provided at points to inform the translation. In the endnotes, Barth’s sources are identified and full bibliographical information is provided, including the standard English edition of translated works. Again, where no standard translation of a German quotation is available, I provide my own.
Vladimir Nabokov warns in “The Art of Translation” that translators can commit three types of transgressions. The first and least egregious consists of “errors due to ignorance or misguided knowledge.” The second and more serious is the practice of omitting words or phrases that are obscure: the translator simply “accepts the blank look that his dictionary gives him.” The worst degree of turpitude, however, is when a piece is “planished and patted into such a shape” as to conform to the prejudices of the imagined readers.15 My hope is that the errors of this translation fall into the first category and that readers whose knowledge of German is superior to mine will forgive the “errors due to ignorance or misguided knowledge.” To avoid Nabokov’s third and worst degree of turpitude, I have made every effort to preserve Barth’s juxtaposition of lively, direct address with long, serpentine sentences that negotiate considerable technical exegetical detail. Barth made large demands on his listeners, and I have tried to resist the temptation to simplify the lectures or polish them into shape to conform to my own prejudices. I hope that the translation conveys something of the complexity and rhetorical power of Barth’s lectures. In the course of translating them, I have often felt as if I were in the lecture hall, hearing Barth hold forth.
The demands of weekly sermon preparation drew me first to Barth’s theology and subsequently to his expository courses on the New Testament. If I had to identify a single way in which this project has changed my approach to exegesis and preaching, it would be the influence of Barth’s confidence in Scripture as the viva vox dei, the medium through which God makes God’s presence known—or, to express the matter differently, his confidence in the Sache of the text to establish contact with the listeners, as opposed to relying on personal anecdotes or rhetorical flair. Barth’s confidence in the text to refer the reader to the divine voice of God has sent me back to the work of exegesis with renewed confidence in the eloquence or claritas of the word of God.
This first published English translation of Barth’s Ephesians lectures has been made possible by the enthusiastic support of the editor, Dave Nelson, who recognized their importance early on. Ken Oakes, who read the translation and the German text, saved me from a number of embarrassing errors, tracked down several of Barth’s obscure Swiss allusions, and—on the basis of his intimate knowledge of Barth’s 1921 Römerbrief—pointed out a number of places where the translation needed to reflect the dialectical language and style from this period of Barth’s development. Thanks to Good Shepherd Episcopal Church (Richmond), where I serve as rector, I enjoyed a sabbatical in fall 2012 at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee, where I had the opportunity to revise the translation.
An earlier version of this translation was submitted as my PhD dissertation at the University of St Andrews in 2007. The project would not have been possible without the encouragement and support of Hans-Anton Drewes, former head of the Karl Barth-Archiv in Basel. Prior to the appearance of the German edition, he kindly consented to the use of the typescript of Barth’s handwritten manuscript, on which the German edition is based, and provided invaluable guidance along the way, including a warm welcome to the Barth-Archiv in July 2004 and an invitation to participate in the Karl Barth Tagung in Leuenberg, Switzerland. He also read the version of the translation that appears here and made valuable suggestions, particularly about Barth’s use of the phrase “the idea of God.” Mark Elliott allowed portions of the text to be discussed in a translation study group at the University of St Andrews and offered suggestions, which have been incorporated in the translation. Gisela Kreglinger, a colleague at St Andrews, read several portions of the translation and made valuable suggestions possible only for a native German speaker. My PhD supervisor, Alan Torrance, believed in the project from the beginning and provided the encouragement and guidance necessary for its completion. The late John Webster, then of the University of Aberdeen, alerted me to the importance of Barth’s expository lectures at the Barth-Bonhoeffer Conference in 2000 and provided detailed guidance in the translation and interpretation of Barth’s lectures during the completion of the dissertation. A grant from the Russell Trust permitted important archival work in Basel.
The publication of Barth’s Ephesians lectures is the culmination of a project that began in 2003. During this time my wife, Lynda, and our sons, Ross, Elliott, and Owen, have sacrificed much to support me in the project. Their love and support have made it possible, and therefore my translation of this theological reflection on the praise of God is dedicated to them.