The Lord to whom the Bible testifies is described as wielding words of mighty power; but he is also of such righteous character that his power is not compromised or tainted. The authority of the God of the Bible rests on three supports: his capacity to act, his knowledge, and his utter trustworthiness.
First, Scripture testifies from its opening sentences to a Lord who says and it is. His word corresponds exactly to reality: in fact, it is what reality is: “And it was so”. The absolute sovereignty of this deity is not met by any challenge. He is not tapping into some primal force or casting a spell, but exercising his free creative power and his absolute mastery of things. These words were the kind of speaking that wizards attempt to emulate: except that here, of course, the being that is speaking is of an entirely different order. And his act of creative will establishes his worthiness to receive the adulation of all creatures (Rev 4:11).
Second, God speaks true words because of his knowledge of all things. He has the “view from nowhere”, although it is better rebadged as the “view from heaven”; and so may properly speak powerful words. It is not that he is objective; rather he is authoritatively subjective. This difference in knowledge is what Yhwh wields against Job in Job 38-41: it is Job’s ignorance, rather than his strength, that contrasts with Yhwh’s knowledge of the origin of things. It is a war of words, not an arm-wrestle.
Third, the character of the God of Scripture is not dissembling or unreliable but utterly trustworthy. Words that he speaks do not distort or pervert reality. In speaking, this God speaks truly of the world but also speaks truly of himself. He does not construct an identity for himself like a participant in an Internet chat room. (This is always the problem with Calvin's doctrine of accomodation...)
So: if the God who is mighty, knowledgeable and reliable speaks, ought we not expect powerfully authoritative words? Does he not have a moral right as well as the capacity to utter words of power? Once again, Job 38-41 is instructive: after all, what right do human beings have to dispute with God? And yet, from the whirlwind the Lord deigns to converse playfully and beautifully with Job in such a way that it restores him to his original dignity.
(for my Barthian readers - yes, you can cast all this in a christological mode of course!)
5 comments:
yes, agreed... I think the key words of my post are the 'and yet'... we have from knowledge of God's character an expectation that he would do almost anything BUT speak to us in the way he has...
At the risk of being too Barthian, what do we learn about the authority of Scripture from the practice of Jesus as opposed to his ontological distinction as the privileged revealer of the Father?
I think the point about authoritatively subjective, rather than objective, knowledge is very important. There is no view from nowhere, not even for God - such a thing would not be knowledge at all, because to know is to love, to be in relationship with. An 'absolute' God would be no god at all. We only have a relative, or relational, God. Or better, he has us.
But I would further tweak this second point by saying that it is not simply his knowledge that means he speaks truly. This is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. It is only when this second point is played through the third one (God's faithfulness - his relating to his world according how it is and will be, and according to himself) that God's knowledge is put into action for love. He says not just what is true, but what brings life.
And if we're going to be more christological, how about also being more spiritual? Where is the Spirit in this speaking God?
Posted 9.02 am on New Years Day. Guess who's a parent? :-)
Yep: went to bed at 10 the night before
Post a Comment