This section is so rich, dense, and...well...long that it must be broken up into three parts, hence the subsection listings. The entire section of Chapter 15.2 is labeled "Very God and Very Man"
(note to readers, the first time I wrote this I typed "berry God" - woops. That might take theology down a whole separate, more fruity, more comical path)
This chapter is the answer to the question: Who is Jesus Christ. "Very God and Very Man." In a rich theological statement, Barth quips that "If we wish to state who Jesus Christ is, in every separate statement we must also state, or at least make clear - and inexorably so - that we are speaking of the Lord of heaven and earth....who enters into profoundest hiddenness in 'meekness of heart.'" (133) - awesome. Here Barth makes four key points: The first point to make is that the Word which is said to have come in flesh is the "eternal Word of the eternal Father." (134) The Word is the subject of the statement "The Word was made flesh" from John 1:14, meaning that nothing befalls him, and is not dependent upon any action by human history to be true.
(my own thought - ...what does this say about sin/providence?...)
Point number 2: The becoming of the Word took place in the divine freedom of the Word - it is not necessary that it be so - it is God's free will that made this happen. (makes me think about my gratefulness of God again) In a powerful theological statement, Barth states that along with this, "His Word will still be His Word apart from this becoming, just as Father, Son and Holy Spirit would be none the less eternal God, if no world had been created." (135) So when the Word became flesh, we are speaking of a miracle - a radical act of God's mercy. Point 3: Even after this "becoming" has taken place (eg Christ exists fully on earth) God's Word is still free and unrestrained. "The Word is what He is even before and apart from His being flesh." (136)
Four, that Mary as theotokos "God-bearer" should be reaffirmed. For commentary and extra research on this, one should refer to the Council of Ephesus. Anyway, for the next six pages or so, Barth goes off on a little journey regarding historical accounts and arguments from previous theologians about the theotokos controversy. He mentions the Mariology doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, discusses the councils a bit, and then ends with a suggestion that Protestant fear of Mariology has perhaps driven it so far away from all mystery that it becomes okay to dispense with the idea that Jesus was born to the virgin Mary at all.
Later we'll see about this argument.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Dogmatics I.2 Section 15.1
Sorry for the delay...as if anyone was waiting in anticipation for this next chapter to be summarized...the move back to Princeton has been my primary focus. The Barth journey continues!
This next section, labeled The Problem of Christology, begins with a succinct example of Barth's rich Christological emphasis that acts as the foundation to his theology. In the first paragraph he basically says that the Word of God (embodied in Jesus) focusing on the events surrounding Easter is that which the Scripture and the Church stands or falls. Later he states that statements about Christ must be the dominant theme of church dogmatics or it ceases to be so by definition. So he begins to dive into exactly what the particular mystery of the Word of God on earth is. It is here that the "mystery of revelation must be brought to its definite expression" in Jesus Christ. The crucial starting-point of Christ is the ultimate mystery of the expression of revelation by God. So how does this come about? The mystery is that God becomes human to redeem humanity through the virgin birth, which Barth argues is an important and necessary function of the story of Christ. The next few chapters deal with just this very thing. But before beginning that discussion....
Barth states first and foremost that "only one thing should be insisted upon here": that the assertion that "Jesus Christ is very God and very man" is actually an assumption necessary - that no proof will cause this to become true. It is a mystery - "Christology deals with the revelation of God as a mystery" (131), -- Key word there Mystery. The discussion on page 132 shouldn't be missed. Talk about faith - the discussion of Christ cannot be transmuted into something devoid of mystery...it is mystery at very essence. The discussion of Christ must be directed towards preserving its mystery.
(my comment) Makes you wonder if theological education tries to leave room for any mystery to take place. Are we explaining it away or building a foundation on a mystery we confess and have faith in? Faith seeking understanding....
With this foundation we venture on to the virgin birth.
This next section, labeled The Problem of Christology, begins with a succinct example of Barth's rich Christological emphasis that acts as the foundation to his theology. In the first paragraph he basically says that the Word of God (embodied in Jesus) focusing on the events surrounding Easter is that which the Scripture and the Church stands or falls. Later he states that statements about Christ must be the dominant theme of church dogmatics or it ceases to be so by definition. So he begins to dive into exactly what the particular mystery of the Word of God on earth is. It is here that the "mystery of revelation must be brought to its definite expression" in Jesus Christ. The crucial starting-point of Christ is the ultimate mystery of the expression of revelation by God. So how does this come about? The mystery is that God becomes human to redeem humanity through the virgin birth, which Barth argues is an important and necessary function of the story of Christ. The next few chapters deal with just this very thing. But before beginning that discussion....
Barth states first and foremost that "only one thing should be insisted upon here": that the assertion that "Jesus Christ is very God and very man" is actually an assumption necessary - that no proof will cause this to become true. It is a mystery - "Christology deals with the revelation of God as a mystery" (131), -- Key word there Mystery. The discussion on page 132 shouldn't be missed. Talk about faith - the discussion of Christ cannot be transmuted into something devoid of mystery...it is mystery at very essence. The discussion of Christ must be directed towards preserving its mystery.
(my comment) Makes you wonder if theological education tries to leave room for any mystery to take place. Are we explaining it away or building a foundation on a mystery we confess and have faith in? Faith seeking understanding....
With this foundation we venture on to the virgin birth.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Dogmatics I.2 Section 14.3
The Time of Recollection
As you might have guessed, the Time of Recollection refers to the New Testament witness - the time with a definite history and existence testifying about the begotten, crucified and resurrected Lord. Barth's introductory section here includes a great quote, but one that might not have been expected of Barth. "The New Testament makes no claim at all in favour of the religion documented in it, but it does claim to be heard as witness." (102) That's the important thing to realize right off - that it is witness. Someone did in fact see these things and experience this...and they are testifying about it. In that sense it is recollection. It is also very important (and sometimes abused by some sections of Christianity) that the NT scriptures are signs and stories pointing back to the actual person of Christ who lived on the earth - their word is only telling about the Word. If it is seen to subsist entirely upon their own words, eg. if Paul's words are his wisdom, they have no foundation in Christ and fail to be recollection.
There is a three-part (triune?) focus here in Barth's section 14.3. First is the argument that the NT (like OT) is a witness to the "togetherness of God and man, based on and consisting in a free self-relating of God to man." (103) It is once again all God's doing and man's fighting for this is futile. This togetherness with man, unlike all those times of togetherness in the OT (think David, Moses, Abraham), actually appropriates God's grace and fulfills God's law! **The New Testament only declares what the Old Testament expected. The NT does not exist if God as man did not exist in Christ, and the OT is declared useless because it does not point to anything. If we fail to center recollection upon Christ, we end up with useless signs pointing to nowhere, because "if we reject the thing signified, we certainly reject, too, the signs and witnesses" (105) Barth then ends this section with a powerful thought: the OT expectation of savior is fulfilled when Christ dies upon the cross, crucified by the very people expecting him. And it was for this treachery that Christ died. Furthermore, "the very rejection of Christ by Israel completely established the fact for them that this is He that should come; His very crucifixion is the event in which both the new time is established and the old fulfilled." (106)
The second argument here by Barth is that the NT is the witness of the revelation of the hidden God. That in the NT recollection, somehow God reveals Himself through hidden-ness. How's this for revealing the hidden-ness of God: "[the meeting of God with man acquires an ultimate seriousness] since Golgotha was a direct sin against God and since that is the very spot where God Himself bears the punishment of sin." (109) The topic here is the suffering of mankind. The New Testament witness is that one died for all - answering the question of hiddenness of God in the OT (see previous post). The thing that separates the NT from the OT revelation of the hiddenness of God is just this: that the NT has an answer to the apparent mass condemnation of humankind. The OT question lies: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Barth's point from the NT witness (embodied completely in Romans 11) "God hath concluded all under disobedience" is followed by "that he might have mercy upon all" !! The "Why" of the OT has been answered by the NT, and now the mystery lies in the "how." Thus, it is at this point, the point of "so that" that fits between these two sentences that we must look at recollection and expectation from, namely the resurrection.
The third argument is this: that the NT witness is once again an expectation to completion in Christ - where the "Thy Kingdom come" is complete. Surely the Kingdom has been ushered in by Christ, and that is what the NT witnesses to, but there is more: the fullness of God has yet to be experienced. The key lays on page 114: that, using a previous definition from his discussions of "time," the actual time of the resurrection cannot be placed within human time. Once resurrection takes place, the Word once again transcends time and space, thereby making Jesus Christ once again past, present, future - part of the "I am that I am". "New Testament faith has Christ as it hopes in him." (119) The believer is no longer alone because Christ is transcendent (which is besides the fact that the Spirit is also with us).
Barth then ends with a very interesting discussion of the place of John the Baptist. It's worth looking at and thinking about if you don't mind taking a moment to discuss the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. In short, he says that his place in ushering in the new time of Christ (a "third time" as discussed previously) is in sort of limbo between expectation (which certainly John does) and recollection as well as the time in between. It makes John sort of special.
As you might have guessed, the Time of Recollection refers to the New Testament witness - the time with a definite history and existence testifying about the begotten, crucified and resurrected Lord. Barth's introductory section here includes a great quote, but one that might not have been expected of Barth. "The New Testament makes no claim at all in favour of the religion documented in it, but it does claim to be heard as witness." (102) That's the important thing to realize right off - that it is witness. Someone did in fact see these things and experience this...and they are testifying about it. In that sense it is recollection. It is also very important (and sometimes abused by some sections of Christianity) that the NT scriptures are signs and stories pointing back to the actual person of Christ who lived on the earth - their word is only telling about the Word. If it is seen to subsist entirely upon their own words, eg. if Paul's words are his wisdom, they have no foundation in Christ and fail to be recollection.
There is a three-part (triune?) focus here in Barth's section 14.3. First is the argument that the NT (like OT) is a witness to the "togetherness of God and man, based on and consisting in a free self-relating of God to man." (103) It is once again all God's doing and man's fighting for this is futile. This togetherness with man, unlike all those times of togetherness in the OT (think David, Moses, Abraham), actually appropriates God's grace and fulfills God's law! **The New Testament only declares what the Old Testament expected. The NT does not exist if God as man did not exist in Christ, and the OT is declared useless because it does not point to anything. If we fail to center recollection upon Christ, we end up with useless signs pointing to nowhere, because "if we reject the thing signified, we certainly reject, too, the signs and witnesses" (105) Barth then ends this section with a powerful thought: the OT expectation of savior is fulfilled when Christ dies upon the cross, crucified by the very people expecting him. And it was for this treachery that Christ died. Furthermore, "the very rejection of Christ by Israel completely established the fact for them that this is He that should come; His very crucifixion is the event in which both the new time is established and the old fulfilled." (106)
The second argument here by Barth is that the NT is the witness of the revelation of the hidden God. That in the NT recollection, somehow God reveals Himself through hidden-ness. How's this for revealing the hidden-ness of God: "[the meeting of God with man acquires an ultimate seriousness] since Golgotha was a direct sin against God and since that is the very spot where God Himself bears the punishment of sin." (109) The topic here is the suffering of mankind. The New Testament witness is that one died for all - answering the question of hiddenness of God in the OT (see previous post). The thing that separates the NT from the OT revelation of the hiddenness of God is just this: that the NT has an answer to the apparent mass condemnation of humankind. The OT question lies: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Barth's point from the NT witness (embodied completely in Romans 11) "God hath concluded all under disobedience" is followed by "that he might have mercy upon all" !! The "Why" of the OT has been answered by the NT, and now the mystery lies in the "how." Thus, it is at this point, the point of "so that" that fits between these two sentences that we must look at recollection and expectation from, namely the resurrection.
The third argument is this: that the NT witness is once again an expectation to completion in Christ - where the "Thy Kingdom come" is complete. Surely the Kingdom has been ushered in by Christ, and that is what the NT witnesses to, but there is more: the fullness of God has yet to be experienced. The key lays on page 114: that, using a previous definition from his discussions of "time," the actual time of the resurrection cannot be placed within human time. Once resurrection takes place, the Word once again transcends time and space, thereby making Jesus Christ once again past, present, future - part of the "I am that I am". "New Testament faith has Christ as it hopes in him." (119) The believer is no longer alone because Christ is transcendent (which is besides the fact that the Spirit is also with us).
Barth then ends with a very interesting discussion of the place of John the Baptist. It's worth looking at and thinking about if you don't mind taking a moment to discuss the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. In short, he says that his place in ushering in the new time of Christ (a "third time" as discussed previously) is in sort of limbo between expectation (which certainly John does) and recollection as well as the time in between. It makes John sort of special.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Dogmatics I.2 Section 14.2
Wow, 2 chapters in one day? Can we make it 3? We'll see....
The Time of Expectation, as plainly stated in the first paragraph, is the time of the Old Testament. It is the collective works of Israel's prophets, kings, scribes, laws, etc that witness to the coming Messiah. "Genuine expectation and genuine recollection are testimonies to revelation...different, but one in their content, in their object, in the thing attested," (70) In this chapter Barth claims that the OT is the expectation of revelation, the pointing towards the time God will speak decisively for the salvation of Israel. The OT is the foundation of the revelation, it attests to what God's people had hoped for, realized in the earthly existence of Jesus Christ. Many NT passages recollect this expectation of the OT in defense of the fulfilled revelation. A great related quote: "in abandoning the Old Testament they [2nd century theological heretics] had abandoned not something but everything, namely the New Testament itself as well, and the whole New Testament at that." (74) Without the foundation of God's covenant and expectation, revelation would be a symbol to which there are no signs, an anonymous word. The important connection between the OT and NT is that Jesus is the object of both; they share a unity of revelation in all aspects.
Barth then suggests 3 places where this unity is recognizable: (1) they are both the witness to revelation, which is the "free, utterly once-for-all, concrete action of God." (80) This is represented in the OT by the covenant, which is "a sanctification, a claiming, a commandeering, an arrest of man for God, not of God for man." (81) God had established relationships with men (and women) in the OT that serve him as representatives of Israel, and forged covenants with them. But remember that the covenant was also the law. The Hebrew word for the action of making a covenant literally is "to cut," a violent word that exemplifies the decisive action of God. Barth suggests that the OT idea of covenant is God's revelation "because it is expectation of the revelation of Jesus Christ." (81) The covenants as well as the offices of men with whom God had a relationship with only hint at divine action (prophets, kings, priests), testifying to the supreme version of all these as represented in Jesus Christ.
(2) in both the OT and NT God declares himself to be hidden by revealing Himself. It appears to me that the only way to reveal while remaining hidden (or even to increase in mystery) is to catch a glimpse. For one to hide, one must at some point in the past have made one's self known to some degree. The OT did this through Moses, David, Ezekiel, etc. Anyway, back to Barth. Barth suggests this dichotomy is presented through the knowledge of the law and then the choice of Israel to follow or deny it. To choose God or Baal. The revelation of the OT was the law and its consequences. The thing revealing this hidden-ness was the problem of theodicy (that people suffer even though God is good...even good people suffer - think Job). He gives specific examples for a couple pages, and mentions justice, which goes hand-in-hand with the law. "Sin in the [OT] is itself a mystery, the mystery of the breaking of the covenant." (90) Both law and justice are tackled by the OT as revealing God while also allowing God to increase in mystery...and they come to life as the suffering servant (Isaiah's description typifies not necessarily prophesies) in Jesus. Jesus takes over the law by becoming judge, exemplifies it, and is sacrificed so that grace might trump it.
One random quote: "The New Testament Christ is the fulfilment of Old Testament expectation." (94) There are many outstanding quotes here, ask if you would like me to mention some specifically.
(3) Both OT and NT are "witness[es] of the revelation in which God is present to man as the coming God." (94) He stresses both words present and coming. The OT is full of examples of the mystery of God presently(at that time) - e.g. "where is God here?" but also provides examples of fulfilled prophecy within the OT and fulfilled prophecy when the NT is considered. He gives 4 good examples, I will give one to be succinct. The other examples are of temple, lordship, judgment, and king. Land is the example I will give. The OT speaks of the land given to the Israelites in Palestine, with God leading them there. It speaks of being placed in a "land of milk and honey" in which they eventually arrive. But, there is a "quite different land which is not actually visible in the history of Israel, because it is its goal, because it is therefore outside it." (96) God is present in the telling and transition to the land attested in the OT, but is also present in coming to reveal a new land.
Dense stuff.
The Time of Expectation, as plainly stated in the first paragraph, is the time of the Old Testament. It is the collective works of Israel's prophets, kings, scribes, laws, etc that witness to the coming Messiah. "Genuine expectation and genuine recollection are testimonies to revelation...different, but one in their content, in their object, in the thing attested," (70) In this chapter Barth claims that the OT is the expectation of revelation, the pointing towards the time God will speak decisively for the salvation of Israel. The OT is the foundation of the revelation, it attests to what God's people had hoped for, realized in the earthly existence of Jesus Christ. Many NT passages recollect this expectation of the OT in defense of the fulfilled revelation. A great related quote: "in abandoning the Old Testament they [2nd century theological heretics] had abandoned not something but everything, namely the New Testament itself as well, and the whole New Testament at that." (74) Without the foundation of God's covenant and expectation, revelation would be a symbol to which there are no signs, an anonymous word. The important connection between the OT and NT is that Jesus is the object of both; they share a unity of revelation in all aspects.
Barth then suggests 3 places where this unity is recognizable: (1) they are both the witness to revelation, which is the "free, utterly once-for-all, concrete action of God." (80) This is represented in the OT by the covenant, which is "a sanctification, a claiming, a commandeering, an arrest of man for God, not of God for man." (81) God had established relationships with men (and women) in the OT that serve him as representatives of Israel, and forged covenants with them. But remember that the covenant was also the law. The Hebrew word for the action of making a covenant literally is "to cut," a violent word that exemplifies the decisive action of God. Barth suggests that the OT idea of covenant is God's revelation "because it is expectation of the revelation of Jesus Christ." (81) The covenants as well as the offices of men with whom God had a relationship with only hint at divine action (prophets, kings, priests), testifying to the supreme version of all these as represented in Jesus Christ.
(2) in both the OT and NT God declares himself to be hidden by revealing Himself. It appears to me that the only way to reveal while remaining hidden (or even to increase in mystery) is to catch a glimpse. For one to hide, one must at some point in the past have made one's self known to some degree. The OT did this through Moses, David, Ezekiel, etc. Anyway, back to Barth. Barth suggests this dichotomy is presented through the knowledge of the law and then the choice of Israel to follow or deny it. To choose God or Baal. The revelation of the OT was the law and its consequences. The thing revealing this hidden-ness was the problem of theodicy (that people suffer even though God is good...even good people suffer - think Job). He gives specific examples for a couple pages, and mentions justice, which goes hand-in-hand with the law. "Sin in the [OT] is itself a mystery, the mystery of the breaking of the covenant." (90) Both law and justice are tackled by the OT as revealing God while also allowing God to increase in mystery...and they come to life as the suffering servant (Isaiah's description typifies not necessarily prophesies) in Jesus. Jesus takes over the law by becoming judge, exemplifies it, and is sacrificed so that grace might trump it.
One random quote: "The New Testament Christ is the fulfilment of Old Testament expectation." (94) There are many outstanding quotes here, ask if you would like me to mention some specifically.
(3) Both OT and NT are "witness[es] of the revelation in which God is present to man as the coming God." (94) He stresses both words present and coming. The OT is full of examples of the mystery of God presently(at that time) - e.g. "where is God here?" but also provides examples of fulfilled prophecy within the OT and fulfilled prophecy when the NT is considered. He gives 4 good examples, I will give one to be succinct. The other examples are of temple, lordship, judgment, and king. Land is the example I will give. The OT speaks of the land given to the Israelites in Palestine, with God leading them there. It speaks of being placed in a "land of milk and honey" in which they eventually arrive. But, there is a "quite different land which is not actually visible in the history of Israel, because it is its goal, because it is therefore outside it." (96) God is present in the telling and transition to the land attested in the OT, but is also present in coming to reveal a new land.
Dense stuff.
Dogmatics I.2 Section 14.1
Hello again, back to business....
Typically I am amazed by Barth, not only by his theology and literary style, but also by his wisdom. I'm not sure this particular section offers much of any, and sometimes it seems like Barth is trying to make neat theological statements that don't make much of a difference. You can judge for yourself.
When we speak of revelation in this, we speak solely of the existence of Jesus Christ as an event here on earth. As revelation occurred in a particular time as an event, Barth wants to show two things: " (1) That we have no other time than the time God has for us, and (2) that God has no other time for us than the time of his revelation." (p.45) Barth suggests that God's time is not our time, as God was the creator of time. This is nothing new; it's a pretty standard theological concept. He also (again nothing new) states that humans are in their own separate time, created by God, of which God is an active participant while in both times. Barth's "key" statement of this chapter is that the time of revelation is "a different time, a third time, created alongside of our time and the time originally created by God." (47) God's time is eternal, but human time is limited...but when revelation occurs, individual human time becomes eternal through Christ, or at least has the invitation to do so. One great quote that says this very well is this: that the event of revelation "does not remain transcendent over time, it does not merely meet it at a point, but it enters time; nay, it assumes time; nay, it creates time for itself." (50)
(my commentary): The idea of the inbreaking of heaven on the earth in the form of Jesus is certainly a powerful and true fact, and it has many theological implications. I'm not sure that creating a third time dependant upon the other two has much Biblical foundation though, nor does it make special claims upon the idea of time. I do think, however, that if Barth meant that time is an amazingly special time sanctified (set apart) by the event of revelation it would be true...and perhaps he is saying that. But being set apart does not warrant creating an entirely new conception of time. It appears to be satisfactory (and still amazing) to simply say that the time of revelation was the time of the inbreaking of God's time into human time, and that the inbreaking dissolved the non-eternal requirement for human life.
Back to Barth... He does point out that the time of revelation as an event is important because of the way the Word spread throughout humanity (and it will be the topic of the next few sections) - as both expectation in stories, tradition and prophecies, and then in recollection of the events of the revelation by apostles, witnesses, etc. Barth gives some great small points in this section as well, such as the importance of giving someone one's own time - it's the most intimate thing we can give (55), the eternal nature of Jesus (only in human time for a bit), and that God is the one who makes the revelation available..."we seek what we have already found" (59)
Barth then discusses time through the lens of his theme, "God reveals Himself," found in previous chapters. (1) God transforms time, since He is the Lord of Time, and he masters our time...transforms our time via revelation. (2) As sinners, as humans, we resist this transforming of our time by God, because it means that our lives must be transformed and our pride must be shelved. In a haunting quote, Barth illuminates the irony of this fact in that when Jesus was on earth, the people reacted to him with (spoken by Jesus in an earlier parable) "This is the heir, let us kill him, so the inheritance will be ours." (61) And (3), the revelation was an actual event and should be considered a miracle because it is beyond the possibility of our understanding.
Lastly, Barth points to revelation as the fulfillment of time, not as completion, but instead as the point of time in which we begin to look toward the coming Kingdom of God. Now that the inbreaking of time has left human time in shambles, we can hope for (and certainly will have) eternal time in Christ Jesus.
Typically I am amazed by Barth, not only by his theology and literary style, but also by his wisdom. I'm not sure this particular section offers much of any, and sometimes it seems like Barth is trying to make neat theological statements that don't make much of a difference. You can judge for yourself.
When we speak of revelation in this, we speak solely of the existence of Jesus Christ as an event here on earth. As revelation occurred in a particular time as an event, Barth wants to show two things: " (1) That we have no other time than the time God has for us, and (2) that God has no other time for us than the time of his revelation." (p.45) Barth suggests that God's time is not our time, as God was the creator of time. This is nothing new; it's a pretty standard theological concept. He also (again nothing new) states that humans are in their own separate time, created by God, of which God is an active participant while in both times. Barth's "key" statement of this chapter is that the time of revelation is "a different time, a third time, created alongside of our time and the time originally created by God." (47) God's time is eternal, but human time is limited...but when revelation occurs, individual human time becomes eternal through Christ, or at least has the invitation to do so. One great quote that says this very well is this: that the event of revelation "does not remain transcendent over time, it does not merely meet it at a point, but it enters time; nay, it assumes time; nay, it creates time for itself." (50)
(my commentary): The idea of the inbreaking of heaven on the earth in the form of Jesus is certainly a powerful and true fact, and it has many theological implications. I'm not sure that creating a third time dependant upon the other two has much Biblical foundation though, nor does it make special claims upon the idea of time. I do think, however, that if Barth meant that time is an amazingly special time sanctified (set apart) by the event of revelation it would be true...and perhaps he is saying that. But being set apart does not warrant creating an entirely new conception of time. It appears to be satisfactory (and still amazing) to simply say that the time of revelation was the time of the inbreaking of God's time into human time, and that the inbreaking dissolved the non-eternal requirement for human life.
Back to Barth... He does point out that the time of revelation as an event is important because of the way the Word spread throughout humanity (and it will be the topic of the next few sections) - as both expectation in stories, tradition and prophecies, and then in recollection of the events of the revelation by apostles, witnesses, etc. Barth gives some great small points in this section as well, such as the importance of giving someone one's own time - it's the most intimate thing we can give (55), the eternal nature of Jesus (only in human time for a bit), and that God is the one who makes the revelation available..."we seek what we have already found" (59)
Barth then discusses time through the lens of his theme, "God reveals Himself," found in previous chapters. (1) God transforms time, since He is the Lord of Time, and he masters our time...transforms our time via revelation. (2) As sinners, as humans, we resist this transforming of our time by God, because it means that our lives must be transformed and our pride must be shelved. In a haunting quote, Barth illuminates the irony of this fact in that when Jesus was on earth, the people reacted to him with (spoken by Jesus in an earlier parable) "This is the heir, let us kill him, so the inheritance will be ours." (61) And (3), the revelation was an actual event and should be considered a miracle because it is beyond the possibility of our understanding.
Lastly, Barth points to revelation as the fulfillment of time, not as completion, but instead as the point of time in which we begin to look toward the coming Kingdom of God. Now that the inbreaking of time has left human time in shambles, we can hope for (and certainly will have) eternal time in Christ Jesus.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Dogmatics I.2 Section 13.2
Hello Barthmaniacs.
The previous section covered thought on Jesus as the objective reality of revelation. This time, with this reality attended to in Scripture already in place, we ask the necessary "how" to get us to know Jesus as the objective possibility of revelation, adding credibility to the already established reality. As Barth does from time to time, he provides us with an easy summary at the end of the chapter which I will simply expound on, giving a short summary of the contents of each point.
(1) the possibility "in the condescension whereby God in Jesus Christ becomes identical with a reality different from Himself." (p.44) -- That God condescended into humanity asserts that God can break the boundary between heaven and earth, between God and not-God, gives God ultimate freedom whereby anything is possible. (2) Jesus is identical with God's Son or Word (p.44) -- That it took the work of the whole Godhead (Trinity) to condescend, but since the revelation of God to us is embodied in His Son, we find a fully divine person Jesus who is (as revelation) God's Word. (3) Jesus makes himself known in a way somewhat understandable to us (p.44) -- The Word is revealed to us in created form, signifying God "veiled" so that revelation can be "unveiled" (for more, see Dogmatics I.1). God delves into creation in a tangible way. (4) Jesus exists without losing divinity (p.44) -- That Jesus was simply God's "veiling" and not abandonment or lessening of His divinity. The basis of this idea is that God must remain God at all times to ...well... remain God. The divinity can be (and is) veiled, once again, so that revelation can be unveiled, but no change in essence occurs. (5) In the very flesh of Jesus Christ (man-ness) (p.44) -- page 40 is really a wonderful page - I won't dilute it by summarizing it, so you'll just have to read it. But the gist of section 5 overall is this: Because in recognizing the "other" on earth (some other objective human being) it is at the same time the most familiar thing and the most foreign thing. Human interrelatedness is at once a mystery and a fact - a veiling and an unveiling. Therefore Jesus becomes flesh (man) because of its dual-natured connection to ourselves.
Thus, it is possible to know Jesus as the reality of revelation testified to in the New Testament. Jesus is the objective possibility of revelation.
If anyone wants me to clarify or expound further on any of this, let me know.
Russell
The previous section covered thought on Jesus as the objective reality of revelation. This time, with this reality attended to in Scripture already in place, we ask the necessary "how" to get us to know Jesus as the objective possibility of revelation, adding credibility to the already established reality. As Barth does from time to time, he provides us with an easy summary at the end of the chapter which I will simply expound on, giving a short summary of the contents of each point.
(1) the possibility "in the condescension whereby God in Jesus Christ becomes identical with a reality different from Himself." (p.44) -- That God condescended into humanity asserts that God can break the boundary between heaven and earth, between God and not-God, gives God ultimate freedom whereby anything is possible. (2) Jesus is identical with God's Son or Word (p.44) -- That it took the work of the whole Godhead (Trinity) to condescend, but since the revelation of God to us is embodied in His Son, we find a fully divine person Jesus who is (as revelation) God's Word. (3) Jesus makes himself known in a way somewhat understandable to us (p.44) -- The Word is revealed to us in created form, signifying God "veiled" so that revelation can be "unveiled" (for more, see Dogmatics I.1). God delves into creation in a tangible way. (4) Jesus exists without losing divinity (p.44) -- That Jesus was simply God's "veiling" and not abandonment or lessening of His divinity. The basis of this idea is that God must remain God at all times to ...well... remain God. The divinity can be (and is) veiled, once again, so that revelation can be unveiled, but no change in essence occurs. (5) In the very flesh of Jesus Christ (man-ness) (p.44) -- page 40 is really a wonderful page - I won't dilute it by summarizing it, so you'll just have to read it. But the gist of section 5 overall is this: Because in recognizing the "other" on earth (some other objective human being) it is at the same time the most familiar thing and the most foreign thing. Human interrelatedness is at once a mystery and a fact - a veiling and an unveiling. Therefore Jesus becomes flesh (man) because of its dual-natured connection to ourselves.
Thus, it is possible to know Jesus as the reality of revelation testified to in the New Testament. Jesus is the objective possibility of revelation.
If anyone wants me to clarify or expound further on any of this, let me know.
Russell
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Dogmatics I.2. Section 13.1
My summary/thoughts on Barth's Dogmatics will begin with Dogmatics I.2, as the prolegomena section (first part of I.1) is a bit dry. I will eventually return to that when I feel I have the drive.
This first sentence of this section summarizes (very, very basically) the second half of Dogmatics I.1. "This answer [of the subject of revelation witnessed in Scripture] may be summarized by saying that the revelation attested in Holy Scripture is the revelation of the God who, as the Lord, is the Father from whom it proceeds, the Son who fulfills it objectively (for us), and the Holy Spirit who fulfills it subjectively (in us)." (p.1, CD I.2).
With that as our basis, we begin our Barthian journey.
Barth begins by discussing the nature of the freedom of God's revelation in and for us. Revelation in us is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and for us is Christ, which we are directly concerned with in this particular post. So how does one encounter the revelation of God in Christ? He first warns against taking a stance as an interpreter between humanity and deity, acting as a hyper-knowledgeable human capable of stepping back from his/her very humanity to weigh revelation as it affects humans. We cannot judge what conditions must be met before revelation can encounter us - only God knows that. If we use our knowledge to judge what can and can't be revelation we limit how God can/can't speak to us, thereby attempting to hinder God's free nature. Therefore the only stance we can take in examining this is a very human stance allowing God to act on God's freedom in whichever way it happens, "so as to do nothing but reflect the thought and language of revelation." (p.5) Of course, the "whichever way it happens" equates to Scripture, which Barth argues previously is the most complete form of revelation available to us.
Barth states the importance of Scripture as witness, as something other people have attested to because they have seen or heard something. Skipping a boring semantics argument, Barth then discusses that the way Scripture attests of Jesus Christ is simple and true - being a witness, the gospels and Paul only wrote what they witnessed (or, technically, what others witnessed). He points out that Jesus is the only subject to which the New Testament points, and therefore the name of Jesus of Nazareth means something great - it cannot simply be expelled in order to extract principles of good nature, the NT consists of stories about Jesus. The attributes and events thereof can only be assigned to that person, Jesus. Barth briefly (and beautifully) discusses Jesus being the fulfillment of time in the NT because everything before prophesied about him and everything afterwards was a witness to him...therefore what is contained in the gospels as the content of these prophesy and witness statements is its fulfillment.
Barth then dives into two issues of interpreting particular passages in lieu of the whole witness of Jesus Christ. They have both been significant in the early history of the church: Docetism and Ebionitism. The former represents the idea that the Son of God is this man from Nazareth. Barth explains this as finding in Jesus the "fulfillment of the conception of the Son of God" (p.17), placing complete emphasis on the acts of Jesus as only divine. This statement claims that "in [Jesus] alone, for the first time, and fully, [one finds] the Godhead." If you read Paul or John, Docetism falls apart. Ebionitism, on the other hand, is the idea that the man from Nazareth is the Son of God. This idea, that Jesus was just such a great man and somehow was made the Son of God, does not take into account Jesus' divine essence. This reminds me of the distinction Caesar (and other rulers of the time) gave himself, Son of God, basically inferring divinity. He finishes by suggesting that a synthesis of these two ideas does not represent the witness of the NT, but instead "just the name Jesus Christ. By naming Him, they want to let Him who is so named have the final word." (p. 24)
In that sense, Jesus is the objective reality of the revelation of God.
**more to come, friends!
This first sentence of this section summarizes (very, very basically) the second half of Dogmatics I.1. "This answer [of the subject of revelation witnessed in Scripture] may be summarized by saying that the revelation attested in Holy Scripture is the revelation of the God who, as the Lord, is the Father from whom it proceeds, the Son who fulfills it objectively (for us), and the Holy Spirit who fulfills it subjectively (in us)." (p.1, CD I.2).
With that as our basis, we begin our Barthian journey.
Barth begins by discussing the nature of the freedom of God's revelation in and for us. Revelation in us is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and for us is Christ, which we are directly concerned with in this particular post. So how does one encounter the revelation of God in Christ? He first warns against taking a stance as an interpreter between humanity and deity, acting as a hyper-knowledgeable human capable of stepping back from his/her very humanity to weigh revelation as it affects humans. We cannot judge what conditions must be met before revelation can encounter us - only God knows that. If we use our knowledge to judge what can and can't be revelation we limit how God can/can't speak to us, thereby attempting to hinder God's free nature. Therefore the only stance we can take in examining this is a very human stance allowing God to act on God's freedom in whichever way it happens, "so as to do nothing but reflect the thought and language of revelation." (p.5) Of course, the "whichever way it happens" equates to Scripture, which Barth argues previously is the most complete form of revelation available to us.
Barth states the importance of Scripture as witness, as something other people have attested to because they have seen or heard something. Skipping a boring semantics argument, Barth then discusses that the way Scripture attests of Jesus Christ is simple and true - being a witness, the gospels and Paul only wrote what they witnessed (or, technically, what others witnessed). He points out that Jesus is the only subject to which the New Testament points, and therefore the name of Jesus of Nazareth means something great - it cannot simply be expelled in order to extract principles of good nature, the NT consists of stories about Jesus. The attributes and events thereof can only be assigned to that person, Jesus. Barth briefly (and beautifully) discusses Jesus being the fulfillment of time in the NT because everything before prophesied about him and everything afterwards was a witness to him...therefore what is contained in the gospels as the content of these prophesy and witness statements is its fulfillment.
Barth then dives into two issues of interpreting particular passages in lieu of the whole witness of Jesus Christ. They have both been significant in the early history of the church: Docetism and Ebionitism. The former represents the idea that the Son of God is this man from Nazareth. Barth explains this as finding in Jesus the "fulfillment of the conception of the Son of God" (p.17), placing complete emphasis on the acts of Jesus as only divine. This statement claims that "in [Jesus] alone, for the first time, and fully, [one finds] the Godhead." If you read Paul or John, Docetism falls apart. Ebionitism, on the other hand, is the idea that the man from Nazareth is the Son of God. This idea, that Jesus was just such a great man and somehow was made the Son of God, does not take into account Jesus' divine essence. This reminds me of the distinction Caesar (and other rulers of the time) gave himself, Son of God, basically inferring divinity. He finishes by suggesting that a synthesis of these two ideas does not represent the witness of the NT, but instead "just the name Jesus Christ. By naming Him, they want to let Him who is so named have the final word." (p. 24)
In that sense, Jesus is the objective reality of the revelation of God.
**more to come, friends!
About Me
I am a senior at Princeton Theological Seminary, starting a blog as sort of a side project for my last year. I spend most of my free time reading theology and thinking (and praying) about the state and nature of today's various church bodies. Sounds exciting, you say? That's obviously not all I do, but I'll get to that later. This summer I began reading through Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, and have finished the first two books. As Barth is definitely an acquired taste, I plan to publish my blogs about some musings, clarifications, and summaries of his works as I read them. I will be seeking ordination in the PC(USA) and am currently working at First Presbyterian Church in Houston.
On the more exciting, normal side, I just got married to a wonderful woman, Jessica. I love doing anything athletic, learning about anything physics/mathematics related, playing guitar (cliche?), and eating great food.
On the more exciting, normal side, I just got married to a wonderful woman, Jessica. I love doing anything athletic, learning about anything physics/mathematics related, playing guitar (cliche?), and eating great food.
Greetings friends,
BetaChurch is a blog focused on essentials of the Christian Church, hoping to unite Christians while respecting diverse thoughts and ideals. Too often we place certain restrictions upon who's "in" and who's "out" of our particular groups or churches, making too much of denominational (and interdenominational) strife based on trite subjects. Instead, BetaChurch explores unity through essential tenets of the Christian Church, being grounded in the Bible but reaching out into experience, history, tragedy, chaos and nature. Unity in Christ must be emphasized, as it is destructive when it is forgotten. Dissolution of denominations is not discussed, as it does not serve to bring us to our goal. Instead, a unity in Christ despite theological/practical differences must be highlighted if we can even begin to honor God's sovereignty.
Of course, considering the random nature of my thought processes and events that may impact my experiences and thoughts about Christian life, this blog might change focuses at different times.
Blog topics include: A Christian's place in a transforming society, the impact of certain aspects of our culture (and the imminent future of our culture) upon Christianity, the unity of diverse theologies, etc. There will also be a permanently developing blog about Karl Barth, summarizing each section as I trudge my way through his Church Dogmatics.
BetaChurch is a blog focused on essentials of the Christian Church, hoping to unite Christians while respecting diverse thoughts and ideals. Too often we place certain restrictions upon who's "in" and who's "out" of our particular groups or churches, making too much of denominational (and interdenominational) strife based on trite subjects. Instead, BetaChurch explores unity through essential tenets of the Christian Church, being grounded in the Bible but reaching out into experience, history, tragedy, chaos and nature. Unity in Christ must be emphasized, as it is destructive when it is forgotten. Dissolution of denominations is not discussed, as it does not serve to bring us to our goal. Instead, a unity in Christ despite theological/practical differences must be highlighted if we can even begin to honor God's sovereignty.
Of course, considering the random nature of my thought processes and events that may impact my experiences and thoughts about Christian life, this blog might change focuses at different times.
Blog topics include: A Christian's place in a transforming society, the impact of certain aspects of our culture (and the imminent future of our culture) upon Christianity, the unity of diverse theologies, etc. There will also be a permanently developing blog about Karl Barth, summarizing each section as I trudge my way through his Church Dogmatics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
