The Bible: God’s Word?

Hi Marc,
to improve my English I try to answer in your mother-tongue

As you know I appreciate your concern to ask honest questions, to clarify concepts, to make the gospel (and the hole theology stuff) understandable and to improve communication. This artikel is once more an interesting although provoking attempt.

As I share your concern I don’t want to give a defense of some sort of traditional or classical or evangelical theology, but make some comments and aks further questions. I hope it becomes clear why I hesitate to agree with you fully.
Of course I would agree with you, that it is the most important question to ask: Who is this Jesus? But as I already explained in our last small group meeting I hesitate to say that only Jesus is the true word of god and the bible (merely or just?) a “sign” (although a reliable sign probably one sign among others?).

First of all (as you describe) the linguistic concept of “word” is very wide. In German it’s also not just a combination of letters. For instance here ; you can get some explanations about the wide and indeed everyday meaning the term word is used for in German. In so far it is linguistically and in everyday language unobjectionable to call the bible the “word of god” or “God’s Word” and to mean that this book contains the message of god, that god has spoken and that god is speaking, that he is in any way author of this book, to designate that this book is not just a book as every other book. But of course that’s not sufficient in every situation and not a comprehensive theological explanaiten to give someone the bible and to say: “Hey guy! Here you have the word of god” And then to walk away without any further comment. So I do not see your point and your problem.

If I would say that god’s word is living or has power I probably want to say that the bible is not merely a historical book. It contains the powerful truths to change our lives, to give us hope, to give us a reality check, to show us god and how we can life in a personal relationship with him. I believe that the holy spirit stand’s “behind” the bible and that the holy spirit is at work in our lives. Therefore I would not hesitate to ascribe the bible power. Would you? Of course I would not restrict this power to the bible.

To say or to confess that the bible is the word of god does not imply that it contains merely direct speech. Perhaps this is a helpful definition:

The Bible declares that God has spoken in countless situations, and it claims to be a record of these divine communications. Scripture indicates various channels through which God spoke to people. Some heard God speak directly; some saw images through which God communicated (visions, dreams). God spoke through historical events (*e.g. the Exodus) and personal experiences (*e.g. those of Jonah). He spoke through people whom he had chosen to speak for him (prophets, apostles). God spoke through texts (*e.g. the Book of the Covenant) written by people chosen for the task. And Christians are convinced that God speaks through Scripture. As a medium of divine communication Scripture can be described as a set of human-divine speech-acts, the diversity, literary contexts and historical settings of which need to be acknowledged.

Scripture as speech-acts
Scripture does not consist simply of timeless true propositions. It is not a collection of ‘spiritual laws’. Besides assertions it contains questions and promises, riddles and parables, hymns and praise, commandments and warnings, laments and confessions, stories and letters.
1. The nature of Scripture has been described using the prophetic paradigm: Scripture communicates God’s truths which people must believe and obey; Scripture reveals authoritative doctrine. This paradigm is appropriate with reference to propositions in assertive speech-acts. It explains some parts of Scripture (including important elements of the historical books; in the Hebrew Bible, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are regarded as prophetic books, indicating that it is God who declares what lessons are to be learnt from historical events). The authority of Scripture as God’s word can be described in terms of intellectual belief; the proper response to assertive speech-acts is assent.
2. Scripture also contains directives which may be more or less forceful. Here the authority of Scripture requires categorical obedience (*e.g. to the words of the Decalogue, to the laws in Lev.), or reflective observance (*e.g. of the sayings of the wisdom literature, of the mandates of the Sermon on the Mount).
3. Scripture contains commissive speech-acts, in which God commits himself to a specific course of action in the future (*e.g. promises). Here the proper response to the authority of Scripture is trust.
4. Scripture contains expressive speech-acts (psalms, hymns, songs, laments). Here the proper response to the authority of Scripture is to follow the invitation implicit in these texts to share and participate in their normative response to God’s glory and revelation (*cf. K. Vanhoozer, in D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge, Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, p. 94).
5. Some scholars limit the scope of biblical authority, restricting it to ‘faith and practice’ and claiming that it contains errors in historical and scientific matters. The roots of this position lie in the wedge driven between Scripture and science in the modern era. It is true that the main focus of much of Scripture is ‘practice’, the day-to-day living, of God’s people, which results from their faith in God. But it is not possible to separate matters of faith from matters of history (*e.g. the Exodus, or Jesus’ death and resurrection). It is illegitimate to separate the authority of Christ from the authority of Scripture, or to oppose the one to the other. If Scripture is indeed the inspired word of God, i.e. authentic self-revelation, the questions of its authority and unity are settled. A ‘high view’ of Scripture is regarded as obscurantist by many; this charge is more an emotional reaction than the result of a responsible evaluation of the exegetical and theological consequences of the position. We must remind ourselves that appealing to and heeding authority is not irrational per se; it is an act of reason when it arises from an awareness of one’s own limitations and from the acknowledgment that someone else has better understanding (H. G. Gadamer, Truth and Method [ET, London, 1975], p. 248).

Source: T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, electronic ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001).

Some further remarks:
Are you sure that to call the bible “holy Scripture” is a “misguided attempt to elevate a text to a higher position that is claimed or warranted”. I just would say that the converse explanation is more probale: People who are convinced about the higher position, the authority and nature of scripture want to express their belief / opinon / conviction.

Are you sure your explaination of holy is the explanation the people who call the bible holy scripture would agree? Is it true that the bible says, as you explaine, “that only God is holy (although it often says we should/shall be holy). ” Your emphatic statement about this topic lacks of any exegetical hint.

A further question: I’m really eager to know: Where did you find the explanation, that the variants of the manuscripts are variants of the word of god? Is there really any serious theologian making this claim? I doubt that any of my teachers, friends and professor during my academic studies would have said such an absurdity. They used to explain to me: Based on the amount of NT manuscripts we have, based on our knowledge of transmission, history of writing, language and technics based on our methods we can reconstruct a text of which we can assume that it is very close to the original manuscript. Indeed there are some minor sections which are probably not original and there are indeed minor variants. But as you said: These are not significant. So theology and textual criticism would demand, that “our” gospel Mark or Matthew is a reliable reconstruction of the text once written by a person called Mark or Matthew (“original maunscript”). Some theologians, and I would agree, would say that the original manuscripts are inspired and the word of god.

Finally some comments to your exegises of 2. Peter 1. I wouldn’t agree with you that Peter is just referring to a specific type of message. 2. Peter 1,20 makes it explizit, that Peter refers to the prophecy in scritpure (!) and doesn’t talk more general about a specific type of message. He talks about a type of scripture. Of course it is a matter of exegesis and argument, to which extent he refers to specific books or only certain passages in some books or the whole “Prophets” part of of the Tanach or whether he speaks of the OT-prophets only “pars pro toto” and refers in fact to the whole OT. But indeed he refers to parts of scripture, this means of the OT. And he values scripture (vers 1,19) and explains that these are not merely words spoken by humans, “but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
” (NIV; V 21).

Uh, dude, you don’t understand what holiness is — it also means *separation* or use by God. Thus, the Bible is holy in the same way that you or I can be holy.

I think ultimately the question is ” have we become accustomed to using interchangeably words which should not be so used?” For example, I am preparing to teach 2nd graders about the making of the Bible. It is suggested that we think of other names for the bible. The suggested other names are: (1) God’s Word, (2) Word of God, (3) Scripture, (4) the Law, (5) the Book of the Law, (6) the Commandments, and (7) the Holy Bible. But we all know that the commandments is not the Bible. The commandments is part of the Bible. And the Law? We also know what that is. It is part of the Bible, not the Bible itlself. So with each generation we have had a confusing of what exactly was passed down to us and of what it is that we hold.

Ultimately, I believe that the Bible is a collection of messages to various individuals which God wanted them to hear and apparently he wanted us to either hear or preserve. Those messages are in the form of commands. Others are in the form of stories of various types.

If the Bible were a collection of works today it would contain the following, among others:

(1) the Sunday night testimony of a man or woman speaking about his/her travails and how he/she is still holding on to God in spite of them;

(2) the testimony of a man or woman of his/her journey to Christ;

(3) the Sunday morning or Tuesday night sermon, preaching, or teaching of a pastor whose message begins with a greeting to the congretation followed by a sharing of biblical teaching interwoven with stories of the past week or year relevant to the message, and which message quite timely confirms a word that someone in the congregation has been hearing from the Holy Spirit for the past week; and

(4) the Sunday morning speech of a missionary telling of his ministry and of God’s hands in helping him to reach those to whom he went.

I think that if we are to call use the phrase “Word of God” interchangeably with the “Bible” it must be done with the acknowledgement that the Bible is really a collection of writings, which unknown and known to its writers at the time of the writings contained information which God wished others to know.”

And just as when our own individual and cultural mannerisms become wound up in acts of services we may perform as living epistles, so the individual and cultural mannerisms as well as the reality of the circumstances became a part of the Books that comprise the Bible.

The William Barkley of The Making of the Bible wrote: In the last analysis Luther is right. The great test of any book of Scripture is In
it do we find Jesus Christ? For in the last analysis it is not upon any book that our faith is built but on a living Saviour.”

Remember, the early church did not have the Bible. They only had the message of Jesus Christ in the form of oral tradition and/or through the message of one or more of the apostles. So what was important? The message was- the message of Jesus Christ. The Old Testament was not even given too much emphasis to the Gentile Christian world because of the concern by teachers like Paul that the message of faith in Christ would be displaced by the message of the law and traditions. They were not at a loss because they did not have a written tradition or a collection of 66 books. They had what was important: The faith, the Holy Spirit, and the teachings. We now have a collection of 66 Books which tells the same message. Let us not worship the book. They did not worship the letters. Let us treasure the messages as they did.

Finally: “When the Church did make its canonical lists, it was not choosing and selecting these books; it was only affirming and
attesting that these already were the books on which men had stayed their hearts and fed their souls.” The Making of the Bible
By William Barclay Professor of New Testament at the University of Glasgow

Q. How many of you have a regular time of testimony at your church” if you don’t why? If you do why and how is it beneficial?