Biblical Hermeneutics: Two Quotes from Karl Barth

Biblical Interpretation, Karl Barth, Theology, Thinking Critically No Responses »
Jan 242011

At The ConneXion we have been working through the EMC’s newly released lectionary. This last Sunday we explored the chapter on Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture with a Focus on Christ. During the teaching time, we explored three principles in biblical hermeneutics: i.) the bible is often its own best interpreter ii.) knowledge of the historical context in which a text was written, while not necessarily essential, is extremely helpful for fully grasping its significance iii.) reading scripture through the lens of Jesus’ life. To further explore these three points, I offer two quotes from theologian Karl Barth which I think draw out even more of the significance of these three principles in biblical hermeneutics:

“The statement that the Bible is God’s Word is a confession of faith, a statement of the faith which hears God Himself speak through the biblical word of man.” CD, Vol.I.1, p.110

“Why and in what respect does the biblical witness have authority? Because and in the fact that he claims no authority for himself, that his witness amounts to letting that other itself be its own authority. We thus do the Bible poor and unwelcome honour if we equate it directly with this other, with revelation itself.” CD, Vol.I,1, p.112

What Karl Barth so helpfully points out here is that the biblical authors are the most faithful and radical form of witnesses. What does a witness do? A witness “claims no authority for itself” but instead points to the “other” to whom it is witnessing. The bible is authoritative, therefore, not because we say it is. And here is the danger, isn’t it? When we enter into the task of hermeneutics, we can sometimes assume that the task is one where we seek to “grasp” or “understand” the text as if it were some kind of “idea”. While there is nothing wrong with putting the matter this way, it can be dangerous if we assume that we control the Word of God under a category. When we assume this type of control, we actually mistake Jesus for a concept that we have made up (“word of God”), which is really our own particular perspective on the word of God. In other words, the only way for the Bible to truly be authoritative is for us to always allow it to speak a new word to us. This requires that we believe in the bible as the Word of God only by faith, faith that the entirety of the bible is a witness to Jesus, faith that no matter what the context was in which God spoke to the biblical authors and faith that no matter what context it is that we find ourselves in, that we can in fact encounter the true Word of God, Jesus, in our listening to the written word. Thoughts?

Posted by zac at 2:20 pm

What does it mean to be "incarnational?"

Ecclesiology, Karl Barth 2 Responses »
Nov 172010

At The ConneXion, we have talked a lot about being “incarnational”. Generally what this has meant for us is that we seek to “be Jesus” to others so that they may come to know God and receive God’s grace. However, some have questioned the language of “incarnational” because of how it gives the Church a dangerous and unwarranted sense of confidence in Herself. The post linked above quotes Karl Barth as support for questioning this language and I will repost the quote here for you to read and ponder:

“Thus to speak of a continuation or extension of the incarnation in the Church is not only out of place but even blasphemous. Its distinction from the world is not the same as His; it is not that of the Creator from His creature. Its superiority to the world is not the same as His; it is not that of the Lord seated at the right hand of the Father. Hence it must guard as if from the plague against any posturing or acting as if in relation to world-occurrence it were an alter Chrisus [another Christ], or a vicarius Christi [vicar of Christ], or a corredemptrix [co-redemptress] , or a mediatrix omnium gratiarum[mediator of all graces], not only out of fear of God, but also because in any such behaviour, far from really exalting itself or discharging such functions, it can only betray, surrender, hazard and lose its true invisible being, and therefore its true distinction from the world and superiority to world-occurrence.” (CD IV.3.2, 729)

Now, I think that one needs to read this quote in a little bit of context (this fact is also noted by Halden in the comment thread on the link) and realize that Barth was addressing a Church that did in many ways act as if she was God’s only source of activity in the world. In such a context we should be wary because, let’s be realistic here, if the church is the only hope for the redemption of the world, then we’re screwed. Jesus is the hope for the world, the Church is the herald of that hope. The question that we have to ask ourselves is, in our own community, does the language of “incarnational” deceive us into thinking that apart from our own work, Jesus is inactive? Further, in a time and context in which we often talk about being more “visible” in the community, what do you think Barth might mean by suggesting that the Church’s being is most true when it is “invisible?”

Posted by zac at 2:29 pm

Karl Barth on Christian Speech

Karl Barth, Theology No Responses »
Nov 042010

“Christian speech must be tested by its conformity to Christ. This conformity is never clear and unambiguous. To the finally and adequately given divine answer there corresponds a human question which can maintain its faithfulness only in unwearied and honest persistence. There corresponds even at the highest point of attainment the open: “Not as though I had already attained.” Church Dogmatics, Vol I, 1, pp.13-14.

Now if that isn’t inspiration for the Church to live a well examined life in relation to her speech about God, I don’t know what is!

Posted by zac at 5:05 pm
© 2013 The ConneXion Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha