Word of God/God's Word/Word of the Lord

[beforHim]

I'm a little confused as to exactly what is meant by "The word of God" for one simple reason:

For some reason, today, Christians seem to use it exclusively as a synonym for the Bible.

Looking at the various uses of the phrases God's word, The Word of God, the Word of the lord, etc. it seems to encompass more. In the OT, it also seems to be used as something different than scripture- pretty much anything God says (some of which is not recorded in the Bible).

So why is it used exclusively as a synonym for The Bible by pretty much everyone? Is it a VERY common misconception? Or am I just missing something? Isn't anything God says, whether it's in scripture or not, God's word? Is it just that the only "Word of the Lord" which we know is recorded in scripture, even though there's much more He's said...

...unless we imply that EVERYTHING He said, even if it says, eg, "The Lord spoke to Moses often..." but never told us the exact wording of every conversation, is found in the scriptures- but still, there are conversations from the Lord (like the one's with Paul, and with His disciples, and with prophets, etc.) that we never heard the exact conversations. I think this was the basic reformed stance, right? All truth is found in the Bible, hence the Bible then is synonymous with God's word? That's why the gifts of the spirit (esp. prophecy) are often rejected?

See all the implications of this, why I'm confused! I've thought about it a good bit, but figured I coudl sue some help.

[RBerman]

We don't have access to all the things God told the prophets, so functionally, for us "The Word of God" is the Bible. The point is that no man speaks infallibly for God today.

[beforHim]

Nice way of putting it!

[hedrick]

I actually think this is a problem. Theologically, Christ is the Word. However looking through the NT, terms Word of God and Word of the Lord are used in the more general sense of God's message or the Gospel.

The Bible is certainly the primary way we know that, but using the term exclusively for the Bible suggests a closer identification of the Bible with the Word that I believe is appropriate.

[beforHim]

The Bible is certainly the primary way we know that, but using the term exclusively for the Bible suggests a closer identification of the Bible with the Word that I believe is appropriate.

Exactly. We, for some reason, have come to equate "The Word of God" with "The Bible". "The Word" and "God's Word", even though they can and are used for things other than scripture, people don't know this. If my pastor preached on John 1:1 tomorrow, I'm guessing most people would be really confused, because they'd be like, "Wait, you keep saying Jesus was in the beginning. I thought we were talking about the Bible?". Another passage, "...and thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of you own tradition". People don't picture the commandments in the Torah, the OT before it was the OT, they picture today's Bible, and would probably look in the NT first to find were the Bible was nullified.

[RBerman]

I actually think this is a problem. Theologically, Christ is the Word. However looking through the NT, terms Word of God and Word of the Lord are used in the more general sense of God's message or the Gospel.

The Bible is certainly the primary way we know that, but using the term exclusively for the Bible suggests a closer identification of the Bible with the Word that I believe is appropriate.

John 1 affirms that Christ is "the Word of God" in a sense as well. Operationally however, those who claim to know Christ are bound by God's self-revelation in the BIble; "Jesus wants X" or "Jesus told me X" if X is something against the Bible.

[OneSizeFit]

The New Testament is Jesus. It is alive, honestly.

[beforHim]

John 1 affirms that Christ is "the Word of God" in a sense as well.

Yes, it does. So I'm wondering what exactly the phrase "The Word of God"- and it's many parallels- mean, if it's the scripture's, Jesus, words of the prophets, etc. Upon thinking about it more, I think it simply means His communication with us.

The New Testament is Jesus. It is alive, honestly.

Is God really synonymous with His communication towards us? I can see the reasoning behind this view, but we don't want to start venerating the Bible, you know.

[OneSizeFit]

Is God really synonymous with His communication towards us? I can see the reasoning behind this view, but we don't want to start venerating the Bible, you know.

LOL. I know it sounds crazy but I've had some pretty intense prayer/bible reading sessions (I do both at the same time, it's like my quiet time with God) and I have literally seen the words start moving, the words lighting up (think the Matrix code), the white space between letters starts forming images. It's nuts, but it is a living, breathing book, literally.

[Obsidian]

It seems to me that if you really take John 1:1 literally, it supports the Chalcedonian (or perhaps Nestorian) position that Jesus the human was not the entirety of the Son of God. That is, the Bible is also the Son of God.

Alternatively, you could just suggest that God spoke some words to Jesus and told him something along the lines of "Make the universe," and then Jesus went and did it. In this case, Word of God as a name for Jesus would be more figurative.

I'm not sure if Option #2 would force Genesis to be taken more figuratively or not. That is, is John 1:1 saying that Jesus is the words "Let there be light" etc., or does he just mean that Jesus is the Logos in a more Greek philosophical sense?

Finally, I guess you could just adopt an Arian-type position whereby Jesus the human is a word (emanation) of God and the Bible is a separate word of God. But that would be a pretty weak position, because it would contradict the parts of the Bible where Jesus talks about existing as a person before being born.

[OneSizeFit]

I'm not sure if Option #2 would force Genesis to be taken more figuratively or not. That is, is John 1:1 saying that Jesus is the words "Let there be light" etc., or does he just mean that Jesus is the Logos in a more Greek philosophical sense?

Yup, John is without a doubt from the Hellenic/Judaic school of thought. This would fit in with Philo's view and the various texts that claim Christ was the creative force behind our reality in the NT (all was created through him, etc). Word is not an accurate translation.

Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term logos to mean the creative principle

[RBerman]

Yup, John is without a doubt from the Hellenic/Judaic school of thought. This would fit in with Philo's view and the various texts that claim Christ was the creative force behind our reality in the NT (all was created through him, etc). Word is not an accurate translation.

Philo (20 BC - 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term logos to mean the creative principle

John's use of logos need not be synonymous with Philo's use, however. "Word" is fine as a translation. It just needs a context, just like "World Wide Web" would conjure a very odd image to someone living just twenty years ago.

[aegis]

Just like to jump in the fun.

Some options we might want to debate on:
1. The literal words and the actual words in the bible are the words of God
2. The bible is a 'record' of the words spoken by God
3. Jesus is the word of God. The bible is a record of jesus
4. the Bible is all we have of the record of the 'word ' of God

So all in all, there are only two options:
1. either the Bible 'is' the word of God, the canon approach
2. or the Bible is the 'record' of the word of God,

or may be there is another option:
either 1 or 2 but the Holy Spirit can use either and make the reading of the bible become the word of God to the reader