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.
Monday, August 18, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
