God's revelation and mystery.

Thus begins the section on God's essence and attributes. It's asking the question, 'what is God like?' How can we ask that question, nonetheless answer it? In some sense we can't. One of the problems with history, religion, and the world is that people have been trying to ask and answer that question on their own. In this sense then, Nietzsche is very helpful when he says that "All gods are dead." (as in Weber, 398) We have dreamed up God, and he ends up looking an awful lot like us (or our parents!), and we are slowly realizing that this is grim, and cannot be. So how can we even talk about God? Only because God makes himself known.

We do not have any predicates for God at our disposal...We can do nothing other than to accept the fact that God has predicated himself. ... We do not predicate God, but God predicates himself in eternity.

Weber, 399.

All that we can do then, with all humility, fear, and trembling, is "merely interpret how God reveals himself to us." (Weber, 400) God reveals himself through his revelation, but he is not transformed into something else by his revelation. This means that, (1) God turns completely to us, and that (2) God remains completely he himself in his turning to us.

Revelation and Being and the Trinity.

The Doctrine of the Trinity, like all theology, is derived from the self-disclosure of God which is made manifest as real in faith. It can be nothing other than the interpretation of the "salvation-event" proceeding a posteriori.

Weber, 379.

Thus, Weber starts this section on the relation of the Trinity to the "salvation-event", i.e., the sending, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent outpouring of the Spirit. In this event, in this 'act', God does not reveal something other than who he is and has always been, Father, Son, and Spirit. Thus we can say that the revelation of God's being is in God's acting. Not only the revelation, but the being of God is in God's act. God is what God does. That sort of thing.

In this act, and in God's being, God is out to utterly destroy the "walled insularity of man, his enslavement to the powers and forces..." (Weber, 381). He does this, as God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. (II Cor. 5:19) He also does this through the gift, act, and "reception of the Spirit, [where] revelation becomes 'subjective reality' and thus 'possibility'" (Weber, 386). Although our knowledge of God in his revelation is imperfect because our knowledge of revelation is imperfect, this is still how we can and do know anything about God (Weber, 388).

Why the Triune God?

Why the Triune God? Why not just talk about God? Shouldn't we get God down first (a 'general' doctrine of God), and then move on to this "trinity" idea? This is a decision upon which everything stands or falls. Weber puts it like this:

In our doctrine of God's being and attributes, everything then will depend upon our really talking about the God who encounters us in the biblical witness. This God, however, is the One who discloses himself to us as the Father in the Son through the Holy Spirit. He is the God whose unity, life, and revelation are expressed by the Doctrine of the Trinity in reflection and interpretation.

Weber, 350.

What the point is, is that if there is some God behind the trinity (i.e., behind God as he has revealed himself in scripture), then we actually have no knowledge of God because God had actually not revealed himself. He would have revealed some other version of himself. If this were true, then all would be lost. All theology/talk of God would be utterly meaningless and nothing more than human speculation. But this is not the case. God reveals himself. He does so as he is, Father, Son, and Spirit. This is good news.

Knowledge of God

So far we have looked into the concepts of revelation and the Word of God, and now we move on to knowledge of God. I have to admit that these three concepts, though distinct, are so closely related and interconnected that it's hard to keep them straight and not mash them all together! I think this is so because, as Weber points out, God's activity in which he makes himself known to us is not only the content of our knowledge of God, but is the thing that makes our knowledge possible!

We'll start here. I think that perhaps the most important sentence from this chapter is that,

He [God] not only makes himself into the object of our knowing, but in the same act he makes us into those who know him.

Weber, 196.

God, in the same act whereby he makes himself known to us, he creates and activates within us the ability to know him (but not in a sense of a switch being thrown on). God "opens us up" (p. 196) in order to know him. This opening is something that we could never do on our own, even with the best philosophy, logic, or reason that we could muster. This is what the rather large section on "natural theology" is all about. Weber 'says it all' on page 209,

The human conscience can be the place where the truth is made known. But again we must say that this occurrence cannot be deduced from the most profound analysis of human perception or of human conscience, or be prepared for by the training of the conscience separate from the message. No human activity including the most careful apologetics can change the fact that "the god of this world [!] has blinded the minds of the unbelievers" (2 Cor. 4:4). Instead, the creative readiness of our conscience and our mind is revealed in the new act of creation, done by the One "...who said, 'Let light shine out of the darkness...'" (2 Cor. 4:6)!

Weber, 209. My emphasis.

In my view, the most important point to be noted about the opposition to natural theology, is that Jesus Christ, the Word, the Gospel, God, needs no preparation in order to open a person up to know God. They do not need to know they're a sinner, they do not need to believe that a god can possibly exist, they do not need to feel the emptiness and hole inside of their heart, they do not even need the inherent (i.e., natural) ability to know God, etc. God doesn't need or require a "point of contact", as God's Word is in and of itself a self-creating point of contact. This is what Weber is on about on p. 214f. So much for natural theology.

So what is 'knowledge of God' like? This is important, though I almost forgot about it in the sea of natural theology and proofs for God's existence (or lack thereof). Knowledge of God is always response to him, it is "concrete, personal, and unspeculative", it is "ultimately always acknowledging", it is "the experience of the I-Thou relationship", it is "nothing other than the knowledge of Jesus Christ...nothing other than faith itself", etc. (quotes from pp. 196-8) It has what Weber calls, "a practical orientation." (p. 198) Knowledge of God is not an end in itself but is that which results in real and practical changes in behavior. He sums it us beautifully on p. 198, saying,

[T]he knowledge of God is not the noetic reception of "something," but the relationship and behavior which involves all of man, which takes place between the individual "I" (or "we") of knowing man and the Thou of a loving and knowing God...God...has established this relationship. The knowledge of God is fellowship with God.

Weber, 198. My emphasis.

So knowledge of God is not primarily information or stuff about God. The sons of Eli knew about God but did not know him. Even the demons believe that God exists, and shutter. Obviously, knowing about God or believing that God exists is not what true, real, active, living knowledge of God is after. This is because knowledge of God, or,

Fellowship with God takes place in grateful and obedient response to the Word given to us, in faith which answers the faithfulness of God...it...is a thankful living "under" God.

Weber, 199.

Well put. As this post quickly becomes as long as the chapter, I will bring it to a close. There's lots that I didn't cover that is important and/or provocative. Thoughts?

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).