Terminology Question of the Day

August 18, 20087:26 am Honzo Comments

If Jesus is the “Word,” [1] and we don’t want to be sloppy with our language and steer ourselves away from confusing the Word with the Bible, then what ought we call the Bible to emphasize it’s nature as God-breathed scripture?

I don’t like using “the word of God” because it confuses the Bible and Jesus and I want to stay as far away from that as possible. Using the word “scripture” is what I end up doing, but it just does not carry the weight that I want it to carry. The closest thing that I can think of for the Bible internally referring to itself (and I recognize the problems with even typing that sentence) is in 2 Timothy 3:16 where the author refers to writings that are inspired of God. [2]

So, it Bible and Scripture the best terms to use for the collection of books that we Christians consider to have been inspired by God? What other options are there? What do you use?

‘Εν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. –> In [the] beginning was the Word, and the word was beside the God, and God was the Word. – John 1:1 [↩]
The author of 2 Timothy uses γραφή (gra-phay), lit – “a writing” a term that can mean anything from sacred writing, to a painting, to a legal document. The author equates these “writings” with Θεόπνευστος (theh-o-neus-tahs). This is a curious word, which only shows up in the NT and LXX here in 2 Tim 3:16 and is a combination of θεο + πνευστος, or God + spirit. Thus, Θεόπνευστος becomes “inspired by God” or “[having] ( since in this context there is an “is” before the word because we have two nominatives being equated.) the spirit of God.” [↩]

Edit in Admin

henrythomasimler

I agree that too many laypersons confuse Jesus with the Bible and that is just foolish. I can remember when I used to be so foolish. But that was before I really started to pay attention to grammar and syntax and words having meanings in particular contexts.

In my comments above, I was saying that logos refers back to Psalm 95 specifically. But I think that Hebrews 4:2 does really speak to the good news of rest promised and never realized. I would say that ho logos tou theou in Hebrews 4:12 could refer to that gospel in 4:2. However, I don't think that this refers to the spirit of Jesus. I just don't see how when this would be, as far as I know, the only place in Hebrews that logos is used in a Johanine fashion (help me remember who else speaks of Jesus as logos or something similar, I'm drawing blank). I think it is too much of a stretch to make that case.

As for logos referring to speech that is to be heard (like rhema in Romans 10:17), this really gets to the primary usage of logos in the LXX of the prophets. As I said above, it is used to translate debar Yahweh. I would say that in a communication sense, logos refers to a message. Thus I have no problem calling the Bible "the Word of God" or "the word from/by God." I think that the confusion is calling Jesus "Word" because it is hard to comprehend Jesus as an inanimate and impersonal object that describes written and oral communication. I have no solutions to offer on this subject, I think we might be better off trying to rethink how we translate logos in John 1:1-18--again with no solutions coming to mind.

Honzo

E.I.
Why should we have to explain ourselves?

That is a very good question. Surely we consider the Bible to be words from God. However, language is extremely powerful. The words we use shape our reality in almost tangible ways. (No word of faith stuff, just the power of words as containers of ideas) As I mentioned in my response to Hank, I've been around many a layperson who has confused the Word that is God with the word from God. Because of the ease of that transposition, I favor keeping distinct terms in my everyday and teaching language. It avoids dangerous confusion. That is why I am uncomfortable with it - seeing the misuse in real life. I like your charge of laziness. Its a good parallel.

I'm not advocating a low view of scripture, as I recognize that the term scripture seems almost too weak for me.

But, as best I can understand it, the Bible is a message from God. It's not an active and living force in the world - that is the Holy Spirit and it is not equal to the Bible.

So, while we certainly don't have to explain ourselves, I find this to be a useful question.

Honzo

Hank,

Protestants confuse the Word as Jesus with scriptures all the time. Listen to their songs about the Bible - they border on idolatry. It's subtle and most people miss it. At least that has happened in the multiple Baptist, Presbyterian, and the Churches of Christ churches I have attended for years each. It is because of this background that I wanna play it safer. Surely, the Bible is a "word from the Lord" but given John and elsewhere in the Bible where Jesus is the divine λογος I think there is practical warrant for maintaining a deep distinction in our everyday language.

Also, I am not sure that the author of Hebrews is talking about the OT in 4:12 as I read it as talking about the spirit of Jesus - that is it active in our lives. How does one come to your conclusion? I might be wrong, but the context seems to support it being the spirit of Jesus in our lives. For instance, 13 talks about the Word judging and verse fourteen begins with a therefore and launches in talking about Jesus as the high priest. (the :. starting v14, the judging role it plays, etc...) Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like right there is a place were we confuse the bible with Jesus. Heck, I might even be doing it the other way around!

Does logos connect to verse 14 or does it harken back to verse 2 where the λογος is used when talking about the hearing of the good news? Then again, given the fact that λογος can mean word and speech and in verse two the emphasis is on speech and hearing, that might cloud this even more.

henrythomasimler

In this conversation, one must remember that the author of Hebrews uses ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ to speak of the OT, specifically Psalm 95 (Hebrews 4:12). So even the New Covenant community understood the scriptures as ὁ λόγος. The OT was viewed as דְבַר־יְ֠הוָה (word of Yahweh), which the LXX translates λόγος κυρίου (Ezekiel 1:3 LXX). The problem doesn't end here because not only does the NT use λόγος and γραφή , it also uses ῥῆμα--which means "sayings" (cf. Romans 10:17 and Epheisans 6:17). Paul uses all three terms. All three point to the same object.

Quite frankly, I have no problem referring to the Bible as the Bible, the Scriptures, the Word of God. When people hear "word of God" I don't think that they immediately think of Jesus but of the Bible. Word in English is a very impersonal noun. I think that the difficulty lies not with calling the canonical books that Christians believe to be inspired "Word" but rather with understanding what John meant when he used ὁ λόγος to describe Jesus in John 1:1-18 and putting that into English.

E. I.

My first reaction /thought was: why should we have to explain ourselves? We have been using these terms for hundred of years, no?

That said, the english language is lazy - sort of: In Spanish, we say:

John 1:1: In the beginning was the Verb, and the Verb was with God, and the Verb was God (Verbo).

Then when the people talk about the Bible, they say: "la Palabra de Dios" - so it is understood we mean - The Word of God as in "This is what God has said"...

So english is lazy here: The Word is, I think, similar to Love. In spanish we have multiple ways of saying "love"

Yo Amo my wife (i love my wife)
Yo quiero a mis hijos (I love my children)
Me entanta Mexican Food (( love mexican food)

So Word may still be the simplest way to refer to Jesus and the Bible.

Theology for the Masses

Terminology Question of the Day

Recent Comments

Categories

Tags

Author Blogs

Biblical Resources

Biblical Studies

Biblical Studies Blogs

Blogroll

Christian Commentary/News Publications

Philosophy Resources

Theology Blogs

Theology Resources

Pages

Categories

Meta