A Critical Ethical Assessment of Karl Barth’s

Exploration of Capital Punishment

Thomas J. Capretta

2

Introduction

This paper explores Barth’s comments on the ethics of capital punishment from his

magnum opus Church Dogmatics, specifically Vol. III.4:The Doctrine of Creation. More

explicitly, this paper provides a critique of Barth’s position on the exceptional case in the context

of capital punishment—i.e., those rare instances in which capital punishment may be divinely

warranted—and then identifies and evaluates the theological framework that pushes Barth to

maintain the necessity of the exceptional case in his ethics generally and in his reflections on

capital punishment specifically. While Barth’s theological framework, starting in The Epistle to

the Romans, and continuing in his discussion of special ethics in III.4 of the Dogmatics, does

require the exceptional case from its very roots, there is a considerable tension between the

exceptional case and Barth explains in his larger theological framework and his attempt to

employ the exceptional case. This is mostly due to the fact that Barth’s exceptional case is in

itself exceptional and must go against the ethical principles that we as humans have already

deciphered. At the same time, however, in Barth’s application of his special ethics to capital

punishment, he sets specific parameters in which the exceptional case may occur. This is where

the true tension lies. Setting parameters for the exceptional case suggests that Barth operates with

a preconceived notion of what the exceptional case is, thus rendering it unexceptional from the

way that his ethics has develops and defines the exceptional case.

This paper proceeds in two primary parts. Part I explores and interprets Barth’s views on

capital punishment from a Christian ethical standpoint and the place of the exceptional case in

this account. Part II entails an investigation of the theological framework that contributes to the

acute and paradoxical tension in Barth’s rigorous defense and explanation of the exceptional case

3

for the death penalty. Though this paper focuses on Barth’s section on capital punishment, it

functions as a critical microcosm of his vigorous insistence of the exceptional case in several

similar ethical events throughout Sec. 55.2 in CD III.4 (e.g., his moral accounts of suicide and

euthanasia, among other moral issues). All-in-all, while Barth’s reflections on capital punishment

clearly concludes that capital punishment is unethical, the tension between Barth’s greater

theological framework and his attempt to construct the parameters for the exceptional case for

capital punishment must be explored and understood in relation to each other in order to

reconcile the tension between Barth’s ethics of the protection of life and his defense of the

exceptional case for capital punishment which is inconsistent with his larger theological

framework.

Part I: Barth’s Ethical Exploration of Capital Punishment

Section I: A Christian Reflection of Capital Punishment

Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, explores and describes the

ways in which capital punishment is ineffective in society as a deterrent, as well as a failed

attempt on the part of humanity to mirror the divine justice and retribution of the one and final

judge, God.1 Barth is quick to cite that the death penalty is very similar to self-defense. However,

rather than one individual--the victim--lashing back towards an assailant, either voluntarily or

involuntarily, the victim transports his/hers right to self-defense to a collective body, namely the

justice system in a given society. Barth adds that if there is in fact a right to self-defense, it is

beneficial that its execution is transferred to a society standardized by a constitution and that the

1 Barth, Karl,. Church Dogmatics, III.4, The Doctrine of Creation. 1st Pbk. Ed edition (January 30, 2004). New York, NY: T. & T. Clark

International, 2004, 440. (Will be reffered to hereafter as CD,III.4 unless otherwise noted)

4

verdict of this society should in turn represent the individual. By transferring the execution of

self-defense from an individual to an entire society, an arbitrary verdict and/or vendetta can no

longer be an option for the victim due to the fact that the society is bound by a reasonable and

objective constitution or law.2

This, however, does not mean that by voluntarily or involuntarily transferring the right to

self-defense to a collective body, that the responsibility of the victim is diminished or taken

away. Barth argues that the responsibility of the victim actually increases by the transference of

their right of self-defense onto a collective body to which the victim belongs. This is due to the

fact that when this transmission occurs the execution of self-defense ensues in three instances, all

of which the victim is a part of as a member of society. This transfer must first be brought to

society, which acts as “the bearer and guarantor of the public order which it seeks to protect by

its laws and courts of justice.” However, it is not society as a whole which literally acts as the

guarantor of public order, but rather judges. Judges are individuals appointed to serve as the

“bearer and guarantor of public order,” often appointed by the society. Thus, the victim, by

fulfilling her duty to society by helping to appoint the judges and magistrates to protect her, has

indirectly participated in the process of creating and carrying out the verdict. This process comes

full-circle and returns to a single actor, the executioner, who must carry out the actual killing of

the attacker.3 It will be “Not his hands, but those of another, will be stained in blood,” Barth

states about the victim.4 While it is better that victims pass off their responsibility and call to

retributive action to the entire society, it must be understood that victims who takes part in the

verdict of the criminal, also hands the assailant to the executioner with full knowledge of what

2 CD,III.4, 437-438. 3 CD, III.4, 438. 4 CD, III.4, 439.

5

the executioner must complete. Barth makes clear that, “We think responsibly only if we realize

and accept the fact that it is we ourselves who do it in the person of all of these others.”5 Plainly,

Barth is correct in asserting that one’s responsibility is only expanded when the process of self-

defense is transferred on to a society. This is because as a member of a society the victim is not

only responsible for their own action, but also the action taken by the society to which the victim

belongs-- including the verdict passed down by the judges that he/she has appointed as a member

of society--and finally, by participating in a society that allows and demands the execution of

criminals, the victim takes on the role as the executioner himself.

Barth points out that, historically, while judges and royalty have often been lauded for

their swift and often frequent use of capital punishment in older Europe,6 a great and horrible

stigma was placed on the actual executioner. While citizens wanted swift retributive action, they

also wanted to distance themselves as far as possible from the actual killing of the criminal.7

Accordingly, by placing the responsibility of the right to defense on the backs of a collective

body rather than upon individuals, there is a temptation for all individuals in the collective to

attempt to evade personal responsibility. It is apparent, however, that it is truly not possible for a

society to remove themselves from the actual killing of a sentenced criminal. Like the victims,

each and every member of society has the same responsibilities in a society and equally takes

part in the three instances in which the defense of the victims are transferred to the society. It is

only after “we realize and accept the fact that it is we ourselves who do it all in the person of

these others” that Barth acknowledges that we think responsibly.8

5 CD, III.4, 439 6 CD,III.4, 439, Barth does not specify what “older Europe” is, but it could be anywhere from the middle ages all the way up to the 20th century for the fact that executioners were still widely used for hanging in the 1900s. 7 CD,III.4, excurses 439. 8 CD, III.4, 439.

6

Section II: Popular Discourses in Favor of Capital Punishment

Since it is now well stated how responsibility is held by both a society as a collective

body as well as individuals within a society, it is necessary to explore some popular and oft cited

grounds for the use of capital punishment in society. Barth elaborates on three arguments

prevalently used in defense of capital punishment. Capital punishment has been used for

thousands of years for the purpose of protecting society and the individuals in society from

criminals and possible imitators. A sentence of death certainly keeps a criminal from acting in

such a way again, but also serves as a frightful example that such criminal acts will not be

tolerated and are not worthwhile. Along the same lines, violation of law demands immediate

retribution and atonement. The extent of this retribution must fall directly on the criminal and is

carried out through the restriction of the enjoyment of a criminal’s rights. This restriction of an

offender’s rights must be relative “according to the measure in which he has offended against the

right of others or of society.”9 This case for capital punishment is often championed by

Christians attributable to the fact that it views punishment as a representation in human terms of

the divine retributive justice of God. Finally, the third theory, which is widely accepted by the

modern western world, states punishment should bring a criminal to an acknowledgement of his

transgressions. Further, this acknowledgement should spur “him to future amendment, by

drastically confronting him with the nature of what he has done in the form of what is now done

to him.”10

While these theories are most commonly used to uphold capital punishment, Barth is

unimpressed. The third and most modern case on behalf of capital punishment is effective in the

9 CD, III.4, 440. 10 CD, III.4.

7

way that it brings some meaning and significance to the criminal. Actually it is the criminal who

receives the greatest attention in this model, for the reason that it is the criminal who has

committed a wrongdoing in society, and that it is the criminal who poses a threat to the other

members of society. Accordingly, it is the criminal who is the center of attention and the receiver

of resources, due to the moral, pedagogical and pastoral nature of rehabilitation in this model. As

Barth points out, however, sentencing one to death assumes that no improvement, education and

rehabilitation is possible.11 By making this claim, a society thus pronounces itself “inwardly

powerless against a criminal.”Therefore all a society can now “do is confront him with an

outward superiority, to decide to put him to death, and therefore live on without him.”12 It

becomes clear that this society has in no way carried out the obligation which it has made to the

criminal. While society promised improvement, education and reform, it has only offered a

criminal sentenced to death a kind of mercy through death.13 Society has failed to uphold its

obligation to the criminal in this case. Capital punishment in this system is therefore not truly a

form of retribution; rather, it denies any type of retribution and is used as a sort of an escape

clause for any criminal that rattles a society and challenges its system of justice, making its use

thus inexcusable.

The second theory of capital punishment, which was stated earlier, is often favored by

Christians for its retributive action, which seems to mirror that of the divine retributive justice of

God. Proponents are quite correct in asserting that all human punishment should be an earthly

attempt at reflecting the perfect divine retribution of God. While this theory holds that the

capacity of capital punishment is to represent the divine justice of God, one must remember the

11 CD, III.4, 440. 12 CD, III.4, 441. 13 CD, III.4, 441.

8

fundamental difference between the thoughts of a most perfect God and his sinful creation. It is

true that some sentences can mirror divine justice, but a sentence of death--due to its finality--can

never be a human expression of the divine. It is only God who can command the final yes or no.

In this sense capital punishment lacks humility in the way that it does not acknowledge the limit

of human understanding.14 Rather it proclaims the final word over the criminal without taking

into consideration the true and only final word that is the word of God.

Furthermore, this theory, often cited by Christians, ignores the fact that God’s divine and

final justice has already been carried out on earth through the suffering and death of his son Jesus

Christ. Jesus’ death on the cross was and is in fact the “full and final expression” of the

retributive justice of God.15 It is for the sins of all men that Christ had to die. If humanity wanted

to attest to the fact that human punishment was not a creation of man, but a representation of the

righteousness of God, capital punishment would never be accepted or even proposed as an act of

justice. Rather, Barth adduces, “the punishment of the criminal must take a form in which the

forgiveness won for him in Jesus Christ is revealed to him and to the less wicked by being

concretely offered to the more wicked.”16 It is from that statement that the totality of the

Christian ethical stance on capital punishment must be drawn. A society should never have a

final yes or no upon the life of any man, including criminals; instead, the awesome forgiveness

which Jesus has won for all should be shown diligently and completely to all who have lost their

way and even more so to the worst offenders. For justice to have an effect on an offender his life

must be affirmed and not destroyed as it is in capital punishment.17

14 CD, III.4, 442. 15 CD, III.4, 442. 16 CD, III.4, 443. 17 CD, III.4, 443.

9

Finally, the first and most primitive theory of capital punishment pronounces that capital

punishment is useful and necessary as a deterrent against crime in society. This theory is

strikingly strange for the reason that the criminal to be punished is made to be an enemy;

however, this enemy is a member of the collective. The criminal belongs to this society and is an

internal enemy rather than an external enemy. More importantly, not only does the criminal

belong to the society, but is a product of it. The failures and wrongdoings of a criminal therefore

inherently reflect the failures and transgressions of the society itself. The collective must “realize

that when it defends itself against him it is really protecting itself against itself, namely against

its own system of justice to the extent that this is very largely a system of injustice.”18 It is clear

that in this theory capital punishment can be widely utilized not truly as a deterrent, but as way

of society distancing itself from its own inadequacies and failures that a criminal may bring to

light. In this case the death penalty destroys life which is the very thing it acts to defend.19

While murder leads the list of the worst that a man can do, it is not self-evident that men

must act as executioners.20 By way of these critiques it is clear that to punish one by death is

simply not acceptable. As Barth so firmly writes, “If the command to protect life is accepted and

asserted in some sense in a national community, then it is impossible to maintain capital

punishment as an element in its normal and continuing order.”21 Barth points out that historically

the death penalty has never been an effective deterrent and its abolition has never resulted in a

growth in capital offenses.22 If capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent and does not in

any way reflect the retributive justice of God, it certainly does more harm than good. By not

18 CD, III.4, 444. 19 CD, III.4, 444. 20 CD, III.4, 400. 21 CD, III.4, 445. 22CD, III.4, excurses 445. While I believe Barth, he does not cite any source information for this claim.

10

serving as a deterrent it ultimately allows for infinite imitators to develop in a society. Justice

must secure and protect the livelihood of its citizens, and capital punishment is actually a means

to destroying lives. Accordingly, within the gospel there can be no teaching that can be

understood to advocate the institution of capital punishment but only teachings that oppose it.23

Therefore, capital punishment is obsolete for normal usage in a society.

Part II: An Examination of the Exceptional Case

Section I: The Construction of the Exceptional Case

On the other hand, there must always be an exceptional case. As human beings we can

never fully understand the actions of God. Thus, we must always explore any exceptional case in

which God could demand something outside the realm of his command as we understand it. If

God so wills it, one must, in an extraordinary circumstance, cease the protection of life and

answer God’s call. Human life is a loan and blessing from God.24 It is for this reason that God

can and does will life and will death. Capital punishment is fundamentally wrong in all

circumstances because it is disobedient and disrespectful to God in two ways. Firstly, as was just

stated, God is the only entity that can will the life or death of an individual. For humans to

employ the death penalty is prideful in the way that human actions have led to a concrete final

action of killing another, which is solely the responsibility of God. Secondly, the command of

God is revealed in his son Jesus Christ.25 Therefore it must be respected and obeyed by humanity

as the object of all actions. As humans we cannot deny the call of the exceptional case, however,

for if it occurs, we must be aware that God could, in a strange way no less, prescribe the

exceptional case for the further protection of life though we may not understand. However, it is

23 CD, III.4, 446. 24 CD, III.4, 397. 25 CD, III.4,397.

11

clear that the exceptional case must always be carried out as the ultima ratio, or the last resort,

after all other options and possibilities have been exercised.26

As noted earlier, although Barth can find absolutely no case in which a society should

utilize capital punishment as a normal institution, it is now imperative that the exceptional case is

examined. The teachings of the New Testament, at the very least, drive capital punishment to the

very fringe of what is acceptable under God’s command (The command of God is “concrete and

specific” and in relation to the concrete action of man is the standard by which all are judged by

God.27) Accordingly, Barth makes clear that ethics must proceed out of the command in relation

to humanity’s concrete actions.28 Thus, the concrete human action of capital punishment is

unethical. However, if one’s existence not only threatens the state and its autonomy, as well as

all of those within the state, the exceptional case may be commanded by God.29 It is significant

to understand, however, that the exceptional case can only be realized if those commissioned to

carry out the task understand that capital punishment is never acceptable outside of this context,

and that they are in no way appealing to a human legal right, but simply a clearly understood

demand from God. Barth asserts,

For behind the use of their use of the death penalty there must stand: (1) a recognition,

which is not immediately apparent, that it is better for one person to die, and thus be

rendered harmless and to serve as a deterrent to the rest, than that the whole nation should

perish; (2) a recognition, which is basically possible only from the ultimate depths of the

Christian faith, that it is the will of the gracious God in relation to this man that he should

be made a companion of the thieves who were crucified with Jesus, they as a just reward

for their deeds, but He having done nothing amiss and in expiation of their sin; and (3) a

dreadful recognition that causing him to die is the only way in which mercy can be shown

to him.30

26 CD, III.4, 398. 27 CD, III.4, 8. 28 CD, III.4, 15, 16. 29 CD, III.4, 446. 30 CD, III.4, 447.

12

It is through these guidelines and these guidelines only that the exceptional case may be carried

out. While the first point seems quite simple, direct and self explanatory, the second point is

more opaque. The second recognition claims that it is the will of God to forgive the perpetrator.

However, God does not only will forgiveness, but wills to make the perpetrator a companion of

Christ upon the cross. It seems that Barth insists that for the most heinous crime a criminal will

be faced with the most overwhelming pure form of love. By being placed with the thieves next to

Jesus, the criminal will be personally forgiven by Christ. Accordingly, the third point can be read

to mean that by living in a society and constantly inflicting so much destruction and pain not

only to the community, but also himself, a criminal in the exceptional case may have to die

simply to put their soul at rest. By this exceptional case the criminal will be saved from the

irreversible corruption to that which their existence has led. Furthermore, Barth continues to hold

that this can only be considered in the final hours of the final days of nation, or in other words,

the absolute final option left for those making this odious decision. These guidelines create a

three-fold recognition process and certainly illustrate the fact that the exceptional case is indeed

most exceptional.

Section II: Inconsistencies in Barth’s Application of the Exceptional

Case to Capital Punishment

While Barth provides these points from which the exceptional case must be built upon,

they seem in many ways problematic. It is clear that the exceptional case must be paradoxical

due to its extraordinary nature, but at the same time there are a few points of contention between

Barth’s critique of the theories of capital punishment and the conclusions he draws concerning

the exceptional case. At the very least it seems that his argument for the exceptional case is

13

strained. Before Barth describes his three-fold recognition necessary to carry out the exceptional

case, he states that the exceptional case may be commanded in the case that an individual

threatens the life of an entire society. Barth supplies a malevolent dictator as an example of a

possible exceptional case, claiming that, if commanded by God, under this circumstance

tyrannicide is not murder.31 This is an interesting assertion due to the fact, that in The Epistle to

the Romans, Barth claims “to be oppressed is a positive human action.”32 Barth explains that

hope is, “not to see, to be deprived and empty-handed, to be confronted by negation.” This

definition of hope seems to pertain to the sentiment of those under a tyrannical leader.

Furthermore, hope is an ethical action due to the fact that, “to rejoice in hope means to know

God without seeing him.”33 Barth also explains that to be patient “is to love those who oppress

you” and that “patience is God here and now.”34 It is apparent that Barth’s prescription in The

Epistle to the Romans, to keep steadfast in hope and prayer so that one day all can rejoice the fall

of a tyrant in the name of God, is far different than his conclusion in Church Dogmatics that

tyrannicide may be warranted by the exceptional case. Barth does hold in Church Dogmatics that

the exceptional case is truly only for the final dark days of a nation,35but it could also be argued

that, on those final dark days, the most Christian response would be to face the most imminent

oppression and death with such patience and such fervent prayer that the command and love of

God are come to fruition among the oppressed. Thus freeing them from their earthly physical

bondage and bringing them to the realization that the true God is among them.

31 CD, III.4, 448,449. 32 Barth, Karl. The Epistle to the Romans,6th Edition. London: Oxford University Press, H. Milford, 1933, 457. (Hereafter will be referred to as ER unless otherwise noted) 33 ER, 457. 34 ER, 457,458. 35 CD, III.4, 447.

14

Accordingly, Barth’s three-fold recognition process has similar flaws. Though the first

part of the first recognition, “that it is better for one person to die, and thus be rendered

harmless,” is fundamentally similar to his assertion that the exceptional case can only be

commanded if one threatens the life of an entire nation, the second part, “and to serve as a

deterrent to the rest,” is problematic.36 For whom can this serve as a deterrent? It was already

established by Barth that throughout history capital punishment has never served as a deterrent.

It is clear that it would be better for one to die than an entire society, but Barth is certainly vague

in expressing how and for whom capital punishment serves as a deterrent under the exceptional

case. If society has killed the perpetrator of crimes so great that society on a whole is on the

brink of collapse, for whom can this serve as a deterrent? Society has already killed the

perpetrator. Does Barth assume there will be other perpetrators attempting to imitate such

heinous crimes? Either way, it appears to be counterproductive for the simple reason that capital

punishment is not a deterrent and will never be a deterrent in the way that it is currently

understood.

The second recognition of the exceptional case, “it is the will of the gracious God in

relation to this man that he should be made a companion of the thieves who were crucified with

Jesus,” though a unique proposition by Barth is seemingly problematic. 37 To compare those who

pose a threat so great that it could destroy the autonomy of an entire nation to the thieves

crucified with Christ, is highly suspect. One of the thieves, St. Dimas, recognized that Jesus was

the messiah and came fully to terms with his ill deeds and asked, “Jesus remember me when you

36 CD, III.4, 447. 37 CD, III.4, 447 (This point deserves greater attention and study in my opinion; however, this paper does not truly provide the context to do so).

15

come into your kingdom.”38 St. Dimas clearly understood his failings and recognized Jesus as the

Messiah, while one who qualifies to be put to death under the exceptional case is willing to take

the lives of many and destroy a society without remorse. At the same time, Barth has already

attested to the fact that in light of the divine retributive justice of God, a society’s “punishment

must take the form in which the forgiveness won for him in Jesus Christ is revealed to him and

the less wicked by concretely showing this forgiveness to the more wicked.”39 This perpetrator

who has challenged the autonomy of an entire nation is the “more wicked.” However, even if we

put aside this act of showing the utmost forgiveness to the most corrupt individuals, it is still

unjust to place them on the cross next to Jesus because they are not worthy as those crucified

with Jesus. Their punishment should be greater than a thief who was sorry for his deeds. If Barth

holds that forgiveness is the ultimate tool for reformation, taking the place of the thieves

crucified with Jesus is unjust no matter how it is to be perceived as so.

Finally, though Barth did say, “it is a dreadful thing when a society can only show mercy

to one of its own by depriving him of life,”40 it would be expected that the exceptional case

would require such a dreadful act. However, the exceptional case is not commanded to issue the

mercy of a society upon a convicted individual, but the mercy of God. While answering the call

to the exceptional case humans can only be concerned with answering the call. While Barth’s

third recognition of the exceptional case states, “that causing him to die is the only way to show

him mercy,”41 he did not specify by whom mercy is being shown to the condemned. By not

specifying if the mercy is that of God or the mercy of man, Barth wanders precariously close to a

38 The New American Bible: translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources; with the revised New Testament. Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers, 19861970, Luke 23: 39-43. 39 CD, III.4, 443 40 CD, III.4, 441. 41 CD, III.4, 447.

16

problematic declaration. While it would be wrong and insolent to question the mercy of God, it

has already been declared by Barth that it is in fact awful for a society to believe that death is the

only way mercy can be shown to a criminal. That decision is only for God to make. Therefore,

while this is not truly problematic now, it is certainly ambiguous and does not serve as a strong

argument for the exceptional case.

Barth’s attempts to describe and provide parameters for the exceptional case are

manifestly problematic once the theological framework which supports the exceptional case is

reevaluated. For Barth, the simplest description of ethics is to interpret and act in accordance to

the command of God. The difficulty with this is that the command is foreign to us. “The Gospel

proclaims a God utterly distinct from men.”42 We are incapable of knowing him through

anything relatable to this worldly existence. This is the first problem of ethics. The will of God is

the only true will and the only true measure of right and wrong. “That alone is right which

complies with his will.”43 Barth asserts that there has always been a void between God and us.

This void, however, has been obscured over time by the righteousness of humanity. This

righteousness has led us to idolatry through the worship of manmade forms of God. That is not

say that human righteous leads to worshiping a golden calf, however it does point to the fact that

the farther away humanity grows from God’s command the easier it is for humans to develop an

idea of God that satisfies their needs before his own will. It is this form of idolatry, in which the

needs and wants of humans supersedes the unknown will of God, Barth warns about. This is why

the true God must be the unknown God, for he is not of or related to this world.

42 ER, 28. 43 ER, 33.

17

Part III: The Development of Barth’s Ethics in View of the

Exceptional Case

Section I: An overview of the Foundations of Barth’s Ethics

It is necessary to comment on the development of Barth’s ethics generally through the

scope of one of his earlier works The Epistle to the Romans. This work provides insight into the

fullness and depth of Barth’s ethics while also introducing us to arguments that are consistent

with the exceptional case. By exploring the neo-orthodox theology that Barth establishes in The

Epistle to the Romans, Barth’s arguments about God and his command, as well as his arguments

for the exceptional case in CD III.4 are illuminated in a way that provides a fullness of

understanding of their structure and how they fit together to create a complete ethical system that

is uniquely Barthian. This system is based completely in scripture, specifically in the Epistle to

the Romans, which not only makes Barth’s later arguments in CD III.4 more powerful, but also

credible in that the source of Barth’s ethics always find their root in the word of God. While it is

integral that Barth’s arguments for the exceptional case are always brought back to CD III.4 and

capital punishment for the purposes of this paper, Barth’s work in The Epistle to the Romans

harbors ideas and arguments that are consistent with and necessary to fully understand the

exceptional case.

18

Barth’s work The Epistles to the Romans immediately makes this distinction between

God and humanity clear. “God is he whom we do not know.”44 The only thing we can know for

certain about God is that our every action and every thought is under his direct, absolute, and

outside influence. However, many of us have not even come to this realization due to the fact

that our entire attitude of life is wrong. We have forgotten the void between the God and

ourselves; we have placed his image among worldly and corruptible things and have settled for

human righteousness.45 This human and temporal world which man has created including art,

religion, morality, and any other concrete form are illusions that we have created. We assume

God needs something, but every request is idolatry; as Barth points out, we are secretly the

masters of our relationship with God. That is to say that humans have successfully rendered an

idea of a God that will hear prayers with pity and swiftly answer them, momentarily suspending

his own will for ours. We create this idol god in hopes of knowing him and pleasing him.

However, we have already been provided with divine revelation and the command of the one

true God, from whom we hide. “Our relation to God is ungodly.”46 It is from this point that the

true creator simply becomes an archetype, as we have obscured the true God to an abstract form.

Misstep after misstep we stray further from the truth, but this is no excuse, “There is no human

righteousness by which men can escape the wrath of God!”47

In this depraved state of humanity the exceptional case would be a prominent and oft

occurring event in ethicals, for the reason that humanity is so detached from the word of God that

the command could not possibly be interpreted to the point of even an approximated

44 ER, 45. 45 ER, 50. 46 ER, 44. 47 ER, 52, 56.

19

understanding. However, even through our brokenness and intense and utter confusion we can do

better. We must abandon the idol of the “no-god” and look towards the command through

revelation. God has not left us. “In Him the void becomes visible.”48 As Barth importantly

writes, “He acknowledges Himself to be our God by creating and maintaining the distance by

which we are all separated from Him; He displays His mercy by inaugurating His Krisis and

bringing us under judgment.”49 It is through confronting this vast void that we can come to hear

the word of God. Furthermore, it is through his judgment that we can become righteous. God

sent Jesus Christ to be the point of supreme significance. The death and resurrection of Jesus

Christ presented us face to face with God under his own judgment. “He is the fulfillment of

every possibility of human progress.”50 He has restored our hope and brought us back to the

word of God. He is “the Krisis” that will propel us towards an approximate understanding of the

command which can only be taken directly from the word of God that Jesus reacquaints us with.

Jesus is revelation. From his life, suffering, death and resurrection we are reacquainted

with the word of God. From this we can attempt to decipher his command. The Gospel is a new

start. Through Jesus, God has given humanity entry into the divine. The Gospel, which starts

with Jesus, is, as Barth puts it, “the clear and objective perception of what eye hath not seen nor

ear heard.”51 This is where ethics must start and always return. The Gospel is the means we have

to understand and act in a way that pleases God. Faith must be the foundation upon which all

other things are built. Faith is the manifestation of God. Faith reveals God and is the meaning of

48 ER, 33. 49 ER, 41. 50 ER, 97 51 ER, 28.

20

the command.52 Faith cannot be from want or even striving, but it must reach out of the void

between God and ourselves, pulling us towards God’s command and will. Faith in the law is the

first step towards deciphering the command.

Faith is of vital importance when we start to decipher the command for the reason that we

must fully and unconditionally submit ourselves to God’s will. The corrupt human world is

limiting. It may be that some human action seems good and possibly are good, but we cannot

make that judgment nor can we credit it to human righteousness. God’s judgment is the only

judgment, the only correct assessment of what is good and what is bad.53 If we are disloyal to

him we are disloyal to ourselves, which can and will propel us back into the realm of corruptible

things. Faith directs us deeper into the command, into places that are invisible and unknowable.

Faith provides that we must encounter the negation or Krisis that God presents us. Faith will

thrust us into shattering revelations. “The Gospel sets a question mark against all truths.”54 As

the sole truth and the source of the comprehensive command, God’s righteousness is not ours nor

will we ever come to know or understand it through any earthly means. “God’s righteousness is

necessarily manifested as divine negation,” so that we can escape our own righteousness that is

bound to idols.55 While progress in moral behavior may accompany faith, one must confront the

Krisis with the understanding that divine righteousness is unattainable by any man.

The divine negation, in which the Lord affirms us with the divine no, has confounded the

spirit and mind of all people throughout history. The more we become aware of the void that

52 ER, 116. 53 ER, 61, 62. 54 ER, 35. 55 ER, 93.

21

separates us from God, however, will bring us closer to his word.56 Through the human action of

piety, aided by faith, there is a possibility for the removal all human systems of thought by the

means of total submission to the will of God. We must submit, for “when we tolerate, accept,

and affirm ourselves, we affirm the existing course of the world.” This action or rather inaction

in relation to his divine will does nothing more than affirm his divine wrath.57 However, when

one does finally submit to the sovereignty of God, the course of their existence is never the same.

As Barth states, one “enters into a condition of shattering confusion – from which he can never

escape.”58 It is through piety and faith that we can dismantle ethics and dissolve religion. This is

what will please God. It will show him that we have finally subjected to his righteousness. It is

only through persistence in these practices that we can truly find the unknown God and his all-

embracing love.

Thus far Barth’s ethics have provided, in the most basic of terms, that God is the wholly

other who’s revealed to us through Jesus Christ, who sets forth the ultimate Krisis--setting a

question mark against everything we know. It is clear from this that there is certainly a place for

the exceptional case for the reason that, though we have been able to move closer to the

command that has been revealed to us, we can still never be certain of what God’s righteousness

demands of us or how it calls us to act. The Epistle to the Romans, however, still provides that

we can do more to develop an approximate understanding of the command. That is to say that

though we can never fully know the greatness of God’s will in this life, we can utilize scripture

and live by agape in order to inch closer to an understanding of what God intends for us. Ethics,

which is bound to the word of God, is the cornerstone of this development. In the very first place

56 ER, 93. 57 ER, 84. 58 ER, 85.

22

Barth advises, “for human behavior must inevitably be disturbed by the thought of God.”59 Gods

has no relation to this world, thus our thoughts and our words are confounded by the thought of

such a being, no less be confronted by his true revelation. This is the exact place of ethics, that is,

to remind us that it is only God’s will that is justified, not our own thoughts. God confronts us

further still with his divine grace. Grace is not simply universal, but omnipresent, which allows it

to cause a permanent disturbance in all men. It is only through this that ethics is actually

meaningful. Barth asserts that grace saves us from our own judgment, by renewing our

conscience. Grace cannot give us a good conscience, “but of a consoled conscience.”60 Our

conscience can never be good because every human action and thought is impure. It is out of this

utter depravity that as we strive to understand the command, we must expect and allow space for

new understandings and new perspectives. We know enough of his command to know, at the

very least, that our every thought and action is tied to the corruption and evil of this world, as

well as that this life is an empty illusion.

Though grace brings us to understand that this life is meaningless, which is an initial step

in participation in the command, the exceptional case is still useful and necessary here. The

ethics that Barth has developed to this point leaves us still in shambles and unable to make out

the command beyond submission. This is due to the fact that we cannot move forward until we

have fully submitted ourselves to divine will. Thus, grace alone cannot propel us past the

necessity of the exceptional case. Because we still have trouble moving past total submission to

the command of God we have trouble acting correctly upon it. In this same way that though

59 ER, 424. 60 ER, 228

23

grace provides us with the fertile love and revelation that God provides for us, in our brokenness

we cannot act upon grace in any fullness.

It is at this point, however, that the entire foundation for Barth’s ethics has been

examined. It is now that he moves to action. We must begin with the presupposition that he

provides us; that God is God. God can never be related to or understood in human terms. This is

the presupposition of ethics and must never be forgotten or ethics will have no meaning. From

this presupposition we can move to the primary action of ethics which is complete submission,

repentance and worship. Ethics is concerned with concrete human action in relation to the

concrete command of God. However, since we are not in communion with God’s command there

is no other human action worth of God than repentance. Accordingly, because we can never

come to fully know and understand the command of God, ethics must focus and attempt to

understand what his will does require. Ethics must provide us with a path to act as closely in the

light of God’s command as humanly possible. Ethically speaking, God’s will requires total

submission and relentless repentance.

We are persons of action, however, we cannot be expected to simply worship and repent.

We must live this life and attempt and struggle to worship him through our own concrete action.

All concrete human action must strive to be a sacrifice unto the Lord. Barth points out that

“Sacrifice is not a human action.” Furthermore, Barth elaborates “he who makes the sacrifice

becomes thereby an instrument of God.” Sacrifice is, rather, a ‘demonstration’ demanded by God

for his glory.”61 That is to say that for an ethical action to truly be ethical and thus pleasing to

God it must always be a sacrifice of some form. Accordingly, ethical action will always take the

61 ER, 431.

24

form of a demonstration against the current earthly establishment and must do so for it to be truly

ethical. Due to the depravity that humanity finds itself enslaved, whatever establishment that has

been upheld as ethical and morally authoritative on earth and is not of God, must be abandoned

with expediency. This is the secondary and always dangerous action of ethics. Even if the

presupposition and primary action of ethics are taken into account when carrying out the

secondary action it may still be unethical. This is due to the fact that the primary form of ethical

action, which is repentance and utter submission to God’s command, does not necessarily give

way to the secondary or demonstrative form of ethics which is based in our interpretation and

then our action in light of the command. This is due to the fact that no matter how much

repentance and humility we express, we will still be vulnerable to the pleasures and illusions of

this earth. Human interpretation, knowledge and action are always corrupt. Thus, human action

will always have the propensity to be sinful.

The negative ethical possibilities that are solely related to God and his righteousness

demands the necessity of the exceptional case. Since ethics must always be contradictory to our

human behavior, it can only reveal itself in Krisis. Thus, we can never fully know the

righteousness of God in this life; all possibilities, both negative and positive, must still come

under question and fall exclusively under divine judgment. As we have already explored, the

negative possibility of ethics begins on the cross with the death of Jesus. This negation can be

viewed clearly in the way that everything that brings value and meaning to our life in this world

has become a parable of death. On the other hand, death itself has become a parable of life.62

Negative ethics certainly provides room for the exceptional case. This is only for the reason that

we cannot decipher the negation fully. If we could, however, it would be the death of the

62 ER, 462.

25

exceptional case, for if we could understand the negative ethics that pertain to the coming world,

we would know God.

At the same time, in order for Christian ethics to maintain its legitimacy it must always

recall that it is not its objective to provide answers. “Human behavior that has not passed through

purgatory can never be ethical.”63 With this in view ethics must move forward, only providing

points of reference to ethical events, and must never submit itself to any ethical absolutes. As

Barth puts it, “Christian ethics [must] only demonstrate, only bear witness that there is an

answer.”64 Ethical action can only be that which is affirmed by God. We can only make

hypotheses and evaluations of what we perceive to be ethical. We live our entire existence in the

shadow of evil, striving so that we may not be engulfed by it. Knowledge of God, however, only

leads us closer to God. Furthermore, the closer to God we are the more good we may stumble

across in our broken and tired existence. Ethics can lead one to action which brings us closer to

“the dissolution of the man in this world and the establishing of the individual in God.” Even

with an ever-expanding awareness of the command in every moment the exceptional case is still

necessary at this point. The exceptional case to this point in Barth’s ethics is necessary to bring

us closer to the knowledge of his command. Through complete submission to the will of God the

exceptional case will further rattle our conscience and move our action unto an ethical path

which is higher than the one which we are on now.

63 ER, 466. 64 ER, 466.

26

Section II: Special Ethics and Barth’s Response to Casuistry

It is integral at this point, that with Barth’s ethics as laid out in The Epistle to the Romans

in mind, we return to CD II.4 and Barth’s discussion of special ethics and casuistry. Casuistry

must be dealt with if the use of the exceptional case and Barth’s ethics in general are to be

justified. It is for this reason that though Barth’s ethical framework was laid out in The Epistle to

the Romans, Barth takes the time at the beginning of CD III.4 to expound upon the way ethics

must work to be successful and in what ways other forms of ethics, namely casuistry, can be

dangerous. Casuistry must be argued against overtly, due to its contradictory nature to Barth’s

own ethics, and definitely his understanding of God’s divine command and will. By explaining

special ethics succinctly and providing an alternative to casuistry, Barth also legitimizes the

exceptional case as a necessary and consistent piece of his larger ethics.

Barth further expounds upon his ethics in the opening section of The Doctrine of

Creation. The foundation of his ethics laid out in The Epistle to the Romans is deepened in this

text. We still must start from the point that the primary task of ethics is to understand and

interpret the word of God as the divine command, which demands total submission. Accordingly,

the goodness of God is the ultimate and definitive measure of goodness or ethical behavior.

Furthermore, ethics provide that concrete human action will be measured either positively or

negatively, and judged accordingly by God, against the command of God. Thus, Christian ethics

depends upon and is concerned with the concreteness and goodness of human actions, as well as

27

the concreteness and goodness of the actions of God.65 From all of this it is sill clear that there is

a limit to human reason, knowledge and ethics. Barth’s ethics prescribe that human ethics are not

truths or universal. Rather, ethics must be formed and understood as a “reference to an ethical

event, as a description and attestation of the command of God and the right human action

corresponding to it.”66 That is to say, because humans have no grasp on any type of absolute

good, or right from wrong in general, ethics should be a tool that points to specific instances as a

guide for human action. This is not a guide in the sense that it is objective;ly or universally

correct ???? (that would be more along the lines of casuistry, which is unacceptable for Barth),

but a suggestion that is based on the extent of human knowledge of the command. Thus, due to

the elemental and core difference between humans and their creator, as well as the ultimate good

that is lost or hidden in translation of the divine command by man, the exceptional case must first

and foremost stand as the acknowledgement and supplement to the lack of human ethical

knowledge.

At the same time, Barth uses this opportunity to develop his ethics as a comprehensive

solution to casuistry. Casuistry proposes a series of universal absolutes that claim to know the

truth of good and evil. This provides that a human being can make ethical and moral judgments,

and declares that humanity can decide what actions are right and wrong. This is clearly

impossible in the first place given the known fact that God is the only absolute. This is clearly

problematic due to the fact that, as previously expressed, only God knows and can express the

supreme good. Even further, casuistry does not simply allow humans to create what actions are

65 CD, III.4, 3. 66 CD, III.4, 18.

28

right and wrong, but demands that all humanity must be convinced that these created laws are

true and the laws of God.67

Most irresponsibly, however, casuistry claims to master “the command and therefore God

himself. This is not only problematic in the way that it returns to the idolatry of the manmade

God, but it is also unethical. Likewise, casuistry assumes that the command is an “empty form”

or blank slate which must be filled in with concrete and specific application. This of course is not

true; given that the command of God is perfect, comprehensive and frankly the only command

by which man will be judged.68 The command not only orders proper action from humans, but

also guides how one thinks and externally what one abstains from doing.69 Nothing is left to

human choice or preference in light of the command, which is exactly what casuistry does allow.

Additionally, casuistry abolishes Christian freedom. By convincing humanity that human

law is the command of God, casuistry denies the opportunity for humans to voluntarily act in

light of the command. Man should ultimately voluntarily submit, under his own power and

cause, to follow the command. There is no excuse, however, for those that have heard the word

of God must voluntarily submit to the will of God. Human logic, knowledge and interpretation

will always be faulty, thus it is not safe to depend upon one’s brethren for explanation of the

word. The command must be deciphered and acted upon individually. We will all come before

the wrath of God accountable only for ourselves.

Special ethics can provide the solution to casuistry. Special ethics does not seek to

provide answers to ethical questions, due to the fact that we have established that ethics cannot

67 CD, III.4, 10, 11. 68 CD, III.4, 11. 69 CD, III.4, 12.

29

provide absolutes. Rather special ethics prefers to serve as an active witness to ethical events

recording the character and shape of human action, not a rule.70 Barth’s description and opinions

on capital punishment are this very form of ethics concretely carried out. Special ethics also must

not forget its origins and must always describe all human action in relation to the gospel.71 The

ultimate task of special ethics must be to build and support a bridge over that dark void that

separates us from God and his absolute righteousness. That is to say, special ethics must provide

the meaning in God’s command, as well as a timely and accurate human response.72 These will

never be truths or universals, because we cannot know the truth, but general references that will

progress our human action closer and closer to God. As Barth puts it, “True dogmatics must

always steer a middle course – between what they must not be and what they cannot be.” We

must always leave the absolute act of judgment up to God.

Furthermore, all human action that takes place in this world, takes place fully in the

sphere of creation. That is to say, we only know God through his creation and subsequently

through Jesus Christ, not through his actions as redeemer or reconciler. What we know about our

existence that has not been revealed to us through the centuries has only come from our senses

and the world around us. This illuminates the fact that we are only familiar with God in the form

of the Creator.73 This is problematic due to the fact that God acts and commands as a Trinitarian

being. God takes form not only as the creator, but also as our redeemer and reconciler.74

Accordingly we are commanded to act in all three spheres in the instance of an ethical event.

This is because we are directed by the command in all three spheres. Thus, if we are to submit

70 CD, III.4, 18. 71 CD, III.4, 27. 72 CD, III.4, 29. 73 CD, III.4, 17, 33. 74 CD, III.4, 25.

30

ourselves completely to God we must act accordingly in all three spheres. The fact that the

command is expressed uniquely in all three forms of God undeniably leads to an incomplete

knowledge of the command due to the fact that we are only familiar with God as the Creator.

This is a problem because we can no longer proceed to interpret the command due to the

obscurity and lack of knowledge between these spheres.75 It is in this light that the exceptional

case must be a possibility again. Though special ethics provides us with a process by which we

could begin to understand which human activities seemed to be better than others, limiting the

exceptional case to some extent, the lack of knowledge of the second and third sphere of the

command lead us to depend on the possibility of the exceptional case more than ever. Anywhere

in which there is insufficient knowledge of God’s absolute righteousness there must stand the

possibility of the exceptional case.

Section III: The Exceptional Case: A Human Necessity

The exceptional case is necessary in Barth’s exploration of ethics in both The Epistle to

the Romans and The Doctrine of Creation. It is clear however that the exceptional case is

required for different reasons in each text. In Epistle to the Romans Barth explicitly states that

though we must honor the first table of the commandments because they relate to honor and

worship of God, it is very possible that God may command us to act in ways contradictory to the

second table.76 It is this statement that reminds us that our action is always corrupt and his

command is that which we will never fully understand. It is this complete and utter separation

between the action of God and the command of the Lord that makes the exceptional case

75 CD, III.4, 37. 76 ER, 451.

31

necessary. Similarly, The Doctrine of Creation offers that we must know and act on behalf of the

command in all three positions of God: Creator, Redeemer and Reconciler. It is this conception

of God and his command which makes the exceptional case necessary as a possibility. Though

we can use ethics to create a timeline of reference points to ethical events in light of the

command, thus giving us the shape and character of action under the command in similar

moments, we as humans only know the command in the form given by the creator. We must act,

however, upon the command in every person of God. It is in the way that we only know God as

the creator which must leave room for the possibility of the exceptional case. In light of the fact

that Barth’s ethics on the whole leaves room for the exceptional case, it can be determined that

Barth’s description and attempt to set parameters on the exceptional case in the event of capital

punishment is a direct application of his own ethics set forth in both The Epistle to the Romans

and Church Dogmatics. Simply put, Barth’s exploration of capital punishment and the

conclusions he came to through this exploration were not found merely from the ethical

framework as laid out in The Epistle to the Romans, but also took into account Barth’s own

prescriptions for the manifestation of the right kind of action that ethics demand, as were laid out

in CD III.4 in his discussions of special ethics. It is through the use and applications of the

parameters which Barth set forth for the exceptional case of capital punishment that he sets

objective reference points to the character of such ethical events. Barth would agree that his

opinions must not be taken for granted but reevaluated in light of the command at every moment.

Our interpretation of God’s divine righteousness is always questionable.

32

Conclusion

Though Barth’s ethical framework as laid out in The Epistle to the Romans and in III.4 of

Church Dogmatics is inconsistent with the way in which he attempts to apply the exceptional

case to capital punishment, both Barth’s ethical framework and subsequently the necessity for

the exceptional case are salvageable. Salvageable and useful in the way that, though his attempt

is not perfect, Barth’s application of the exceptional case and how it might pan out for the ethical

event of capital punishment took into account the entire structure of his ethics. This is to say that

through the application of the exceptional case Barth includes the presupposition that God is

God, a being utterly distinct from humans, the primary action of ethics or total submission to the

will of God through repentance, and finally, the secondary or demonstrative form of

demonstration and sacrifice. Furthermore, though Barth’s application of parameters to the

exceptional case in view of capital punishment is inconsistent with his larger ethics, his

conclusions about what the exceptional case might look like cannot be affirmed or denied by

anything on this earth. In short, while I stand by the argument that the exceptional case in terms

of capital punishment is strained when observed in Barth’s larger ethics, we can never fully

understand what the exceptional case may demand of us. The most important part of his work on

the exceptional case and capital punishment, however, is that he provides a demonstration of

how one might attempt to progress and observe an ethical event through his own ethical

framework. Thus, while one might question the conclusions Barth comes to after going through

his ethical process and specific actions (presupposition, primary and secondary actions), we are

provided with a process that can help any person attempt and participate in ethical

contemplation.

33

Barth begins his application of the exceptional case of capital punishment with the

presupposition of ethics always in mind, that God is wholly and utterly distinct from humanity.

The fact that Barth’s ethics create a space for the exceptional case is the first and foremost

indicator of the fact that Barth is always aware that we cannot know or understand, in large part,

the will of God. By providing room for the exceptional case, Barth concedes that the knowledge

of humans is limited. Accordingly, with this presupposition always in mind, Barth can continue

to the first and primary actions of ethics that is total repentance and complete submission to the

will of God. This primary action is necessary, especially when dealing with the judgment of

others for the fact that God has the only perspective that is not skewed by bias or history. Thus,

when contemplating capital punishment submission to God’s will is imperative. It would not be

just to pay no attention to a destructive criminal who brings pain and suffering to others, while at

the same time to act swiftly and finally putting such a destructive person to death steals the

authority and final judgment of God. The exceptional case fits here perfectly. By always

acknowledging the possibility of the exceptional case Barth is forced contemplate the command

of God and to examine a case like capital punishment from all angles. Because the exceptional

case demands contemplation which is consistent with the primary ethical action of repentance

and total submission to the will of God, Barth can progress to the secondary and demonstrative

form of ethics. By always remembering that God is distinct and nothing knowable in human

terms, and by submitting to the will of God through the examination of the exceptional case,

Barth can begin to create ethical prescriptions for how to deal with capital punishment. To be

clear, it is never to be taken for granted that ethics are perpetually evolving and that Barth’s

prescriptions for capital punishment can never be proven right and should be reevaluated with

every individual case. Though Barth’s application of the exceptional case to the death penalty is

34

certainly a demonstration against his own ethics, which finds and deems capital punishment

entirely unethical, it is representative of his commitment to the process of the presupposition,

primary and secondary actions of ethics. That is to say though the exceptional case seems to be

inconsistent with his own ethics, Barth comes to his conclusions after total submission and

contemplation on what the command of God is demanding. Accordingly, through the synthesis

of presupposition and primary action of ethics, Barth constructs the exceptional case to the best

of his ability. Thus, while Barth was certainly human and had the same limitations of knowledge

that all other humans do, he was able to create a meaningful demonstration of special ethics and

particularly the exceptional case in view of capital punishment through the application of his

own ethical framework.

Barth’s ethical framework is successful in that it provides a formula that keeps us moving

towards a greater understanding of the command of God, while also carefully not disturbing the

sovereignty of God and his will in the minds of humans. As Barth reminds us, “True dogmatics

and true ethics must always steer a middle course – between what they must not be and what

they cannot be.” 77 This is to say that Barth’s ethics always attempt to move in light of the

command in concrete action. However, his ethics also acknowledges what they cannot be, and

that is any type of prescriptive rule. Rather, Barth’s ethics is bound to revelation, which comes to

humanity through Jesus Christ. It is from this rigorous reliance upon God and his revelation that

Barth attempts to bear witness to this existence, applying the command when he can, creating

reference points from his observations. These reference points can be used to compare and

contrast human action and its compatibility with the command of God. Along those same lines,

these reference points make certain that humanity takes part in the important secondary action of

77 CD, III.4, 31.

35

demonstration. By using reference points humans can attempt to live ethically, that is, in line

with God’s divine will as our understanding of the command will allow. Most importantly,

however, due to the fact that these reference point are not viewed as correct or incorrect, but

rather simply a record of human action, there can be no infiltration of human righteousness into

Barth’s ethics. Overall, Barth’s ethical framework provides a middle course which does not

afford human righteousness the chance to intervene in ethical decision making, while always

mindful that God is judge and commander over all human action.

All-in-all, Barth’s ethics and application of the exceptional case must be salvageable for

the reason that the exceptional case is necessary. Human logic will always be inconsistent due to

its sinful nature. We are incapable of deciphering the command of God. Barth’s ethical frame

work, produced from The Epistle of the Romans to III.4 of Church Dogmatics, provides us with a

process that can bear witness to concrete human action in light of revelation, inching closer and

closer to the command, Barth admits in his discussion of special ethics that we only know God

and his command in the form of creator and not in the form of redeemer or reconciler. From this,

it is clear that we are only privy to a part of the whole. Thus, Barth’s ethics provides the

exceptional case in light of the fact that our knowledge is simply too limited to ever form any

type of ethical absolute.

All-in-all, Barth’s ethics and application of the exceptional case must be salvageable for

the reason that the exceptional case is necessary. It is important to acknowledge that the

exceptional case, which is at the margins of revelation or not yet understood through grace, at

some time, may be the will and command of God. Though there are inconsistencies between

Barth’s larger ethics and his application of the exceptional case to capital punishment, both his

larger ethics and the exceptional case are salvageable in the way that that the application of

36

parameters to the exceptional case is a direct application of the process that the components of

his own ethical framework provide. That is to say, that through applying his ethics to capital

punishment he shows us how that adherence to the presupposition of ethics and the primary

action of ethics can be applied to arrive at the secondary demonstrative action of ethics. Human

logic will always be inconsistent. Accordingly, we are incapable of deciphering the command of

God. Though Barth’s ethical frame work has provided us with a process that can bear witness to

concrete human action in light of revelation, inching closer and closer to the command,

Furthermore, Barth’s ethics provides a middle road that moves us towards a greater

understanding of the command, while not interfering or ignoring God’s sovereign command.

Through careful reading and contemplation of Barth’s Epistle to the Romans and III.4 of Church

Dogmatics, it becomes clear that Karl Barth has left us with an ethical framework which is both

useful and bound to the conservative and descriptive theology that Barth abides by, which

delivers us with a series of ethical reference points in light of revelation, and always providing a

space for the ethical case.

37

38

Works Cited

Barth, Karl, and Edwyn Clement Hoskyns. The Epistle to the Romans,. London: Oxford

University Press, H. Milford, 1933.

Barth, Karl, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Thomas F. Torrance. Church dogmatics. New

York, NY: T. & T. Clark International, 2004.

The New American Bible: translated from the original languages with critical use of all the

ancient sources; with the revised New Testament. Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible

Publishers, 19861970.

Cited only Luke 23.