Is God ever afraid?

Is God ever afraid? Does God ever experience “fear”? Over at Christendom Chris has posted on Deut. 32.27 where it is written: ‘but I feared provocation by the enemy, for their adversaries might misunderstand and say, “Our hand is triumphant; it was not the LORD who did all this.’

So how should we approach this passage? We could consider it to be another ‘problem passage’ (a problem because it doesn’t fit with our theology) and seek to explain away its apparent plain meaning. Or we could adjust our theology to fit with its apparent plain meaning.  Or we could ignore its existence altogether and change the subject or even just pretend not to hear people when they bring it up :P

Without getting into the books to explore the accuracy of the translation, here’s a few thoughts.

How we understand the inspiration of the Scriptures and the nature of language will have an impact on what we do with this passage. If we believe for instance, that the nature of this inspiration means that there is a 100% correspondence between the words used in the Scriptures  and their reference, that they ‘capture’ the truth in its entirety, then we will probably want to resist the notion that God feels ‘fear’ (perhaps because of the fears this stirs in us) and will be inclined to “find another meaning” in the passage. However, if we believe that God communicates through the Scriptures but that this does not mean these acts of communication are any different in nature to normal acts of communication, then we may be more inclined to understand the use of ‘fear’ as analogical,  not perfectly capturing the truth in its wholeness, but nevertheless communicating something true about God.

This last option is not man’s best attempt at pointing to the truth, but God working through and within the bounds of human language.

So what does this passage tell us about God? When we read the words ‘I feared’ placed on the “lips” of our Creator, how are we to relate them to “fear” as we know it? As Chris writes, the words chosen by the author of Deuteronomy certainly convey “how strongly God feels about the defaming of his name”. But do they serve simply to convey this, or is the author saying that God was actually afraid? Perhaps more importantly, are these the words chosen by the author or were they first God’s words which he actually spoke?

Thoughts…

Theology and Christology – 2

“All theological statements win their Christian character only through their connection with Jesus”[1]

“As Christians we know God only as he has been revealed in and through Jesus. All other talk about God can have, at most, provisional significance. In this sense it may be very meaningful and necessary, even a presupposition for the message of Christ. But the way in which God is revealed through Jesus suspends even its own presupposition, so that one can only speak about God himself in that at the same time one talks about Jesus. Therefore theology and Christology, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Jesus as the Christ, are bound together. It is the goal of theology as well as Christology to develop this connection.”[2]

Here Pannenberg expresses the absolute significance of Jesus Christ for knowledge about GOD. What this means is that all claims to know God (including in its subjective sense)[3] must be evaluated in view of GOD’s self-revelation in Jesus.

What this does not mean is that all previous knowledge about God is to be set aside. God was not silent and inactive until Jesus, the major events throughout GOD’s covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants also revealed much about the Creator, and themselves set the stage to understand Jesus as the one through whom the Creator is revealed.

The NT gospels intentionally tell Jesus story as  part of YHWH and Israel’s story, ‘the God whom Jesus called “Father” was none other than the God of the Old Testament’[4]. So while we cannot abandon the Exodus for example, as a genuinely revelatory event, God’s mission of which this was a part comes to fuller clarity (although not absolute clarity) in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. This is the central significance of Jesus for the knowledge of GOD.

[1] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man (London: SCM, 1968 [1980]), 11

[2] Ibid., 20

[3] See upcoming post, Knowing GOD in Jesus

[4] Pannenberg, 32

Theology and Christology

In theological discourse we often distinguish between Theology proper (about God) and Christology (about Jesus). My question is whether this separation in our presentations (written and spoken) of theology is helpful.

If Jesus ‘is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being’ (Heb 1.3), the ‘image of the invisible God’ (Col 1.15), can we ever discuss God without this involving Jesus? Should we ever discuss Jesus without this involving God? If the NT places Jesus squarely within the ‘divine identity’ (Bauckham), then both Father and Son are mutually ‘interpretive’.

Doesn’t the doctrine of the Trinity show that every discussion of God should involve Father, Son, and Spirit? In this light do the categories of Theology, Christology, and Pneumatology break down? And if so, is the formal separation helpful or unhelpful? While we have surely found them helpful in organizing our thoughts and presentations, has it actually effected our theology?  Should we maintain these distinctions in our minds if they are artificial?

The answers given will no doubt vary depending on what we are trying to achieve in each presentation, but I put the question out to get us thinking. Your thoughts…