"Word of God"?

Please note that I'm posting in the Eastern Orthodox forum so, while I'm looking for information, it is against forum rules (and would be unproductive) to simply argue against what gets posted by Orthodox in this thread - Thanks!


Ok, disclaimer made.

I hope I can explain the question I've been mulling over the past few days. We know that the Logos, the Word of God, is Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure if Orthodoxy ever refers to the Holy Scriptures by that name. I'm interested in - historically - how it came to be that so very many popularly understand the "word of God" to refer to the Holy Scriptures. IS there any precedent for this in the early Church?

I'm not denying that Scripture is "God breathed" ... and thus inspired, so in a sense to call it God's word might be accurate.

Like a sola scripturist, I started to wonder if there is anywhere in the Bible that the Bibke refers to itself as "the word of God". Since that's what matters to many folks. Put another way, where do they get that? How do they defend it?

But the only passage I could immediately call to mind is Hebrews 4:12

For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I looked at the Greek and it does say "the Logos" ... and then I looked at the overall context and it turns right around and talks about Jesus. I started thinking it makes sense that maybe that verse IS about Jesus, though I never took it that way before.

Then I read that St. Athanasius, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril all see Christ in that passage, and not a book. (I always did wonder how a book could discern, but I took it to be that it made clear distinctions that men could receive, if they would.)

So now I'm wondering if there is any precedent or how it came to be regarded this way, or what Orthodoxy would say about such terminology.

Any comments? Thank you!

Albion said:

There's Luke 11:28. How many verses refer to Jesus as "the Word of God?"

To me, it's obvious that the term can be used--and is used--to refer to the one concept sometimes and to the other one on other occasions.

Click to expand...

I agree that's it's easy enough for a word (or words) to be applied to more than one concept.

And Luke 11:28 hadn't come immediately to mind. Thank you for that.

However, that verse actually puts me in mind of something else. The OT is full of references to "the word of the Lord" referring to prophecy coming to a prophet.

What could Jesus have meant by those who hear the Word of God and keep it?

He could refer (most likely) to OT Scriptures. He could be speaking of them hearing Himself though they might not understand yet (also reasonable). I'm not trying to be argumentative, but it doesn't seem He could be speaking of the Bible, Old and New Testaments. However, that might even be an unfair thing to look for in Scripture, as the authors of the Epistles likely wouldn't have considered themselves to be writing Scripture.

Again, not really arguing. You're making me think more of OT prophecies though, and perhaps by extension the Scriptures written by prophets, such as Moses, and so on.

Thanks for the verse.

And most famously, I would say the passage in John 1 refers to Jesus as the Word of God.

What I do know is that if you ask many Protestants from my old backgrounds about the Logos, they will point to Christ. But if you ask them about the Word, they will point to the Bible. I find this curious, since it's just a translation of the one word - Logos.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi Anastasia, here are a couple of links that might help. These are all of the instances of the NASB using the phrases, "words of God", "word of God", "Word of God", etc., in both OT/NT.

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 24:4, Numbers 24:16, 2 Samuel 16:23, 1 Kings 12:22, 1 Chronicles 25:5, Psalm 107:11, Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:13, Luke 5:1, Luke 8:11, Luke 8:21, Luke 11:28, John 3:34, John 8:47, John 10:35, Acts 4:31, Acts 6:2, Acts 6:7, Acts 8:14, Acts 11:1, Acts 13:5, Acts 13:7, Acts 13:46, Acts 17:13, Acts 18:11 - New American Standard Bible

Bible Gateway passage: Romans 9:6, 1 Corinthians 14:36, 2 Corinthians 2:17, 2 Corinthians 4:2, Ephesians 6:17, Philippians 1:14, Colossians 1:25, 1 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Timothy 4:5, 2 Timothy 2:9, Titus 2:5, Hebrews 4:12, Hebrews 6:5, Hebrews 11:3, Hebrews 13:7, 1 Peter 1:23, 2 Peter 3:5, 1 John 2:14, Revelation 1:2, Revelation 1:9, Revelation 17:17, Revelation 19:9, Revelation 19:13, Revelation 20:4 - New American Standard Bible

Click to expand...

Thanks. This will take a while to work through, since context and careful consideration without existing filters is necessary. So I don't have much of a reply. Hopefully I can find the time.


ETA maybe not so much time, since the link connects them, and I know the context of many ...

St_Worm2 said:

It is interesting to note how many different ways that phrase is used in the Bible, and to what or to Whom it refers, both in the OT as well the New (edit: as I just noticed Albion had already mentioned).

Have fun

Click to expand...

Thanks. Still working on these.

It seems to me that the OT usage is either exclusively or almost exclusively referring to prophecies, or the words spoken by prophets on behalf of God. That doesn't surprise me.

I'm still looking at the NT ones. In some cases it could refer to the OT Scriptures, and interestingly to me, I think it refers at times to Christ speaking of His own words as He is teaching.

I have yet to find a usage that I think points to the NT Scriptures. Again, though, that's only part of the question.

Mainly what I started out wanting to know is where the common usage today "word of God" to refer to the Scriptures first came into usage, and what the opinion of Orthodoxy regarding that usage would be, if there is an opinion.

peregrinus2017 said:

I am just throwing out my own opinion and observation, for what it is worth, but it seems to me that when protestant denominations no longer accepted the eucharist as the very body and blood of Christ, Gods word replaced God the Word as the centre and pinnacle of the church service and life. I think this creates for many an unclear understanding between Gods word and God the Word.

Click to expand...

That's perhaps an astute observation. Though it's only fair to consider that not all Protestants arrange their services in such a way. I've been to some (Anglican, Lutheran, to a lesser degree Methodist) and there are others I think, who have a Liturgy arranged around a Eucharist, which they have some belief (I know the way they articulate it varies) of Christ being somehow actually present.

But if I compare high Church Anglicans to something at the opposite end of the spectrum, your point stands. The Bible often becomes their most direct connection to God and the sermon the central focus of the service.

Thinking about it, it makes sense. If you remove the Eucharist, then the Scriptures would be the most tangible expression of the presence of God.

And I think the human spirit craves that, and will receive it in whatever form it is offered. So I don't say this to fault them, but with compassion for what they miss and understanding of their desire.

St_Worm2 said:

Hi again Anastasia, it seems to me that Jesus was referring to the OT Scriptures there as you surmised (cf John 5:46/Luke 24:27), just like He did every time He said things like, "it is written", throughout the Gospels. The NT letters we not composed until after He ascended, of course, so the fact the He was referring to the OT makes the most sense (though He knew the NT would be forthcoming, of course, and that it would also be "God-breathed").

As for the humans who penned the NT, I believe the Bible gives us several good reasons to believe that they did know that they were, in fact, writing down God's breathed words. For instance, St. Peter refers to the letters of St. Paul as "Scripture" in one of his Epistles.

2 Peter 3
14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.​

Yours and His,
David

Click to expand...

Tallguy88 said:

Regarding the bold, they at least considered each others writings to be scripture.

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

2 Peter 3:14-18

By saying the "other scriptures", Peter is indicating that he considers Paul's epistles to be scripture.

Click to expand...

Ah, perhaps you both are right. I had forgotten that being worded in just that way. Of course to be more sure, I'd want to double check it in the original, but that's not a huge question for me either way.

Though something still feels a tad not-quite-right to think that the Epistles were written being intended for a canon. I do believe the Gospels were written with intent to provide a record though, so maybe i have no reason to feel that way.

At any rate, you are both right to point this out, and thank you.

Chesterton said:

I'd go a step further. The eucharist was the centerpiece of the church service, and now for many the sermon is the centerpiece. The sermon is a man talking. They've actually replaced the Word of God with the word of man.

Click to expand...

I'd never thought of this, and it is not my intent at all to turn this thread to simply criticizing some Protestants, but ... sadly I can see some truth to this, in how it has happened at least. To be fair, I'm very sure that was never the intent when this was happening.

Tallguy88 said:

The bible is the Word of God in written form, Jesus is the Word of God in the flesh.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not really disputing that fact ... as I said if Scripture is God-breathed, it can just the same be called his words.

I was just wondering when it started to be called that.

I do think perhaps it might influence some modern interpretations of Scripture, if that is not how it was used when the Scripture was written.