The Word of God

[Danny]

Here's an interesting essay about what the phrase "The Word of God" means, according to scripture. I'd be interested in anyone's feedback/reaction.

http://prweb0.voicenet.com/~kuenning/fot/WordofGod.html

[Danny]

Anyone?

[steve]

Hi Dany,

I intend to read it when I get the chance. It sounds interesting.

[Danny]

Cool, thanks. I've long felt that the term "Word of God" is misused when applied so generally to the Bible. This document seems to make that point in a cogent manner, but perhaps I'm unaware of valid counterpoints.

[steve]

Hi Danny,

I have now read the essay and find myself in complete agreement with it, with the possible exception of the implications stated in the final paragraph.

Some years ago, a caller on the program asked me to justify my equating the scriptures with "the word of God." As a result, I conducted a study just like the one presented at your link, and reached the same conclusions. I was surprised to find no instance in scripture where the expression "the word of God" was a specific reference to the scriptures. I believe that the expression, in various contexts, refers either to Christ Himself (spiritually present and active in the life of the believer), or to the message of Christ. This latter often means the message about Christ and His kingdom, though it can apparently also indicate the message or communication of Christ Himself, speaking through the believer.

It has long been observed that such expressions as "the revelation of Jesus Christ," "the word of God," and "the testimony of Jesus," (which are found frequently, e.g., in the Book of Revelation and elsewhere) are ambiguous, and can either mean the revelation, word and testimony that is about Jesus, or else the revelation, word, testimony given by Jesus. It is not only because the message is about Jesus, but also because it proceeds from Jesus that we can say the word is "alive" and "powerful."

But how does all of this impact the legitimacy of speaking about the scriptures as the word of God? The word of God may be that timely message that the Spirit of God communicates to or through the child of God in a particular contemporary situation, which may apply only to that person or church and that situation. But sometimes the word is communicating the general mind of God which applies to all people of all times. The scriptures contain the record of God speaking in both senses. They record the general standards that reveal God's universal will for the behavior of His people at all times. They also record His specific concerns and tailor-made instructions to individuals and congregations, addressing their specific circumstances. Even in the latter case, there are transferable truths that may provide instruction for all Christians in later settings. I think that we have the canon of scripture that we have because it was recognized that the prophets and apostles who wrote the respective books were speaking/writing God's message to Israel and to the Church. If this judgment is correct, then their message has as much right to be recognized as the word of God as does any contemporary communication that God may wish to give someone today.

The essay may intend only to argue that we would be wrong to limit the "word of God" to those specimens of God's speaking which have been preserved in the canonical documents, and that we should recognize that the God who spoke to the prophets and apostles may still speak to us today. If that is the conclusion, then I can agree without reservation. I would go a step further, however. If I hear a "word" in my spirit which I take to be God's speaking to me, there may be times when I will wrongly identify it as such, when in fact it is an idea that has arisen from elsewhere. Thus, I am not always sure whether a given "word" that comes to me is of God or is not of God. I do, however, have sound reasons to trust in the veracity of the word as heard and recorded by the genuine prophets and apostles, and which is found in the scriptures. Since they are a reliable witness to what God said to and through men whose credentials are indisputable, I would be wise to see them as a "more sure word" than any which enters my head at a given moment. Those oracles, or specimens of God's word, which He has spoken and left in writing for us, thus become a standard by which to test those subjective ideas that seem to be the word of the Lord to me on any given occasion.

The bottom line, then, is that the scriptures contain the reliable "word of God," but the latter is not trapped in, and restricted to, their pages. Because the things Moses, David, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles wrote were inspired by God's Spirit, and have stood the test of time, even having Christ's endorsement, there is every reason to expect to hear the voice of God in them, and to consult them as profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness.

[Suzana]

Anyone?

Hi Danny,

(I actually started reading the article when first posted, then had some major distractions & didn’t get back to it till this morning).

I don’t have a problem with most of what’s being said, the writer has a point.

However, with regards to this statement in the last paragraph:

There is no scriptural basis for the claim that the Bible is the Word of God, for the scriptures do not exalt themselves, but they testify to Christ.

I wouldn’t have a problem in calling the Bible the Word of God, in the knowledge that it does contain a record of at least some of the words spoken by God, be it directly/face to face as with Moses, or through prophets; of course all of Jesus’ sayings, and then through the apostles.
(With the understanding that the bible does contain a lot of background historical data, which are not necessarily ‘sayings’ of God).

I will be interested to hear Steve’s thoughts, as you probably are.

Addition:

Darn. I checked the ‘total posts’ count, and forgot about Steve’s tendency to amend his posts willy-nilly.
I will reply anyway, and now read his response!

[Danny]

Thanks for your input Steve & Suzana!