Many Protestant apologists often claim that “the Word of God” and other like-locutions are exhausted by “the Bible.” I responded to this apologetic in my book, Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura, pp. 105-7. Indeed, one Reformed apologist noted that such is a very errant apologetic:
[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156).
Indeed, prophets spoke "the Word of God," regardless of whether it would or would not be inscripturated at a later time (in effect, "Word of God" would equal, not Scripture, but the oral proclamation of God's prophets and apostles). For instance, in Jer 25:3-9, we read:
For twenty-three years-- from the thirteenth year of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah until this very day-- the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again, but you have not listened. And though the Lord has sent all his servants the prophets to you again and again, you have not listened or paid any attention. They said, "Turn now, each of you, from your evil ways and your evil practices, and you can stay in the land the Lord gave to you and your ancestors for ever and ever. Do not follow other gods to serve and worship them; do not arouse my anger with what your hands have made. Then I will not harm you." "But you did not listen to me," declares the Lord, "and you have aroused my anger with what your hands have made, and you have brought harm to yourselves." Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: "Because you have not listened to my words, I will summon all the peoples of the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon," declares the Lord . . .(NIV)
The famous Church historian, Adolf Von Harnack in his book, The Constitution and Law of the Church in the First Two Centuries (trans. F.L. Pogson; London: Williams and Norgate, 1910) has a useful appendix on this issue:
Supplementary Note to the Investigation Concerning “Gospel”: “Word,” ”Word of God,” and “Word (Words) of Christ” in the New Testament, pp. 332-49
Here are some relevant quotes from this appendix, which shows that “Word of God” and other like-locutions are not exhausted by “the Bible” (although there are some instances where inscripturated revelation is in view, most instances it refers to the [oral] preaching of the Gospel, the Kingdom of God, etc):
Mark introduces the expression “ο λογος” by itself (and therefore absolutely) without explaining it: see ii. 2 (“he spake the word,” ελαλησεν τον λογον, so also iv. 33, viii. 32); iv. 14-20 (parable of the sower); iv. 33. The meaning, which indeed can be ascertained only from the whole of the whole of the book and not from the context, is “the word of God,” the word of the kingdom (cf. Luke and Matthew); Mark assumes that his readers at once understand this. ‘Ο λογος (οι λογοι) was quite comprehensible even to heathen readers for the connection of ideas showed that the subject referred to was religious tidings, and in this sense the ancients, too, used both the singular and the plural of λογος. Jewish readers, however, knew at once that it was a question of God’s word. In viii. 31 and ix. 10 ο λογος means the word of death and resurrection; in these passages, however, it is not technical but used, so to speak, by chance. Once only (vii. 13) is λογος του θεου spoken of, which the Pharisees make of none effect; the revelation of God in the Old Testament is meant. Lastly, Jesus speaks twice in a solemn manner of “His” words (viii. 38, “whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words”; and xiii. 31, “my words shall not pass away.” The expression does not occur elsewhere in Mark . . . Luke’s procedure is instructive. In the Gospel he very rarely introduces the expression, because the tradition he was following made such scanty use of it, and in these technical philological matters he was very conscientious. On the other hand (in the Prologue and) in the Acts he very frequently makes use of it. In the Gospel he introduces it in v. 1, but in the more precise form, “to hear the word of God” (ακουειν τον λογον του θεου); in the parable of the sower (viii. 11-15) he makes the very same addition, viz. the genitive του θεου (Matt., της βασιλειας), and by this he expressly places the content of the preaching of Jesus on the same level as the word of God given in the Old Testament. Twice more (viii. 21, xi. 28) he similarly identifies the preaching of Jesus with the word of god (“blessed are they which hear the word of God and keep [do] it”); for this the other Synoptists have the expression, “to do the will of God.” We recognise by the change which he has made that Luke was fond of describing the Christian preaching as the word of God. But he has not indulged this preference any further in the Gospel. Following Mark, he has repeated in ix. 26 and xxi. 33 the sayings “whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words,” and “my words shall not pass away.” This is all that occurs.
How totally different in the Acts! The expression ο λογος του θεου (του κυριου) occurs not less than twenty-two times in this book, and ο λογος is used by itself in the same sense fourteen times. In this book the word is the regular term for the content of the new religion; indeed we may say it was through the Acts of the Apostles (to a still greater extent than through Paul; see below) that the expression “the word of God” was naturalised in the Church. Especially familiar is the combination—already established in Mark—λαλειν τον λογον or τον λογον του θεου [του κυριου] (eight times); further, καταγγελειν, ευγγελιζεσθαι and διδασκειν τον λογον (six times), ακουειν τον λογον (five times), δεχεσθαι or καταλειπειν τον λογον (four times).
The meaning of the expression “the word” (of God) is never precisely defined by Luke, and therefore its content cannot be more exactly determined than by the words with which he has concluded his book, “preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ” (κηρυσσων την βασιλειαν του θεου και διδασκων τα περι του κυριου ‘Ιησου Χριστου. This is the content of the λογος του θεου. The additions (τον λογον) της χαριτος (xiv. 3, xx. 32), της σωτηριας (xiii. 26), του ευαγγελιου (xv. 7) show that the Word of God is that of divine grace unto salvation and joy. Here belongs the frequent combination with παρρησια (boldness) and παρρησιαζεσθαι (preaching boldly); the word of God gives courage and power for its joyous proclamation.
It is very noticeable that, as has already taken place in the Old Testament, the conception “the word of God” becomes so materialised for Luke that it almost comes to have an independent existence either as a thing or a person. He writes, “the word of God increased” (ο λογος του θεου ηυξανεν, vi. 7, xii. 24, xix. 20). He speaks of the “ministry of the word” (διακονια του λογου, vi. 4), and of participating in the word (viii. 21, “thou hast neither part nor lot in this word,” ουκ εστιν σοι μερις ουδε κληρος εν τω λογω τουτω) . . . Luke never uses the “word of Jesus (Christ)” as a religious formula, summing up his teaching (the exception ο λογος του Χριστου occurs in him neither as a subjective nor as an objective genitive), though he once refers to sayings of Jesus which he thinks of as a group, and acquaintance with which he assumes (xx. 35, “to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said,” μνημονευειν των λογων του κυριου ‘Ιησου, οτι αυτος ειπεν).
The materialisation of the conception of “ο λογος” which we have observed in Luke does not occur in Paul. In other respects also, there are important distinctions between Paul’s and Luke’s use of the expressions “word,” “word of God.” Paul’s use is more varied, and the different senses seem to be less sharply defined (and therefore less limited to religious formulae). ‘Ο λογος stands by itself, as in Luke, in 1 Thess. i. 6, “to receive the word” (δεχεσθαι τον λογον); Gal. vi. 6, “he that is taught in the word” (ο κατηχουμενος τον λογον), and Col. Iv. 3, “that God may open unto us a door for the words” (ινα ο θεος ανοιξη ημιν θυραν του λογου). But, by adding in the last-mentioned passage, “to speak the mystery of Christ” (λαλησαι το μυστηριον του Χριστου), Paul identifies the “word” (or definitely the content of his preaching) with the mystery of Christ. On the other hand, compare with this Col. Iii. 16, “let the word of Christ” (λογος του Χριστου, here subjective genitive) dwell richly in the community. We do not find this in Luke.
The expression ο λογος του θεου (του κυριου) is not used so entirely with one meaning in Paul as in Luke. In Rom. Ix 6 it is to be understood as the Old Testament plan and promise of salvation, in 1 Cor. Xiv. 36 and in 1 Thess. I 8 as the new preaching which went forth from Jerusalem and then from other places (“was it from you that the word of God went forth”? ‘αφ υμων ο λογος του θεου εξηλθεν; or “from you hath sounded forth the word of the Lord.” ‘αφ υμων εξηχηται ο λογος του κυριου). . In 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2; Phil. i. 14 (used with αφοβως λαλειν); Col. i. 25; 1 Thess. ii. 13, iii. 1, the meaning is general, as in Luke, and covers the whole content of the New Testament preaching . . . The Epistle to the Hebrews, which we have already mentioned above, uses, like Luke and Paul, the phrase “to speak the word of God” (xiii. 7, λαλειν τον λογον του θεου), and thus shows that it was a solemn expression. In ii. 1 it speaks of the “word spoken through angels” (λογος λαληθεις δι’ αγγελων), and thus denotes by this phrase the Old Testament revelation. The expression in vi. 1, “the word of the beginning Christ” (ο της αρχης του Χριστου λογος) is peculiar. The author understands by this, as the context shows, the instruction of the Christian catechumens as distinguished form more advanced teaching. (pp. 332-33, 334-37, 338-40, 343-44)
In his conclusion, Von Harnack writes:
Results
From the Old Testament conception “word of God” was understood to imply a particular revealed saying, intended to command or instruct. It was also a general term for the whole of the revelation of God. In Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom this whole body of revelation, in Jesus’ sense of the term, received its fulfilment. But Jesus Himself also called this preaching “my word” or “my words.” In the primitive community in Palestine (cf. the negative evidence of Q and Mathew) the expression “word of God” does not seem to have been applied to the context of the religion unfolded in the preaching, but Mark, and to a still greater extent Luke, took it up, or at least afford evidence that it was used in this way in the Gentile-Christian communities. In Luke “the word”—without detriment to its general meaning as an expression of the whole of God’s plan of salvation which is now realised—is the preaching of the kingdom of God and the communication of all that it is necessary to know of the Lord Jesus Christ. This “word” coincides with the “gospel,” and is characterised with reference to its effect, as a word of salvation. The “word” is so powerful that it already acquires a certain mystical independence in Luke; yet Luke does not identify it with Jesus, and even the expression which we have just used is perhaps too strong.
In Paul the Christological element as the content of the “word” comes forward much more prominently than in Luke, although he too gives expression to the general meaning as well (God’s revealed will to save mankind). Christ (or the mystery of Christ), and indeed the Crucified and Risen Christ, may be designated as the content of the word. But besides this, Paul also represented Christ as the subject of the word. Further, the “word” is the “word of truth” and the “word of life.” The last term especially is significant; it was easily understood by the Greeks and heightens the religious aspect of the idea . . . The result of these investigations is that the conceptions “words of God” and “gospel” cannot be confined to one meaning in New Testament usage. These fundamental conceptions afford further evidence of the evolution and freedom which is the general characteristic of the Christian religion. (pp. 347-49)
To argue, as some errant Protestants do, that “Word of God” and other like-terms in the Bible are exhausted by the category of “the Bible” is fallacious and should be retired. Indeed, modern biblical scholarship agrees with Von Harnack on this. Note, for instance, the following from the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary under “Word of God”:
A. Word of God as Metaphor
To speak of the word of God is to use the language of metaphor. Such language is drawn from human experience, specifically the experience of speaking and hearing. As with all metaphors, both the differences and similarities with respect to the human analogue need to be kept in mind. On the one hand, God’s speaking cannot be reduced to the limits of human speaking; on the other hand, there are genuine similarities between human and divine speech. The former can be seen in the testimony of the biblical authors to the manifold vehicles for the speech of God. God’s word is conveyed in and through dreams, visions, voices out of clouds, and encounters with strangers, as well as directly to the human mind. At the same time, human beings apprehend and understand the word of God in a way not dissimilar from human speech; the word of God is an intelligible word to human minds.
There is no word of God to human beings apart from the words and other symbols by which human beings communicate. There is thus no pure, unmediated word of God. But the finite is capable of the infinite; human words can bear the divine word. One cannot finally sort out the divine word from the human, however; they are bound up together in every reported word of God in the OT. But the word, nevertheless, is called the word of God.
There is no speculation as to how this communication is possible, nor any apparent concern to distinguish between internal and external hearing. God’s speaking is sufficiently common so that normally it is not understood to be an extraordinary event, though it may occasion surprise or fear in some instances, especially in communal contexts (cf. Exod 20:19 with Deut 5:24). Yet, divine speech is never understood to be unambiguously divine, so that, for example, Samuel can mistake it for a human voice (1 Samuel 3) and false prophets can make claims to have heard it (Jer 28:2). The word of God is believed to be from God and sufficiently clear and effective to shape faith and life, but no criteria are available to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that such speech had a divine origin. The claim to have heard a word of God is not a self-authenticating claim.
B. Word of God as Speech-Act
A magical understanding has been a prominent feature in the study of the word of God in the OT. That is, the spoken word in and of itself was believed to possess an autonomous power, even a quasi-material identity, which ineluctably worked to bring about what had been articulated. But contrary to popular understanding, this is not a theological consideration; it has its roots in a particular view of language in general.
The recently developed field of speech-act theory, building on the work of J. Austin (1962) and others, has shifted this discussion to a new level and demonstrated the inadequacy of the above-noted understanding. This is the study of language-use which is understood to be, or to be a part of, the doing of an action, hence the designation “performative speech.” Such words not only express ideas or convey content, they do something. It is the performance of an act in saying something as opposed to an act of saying something. In many such instances the utterance of the word itself coincides with the act (has an illocutionary force), while in other cases the word seeks to have an effect on reality (perlocutionary force); in many cases words have both forces. Examples would be: promises, vows, wagers, verdicts, namings, warnings, blessings and curses.
Unlike magical understandings, however, these words are not effective because of some inherent, independent power in the words themselves. Nor can all words be so described. Rather, these words produce effects because of certain societal understandings regarding the function of such speech-acts. These words must be spoken in a particular situation by the appropriate person in the proper form to be so effective; in fact, if these factors are not present the words may have the opposite effect intended (e.g., Prov 27:14).
This is certainly the case with blessings and curses. Thus, for example, the blessing of Jacob in Genesis 27 is not a magical transfer by word power, but reflective of cultural understandings of the effectiveness and legally non-rescindable character of such testaments. The fact that modern legally attested oaths would be comparably understood is illustrative of the fact that Israel’s understanding of word was not particularly unique. Both in ancient and modern societies certain words immediately produce effects because they are spoken by individuals exercising authority in certain conventional or institutional situations. No magical understanding of word is implied.
The importance of the one who speaks these words deserves special mention when the speaker is God or God’s representative. The power of the words spoken by God directly or through a prophet is to be related not to some mysterious power which the spoken word itself possesses, but to the power of the speaker. It is God, who has an ongoing relationship to a word spoken, who brings about the fulfillment of the word, not the word in itself in some autonomous way. Fulfillment is a testimony to God’s work, not to a word’s power.
This is evidenced negatively by the phenomenon of false prophecy and the reality of divine repentance. While the words of the false prophets may well have an effect—they could be believed by those who heard them—the words are not fulfilled (cf. Deut 18:22; Jer 28:9; cf. Isa 44:26). Moreover, the fact that God occasionally is said to have repented of a word spoken (cf. Jer 26:19; Jonah 3:10) means that God’s ongoing relationship to that word is such that it may or may not be fulfilled. It is also to be noted that God can change intended curses to blessings (Deut 23:6; Josh 24:10; Neh 13:2; cf. Mal 2:2).
In view of these perspectives, certain passages commonly cited to illustrate the autonomous power of the word are to be explained in other terms. When it is stated that the “word of the Lord came to” a prophet (e.g., Joel 1:1), it probably means nothing more than that the word became an active reality in the life of the prophet from a source other than the prophet’s own mind. 1 Kgs 13:9, 17 are certainly instances of poetic personification. Jer 1:9–10 has reference to the word of God as embodied (cf. below). Isa 55:10–11, “my word shall not return empty,” would say little about God that is remarkable or informative if this were true about words in themselves. The same may be said with respect to the creative word of God (cf. Ps 33:6, 9).
Only because the word is the word of God can it be spoken of in such powerful terms. The word of God will endure forever because its speaker is God himself (Isa 40:6–8). Metaphors for the word of God such as weapon (Hos 6:5; Isa 9:7—Eng v 8 cf. Zech 9:1), fire (Jer 5:14; 20:9), hammer (Jer 23:29), messenger (Pss 107:20; 147:15, 18), and rain and snow (Isa 55:10–11) are simply striking ways in which the swift and powerful effect of the word of God can be made more vivid. Later tendencies to view word as an hypostasis (Wis 18:15–16?) can be viewed as an extension of this use of language. In general terms, this objectifying language serves to show that the word of God is not a product of human minds; it is a reality which comes from outside the self.
Generally, the lack of an independent power for words is shown by the fact that words may be ineffective, and cannot in and of themselves compel response (Prov 2:3–4; 17:10; 29:19; cf. Judg 17:2). Moreover, words are no substitute for deeds (Prov 14:23). The common magical understanding of the use of words in the OT is thus rooted in a mistaken view of language. Such words are rather to be seen in a double light, in terms of the dynamics of performative speech and the identity of the speaker.
This understanding of the word finds parallels among Israel’s neighbors in the ANE. The creative word of the gods is a common theme in both Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Enuma Elish (e.g., 4.22–26; see ANET, 66) speaks of the power of the word of Marduk. Also it is said of Sin in “Hymn to the Moon-God”: “Thy word goes out from above like a wind, it makes pasture and watering place luxuriant … Thy word causes justice and righteousness to arise” (TDOT 3:93; cf. ANET, 386). Egyptian literature speaks often of creation through the word and of “the word of God.” For example, it mentions Amon, “who spoke with his mouth and there came into existence all men, gods … cattle” (ANET, 371). On the other hand, accounts of a god speaking directly to human beings is rare.
These commonalities between Israel and the surrounding societies, most common in later OT literature, are probably not due to explicit borrowing. Rather, it is more likely that Israel’s understanding of the word was reflective of a general cultural understanding in that part of the world. In any case, these connections should be positively viewed; at least some of the truth about God’s relationship to the world is not unknown outside Israel. (Terence E. Fretheim, "Word of God" in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, volume 6, ed. David Noel Freedman [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 961-62)
For more refuting Sola Scriptura, including some of the better arguments used by Protestant apologists, see my online essay:
