conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is a description for a book titled The Epistle to the Ephesians about Pauline, G&ouml;ttingen, Bible with the genre: Christian Books & Bibles, Bible Study & Reference? End with the sentence ' Campbell , Duke Divinity School'.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: This masterful example of theological interpretation of the biblical text presents the author's insights on an important Pauline epistle. In 1921-22, the same period he prepared the groundbreaking second edition of his Romans commentary, the author lectured on the exposition of Ephesians at the University of G&ouml;ttingen. As he did for his courses on other New Testament texts, the author lectured from a detailed and carefully researched manuscript. The resulting set of lectures, now available in English for the first time, introduces theological and exegetical issues pertinent to the study of Ephesians.<BR><BR>&quot;These lectures, delivered when the author was making the transition from pastoral to full-time academic work, will prove fascinating to anyone interested in the history of theology in the twentieth century. The themes that the youthful theological master explores--grace, divine otherness, apostleship, the centrality of Jesus Christ--will prove compelling to anyone endeavoring to teach or preach the Christian faith. This sparkling text has the verve, energy, and challenge that typifies the work of the author.&quot;<BR>-- Most Reverend Robert Barron , auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles<BR><BR>&quot;This is an exciting addition to the libraries of the theologian and the Bible scholar. the author is one of the greatest theological minds in the church and arguably one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century, period. His thinking always took shape in close relation to the&nbsp;biblical text, which he read carefully, imaginatively, and provocatively. As so many today are asking how to relate the Bible to theological concerns, having this window into the author's engagement during his G&ouml;ttingen period with this magisterial Pauline text is&nbsp;both fascinating and highly instructive.&quot;<BR>-- Douglas&nbsp;A. Campbell , Duke Divinity School
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is the first five paragraphs for this book?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Epistle to the Ephesians
  In the Ephesians lectures, this hermeneutic of textual self-effacement has receded. The free theological meditations of the commentary are still present in the lectures, but they are accompanied by a quite different interpretative practice, absent from the commentary: in a word, by exegesis. The difference is signaled not only by the use of the Greek text but also by the fact that it is frequently cited within Barth's comments on particular words or phrases. The movement is no longer away from the text but around it. Barth's Ephesians is not transparent; it bears witness, but it does not make itself invisible any more than Matthias Grünewald's John the Baptist does as he gestures toward the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—a figure in whom Barth already sees an icon of the biblical witness.
  Modern editors of the Greek New Testament face the same problem as translators. The ancient manuscripts on which they rely generally lack punctuation and even spaces between words. In the great fourth-century uncial Codex Sinaiticus, to which Barth refers briefly in his second lecture, the relevant passage is formatted as follows:
  In presenting the Greek New Testament to modern readers, editors make use of supplementary aids to comprehension such as lowercase letters, word division, punctuation, and verse enumeration. The present exegetical issue hangs on where the editor places the comma. In Eberhard Nestle's popular Novum Testamentum Graece, used by Barth, the first two editions punctuate the key words as follows:
  In the third edition, however, dating from 1901, Nestle has changed his mind about how the passage is to be punctuated:
  Barth agrees with the more recent editions of the Nestle text that "in love" refers to the God who foreordains and opens a new sense-unit: ἐν ἀγάπῃ προορίσας ἡμᾶς... He considers that the link between "holy and blameless" and "in love" would be highly unusual and that a reference to divine rather than human love is more in keeping with the emphasis of the passage as a whole. This enables him to make the theological point that will prove so significant for the Church Dogmatics, namely, that the God who predestines is as such also the God who loves. What is hermeneutically significant, however, is the simple fact that Barth discusses the alternative exegetical option. If the Pauline statement is taken to read, "that we should be holy and blameless before him in love," supporting evidence might be found in Romans 8:28, where "those who love God" are also "those who are called according to his purpose," so that, as Barth puts it, "human creature's love for God" is viewed as "the correlate of divine election." A parallel from the immediate context in Ephesians 1 may also be found in the retrospective ἐν-clause in verse 8, where it is said that God made his grace to abound for us "in all wisdom and understanding." According to Barth, that phrase cannot point ahead to verse 9, "making known to us the mystery of his will." Arguing an exegetical point on the basis of analogies in the immediate context or in related texts is, of course, standard exegetical practice, which can also be adapted—as here—to serious exegetical options with which one disagrees. Barth's discussion of this point displays exegetical competence rather than any special insight. What is noteworthy is that he here accepts the traditional assumption that interpretation must begin by establishing what the text does and does not say. At points such as this, Barth does not proclaim that the theological interpreter of Scripture must rise above the pedantries and minutiae of normal exegetical practice in order to engage a theme that lies beyond the words of the text. We cannot have the theme apart from the words, and we cannot have the words without grammar and syntax.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Delete the last sentence.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Epistle to the Ephesians
  In the Ephesians lectures, this hermeneutic of textual self-effacement has receded. The free theological meditations of the commentary are still present in the lectures, but they are accompanied by a quite different interpretative practice, absent from the commentary: in a word, by exegesis. The difference is signaled not only by the use of the Greek text but also by the fact that it is frequently cited within Barth's comments on particular words or phrases. The movement is no longer away from the text but around it. Barth's Ephesians is not transparent; it bears witness, but it does not make itself invisible any more than Matthias Grünewald's John the Baptist does as he gestures toward the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world—a figure in whom Barth already sees an icon of the biblical witness.
  Modern editors of the Greek New Testament face the same problem as translators. The ancient manuscripts on which they rely generally lack punctuation and even spaces between words. In the great fourth-century uncial Codex Sinaiticus, to which Barth refers briefly in his second lecture, the relevant passage is formatted as follows:
  In presenting the Greek New Testament to modern readers, editors make use of supplementary aids to comprehension such as lowercase letters, word division, punctuation, and verse enumeration. The present exegetical issue hangs on where the editor places the comma. In Eberhard Nestle's popular Novum Testamentum Graece, used by Barth, the first two editions punctuate the key words as follows:
  In the third edition, however, dating from 1901, Nestle has changed his mind about how the passage is to be punctuated:
  Barth agrees with the more recent editions of the Nestle text that "in love" refers to the God who foreordains and opens a new sense-unit: ἐν ἀγάπῃ προορίσας ἡμᾶς... He considers that the link between "holy and blameless" and "in love" would be highly unusual and that a reference to divine rather than human love is more in keeping with the emphasis of the passage as a whole. This enables him to make the theological point that will prove so significant for the Church Dogmatics, namely, that the God who predestines is as such also the God who loves. What is hermeneutically significant, however, is the simple fact that Barth discusses the alternative exegetical option. If the Pauline statement is taken to read, "that we should be holy and blameless before him in love," supporting evidence might be found in Romans 8:28, where "those who love God" are also "those who are called according to his purpose," so that, as Barth puts it, "human creature's love for God" is viewed as "the correlate of divine election." A parallel from the immediate context in Ephesians 1 may also be found in the retrospective ἐν-clause in verse 8, where it is said that God made his grace to abound for us "in all wisdom and understanding." According to Barth, that phrase cannot point ahead to verse 9, "making known to us the mystery of his will." Arguing an exegetical point on the basis of analogies in the immediate context or in related texts is, of course, standard exegetical practice, which can also be adapted—as here—to serious exegetical options with which one disagrees. Barth's discussion of this point displays exegetical competence rather than any special insight. What is noteworthy is that he here accepts the traditional assumption that interpretation must begin by establishing what the text does and does not say. At points such as this, Barth does not proclaim that the theological interpreter of Scripture must rise above the pedantries and minutiae of normal exegetical practice in order to engage a theme that lies beyond the words of the text.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is four more paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Note that the divine act of blessing in which this human act is grounded is described as speech. God blesses. He speaks a word of promise and a word of grace. That is all. No gratia infusa. No direct communication of life. No direct relationship between God's will and what occurs in the world, within man, or among human affairs. Not a creative act but, as in Genesis, the creative word. He speaks, and it comes to be; he commands, and it stands firm [Ps. 33:9]. The word alone does it. In the word as word, every conceivable act is included. As divine word, God's εὐλογεῖν becomes the ground of and occasion for the human creature's εὐλογεῖν. If the divine possibility for man does not appear as word—with the utter strangeness and distinctiveness of the word, which cannot be understood directly—it does not appear at all. If is it not believed as word, it will not be believed at all. If it is not the possibility, which can only be believed, it is not the divine possibility for man. As God's possibility for the creature, it can only be believed. The New Testament λόγος is not simply the supreme form of humanly mediated reality or any kind of material hypostasis; rather, it refers to the relation in which God confronts man directly. Λογίζεσθαι and here εὐλογεῖν [denote] not to any kind of a priori relation but to the divinely created relation between God and man. Εὐλογεῖν therefore refers to the divine act as an undifferentiated, unexpected, free act of absolute revelation. As such, the divine word calls the human creature out of himself and into the world of the Father of Jesus Christ, into the world of freedom.
  The threefold use of the preposition ἐν points us in the same direction. Following Hofmann, I think it simplest and best to form three parallel sentences, each beginning with ἐν rather than forming three subordinate clauses. Unlike the majority of commentators, I see nothing in the text that requires a syntactical relationship between only the first two ἐν-clauses; and it seems to me that the meaning of the passage emerges most clearly if instead we separate each ἐν-clause with a comma and imagine all three as a circle, proceeding from the central εὐλογήσας. Before considering the nature of that blessing, we must describe the manner in which God blesses the creature. God blesses (1) with every blessing of the Spirit, (2) in heaven, (3) in Christ. If this gives the impression of saying the same thing three times, then we are on the right track: the blessing proceeds from the center of the same circle three times, albeit in three distinctive ways.
  Ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ. The play on words with εὐλογεῖν appears once again. "God blesses us with blessings—and for this we are blessed!" Unless we assume that Paul wrote in a deliberately stylized fashion simply to sound poetic, then it should be obvious that the Pauline message is intentionally and thoroughly dialectical and must be understood dialectically. Do not be led astray by the current voices clamoring for simplicity, particularly by those who without any basis contrast the dialectical Paul with the allegedly simple Jesus. The goal of dialectical communication is simplicity, that is, the truth, that is, God. But God must be believed as God, and God can only be believed. Therefore, all authentic communication about him is necessarily dialectical, that is, broken, indirect, pointing beyond itself. We are not so simple that we can receive a simple communication about simplicity. Our alleged simplicity is ever-increasing complexity and confusion. We can be open to the divine simplicity only if we are profoundly unsettled in our human simplicity. Therefore, do not think that dialectic is a special feature of Paul that can be dismissed with the catchword "Paulinism." Dialectical theology is behind the best of Luther's early sermons and table talk. Most importantly, Jesus's speech is supremely dialectical. I would go so far as to say that Jesus's speech is even more dialectical than Paul's, precisely because his words, which at first sound so simple and direct, are actually so suggestive and laden with meaning. Whenever we speak about God, what is meant differs from what is said; and the more truly we speak about God, the greater is the difference between what we mean and what we say. And that is precisely why dialectical communication is so infinitely instructive and infinitely vexing for the interpreter. Whoever prefers to avoid it should know that he prefers not to hear about God. Whoever intends to hear about God, in whom we can only believe—whoever would hear afresh that God is the one in whom one can only believe—will certainly not avoid dialectical communication because he understands that it is the only adequate form of communication.
  To want more in this case is to want less. It is a heathen plerophory that promises more than the blessing of God, that promises the presence of God in the form of visible, direct immediacy, which is the domain of gods and idols. Here, where the point is how God has blessed us, let us take care not to hanker after what is not properly ours and thereby forfeit what we do have and are allowed to have. God blesses us with blessings. Any train that attempts to ignore this Halt! signal is derailed, as church history testifies a thousand times over. But, it is "with the blessings of the Spirit" that God blesses us. And with that, the unheard of is indeed declared: God's unmediated presence for us, for you and for me, God in his inapproachability, inaccessibility, and hiddenness. God, who cannot be known, surrounds, besieges, storms, and reorders the domain of my knowing. At the limits of my intellectual powers, of my strength of character and disposition, stands the power of God, who is both the final question and the final answer. My existence borders God's existence, verging not upon a separate existence but upon the inverse of my own nonbeing, the ultimate Aufhebung and grounding of my own existence. My personality is found as it is lost and lost as it is found in the ultimate reality of God's personality. God speaks. What does my speaking or my silence amount to? God acts. What is the source of my own action or nonaction? God is in the right. What difference does it make if I am in the right or not? God lives. What is the significance of my own life and death? Knowing this does not obliterate, neutralize, or obviate anything that is mine, positive or negative; but the relativity of all that is mine is clearly revealed, or to be precise, related to its origin, measured according to the standard by which all things are decided, large and small, life and death, good and evil. What I am, I am in relation to God.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Delete the last sentence.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Note that the divine act of blessing in which this human act is grounded is described as speech. God blesses. He speaks a word of promise and a word of grace. That is all. No gratia infusa. No direct communication of life. No direct relationship between God's will and what occurs in the world, within man, or among human affairs. Not a creative act but, as in Genesis, the creative word. He speaks, and it comes to be; he commands, and it stands firm [Ps. 33:9]. The word alone does it. In the word as word, every conceivable act is included. As divine word, God's εὐλογεῖν becomes the ground of and occasion for the human creature's εὐλογεῖν. If the divine possibility for man does not appear as word—with the utter strangeness and distinctiveness of the word, which cannot be understood directly—it does not appear at all. If is it not believed as word, it will not be believed at all. If it is not the possibility, which can only be believed, it is not the divine possibility for man. As God's possibility for the creature, it can only be believed. The New Testament λόγος is not simply the supreme form of humanly mediated reality or any kind of material hypostasis; rather, it refers to the relation in which God confronts man directly. Λογίζεσθαι and here εὐλογεῖν [denote] not to any kind of a priori relation but to the divinely created relation between God and man. Εὐλογεῖν therefore refers to the divine act as an undifferentiated, unexpected, free act of absolute revelation. As such, the divine word calls the human creature out of himself and into the world of the Father of Jesus Christ, into the world of freedom.
  The threefold use of the preposition ἐν points us in the same direction. Following Hofmann, I think it simplest and best to form three parallel sentences, each beginning with ἐν rather than forming three subordinate clauses. Unlike the majority of commentators, I see nothing in the text that requires a syntactical relationship between only the first two ἐν-clauses; and it seems to me that the meaning of the passage emerges most clearly if instead we separate each ἐν-clause with a comma and imagine all three as a circle, proceeding from the central εὐλογήσας. Before considering the nature of that blessing, we must describe the manner in which God blesses the creature. God blesses (1) with every blessing of the Spirit, (2) in heaven, (3) in Christ. If this gives the impression of saying the same thing three times, then we are on the right track: the blessing proceeds from the center of the same circle three times, albeit in three distinctive ways.
  Ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ. The play on words with εὐλογεῖν appears once again. "God blesses us with blessings—and for this we are blessed!" Unless we assume that Paul wrote in a deliberately stylized fashion simply to sound poetic, then it should be obvious that the Pauline message is intentionally and thoroughly dialectical and must be understood dialectically. Do not be led astray by the current voices clamoring for simplicity, particularly by those who without any basis contrast the dialectical Paul with the allegedly simple Jesus. The goal of dialectical communication is simplicity, that is, the truth, that is, God. But God must be believed as God, and God can only be believed. Therefore, all authentic communication about him is necessarily dialectical, that is, broken, indirect, pointing beyond itself. We are not so simple that we can receive a simple communication about simplicity. Our alleged simplicity is ever-increasing complexity and confusion. We can be open to the divine simplicity only if we are profoundly unsettled in our human simplicity. Therefore, do not think that dialectic is a special feature of Paul that can be dismissed with the catchword "Paulinism." Dialectical theology is behind the best of Luther's early sermons and table talk. Most importantly, Jesus's speech is supremely dialectical. I would go so far as to say that Jesus's speech is even more dialectical than Paul's, precisely because his words, which at first sound so simple and direct, are actually so suggestive and laden with meaning. Whenever we speak about God, what is meant differs from what is said; and the more truly we speak about God, the greater is the difference between what we mean and what we say. And that is precisely why dialectical communication is so infinitely instructive and infinitely vexing for the interpreter. Whoever prefers to avoid it should know that he prefers not to hear about God. Whoever intends to hear about God, in whom we can only believe—whoever would hear afresh that God is the one in whom one can only believe—will certainly not avoid dialectical communication because he understands that it is the only adequate form of communication.
  To want more in this case is to want less. It is a heathen plerophory that promises more than the blessing of God, that promises the presence of God in the form of visible, direct immediacy, which is the domain of gods and idols. Here, where the point is how God has blessed us, let us take care not to hanker after what is not properly ours and thereby forfeit what we do have and are allowed to have. God blesses us with blessings. Any train that attempts to ignore this Halt! signal is derailed, as church history testifies a thousand times over. But, it is "with the blessings of the Spirit" that God blesses us. And with that, the unheard of is indeed declared: God's unmediated presence for us, for you and for me, God in his inapproachability, inaccessibility, and hiddenness. God, who cannot be known, surrounds, besieges, storms, and reorders the domain of my knowing. At the limits of my intellectual powers, of my strength of character and disposition, stands the power of God, who is both the final question and the final answer. My existence borders God's existence, verging not upon a separate existence but upon the inverse of my own nonbeing, the ultimate Aufhebung and grounding of my own existence. My personality is found as it is lost and lost as it is found in the ultimate reality of God's personality. God speaks. What does my speaking or my silence amount to? God acts. What is the source of my own action or nonaction? God is in the right. What difference does it make if I am in the right or not? God lives. What is the significance of my own life and death? Knowing this does not obliterate, neutralize, or obviate anything that is mine, positive or negative; but the relativity of all that is mine is clearly revealed, or to be precise, related to its origin, measured according to the standard by which all things are decided, large and small, life and death, good and evil.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What is the last five paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Calvin, J. 1, 5, 8, 19, 32–33, 44, 48, 64, 69, 75, 77, 81, 84, 91–97, 92n‡, 99, 101–2, 113, 115, 125, 128, 153n3, 158n14, 161–62n32, 162n37, 163n48, 163n50, 164n57, 164n61, 164n65, 166n81, 166n88, 166n91, 166n97, 166n98, 167n101, 168n122, 170n158, 171n166
  Creator 18, 28, 34–35, 38, 41–44, 71, 73–87, 90, 100–101, 106, 114–15, 119, 131, 141–42, 146, 166n85, 169n138
  Lord 9, 16, 18–19, 23, 26, 29–30, 40, 60, 65, 68–69, 78, 95, 100, 105–6, 114, 131, 134, 143, 146, 161n23, 168n122. See also King; rule
  Reformed confessions 1, 32, 34–35, 161n26, 162n35, 163n47, 164n56, 167n103, 169n146, 171n168, 172–73n181
  Holy 23–24, 43, 45, 81–83, 85, 87, 89–90, 92, 100–101, 107, 117–18, 121–25, 128–30, 143–45, 164n57, 170n154, 172n174