The Triune God in His Revelation

Although his work is not the emanation of a necessity which controls him, it is the work of his true nature itself and thus of the necessity which is established in him and through him.

Weber, 389.

This sentence may seem as if it could be glossed over, but it's implications cannot be overlooked. This is a sentence which leans heavily on the relationship that Karl Barth forged between the doctrines of the Trinity and of election (or predestination). First, God's work is not a necessity that controls God. God chooses, or elects, just who God is and what he does. That is to say that God is totally free in himself, God did not need to create stuff (people, the universe, time, etc.) outside of himself to be God. God elected to do this and to be this God out of his free and loving decision, which is ultimately for us. Thus, it is only out of a sort of self-imposed necessity (established in him and through him) that God is and does this.

I'd like to know what Weber means when he says "the work of his true nature itself". Is this to say that God has a nature "before" he had a triune being and activity? Or is he simply stating that within himself, within the trinity, his true nature worked outward into this necessity? Does this "work of his true nature" result in a sort of 'overflowing' within and from the triune life that resulted in creation, humanity, etc.? I'm taking a class on the doctrine of election, so this stuff is just in my wheelhouse.

He sort of gets at the answer to those questions in the very next section. This is a good long quote to think on:

His work cannot be separated from his nature. He has destined himself in his essence, in his true nature, for this his work. But that means that God as the One is always himself and thus he is always turned towards a counterpart. He is he himself in that he does not exist for himself alone bur rather for himself in his distinction from himself. And that means, as Augustine very rightly saw, that God is love.

Weber, 389.

Of yeah. These are the conceptual seedlings for why God's unity is in his three-ness, and his three-ness in his unity. An important consequence of this is in God's opus as extra (outward directed work). This concept basically claims that

God's unity in triplicity is not solely an 'inward' unity, so to speak, but it is also a unity in God's work regarding the creature.

Weber, 392.

What he's saying here, for instance, is that the work of Creation, while traditionally attributed to the Father, is also the work of the Son and the Spirit. The work of reconciliation and redemption, traditionally thought of as the work of the Son, is also the work of the Father and the Spirit. And on and on. So while it is God the Son who dies on the cross, it is also an act of God the Father and God the Spirit.

This is all related to the traditional and dangerous doctrine of "appropriations". Weber seals up this deal nicely:

...the Doctrine of Appropriations is a reflection of the 'order of persons'...it cannot imply more than this, that God's work, in accordance with his being, realizes the lordship of the Father through the lordship of the Son in the lordship of the Spirit. ... the Doctrine of Appropriations refers back to the mystery which does not cease to be mystery when it has been revealed, the mystery of the unfathomable and inexhaustible unity and triplicity of God.

Weber, 396.

The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit

The thing about Scripture is the fact that its being the Word of God is not provable. There is no criterion that can "prove" it, except for the Word of God itself. This is unavoidably circular reasoning. This is where the doctrine of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit comes in. Weber defines the doctrine in that God speaks and "proves" the Word to us in it, stating that

God is the One at work in the Holy Spirit, not only when the Word is heard but also in the fact that this Word calls forth response from us.

Weber, 241-2.

As the answer to the circular reasoning mentioned above, this understanding of Scripture with the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer is, as Barth states in note 40 on p. 243, "at its weakest point" also "its indestructible strength." One could object that anyone could simply invent the Spirit speaking internally and thus claim that God has specially given his Word. Weber holds off this idea by insisting that,

The testimony of the Spirit is perceived by me as an "I" to the degree that I hear it through the Community or in the Community.

Weber, 247.

I think that's good enough for now.

The Word of God Proclaimed: Church Proclamation

The Word as event, i.e., Jesus Christ, is witnessed to in and through Scripture as it brings the Word into the present. Likewise,

The Word witnessed to necessitates then the proclaimed Word in each situation because the validity made known in it is acknowledged in the believing Community, and it in turn makes it known, proclaims it to the world.

Weber, 190.

This is obviously thorny and easily misunderstood. Is the word of the preacher also the Word of God? Well, yes and no. It is certainly not necessarily or inherently. It all falls on God, as the words of humans can only be God's Word by God's own work. It is only through God's promised presence in the Community via the Holy Spirit that the Community's proclamation becomes God's Word. As the Head of this Body, Jesus Christ has promised this presence('when two or three are gathered'[Mt. 18:20], 'behold, I am with you always'[Mt. 28:20]) as he is its Living Lord in such a way that he still speaks in it, to it, and through it.

As someone who gets a chance to preach occasionally, this is both comforting and terrifying: comforting because it is God who is responsible for his Word being present; terrifying, because of the awe-some responsibility it is to prepare for and participate in such an event. I go back and forth on whether the comfort leads to terror, or the terror to comfort.

The question that I have is about the difference between "preaching" and "proclamation". I've assumed that preaching was one specific aspect of the Church's greater and encompassing proclamation (for instance, the Church proclaims with its actions, its other words, its outward moving presence, etc.). Weber seems to use "preaching" and "proclamation" somewhat interchangeably (I'm not fine-tooth-combing this). Understanding that "preaching" is certainly a vehicle and form of God's Word, to what extent is the Church's greater and encompassing proclamation also God's Word?

Also, the word 'necessitates' bothers me. I don't think that God and/or Christ 'necessitates' anything, in the sense that God doesn't 'need' anything to be God. Weber's logic possibly seems to go somewhere down that route: God/the Word/Jesus Christ needs Scripture which needs proclamation. I don't think he means 'necessitates' in that fashion though. I think he means "causes to occur". Thoughts?

Note: 'Community' is another term for 'Church'. It was somewhat (and still is) en vogue because it put less focus on the building/institution/etc. and more on the people/family of God. I like the interchangeability of them because they both emphasize necessary aspects(people and institution) of the Body of Christ.

The Word of God Witnessed To: Scripture

The second form is the Word witnessed to, i.e., Scripture. Because the Word of God was incarnate in history, it is given to us now through the Word of its witnesses. Weber states that,

The witness which Holy Scripture contains is essentially the proclamation of what has happened once and for all so that it will be accepted and believed as the event which is once and for all.

Weber, 186.

Here, Weber is stating that the Scriptures point to the mighty acts that God has accomplished for all people and all time, and as such, for us today. Thus, he can say that the Word is truly witnessed to in Scripture because of the validity that these acts hold for the present (and the future) as well as the past.

In some ways it is the total opposite of fairy tales, novels, or even history. That sort of literature is meant to take you from the present/real world and into their world, while Scripture is meant to bring its world to you in such a way that you may respond to the good news it witnesses.

The Word of God as Event: Jesus Christ

Under the section of 'the Word as event', Weber speaks about the way in which Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh and dwells among us (Jn. 1:14). That the Word can and would dwell among us is pointed towards in the Old Testament, so that

the One in whom the Word of God is so present, as the Word of God in person, in a specific, historical man, God's elect, that in him it is no longer an alien Word, like that of the prophets, which is obediently heard, passed on, and testified to. Here, he comes to us in his total authenticity so that this Man no longer just receives and proclaims, but is the Word of God.

Weber, 181. My emphasis.

This form of the Word is the original form from which the others find their foundation. Thus, Jesus Christ is the source of their meaning and content. This is only verifiable and certain by God's own verification and authority. In this section, Weber mentions three ways that the Church has historically tried to otherwise verify the Word: by making the Church itself authoritative, by making the Bible infallible, and through some sort of historical authenticity underlying Scripture. Each of these ultimately fail because they put themselves (the Church, the Bible, or historicity) in the place of God, as God is the only true authority of the Word.

If the quote from my last post is true and read through this post, it is entirely comforting, encouraging, and challenging the Jesus Christ is the decision made about me that demands of me a decision.

Note: Weber, along with many other recent theologians, is fond of using "I and Thou" terminology. This is terminology which was made prevalent in the 1920s by Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher. In short, it is used to denote genuine and authentic relations between two entities. It is in contrast to "I and It" relations, where the "It" refers to objects that we either use or experience, but do not enter into genuine relationship with. In reference to the Word to the Thou, he means that when the human is addressed by the Word, the human's humanity and creatureliness is upheld and respected, and visa-versa. The Wikipedia entry on I-Thou is helpful (just like all Wikipedia entries).

The Threefold Form of the Word of God

So thus far we have seen that God reveals himself to us. The "how" of this, is that he reveals himself in and through his "Word". Because God actually reveals himself in a way that is real, personal, concrete, happens in time and history, etc., this revelation must have some 'form'. This 'form' is the Word.

It is important at this point to mention that the Word is not some abstract substance of truth or knowledge that is floating around in the atmosphere for us to be able to comprehend rationally. That is (something like) the way the ancient Greeks developed the concept (and how some Christians thought and/or think of it). The Word is an address from God to the human. It is a

divine decision made about me which demands of me a decision.

Weber, 180

Weber's section on the Word is divided into three parts, following Karl Barth's understanding of the "threefold form of the Word of God." While there is one Word, the Word is found in three forms: the Word as event (Jesus Christ), the Word witnessed to (Scripture), and the Word proclaimed (the Church's proclamation).

In this sense we will do our work...

Here's a little snippet I came across while reading Barth's book on the Heidelberg Catechism. He's talking about "the responsibility...of those who find themselves in the community of the church which is founded on the good news of Jesus Christ and to which is entrusted its interpretation and transmission." He says,

The gospel must ever again be explored and sought and inquired into. It demands work, reflection, exertion. It demands faithfulness and independent investigation. The church may not avoid this effort, for its existence as church depends on it. Doctrine is thus not its own goal. One can work at theology for theology's sake just as little as he can work at art for art's sake. Christian doctrine is rather a part of the service of the community, service to God and to neighbor. It is thus a part of the church's liturgy. In this sense we will do our work, and in this sense only can it be done. When we teach or study theology, we stand in the service of the church.

Karl Barth, Learning Jesus Christ Through the Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 19.

So keep this in view as we read. We don't study theology for theology's sake, or for learning's sake, or for whatever's sake. We study theology so that we may become more faithful servants, stewards, teachers, witnesses, ambassadors, interpreters, and transmitters of the good news of Jesus Christ.