Skip to main content

Does 'the Word of God' = 'the Word of God'?

Lately on Jesus Creed, blogger RJS has been doing a series somewhat in response to Al Mohler's talk titled 'Why does the universe look so old?' at the recent Ligonier conference. In a post today, RJS made a very interesting statement that wasn't the main point of her argument, but I believe needs the attention of further discussion. I quote it below:
On the issue of authority I find it helpful to remain focused on Christ as the foundation of our faith. Scripture is a lamp; it provides reliable illumination, but is not the foundation. This change of focus helps me wrestle with the issues because it emphasizes an understanding where other information, tested against the whole, will shape our interpretation of scripture - but will not weaken the foundation of our faith. How we understand scripture as revelation inspired by God changes in subtle but important ways.
Traditionally Christianity has affirmed both that the second member of the Trinity is the word of God and that Scripture is the word of God. My guess is that RJS is working under the assumption that we mean something different when we make each of those affirmations (hence why Jesus but not Scripture is the foundation of her faith), even though they have the same predicate. I often find that in Evangelicalism that we haven't thought much about the fact that we use the same predicate in each sentence.

What do we mean when we say that Scripture is the word of God? Do we mean the same thing when we say that Jesus is the word of God? Should we (a) equate Scripture with the second member of the Trinity? Does (b) Scripture become the second member of the Trinity through proclamation and the work of the Holy Spirit in the recipient? Or (c) do we mean something less than either of those? Are there other options? I believe that the answer to these questions have huge hermeneutical significance and that we need to wrestle long and hard with them.

I have to confess that the more and more I think about it, the harder and more complex this question becomes. I think that we can come up with an reductio ad absurdum argument against position (a), that you'd have to worship the Bible if you hold position (a). But in practice, I think some people (perhaps even many, especially within the reformed tradition, of which I consider myself a part) are pretty close to doing just that, so maybe the reductio doesn't hold. But even if it does hold, do we want to go all the way to say that Scripture is not the very word of God, that it's a record of God's words in the past (c)? That seems to eliminate the 'livingness' of Scripture. So I guess I fall into position (b) by default, but I'm not convinced that it's the right place to end up.

Probably much of my confusion is based in a lack of clear understanding of what it means that Jesus, the second member of the Trinity, is the word of God. I think if I grasped that one better I could answer the other questions better. Besides Barth (whose influence is probably palpable in this post) who else has tackled this question? I'm sure many have, I'm just not sure where to start.

What are your thoughts? I'm especially interested in hearing from you if you disagree with me, because healthy, respectful debate is crucial if advancement in knowledge is to take place.

Comments

  1. Well.. it's even more complicated than that. If "The Word" and the "The Word of God" always refer to Jesus, then we might need to re-examine how we read some verses in scripture. Take:
    Heb 4:12-13
    For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
    What if we should read it:
    For the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, He penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; He judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
    I'm not saying that's correct, but it's interesting


    Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/07/houston-heres-the-situation-rj.html#preview#ixzz0tbMvOfkF

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interested readers should look at the comments at: http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/07/houston-heres-the-situation-rj_comments.html from about 76 on for how the above comment came about and responses to it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Scot McKnight corrected the error in my previous comment. And I'm grateful for that. :)

    Though to my defense, I did say, "I'm not saying that's correct."

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…