Many errors in Christianity arise because people identify a legitimate problem, but provide the wrong solution. This is often a recipe for disaster for (as any doctor will tell you) the wrong solution to a legitimate problem often makes things worse.
I saw an example of this recently in a brochure advertising a youth ministry training day in our area. One of the workshops was entitled, “Bringing the Bible Alive through Drama”. As it stands, this title implies that the Bible is lifeless, and needs other external helps (e.g. drama) to inject life into it.
I don’t know exactly why this title was used. I don’t think that those who came up with the title would have expressed the implications of their words in the way that I have just done. Yet the use of the title is ultimately trying to provide the wrong solution to a legitimate problem. It is, in the final analysis, a serious error.
Why is this title in error? It’s because the Bible doesn’t need to be brought alive. It is not lifeless. Just ask the writer of Psalm 119, who, upon reflecting upon the written law of God, wrote:
My soul clings to the dust; give me life according to your word! (Psalm 119:25)
Behold, I long for your precepts; in your righteousness give me life! (Psalm 119:40)
Or hear from the writer to the Hebrews, who after an extended exposition of Psalm 95, concluded:
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Heb 4:12-13)
The Bible doesn’t need to be brought alive through anything. It is alive: it is God’s word, wielded by God’s Spirit, working and acting to accomplish the purposes of its author.
However, we can and should go further here. Whenever we are presented with an erroneous solution to a legitimate problem, it is not enough just to identify the error; we should also provide the right solution to the problem. In this case, the authors have actually identified a real and legitimate problem, even if they have expressed it wrongly and provided the wrong solution. The real problem behind the title is that often our own presentations of the Bible (whether to youth or to adults) are, indeed, dull and lifeless. As a Christian teacher, I have found myself guilty of this. Too often we can take the living (and often very dramatic) word of God, and present it in a formulaic, boring manner. This is the real problem, and it needs to be addressed. If we are truly gripped by the great truths of the Bible, it’s not really good enough to just stand up and speak about this truth in a three-point lecture using a voice and manner of presentation that sounds like we’re reading the back of a Cornflakes packet. If it’s a dramatic point, use drama. If it’s serious, sound and act seriously. If it’s joyful, be overjoyed! Teachers need to work hard and work deliberately on this. For example, I’ve been helped greatly by lessons from a voice coach who taught me to relax my voice and speak in a way that reflects the reality of what I’m saying. I have a long way to go, but I believe it’s worth it.
We can’t bring the Bible alive; it is far more alive that we are. But we often do need to bring the Bible teaching and the Bible teachers alive.
For future reference, I’d change the title of the workshop “How to teach the living word of God through drama”.
Hi Lionel!
I think I am like you in that I see the Bible as very important. As Paul says, it has all the information for salvation. Of course Paul reminds Timothy that it is breathed out by God.
As a result I also have a question about your use of Scripture to back up the idea of the Bible being alive.
Surely the quote from the Psalm, although indirectly perhaps a ref to the written word, is better seen as a reference to God’s life giving Word such as that spoken at creation (John 1 would cause us to see this as Jesus).
The quote from Hebrews I would have thought was also better attributed to Jesus, especially in the light of Hebrews 1:12 (and the rest of the 1st 3 chapters).
I personally cannot think of a Scripture reference where the Bible refers to itself explicitly as being alive. I would love to know if you can point me in the direction of one?
Cheers!
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that God’s “word” can often mean his life-giving creational word, or his life-giving Son. However, this is not the primary meaning of the passages I quoted. My argument that the “word of God” in these passages is to be identified with the Bible is one from context:
1. As I said in my post, Psalm 119 is a massively long reflection on the value of the written law of God. Verse 25 mentions the “word” of God, which surely is synonymous with (among other things) God’s law (v18), commandments (v19), rules (v20), commandments (v21), testimonies (v22), statutes (v23), testimonies (v24), statutes (v26), etc., etc., etc. The written word is obviously and directly on view; perhaps the creational word is also on view but this would be indirect.
2. Hebrews 4:13 comes, as I said in my post, “after an extended exposition of Psalm 95”. This exposition goes from Hebrews 3:7 to 4:11. In it, the writer to the Hebrews tries to show the applicability of an ancient written biblical text to his contemporary readers. Hebrews 4:12 begins with the word “for” – linking it to what immediately precedes. The most obvious and natural reading, then, of Hebrews 4:12, would be to relate it to the written word that has only just been referred to. Of course, I wouldn’t want to separate the Bible from God’s Son “through whom God has spoken” – they come as a package. But it would be strained in the extreme not to see the primary reference as the written word of God just referred to.
Best regards,
Lionel
Thanks for that Lionel. I can see that context is what is driving your conclusion. Yet I reach a different conclusion about the context for both passages. For brevity I will deal just with Hebrews 4:12.
The application of the exposition of the Psalm in Hebrews does go from 3:7-4:11, but you have not addressed the writer’s reason for the exposition. From the beginning of Hebrews the writer is telling us why Jesus is a greater revelation than Scripture (clearly stating his intent in 1:1-2).
Hebrews 3 starts by telling us how Jesus is greater than Moses (3:5-6). This gives us greater reason to be stronger in our faith than the forefathers whose hearts were hardened (3:7-15). Hebrews 3:19 makes it clear that the forefathers failed because of a lack of faith…not because of law (C.f. Romans 4 & Genesis 15:6). Scripture testifies that obedience comes through faith, and so faith is of greatest importance.
The purpose of the exposition has little to do with law or Scripture, but rather faith. The writer urges us to have that faith in Jesus (4:2), and so the context we have leading up to 4:12 where the Word is mentioned is Jesus – the Gospel!
The truth of the Gospel is found in the Bible, but the Gospel is the person of Jesus Christ. I know you have said you would not want to separate the Bible and Jesus, but I think it is important to, as Jesus himself saw it as important in John 5:38-39,
“Nor does his Word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have eternal life.”
In these verses Jesus distinguishes between himself and the Scriptures.
Please note I do not seek to undermine the Bible, but rather use it as it was intended, to point to Jesus and what God has done through him. Dave
Hi Dave,
I agree that we need to distinguish Jesus from the Bible – they are not the same thing. Yet what you seem to be doing is separating Jesus from the Bible, which is unjustified in the light of Hebrews 1-4.
I agree that the overall purpose of Hebrews 1-4 is to show that Jesus is greater – a greater word, and a greater Son. Hebrews 1:2 is certainly talking about Jesus, and so it is right to call him the word of God. Furthermore, I agree that Jesus has ontological priority as God’s word – he is the Word before the Bible is the Word (cf. John 1:1). I also agree that the Gospel has logical priority as the centre of God’s word. However, this doesn’t negate any possibility that the Bible is God’s word. And it is the Bible which is the basic and primary referent of the phrase “Word of God” in Hebrews 4:12.
At its basic level, the “word of God” just means “what God has spoken”. Therefore, in order to determine what the phrase “word of God” means in Hebrews 4:12 we should ask the question, “What has God spoken, according to the author?” And the answer is “the bible”. Look at all the references to God speaking in Hebrews 1:1-4:11. Hebrews 1:1, 1:6, 7, 8, 10, 13; 3:7; 4:3, 4, 5, 7 & 8 are all referring to God speaking through the Scriptures. So when the author uses the phrase “God’s word” in 4:12, the most straightforward reading is that he is talking about the Scriptures.
Of course, the wider import of the argument in Hebrews is that the Bible points to Jesus, God’s greater and primary word. Hence, if the Bible is just read with no reference to faith in Jesus, then it is not being read according to God’s life-giving Spirit, and so it is no use. However, the Bible is still God’s word, and it has life – it speaks today. The Bible is not independent of Jesus, but it is still God’s living and life-giving word. And this is what Hebrews 4:12 is saying.
Your use of Hebrews 3:19 and John 5:38-39 seems to imply that there is an either/or situation – that it’s either talking about Scripture or about faith in Jesus. But the point in both Hebrews 3:19 and John 5:38-39 is that faith in Jesus comes through the Scriptures. You must read the Bible, for it is God’s life-giving word. But to do so independently of faith in Jesus is to miss the point entirely, and to miss out on the life that it carries.
Lionel
Hi again Lionel.
In regards to your use of Psalm 119:25 & 40 in your post I think it important to note that these verses do not refer to the Word (be it Written, Creational or Christological) as alive. Rather that the Psalmist might have life according to God’s Word (v. 25), and that the Psalmist might have life through God’s righteousness (v. 40).
I appreciate your understanding of the context of these verses, but as with Hebrews 4:12, I fail to see these verses as a reference to the Bible/Scripture. Both of the verses are references to God’s salvation that will teach the Psalmist to obey God’s commands. Whether or not the Psalmist has the Messiah in mind I do not know, but I think it is important from our perspective to view this as ultimately fulfilled for us (and the Psalmist) in Christ, the living Word.
In the passage, vv. 25-32, we see that vv. 26-32 are a response to God’s ability to save (renew) in v. 25. Once again, as with Hebrews 4 we are reminded that faith in the God who saves brings obedience – a desire to follow God’s commands. The Psalmist has a written record of God’s ability to save and His promises to save in his ultra-slim version of the OT (at that time!), as well as a living relationship with the living God who has created him (by His Word. Note ref. to dust in v. 25) and will save him (through His Word). This is what creates the desire within him to follow the commands, statutes, precepts etc. It is not a matter of the laws, precepts, statutes etc being alive, or for that matter being able to save him (because he cannot keep them) or give him life (C.f. Romans 3:27-28).
In vv. 33-40, the Psalmist recognises that God’s commands are good, but wants (needs) God to teach him how to keep them (C.f. Psalm 119:176 – he cannot keep them!). The Psalmist asks God to renew his life in His righteousness (something God ultimately does through the promised Messiah – Jesus, who is the ultimate revelation of God’s righteousness, being God himself).
As I said in my first comment, I would love to know if there are any references by Scripture to Scripture being alive. I would love to read your response to my comments, but promise to now be quiet!
Dave
Hi Dave,
You said,
I believe I have demonstrated in my comments above that the answer is Hebrews 4:12 in its context. So if you keep asking, I’ll keep giving the same answer! I know that you don’t agree with my answer. However, I think that your argument about the context of the verse is illegitimate. You are trying to use the general “vibe” and purpose of Hebrews 1-4 to trump the clear reading of Hebrews 4:12 in its context. I agree that the purpose of the passage is to show that Jesus is a greater word. But in order to achieve that purpose, the author never contrasts the Son with Scripture. Rather, he shows that the living Word of Scripture, when read according to the Spirit of the Son, brings us life in the Son. And is therefore living and active now.
Psalm 119:25 is also a reference to the life-giving Scripture. Of course, particularly in this verse, it is important to understand that the Bible’s life-giving life is derived from the life of its author, who as the Creed says, is
Of course the Scripture has no independent life of its own. But God will give life according to his Word, his Scriptures, for those who meditate and love them. Of course, we do see in the New Testament even more clearly that without Christ and the Spirit, this word is no good (Romans 7). But with Christ and the Spirit, it is alive and it does bring life. This is the point of Hebrews 4:12.
As for your exegesis of the context of Psalm 119:25, the best way I think that I can demonstrate my argument is simply to let the text speak for itself, and let our readers (whoever they may be) to judge for themselves.
Dear readers: in the following passage, what is the most natural meaning of the word, “Word”, in verse 25, given its context? Is it a synonym for “written Scripture”, as I contend is obvious from the parallels to the other verses? Or does it most naturally and primarily mean God’s creating and redeeming “Word” (i.e. the person of the Son of God), as Dave contends?
Psalm 119:
Dear Lionel, I have broken my promise of silence – sorry! Also, (dear readers) please not that my last comment was written before Lionel’s comment yesterday was posted.
In response to your comment yesterday.
To clarify – I believe the Bible is the word of God, written. I believe the whole purpose of Hebrews 1-4 is to show the difference between the OT revelation of the ‘word’ and Jesus – Jesus is the greater revelation. Why? Because in Jesus, God is His ‘Word’. You would appear to agree with me, as you have said that:
“The overall purpose of Hebrews 1-4 is to show that Jesus is greater – a greater word, and a greater Son.” (I am not sure what you mean by the greater Son. The Bible is not a son of God)
“Hebrews 1:2 is certainly talking about Jesus, and so it is right to call him the word of God.”
“Furthermore, I agree that Jesus has ontological priority as God’s word – he is the Word before the Bible is the Word (cf. John 1:1).” (And also after!)
“I also agree that the Gospel has logical priority as the centre of God’s word.”
“Of course, the wider import of the argument in Hebrews is that the Bible points to Jesus, God’s greater and primary word.”
I do not understand how you then come to the conclusions,
“And it is the Bible which is the basic and primary referent of the phrase “Word of God” in Hebrews 4:12.”
“The Bible is not independent of Jesus, but it is still God’s living and life-giving word. And this is what Hebrews 4:12 is saying.”
I do not follow your exegesis. You refer to ‘all’ the references to God speaking in Heb1:1-4:11, but leave out Heb1:2! It is here that the author introduces his argument.
C.f. Heb 4:13-16. The context is Jesus. Also, the Bible tells us that God is the judge, and the NT tells us that Jesus is the judge, and Heb 4:12 tells us that the Word judges. The Bible and/or the law do not judge. They might at points condemn (C.f. Romans 7:10), but they do not judge because they do not know the thoughts and attitudes of our hearts. The description of Heb 4:12 fits Jesus, not Scripture.
I also query your assertions at the end of your comment.
“But the point in both Hebrews 3:19 and John 5:38-39 is that faith in Jesus comes through the Scriptures. You must read the Bible, for it is God’s life-giving word.”
Neither of these passages say that faith in Jesus comes through the scriptures, though the Scriptures are one way we can find out about Jesus (C.f. 2 Tim 3:15, Romans 10:14-15). I know that faith does not come through Scripture, because Abraham had faith, and he lived a long time before even the KJV! Faith comes from God – just ask Calvin! As you said yourself, “Hence, if the Bible is just read with no reference to faith in Jesus, then it is not being read according to God’s life-giving Spirit, and so it is no use.”
In response to you comment today.
You said,
“You are trying to use the general “vibe” and purpose of Hebrews 1-4 to trump the clear reading of Hebrews 4:12 in its context.”
No, I am not. I am trying to understand Hebrews 4:12 in context. I am not trying to trump anything, but rather understand the Bible. At the same time, I think the general “vibe” has a lot to do with the context!
You said,
“the author never contrasts the Son with Scripture.”
Yes he does – Hebrews 1:1-2, 5-13, 2:6-8.
You said.
“Of course the Scripture has no independent life of its own.”
I completely agree – but also note that this is a change in position to what lead me to comment originally when you said the following.
“We can’t bring the Bible alive; it is far more alive that we are.”
“The Bible doesn’t need to be brought alive through anything.”
“The Bible is not independent of Jesus, but it is still God’s living and life-giving word.”
Kind Regards
Dave
Hi Dave,
I suppose we need to agree to disagree! Thanks for taking the time to comment and respond and challenge the ideas and assumptions in my original post
Best regards,
Lionel
Lionel & Dave,
In relation to the question “what is the natural meaning of the word ‘Word’” – my answer is no to both propositions made so far.
I do not think it refers to written scripture (the bible) or to the person Jesus of Nazareth. Both of these perspectives are theological back-projections, and are second guessing what the original writer had crafted.
I suggest wrestling with the original language to discern a way forward, as the English translation is a crude imitation of the original that leads to many interpretative issues. Many of the subtleties, ambiguitites and nuances are lost to us.
My understanding of the term ‘word’ here is a more generic reference to the ‘mind’ or ‘will’ or ‘desire’ or ‘intent’ of God to draw close to humanity. Reference to the written law and commandments as given to Moses is part of the equation only. The Psalm is a joyful outpouring of the desire of God to enjoin with his people (and visa-versa), and this is expressed with a variety of words with a varierty of allusions and images.
In this way, this text is a case in point exemplifying changes occurring during this period in history – God was moving beyond a tribal deity to a divine ‘ever-presence’ intimately invovled in all our affairs. I don’t think we should be using it to build a theological argument for authority of the bible as the inspired word of God.
Cheers.
PS – I totally agree Lionel that scripture is alive with story and message. We do need to be careful about the language we use.
Thanks Lionel, I enjoyed the conversation!
Dave