This final part of the third volume of Church Dogmatics contains Barth's theological ethics in so far as this subject belongs to the doctrine of God as the Creator and as it applies to man in his responsibility as the covenant-partner of God. Here we turn to the consideration of what God wills from man in choosing him for fellowship with Himself.

The New Testament contains a very considerable amount of material bearing on the political responsibility of the Christian—much more, I think, than someone who has not yet questioned it seriously on the subject would be likely to expect. It will, therefore, be wise for us, before attempting to draw out the New Testament teaching, to try to get a general idea of the various ranges of material which ought to be taken into account.

In this third part of volume III of his Dogmatics Barth sets forth the doctrine of divine providence as the objective and universal rule of God which establishes and encompasses but does not absorb the existence of the person or community which becomes the object of His preservation. Barth's steadfast aim has been to produce a theology dominated by its object, Jesus Christ. This part of the Dogmatics is no exception, for here he argues that the order of being and the order of knowledge start with the event of God's action in Christ. Hence he does not speak of a natural theology with an independent cosmological interest in the work of divine preservation, for he insists that Scripture is differently orientated. It does not witness simply to the highest being as first cause; it witnesses primarily to the Lord of history, the God of the Covenant. This means that the doctrine of providence does not become a Weltanschauung. What Barth says concerning this problem in C.D.III.3 should be read in conjunction with C.D.III.2, pp. 3ff. Because he affirms that the central concern of theology is the relation of God and man established in Jesus Christ he regards cosmology as a peripheral concern arid draws the line against attempts to integrate scientific views and theological interpretation into a comprehensive Weltanschauung. Yet he readily admits that the natural sciences which know their limits have their appropriate place in elucidating the nature of man against the background of creation.

Modern scholarship has accustomed us to recognise the profundity of thought and the breadth of meditation that lie crystallised in even the briefest words of our Lord's and the beauty with which he presents the sublimest Gospel in the simplest way, so that even the barest saying yields fruit an hundredfold. Indeed it seems probable that He deliberately framed His teaching in this way, to be received at different levels of understanding. It may be the parables that have prepared the way for the recognition of this fact since there remain in the recorded words at least two authentic explanations of these and there may be yet a third preserved for us by tradition.

There is good hope that the present year will see the appearance of the English translation of IV, 3 of the Church Dogmatics, and with it the conclusion of the doctrinal treatment of the atonement1 and the publication of all the Dogmatik thus far available. Necessarily divided into two halves because of its great length, this third part is devoted to the prophetic work of Jesus Christ in reconciliation. It thus represents an original attempt on the part of the author to work out in detail a theme which has often been suggested in earlier theology, but which has never been given the treatment accorded to the priestly work on the one side or the kingly work on the other.

To review the English translation of Ellul's book which, since its publication in 1946, has become the basis of discussion on the theological aspect of law for innumerable Christian as well as non-Christian lawyers and theologians may seem unnecessary. The influence of the arguments about the validity of human state-law proposed by the author under the lasting and vivid impression of the rule of that organised injustice which disguised itself as ‘law’ in Europe under Nazi domination, upon all contemporary discussions on the meaning of ‘law’ can hardly be overrated; and if we want to gauge the force which has been exerted by the problem of ‘law’ in the whole field of theological discussion in post-war Europe, no better introduction may be found for the non-continental theologian than this powerful, but at the same time well-disciplined book with its passionate plea for a ‘theological foundation of law’.