Church and Theology

[Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics Original Publication Dates, courtesy of PostBarthian.com](https://postbarthian.com/2016/04/21/karl-barths-church-dogmatics-original-publication-dates/).If you’re trying to grasp the contours and contents of Karl Barth’s massive *[Church Dogmatics](https://www.logos.com/product/5758/barths-church-dogmatics),* it helps to have an outline! Here’s a helpful PDF version, with subheadings included, from Princeton’s [Center for Barth Studies](http://barth.ptsem.edu). [Barth\_Outline of Church Dogmatics](https://joshuapsteele.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Barth_Outline-of-Church-Dogmatics.pdf)[Download](https://joshuapsteele.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Barth_Outline-of-Church-Dogmatics.pdf)Below is a version that I’ve created from my Logos edition of *Church Dogmatics*. It’s the version found in the Index (CD V/1, 1–13). (Want to learn more about Karl Barth, but not quite ready to dive into the Church Dogmatics? Check out Keith Johnson’s extremely helpful The Essential Karl Barth: A Reader and Commentary [affiliate link].) ...

UPDATE: Here is the paper that I gave at the 2019 Karl Barth Graduate Student Colloquium at the Center for Barth Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. INTRODUCTION: “GENTILES” = “WORLD” IS WORSE THAN “ISRAEL” = “CHURCH” On at least one level, Karl Barth’s Römerbrief reading of Romans 9–11 is supersessionist. In general, especially in the second edition, when Paul refers to “Israel” in Romans 9–11, Barth refers to the “Church.”[1] He replaces Israel with the Church. That’s supersessionism, case closed. Right? Well, yes and no. It has become increasingly common to at least mitigate or nuance the charge of supersessionism against Barth’s reading of Romans 9–11. Various scholars have broadly argued that, yes, Barth’s handling of Romans 9–11 at least leaves the door open for at least a certain kind of supersessionism, but, no, he wasn’t being quite as careless with Israel as it might initially seem.[2] By and large, I agree with these assessments. Barth should have said more about the actual people and history of Israel, but he wasn’t trying to merely displace Israel with the Church, as if the latter were superior and the former were forgotten. He was trying to bring Israel and the Church together in solidarity, in opposition to the arrogance of the Church. ...

I’m scheduled to give a paper on Karl Barth’s reading of Romans 9:30–10:21 in Der Römerbrief at the 2019 Barth Graduate Student Colloquium at Princeton in August. Now, of course, it’s a pleasure and a privilege to give a paper at the colloquium. However, in hindsight, I don’t know why I thought giving a paper on chapter 10 of Barth’s Römerbrief was a good idea! Granted, I don’t have to solve all of the exegetical issues (of which there are many) in Romans 9:30–10:21. I just have to make some sense of what Barth thought about the passage. ...

(Here’s a PDF of this paper: STEELE_When Will Thy Kingdom Come.) Introduction: “Thy Kingdom [Has/Will] Come”? Just how eschatological is the Lord’s Prayer (=LP; Matt. 6:9–13; Luke 11:2–4), particularly in light of its second petition, “Your kingdom come” (ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου, Matt. 6:10a; Luke 11:2d)? In other words, when will God’s kingdom come? Has it already arrived (not eschatological)? Is it in the process of arriving? Or will it arrive at some point in the future (eschatological)? Furthermore, who brings the kingdom about? Humans? God? Or some combination of the two? Settling the question of eschatology involves both the timing and the agency, the when and the who, of the kingdom. ...

Jesus Christ has gone into the far country in our stead, to bring us home to God!

It just happened again. I had to consult “BDAG,” A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.). I don’t own a copy, so every time I have to consult BDAG I think “I really should buy this.” But for the past decade or so, primarily because of BDAG’s cost ($150 on Logos, $130 used on Amazon, $165 new on Amazon) I’ve held off. Nevertheless, I’m seeking to build my “must-have” personal reference library to sustain a ministry as a pastor theologian. So, I think I need to buy BDAG sometime soon. While I’m at it, I might as well get HALOT, the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament… Logos sells them as a bundle. ...

Just came across this article in New Blackfriars, and it looks helpful, especially in the context of Anglican debates about women’s ordination. Title: “The Four Types of Priesthood in the New Testament: On Avoiding Confusions about What ‘Priesthood’ Means” Author: Geoffrey Turner Abstract: Christian discourse tends to treat the concept of ‘priesthood’ univocally, so that ordained priests are seen to share the priesthood of Christ. But a careful reading of Hebrews shows clearly that the priesthood of Christ is unique to him. There are four (even five) types of priest in the New Testament and each of them is distinct and not to be confused. ...

I became an “egalitarian” in college, before I became an Anglican in seminary. It’s taken some time for me to get used to the different contours of the women’s ordination debate within Anglicanism. Growing up, the debate was all about particular Bible verses and whether or not women could teach and preach. However, in Anglicanism, although those same questions/arguments are present, I hear much more about whether or not women can administer the sacraments as priests. ...

This is the question we’re considering this week in our doctoral seminar on biblical and theological integration. Two of us are theologians and the other four are bible scholars. Should be interesting! (Note: we’ll have to save the difference(s) between systematic, historical, and dogmatic theology for another post!) Here are the articles we were assigned to read for this week: D.A. Carson, “Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology” in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, pp. 89-104. D.A. Carson, “Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology” in Scripture and Truth, D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge, eds. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), pp. 65-95. G. Hasel, “The Relationship between Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology” Trinity Journal 5 (1984): 113-27; I.H. Marshall, “Climbing Ropes, Ellipses and Symphonies: The Relation between Biblical and Systematic Theology” in A Pathway into the Holy Scripture, P.E. Satterthwaite and D.F. Wright, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 199–219. E.A. Martens, “Moving from Scripture to Doctrine” Bulletin for Biblical Research 15.1 (2005): 77-103. Kevin Vanhoozer, “Interpreting Scripture between the Rock of Biblical Studies and the Hard Place of Systematic Theology: The State of the Evangelical (Dis)union” in Richard Lints, ed., Renewing the Evangelical Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 201-25. Other than that, for the rest of the semester, we’re reading at least selections from the following works. The goal is to learn from examples of biblical and theological integration. ...

To start off the semester the other day, we prayed this prayer of confession together as a class. The professor didn’t remember where the prayer was from, so I tracked it down online. According to Justin Taylor, it was written by Bob Kauflin. Holy and righteous God, we confess that like Isaiah, we are a people of unclean lips. But it is not only unclean lips we possess. We are people with unclean hands and unclean hearts. We have broken your law times without number, and are guilty of pride, unbelief, self-centeredness and idolatry. Affect our hearts with the severity of our sin and the glory of your righteousness as we now acknowledge our sins in your holy presence. ...