Keith Condie on Barth on 1 Corinthians

Keith Condie asks: why look at Barth? Because he was a great theologian and a great exegete too! How does he argue for the coherence of 1 Corinthians?

1. The Resurrection of the Dead in historical context
By the time of his first pastorate 1911 Barth was a convinced liberal. But he was challenged by his pastoral context. What could you preach? By 1915 he had worked out his new approach - see the Epistle to the Romans. Christianity is about God - the God who is totally other, coming to us on his own terms. In the Gottingen years (1921-25) he was preoccupied with teaching both historical theology and NT exegesis.

In 1923, he gave his lectures on 1 Corinthians - published in 1924. Webster says that this is the most accomplished commentary work from these years. The commentary needs to be read on its own terms: it is not exhaustive, it is not thematic. Best seen as an attempt to restate what the text says - in order to allow the inherent clarity and force of the text be felt. Explicate the text! 'God is saying to you that' not 'this verse means this'. Interpreted as revelation, which is a slap in the face! It is saying something to us here today. SO: you have to be alert to the rhetoric of the text. Any genuine interpretation will be open to its own inadequacy. The transcendence of God's word is at play here.

2. Barth's thesis: 1 Corinthians as the key to understanding the epistle.
The unity of the letter only becomes clear when you reach chapter 15... the solution to all the other problems is found in the resurrection of the dead. The problem is that the human elements are flourishing in Corinth... In 1-4, the Corinthians have become puffed up with egoism, forgetting that all they have is from God. In 5-6, the church is sick if it does not react against expressions of human exuberance in the moral sphere that ignore the place of God. In 7, a warning against hubris in the arena of sexuality - even if ascetic. 9-10 - human freedom is not absolute... the community and the glory of God must be considered. Knowledge must not be used contrary to love. Freedom doesn't protect them from idolatry. In 11, there is a critique of human self-assertion that fails to recognise the enormity of the divide between the human and the divine and fails to remember the Lordship of Christ. In 12-14 - they are full of the Spirit and of God, but they appear unredeemed: hence the exhortations to unity and order.

That is: all that the Corinthians have is from God. Paul is critiquing a form of flourishing Christianity that has become an end in itself - a rearing up against God. Thus: chapter 15... the Corinthians have failed to reckon with the resurrection of the dead. They thought that they had the full picture of Christian experience. They failed to reckon with the fact that they must die. God has revealed another reality - and that is a sharp critique of the practice of the Corinthian church. The kingdom of Christ must become the kingdom of God. Their version of Christianity is an illusion. So, how are we to be the church NOW? The future has stuck a hand back into the present... being human means being reconstituted.

3. Coherence in 1 Corinthians: Barth in comparison with Ciampa/Rosner
There are of course, significant methodological differences between the two. C/R are trying to explain the literary form of the text in front of them. Barth is offering a theological reading. The Sache of the text of 1 Cor is what he is trying to explicate. All of this derives from Barth's convictions about what theology is about! It should lead to astonishment! Webster reminds us that KB is a church theologian more than an academic theologian (MJ: unbelievable how people round these parts refuse to see this). Keith says: you could do what C/R do without being Christian!! But you couldn't do what Barth does as a non-Christian.

There is a difference in eschatology, but both C/R and KB see chapter 15 as the climax of the letter. It has been commonplace to claim the Corinthians had an over-realised eschatology (as KB does). For KB, the Corinthians seem to think they have it already. But this isn't KB's emphasis - it is more upon what is the SOURCE of the Corinthians' experience. Where does it come from - themselves or God? For C/R, they are not being Christian enough.

Both interpretations see a focus on God as being ultimate in the concerns of the letter.

4. The relevance of Barth's perspective today
How do we relate all the pieces of the theological process to ourselves? Read it 'objectively'? This was the enlightenment project.

This divorce between the Bible and Theology was challenged by Barth way back when. The Theological Interpretation of Scripture movement is the exciting development which builds on this insight. It acknowledges that we do not interpret dispassionately or neutrally. We can beneficially read the Scriptures from within the community of faith. God must shape any theological exercise or practice. Barth reminds us that we need to pay attention to the...TEXT! or we may fail to hear what God is saying.

Grace is central in Paul's theology, if Barth is right. We tend to think of this in terms of justification by faith. But, there is something else going on here... with DEATH. Dead people don't help themselves: resurrection is an act of sheer sovereign grace from God. This parallels the logic of J by grace through faith. This says KB is central to all Paul's letters. The Corinthians were rebuked by this.

It is also a reminder that expressions of the Christian faith need to be capable of self-criticism. The Corinthians believed their own press-releases. The problems with all social entities is that they become self-reinforcing... it becomes very hard to question them. This problem occured in Corinth: the letter is a WEIGHTY ATTACK ON CHRISTIANITY!!!! Just as the prophets attacked Israel, so also... God's people can become God's enemies.

Barth's reading of the letter batters human pride. God hates and opposes human pride. Barth spells out the solution: listen to God's testimony about himself - he raises the dead. God is not man said in a loud voice... And he challenges worldliness. How can we remain worldly.

C/R provide an elegant and persuasive structure. But lets not downplay what Barth achieved: reading the text against the flow of scholarship! Barth wanted us to listen to God in Scripture... the Corinthians believe not in God but in their own belief in God.