What, exactly, is the word of God?
***
UPDATE HERE:
I posted the summary below, and I’ve been scrambling about with other things for the past couple days. My apologies on that.
Over on Beginning Barth, Daniel Owens raised the issue of all the “theoretical” stuff that lies behind theology. And I agree with his assessment that where Theology as a discipline can often come up short in its persuasiveness is in the theoretical and/or philosophical underpinnings that don’t work for most normal people, or that might be countered by the next generation’s philosophy du jour.
But I actually think that Barth’s intention here is to move away from a philosophically grounded assessment of the word of God and into something more “tangible” (for lack of a better word).
The point of the small print in §1.5.1 was to distance himself from the idea that there is a way to speak of humanity, an “anthropology”, that accounts for the phenomenon of the word of God. He does not want to start with any “given” such as nature or “cogito ergo sum” or the like. He wants to insist that the only way we know that there is such a thing as the word of God is because God has spoken.
As Barth expands on this in the subsequent section, I think he actually agrees with what Daniel O. said, and where I find myself leaning as well, and shows it when he makes such statements as, “it is the divine reason communicating with the human reason and the divine person with the human person. The utter inconceivability of this event is obvious” (p. 135).
That God would speak to people is inconceivable, and yet it is so.
God speaks.
And we see again how Barth pushes against the idea that the Bible itself is the word of God, whenever it is read or spoken. I confess being of two minds about this.
On the one hand, I do wonder whether, in insisting that the words themselves are not necessarily the word of God, Barth has given due weight to the ways that scripture can be invoked as a constant, as what is true, as what we must heed if we would heed the voice of God.
But on the other, I see that in actual practice the words of the Bible can be and often are treated as any other word. They are not only the words of God but also words spoken by people and can be analyzed and dealt with as such. The Society of Biblical Literature comes to mind–and not necessarily as a bad guy, but simply as a picture of the fact that we often do, and must, wrestle with the words of the Bible as words spoken by particular people.
Two final things.
This section on the word of God is strongly bolted to Barth’s radical Christo-centrism. Jesus as the logos of God is the defining reality by which we know both that God can speak and what that speech is like. Jesus is God’s word.
I have been wary of this in the past, and to a certain extent maintain my reservation. I wonder if the two or so references to Jesus as God’s logos are sufficient to make Jesus the controlling category for “word of God,” when other speech acts seems to occupy much more of the biblical references to God’s word.
And yet, what I like about it is the way that it lays out what the word, then, cannot be: “namely, a fixed sum of revealed propositions which can be systematized like the sections of a corpus law” (137).
Barth is onto something. He recognizes that whatever the word of God is, it is not the right sort of thing to show its most true colors by being stripped of its context, organized according to its logic, and systematized into a theology.
A truly biblical theology is not going to be searching for the propositions that can be handed off to the systematician for ordering. It is going to be telling the story of the God who has spoken in Christ.
***
Barth has been wrestling with this question for a couple of sections now. And in the reading for this week (§1.5.1-3) he delves into some of the aspects of his theology that push against many of the assumptions of mainstream evangelical Christianity.
The word of God is not equivalent to scripture? No, says Barth, though the word of God has spoken in scripture. But a person may read scripture and not be confronted by the word of God.
The word of God is, ultimately, the logos, the second person of the Trinity. Christ is the word of God as other words are not–or, they are because he is at work and present in them.
The word of God is Christ, and therefore it is not a system nor is it able to be systematized. It is a person.
The word of God remains in God’s power, and confronts us, and so when it does it discloses the divine election. It acts and shows the predestining of God.
Yes, this chapter is a veritable powder-keg.
My reflections on it tomorrow.
I’m not sure why really, but, this weeks reading left me with a bad feeling. I get what Barth wants to say (and part of me agrees) but the other part of me (that isn’t so theoretical) has a real issue with him. I’m sure your post will enlighten me on why I am wrong
. Look forward to it.
My comments
http://beginningbarth.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/362/
Here’s a few comments from the “Beginning Barth” blog: http://beginningbarth.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/362/
And this from Time and Tea, interestingly comparing and contrasting Barth and Packer.
I know nothing about Barth yet I believe it is time for me to start reading him, as I find these thoughts intriguing.
I have to admit you may be right. Barth may be saying the exact opposite of what I think is saying. God actually, tangibly, physically, etc. spoke in Christ. I really dig that. I really understand why he would say that the Scriptures could imply that they contain the word of God but are not = to the word of God. In my estimation that is right on. BUT, much of what he says seems so far off into one direction it is unable (IMHO) to be anything but speculation/philosophical. I really struggle at times with Barth because I really respect his thoughts. He is able to help me understand things that I have wanted to say but couldn’t quite find the words for. On the other hand, he often BASES his arguments on propositions that are, to me, hard to maintain (or even understand) consistently.
Hopefully as I read more I will become a better reader of Barth!
Could one make the argument that Barth, regarding Scripture (read or spoken) not being God’d Word per say, is conflating ones theological applications placed over top the written/spoken testament with the actual written/spoken testament itself. In other words, was Barth responding to bad applications of Scripture, like the rise of Nazism which claimed “blut und boden” or “race and blood”, and thus guarding against any hard, empirical evidence (i.e. Scripture itself) which pointed to God in any natural sense? It just seems that God’s word is very much connected with history and tradition; this doesn’t mean it is synonymous with history and tradition (otherwise you have partisanship and claims like “blut und boden”), but rather works through it in very real terms.
Also, I am not thrilled about his definition of the relationship between God and humankind being “inconceivable.” What of the prophetic vocation? That seems to depict a very real, substantive connection between God and humankind, rather than an unthinkable one inherently coded in divine or human terms.
On the last point, Michael, I think you and KB actually agree. I think KB’s point is that it’s inconceivable–so we shouldn’t try to fit it into our preconceived anthropology, we just have to accept that the inconceivable has occurred.
What the what?! My point is that said relationship is firmly grounded in an ontological veracity, one which can be conceived of in very real terms (i.e. Scripture “is” God’s Word). Barth’s point is that sin has so muddled things to the point of there being no such thing as a natural theology, which means merely the written account of Scripture isn’t God’s Word.
That seems to be a qualitative difference.
Egads. Sorry to evoke such punctuation!
I was focusing more narrowly on the one sentence you cited, which seems as though it would exclude all revelation but ends up, in context, sitting in paradoxical (?) juxtaposition with the reality of it.
NT references to Christ as the word (though this may not be exhaustive, and, as stated, does not include OT e.g. Ps 107:20):
Jn 1:1, 14
Lk 1:2
Tit 1:3
Heb 1:2
1Pet 1:23, 25; 2:8; 3:1
1Jn 1:1
Rev 19:13
Not sure that Luke 1:2, Tit 1:3, Heb 1:2, 1 Pet refs, qualify. The “Johannine” Christ as logos I buy, and it appears in Revelation to be sure. But most of the rest seem to be more like the message about Christ or about God from Christ.