Between 1947 and 1957 the question of Holy Communion was discussed by theologians belonging to the Lutheran, Reformed and ‘Union’ churches. They had been appointed to undertake the task by the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD). Their findings were published in the form of the following theses in November 1957, now known as The Arnoldshain Theses.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to make a provisional reply to my Catholic critics. For the objections formulated by Father G. Bavaud on the subject of my Christology of the New Testament are representative of those which I have encountered in other Catholic writers. I respond all the more willingly to his article since I discern in it a sincere desire to understand me and to converse with me in a spirit of complete honesty. Despite this, I do not feel that he has understood me at a very important point; and this is because I expressed myself too briefly in certain parts of my book. But, on the other hand, since only Catholic theologians (and not all of them) have attributed ideas to me which I do not recognise as my own, I wonder whether, besides a difference of method of which I will speak at the end of this article, there is not something else equally important.

It is generally assumed that the two words ‘revelation’ (apocalypsis) and ‘manifestation’ (phanerosis) should be considered as synonymous and used as such in the exegesis of the New Testament. Nevertheless a closer examination of their peculiarities and use in the early Church would probably bring forward new material for the theological discussion of our time. Our study purposes to survey the matter and to relate its findings to the question of a revelation to the heathen and to the reason of their being without excuse before God's judgment.2

The Reformation gave back the Bible to the people, that is to say the Bible in the vulgar tongue. We may enter now into some of the theological problems implied in this important historical event, by revealing the well-known circumstances of the first religious disputation held at Zürich on 29th January 1523. Zwingli's first thesis was that those who do not recognise the Gospel but by the authority of the Church, err and insult God. The same conviction is repeated in quite the same words and with still greater completeness in the Scots Confession, art. 19. Some months before the disputation, Zwingli had sent his treatise Von Klarheit und Gewissheit des Wortes Gottes, to the Black Friars of Oetenbach. For three years already he had himself been preaching daily in Our Lady's Münster in the capital. In his correspondence with the vicar of Constanz, who seriously disapproved of Zwingli's activity, he published his Apologeticus Archeteles, 1522, in which he said: ‘to this treasure, I mean the certitude of God's Word, our heart should be directed’, and in his second answer to the objections of the vicar he ventured to give the assurance that ‘the people will always surrender themselves with the simplicity of a dove to the sole Gospel, and in proportion as it is the less stained by the dust of human traditions, the people will be the more susceptible to the celestial doctrine in which they take their refuge with all confidence as to a holy anchor’.

This paper is written as an exegesis of Mark 16. 1–8. It could 1 be called a midrash on R. H. Lightfoot's treatment of the subject in his Gospel Message of Saint Mark. I accept his argument that this was the concluding paragraph of the gospel. The exegesis which I shall give assumes that the account is written with great care and exactness, and that its theological meaning is conveyed, after this evangelist's manner, by subtle allusions, and that the theological meaning is integral to the narrative; no bare chronicle could express the ‘truth’ of such an event.

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.