The Word of God by Brad Jersak

Over the past few weeks, I’ve given some renewed attention to the phrase, “the Word of God.” While growing up in a conservative Baptist church on the Canadian prairies, I learned to equate the Word of God with the Christian scriptures, i.e. the Bible. One of the first songs I ever learned was: 

The B-I-B-L-E,
Yes, that’s the book for me.
I stand alone on the Word of God,
The B-I-B-L-E!

I suppose this was my introduction to sola scriptura—the belief that Scripture stands as our soul authority [contra either the Catholics with their Pope or the Charismatics with their prophecies] and that the Bible = the Word of God. By the way, did we mean “stand alone” or the “Bible alone”… either seems stinted in retrospect.

Years later, I would head off to Bible College, where one was greeted at the entrance by a large sign that said, “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God shall stand forever.” (Isaiah 40:8) I showed up eagerly with my brand new Ryrie Study Bible ready to study God’s Word, the Bible. I carried it everywhere I went, making sure to scribble notations in every margin and wear out many a highlighter throughout its several thousand pages. By the time I was finished, good old Ryrie had four different layers of duct tape holding him together. If that weren’t spiritual enough, I wore holes in my back pockets by continually using a Gideon’s New Testament to fill out my rather meagre derriere… the odd person was actually impressed! 

It’s true. I am a confessed bibliolatrist. I can’t blame my family, my church or my college for that. They honoured the Bible; but I worshiped it… or rather, I worshiped my own expanding knowledge of it. The growing shadow of alternating religion and rebellion in my heart displaced much of my living faith… but that was okay, because I loved God’s Word, the Bible… my genuine imitation Moroccan leather-bound inerrant idol. The B-I-B-L-E. 

I won’t bore you with how I got over it… but I am glad to report that while I was exorcised (more literally than you’d care to know) from that little fetish, I have not abandoned the Scriptures. In fact, for reasons to follow, I find them even more powerful, more trustworthy, and more precious than I did then. But the Bible is not my God. In fact, the Bible itself indicates that it is not, strictly speaking, the Word of God. 

Did I just say that? Well, let’s check out a few examples:  

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4) 

In this passage, Jesus seems to be saying that “every word” that comes out of God’s mouth might be included as the Word of God. He is quoting Deuteronomy 8 which ends with a scary reminder: “…they perished because they would not listen to the voice of God.” I wonder if we’re being far too narrow to claim that every word that came out of God’s mouth is in the Bible. Is God’s voice restricted only to the words recorded in Scripture? Did he become utterly silent after the written record was complete? The Bible’s own witness seems to cast doubt on that.

Let’s expand:

 “One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowdingaround him and listening to the word of God, he saw at the water's edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets. He got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.” (Luke 5:1-3)

In this case, the word of God again speaks of more than the Scriptures… unless Jesus had snuck the scroll out of the local synagogue and was quoting from it. No, the phrase here is speaking of the preached word and could have included anything that Jesus was teaching—most likely some aspect of the Gospel of the Kingdom. Moreover, this particular word of God is not recorded for us, so it never even entered the Scriptures.

Similarly, in the parable we call “the Sower and the seeds,” we read that

“The seed is the word of God. Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.” (Luke 8:11-12)

Again, my sense it that the word of God refers to some aspect of the gospel message and/or anything that God is speaking into the hearts of his children. I believe this is seen explicitly in the following passage:

“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13)

Of course, we also have some distinctions in the New Testament between the rhema word and the logos word. Some teachers point out that the rhema corresponds to a current and living prophetic message from God (e.g. they cite Hebrews 4:12).

“For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12)

Some would say that this passage has nothing to do with the written Word, which they equate instead with the logos (an overstatement as we’ll see later). I suspect that the rhema of Hebrews 4:12 can come any way that God wants it to come—whether through Scripture, or a prophetic word, an inner impression, a full-on vision, or a dream in the night, it’s all God’s voice or God’s word so it’s powerful and alive when it penetrates my heart.

As is often the case, Peterson’s version (the Message) says it so well:

“God means what he says. What he says goes. His powerful Word is sharp as a surgeon's scalpel, cutting through everything, whether doubt or defence, laying us open to listen and obey. Nothing and no one is impervious to God's Word. We can't get away from it—no matter what.”

I want to repeat: the Word of God may not be reduced to the Bible, but it can come through the Bible. As Barth described it, the Bible is a “witness to the Word,” such that David uses Word synonymously with other terms for the scriptures (cf. also Jesus’ use of “word of God” and “Scripture” in John 10:35):

How can a young man keep his way pure?
       By living according to your word.

I seek you with all my heart;
       do not let me stray from your commands.

I have hidden your word in my heart
       that I might not sin against you.

Praise be to you, O LORD;
       teach me your decrees.

With my lips I recount
       all the laws that come from your mouth.

(Psalm 119:9-13) 

But even David sees the word of God as a mighty speech-act that extends beyond his parchments and across the heavens and earth in passages like Psalm 19. 

I also see an emphasis in the New Testament about the word of God being in us—living in our hearts. Is he referring to Bible memorization… or something more?  It often sounds more like a divine implant—the Holy Spirit or the voice of the living God in Jesus Christ. For example,

“I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you…” (1 John 2:14)

Finally, and I think most importantly, we note that the Bible itself tells us that Jesus, and not the Bible, is the logos of God:

“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God… and the Word became flesh and dwelled among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:1, 14)

“His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.” (Rev. 19:12-14)

And so we have the Bible telling us what the Word of God is… and who it is. It is this Word and his faithfulness to his promises [as in, “you have my word on it!] which shall stand forever (Isaiah 40:8)… not merely the tablets, the scrolls, or our study Bibles.

But if the Bible is not strictly and solely the Word of God, then what shall we say about these Scriptures? Are they not the Word of God in some sense? And if so, how so?

I would like to share just four thoughts concerning that question, all of which came through conversations with those who’ve thought more keenly on the topic than I. 

1. Sean Davidson, a professor at the same Bible College which I attended, was recently asked by a scholar-friend about the language of Scripture and its relation to God’s Word, I was listening in on the conversation and it was interesting to see how he responded. Here's what he said:

I think Scripture is in the words-originally written (hence script-ture), then redacted, then disseminated, then interpreted, then compiled, then interpreted, then canonized, then interpreted, then translated, then interpreted, etc...

We know that Scripture is inspired by God and useful for many things like teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... It equips us for living the good life that Jesus promised... (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)

The Word of God is different. It's not simply an inspired means to a moral-spiritual end ... John associates the Word with divinity itself (John 1:1). For the author of Hebrews, the "Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).  Isaiah 55:3 comes to mind: "Incline your ear and come to Me / Listen, that you may live." Somehow I think that listening to God in this way, attending to the "word which goes forth from [His] mouth" (v. 11), is not the same thing as (though may include) practicing careful exegesis. In fact, in some circumstances, it may require us to leave off our analysis of the text for a while ...

It seems to me that Scripture provides an eloquent trace of encounters with the Word... 

AND it is not the less truthful because it is residual rather than constitutive ...

Indeed, Scripture is authoritative and so we turn to it over and over again, practicing a hermeneutic of trust rather than suspicion. But Scripture will make little living sense if we do not have ears for the living Word, Jesus Christ.

2. Tony Creech, (check out http://thecreechleague.blogspot.com) a colleague of Sean’s, replied with a new metaphor, Christ the Window. Here’s how he laid it out:

Today at a faculty meeting, Dr. David Guretzki put up two images:

1. One of Tyndale pointing to the scriptures, and
2. One of Christ on the cross with John the Baptist beside him, scriptures open in one hand, the other pointing to Christ.

Dave's question was, “Who do we follow as teachers?”

1. Point them to the word- the BIBLE, or
2. Point them to the living word CHRIST.

I have this thought to put forth: what about Jesus the Window? (we'll see if that picture holds up). Is the simple choice,

1. “Look at the scriptures: what they do is point to Christ,” or
2. “Look to Christ,” (but be careful not to create him in your own image)?

What about... we cannot understand the scriptures (we can't see them ‘point’ to Christ) unless Christ ‘opens them up to us.’ The Gospels taught us this lesson, did they not?

Can we have a hermeneutic of Christ the Window—not Christ, the mere goal of Scripture… but Christ the window through which we can ‘hear’ Scripture; Christ our way to read the Bible; Christ, our way to see himself?

This can be developed further:

1. Christ speaks out, we listen (or not).
2. Christ opens up Scripture OR IT IS NOT ‘OPENED.’

This accounts for all the biblical studies that exist which deny Christ and the Father and the Spirit for who they are.  You won’t see God in the scriptures if he does not reveal himself. Hence, Christ the Window.

I'm sure that I'm merely opening a window to much more complex ideas, but that’s a start.

3. Then Andy and Ruth Langton, our worship coordinators at Fresh Wind, popped by and we had a little discussion around the book of Job, the Rob Bell’s Velvet Elvis, and the nature of Scripture.

Ruth shared her shock when she attended Bible College [CBC in Abbotsford, BC) and one of her teachers suggested that books like Jonah or Job were stories which may have been written without concern as to whether the events described “actually happened.” This was an alarming revelation for a young Christian who might conclude from it that the Bible was not completely true or trustworthy—that parts of it might be works of fiction that teach a lesson rather perfectly accurate, literal-historical records. Scandalous!

I remember those same feelings… thinking in the extreme as a young fundamentalist: if Jonah or Job didn’t happen exactly as written, then maybe NONE of it happened! Then Jesus didn’t really do all those miracles, or die for our sins, or rise from the dead. May the Bible is NOT the Word of God! Not that I was prepared to make such a leap myself. Rather, I thought that the “liberals” who were “undermining Scripture” already had and that perhaps it was my duty to save the day. Oh dear. I don’t even have to tell you how this played into such red-herrings as the evolution debates and our insistence on a literal, extremely recent, seven day creation. Or how McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict became a virtual “third testament” for some of us?

But rather than tossing out the Bible in embarrassment, as if that’s where the problem exists, Rob Bell comes along with this profound notion: the Bible is alive not because every event therein “happened” or “didn’t happen.” Rather, it’s a powerful and enduring book because it happens. Creation happens. The choice in Eden happens for me... hourly. Job happens--every day--Job is happening in Haiti. Exodus happens again and again. Jonah happens. Most importantly, Jesus happens. And where we draw our lines on whether Eden was myth or history is secondary to which “tree I eat from” today. Does it matter whether Job was a screen-play or a space-time testimony? Or is the real question whether I can keep my mouth from spewing foolish advice on those who suffer? And while I would personally insist in the literal life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, it’s equally essential that I encounter that living, crucified and resurrected Christ personally. He is the destination to which my Bible-map uniquely and powerfully points. And so I no longer genuflect to the map… but neither do I discard it. It’s an inspired (without dissecting that term to death) testimony of what God is doing in my life and my church and my world.

 
4. Finally, Ron Dart and I headed out for a peripatetic mentoring time up Cerise Creek in the shadow of the  Joffre Range east of Pemberton, BC.

As we picked our way through blowdowns and scree, he alerted me to the “polyphonic” nature of Scripture. Polyphonic refers to multiple voices. This is to say more than just that the Bible was written by many authors. Rather, these voices can be gathered into types of voices speaking from very different perspectives and from what seems like opposing views.

Uh oh. Much of my adolescence was given to proving to myself and others that the Bible could never contradict itself. Ultimately, if God was the author, then wouldn’t he supernaturally make sure that every line was perfectly preserved? And wouldn’t discrepancies, if verified, be evidence that the Bible is not true, and therefore, not God’s Word? Do you see how consistently my neural ruts always returned to that issue? No wonder I had to be so diligent (and anxious) to explain away any apparent incongruity between its covers!

But Ron’s approach was not about dismembering the Book. His honesty in dealing with the text as it is, not as I wished or pretended it was, made it come alive in ways so much richer than a celestial fax-from-heaven. After our hike, I can say that I trust it MORE! Here’s how our conversation developed (in précis form):

Ron:

It’s very important in our day to understand that the Bible is polyphonic. There are multiple voices, various perspectives. We might even boil them down to two: 1. the patriarchal voice, and 2. the prophetic voice, which I’ll explain later. These two voices often confront one another and can even appear contradictory. This is where we need to acknowledge the human factor in inspiration. God’s message was being relayed through the temperaments, dispositions, faults and failings of both the authors and their cultures.

This is the beauty and brilliance of the Bible. It doesn’t fudge on the hard questions. It’s willingness to deal with complexity of big metaphysical questions and probe the nature of a people’s spiritual journal with ruthless honesty gives is a ring of authenticity. It’s not to be taken as a Betty Crocker recipe… when we read it that way, it comes out flat. The Bible doesn’t spin its characters or charm its readers with saccharine spirituality. It’s an intensely honest book and that makes it trustworthy… if you read it honestly. If you do, you see that the big truths are fleshed out in a finite world. This is the nature of Scripture.

Brad:

Tell me more about the two voices. What do they sound like? Who uses them? How do we integrate them?

Ron:

The patriarchal voice basically says, “If you are good and faithful, you will be blessed, prosperous, healthy, and everything will work out for good.”

This voice is expressed in God’s covenants with the patriarchs, from Abraham to the twelve sons of Jacob. You see it in the happy endings of Joseph and Job and Daniel. You hear it throughout the book of Proverbs. It is at the heart of the Law.

Brad:

Yes, take Deuteronomy 28 for example. If you follow God’s covenants and remember his ways, you’ll be healthy and wealthy. Your lands and crops and animals will flourish. David says you won’t so much as stub a toe (Ps. 91) or break a bone (Ps. 34). Disease and pestilence will stay away from your tent even when thousands are dieing around you. You’ll never be in debt and there will be consistent peace on your borders. The apostle Paul says that “everything will work out for the good to those that love God” (Rom. 8:28)

Ron:

Exactly, that’s all in the Bible, but it’s not the only voice or only message.

The prophetic voice, which is the dominant voice in the Bible, says, “If you are good and faithful, you will be persecuted, rejected, imprisoned, beaten, poverty-stricken and probably killed.”

This voice is expressed most often in the prophetic tradition (the speaking prophets and the major and minor prophetic books). Whereas Abraham represents the patriarchal voice, Moses is the forerunner of the prophetic tradition. Even as he is speaking out of the Sinai covenant, his life is one of hardship and testing, ending on the wrong side of the Jordan and never entering the “promised land.” Elijah encountered tremendous persecution and resistance. Modern prophets in this tradition would include MLK and Oscar Romero. Their faithfulness to bring God’s message of justice and peace did not spare their lives.

Brad:

But hang on. As I read the prophets, I see them enforcing the covenants, quoting Deut. 28 and so on extensively. They’re calling people back to faithfulness so that they will come back out of oppression or exile and into the blessings of the covenant. So aren’t they just reinforcing the patriarchal voice?

Ron:

True. But even when prophets like Isaiah or Jeremiah, Ezekiel or John the Baptist spoke faithfully about covenant-keeping, their own lives were a critique of the patriarchal voice. They were not prosperous or well-liked. They ended up imprisoned in wells or cut in half or beheaded! Their key texts are the “Suffering Servant” songs and the Sermon on the Mount, which promises rejection and persecution to those who faithfully hunger and thirst for righteousness and justice. Yes, Jesus is the greatest voice in that tradition and the Cross itself provides a minority report to challenge the patriarchal voice.

Brad:

This reminds me a lot of Walter Brueggemann’s, Prophetic Imagination. He speaks of two voices: “The temple report" as represented by Solomon's court and "the minority report" presented by the prophets.The former glorified the beautiful, expensive temple that made Jerusalem a famous religious and cultural centre among the nations. The prophets come with their minority report: “Who do you think paid for this? On whose backs was this built? What did this do to their lives and economies?” Again, you have both voices represented right within the Scripture, both partly true—both requiring the other to get at the full counsel of God. Do you see Brueggemann’s thesis as a parallel to yours? Are there differences?

Ron: 

There is a parallel. The temple report takes the nationalism of the patriarchal voice and applies it to the cult of Judaism: God’s chosen nation is also God’s chosen priesthood. It’s the patriarchal theme applied specifically to their religious system.

Brad:

Alright. So what happens when we hear or emphasize one voice?

Ron:

The Patriarchal, when absolutized, is a prosperity gospel where poverty is a sin and riches are a sign that you are blessed.

The Prophetic, when absolutized, is a poverty message where prosperity is a sin and martyrdom is proof that you are blessed.

Brad:

Conversely, in the former case, sickness and hardship is evidence of unfaithfulness, disobedience and God’s curse (remember the story of Achan in Joshua 7?).

In the latter, prosperity and favour indicate compromise, a selling out, an impending fall (“Woe to you who are rich!” Luke 6).

And it seems to me that David wrestled with both voices throughout the Psalms. On the one hand, he’s asking for blessing and thanking God for his many gifts. On the other, he’s glorifying trials: “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word… It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees. (Ps. 119:67, 71). All throughout that Psalm, David is praising God for his covenants and laws and decrees (the patriarchal promises). But then you have Psalm 44, where David rants, “We kept your covenant; we obeyed you; we remembered your ways. But now we’ve been bushwhacked and blindsided. You broke your promise! What’s the deal with that?” And God gives no answer.

Ron:

Right. David is wrestling with God, being brutally honest. But we want a game plan. But it’s an epic story, not a fairy-tale; we trivialize it. The Bible gives you an honest take on reality, and that’s why you can trust it… why you can’t use it like a cookie cutter.

Brad:

So what does the patriarchal voice sound like today? Examples?

Ron:

The patriarchal voice will sound like Zionism, the prosperity gospel, and dominion theology (or theocracy).

Brad:

What exactly do you mean by Zionism? I’m assuming you believe in Israel's right to exist and I know you aren’t anti-Semitic. But I’m aware that there’s a rather militant Christian Zionism at work in North America that cheers the destruction of Palestinian homes that occupy the lands promised to Abraham (Gen. 15:18ff). They oppose any land for peace deals as unbiblical and would probably fund the rebuilding of a literal temple in Jerusalem(even if it meant restoring the sacrificial system).

Ron:

I would define Zionism as a form of idolatry that exults nationhood without regard to ethics. This is exactly what’s going on in the occupied territories and the recent conflict with Lebanon. The message of the Jewish prophets was that Israel was to be an “ethical peoplehood.” I.e. Nationhood must be subservient to the prophetic ethical vision. Dwelling in peace within the prescribed borders was conditioned on justice and peacemaking, on their treatment of the least of these. Apart from this vision, you don’t and won’t have a nation. Subvert it and you end up offering your own children as sacrifices on the altar of Molech (nationalism).

So the prophets challenge statehood as an end in itself. They don’t uncritically accept the Zionist claims. In fact, the book of Jonah is a critique of their “chosen people” mentality. Jonah was an expansionist prophet concerned with restoring the borders of Israel (2 Kings 14:25). Yet God shows Jonah and by extension, all Zionists, that he also loves Ninevah; he loves Sryria, he loves Iraq and Iran...he has numbered their people and even cares about their cattle (Jonah 4).

This is a now-message if there ever was one. We need prophets who will call heads of state and societies to ethical responsibility at home and abroad.

Brad:

This is, in part, what it must mean to “disciple nations.”

Now, what of its counterfeit: dominion theology or modern theocracy? The idea that if we can just “take over” with enough seats in the senate or the majority in parliament, we can make it all right? (And how’s that workin’ for us?!).

Ron:

Well, you’d measure how it’s working by whether our prosperity and capitalist trickle-down is actually reaching the poor and transforming the slums.

Brad:

Easily answered by the capitalist: “A man who doesn’t work shouldn’t eat.” (2 Thess. 3:10). There’s such resentment towards those who’ve abused welfare systems that this verse is all but an economic motto for the Christian right. I think we’d do much better to lift up Romans 15:1 as our model: “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.”

Ron:

As it relates to the two voices, we need to beware of assuming that prosperity is proof of God’s blessing. It may be just a sign that we who are rich and powerful have become so at the expense of others.

Brad:

Having said that, what happens when we absolutize the prophetic voice? Some kind of “poverty spirit”?

Ron:

Yes. And you get an extreme asceticism that says, “If you’re not persecuted, you’re not the ultimate Christian.” It glorifies martyrdom… call it martyrolatry. This voice, taken alone, leads to terrorism, suicide bombers, and all manner of violence.

Brad:

And not only among Muslims. It seems to me this was at work in Northern Ireland in a "Christian" context.

Ron:

Not to mention our own “war on terror.” The true Christian patriot makes the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of freedom. And so we join in the festival of Molech.

Brad:

On a slightly tamer level, you have prophetic wannabes who created rejection for themselves by their manner and approach. It’s self-fulfilling. The rejection they trigger is not their own doing simply because they are annoying or belligerent. It may have little to do with the message. There’s a sort of self-satisfied slamming of the door as they quote Jesus’ phrase of “shaking the dust off their feet.” Something to beware of too.

Ron:

Sure. Now let’s rewind a little. You mentioned 1 Thess. 3:10 as quoted by the capitalists, then responded with Rom. 15:1. You’re answering a proof-text with a proof-text. But why?

Whenever you find yourself proof-texting, ask yourself, “Why did I pick that text over that other one? What is the implicit theology which led me there? What prejudgements are at work? Is there a reason why I am drawn to the stories that end well? What about those which do not?”

Tolkien, in On Fairy Stories, uses the term “eucatastrophe”—a term that describes the moment of great joy through our deliverance from evil—and especially applies it to Christianity (and specifically the resurrection). The idea is that from the great fairy tales to the gospel itself, you will find major catastrophe, but in the end, it all works out for the good (e.g. Lord of the Rings). Terrible things happen but even better things result. The tragic is necessary but not ultimate.

For the Christian, this is true in the ultimate sense. When we look beyond the grave and the consummation of all things, the Christian story is a eucatastrophe. But the cold hard facts are that we currently live in penultimate reality where we do not always experience a eucatastrophe. We cannot verify or falsify our own personal eucatastrophe in history. We live complex lives and face complex issues where good does not always triumph. Sometimes evil or even mediocrity appears to get the final word. Good does not always prevail and God’s will and ways are frequently stymied in this life.

This is what frustrates me about the book of Job. Throughout the book, Job’s foolish friends keeping echoing the patriarchal perspective: “If you are righteous, if you repent, if you are faithful, if you jump through this hoop or that, then God will bless you. Your tragedy, your poverty, your loss are evidence that you have sinned somehow and that God’s curse is on you.” The book treats this as folly, but then in the end, Job finally jumps through the right hoop and all is well, thus confirming the same error in a slightly more sophisticated way.

Brad:

That is odd. It also seems to do an injustice to Job’s initial tragedy and grief. “There, now you’ve got a whole new set of children, so be happy. Your first set of children has been replaced, so it’s all good.” The only explanation I can think of is that the book actually makes the point that God is righteous even in the context of human suffering and that it is a mistake to cast blame on either God OR those who suffer… but then someone who is steeped in the patriarchal mentality (and I’m told that Job may have been written in that era) cannot handle the unresolved chord and adds the epilogue to tidy things up. I see two hints that this is worth consideration: first, the story is written as poetry, but then shifts to prose halfway through the final chapter (in verse 7) and ends with a double epilogue (7-9 and 11-17). But more importantly, the final epilogue appears to undo the very point of the book, as you’ve mentioned.

Ron:

It certainly does. As it stands, it’s more of a fairy tale eucatastrophe. Things can turn out fine in the end, but there’s no guarantee of that for this life.

Brad:

What do you see in the case of Paul? He claims that it will all work out for good, but then ends up in jail for over half his ministry and finally killed by the empire. Where was his eucatastrophe, except in the next life?

Ron:

In Romans 8, Paul is thinking ultimately. He sees the big story and how it finally ends. But you have to make sense of these truths in a finite world. The patriarchal voice—the prosperity gospel—if taken alone, catapult too quickly into the ultimate when we must also see our lives lived in time (we were “thrown into time… into our homelessness” as Heidegger said).

Some of the modern day apocalyptic prophets take the ultimate thing and import it into history, reading everything through the grid of John’s Revelation (“this is that”).

Far better if we can learn to honour the tension of the now/not yet… living a life that straddles time/eternity, with our longings, our yearnings, without exhaustive understanding, rather than absolutizing the not yet and imposing it on others.

The voices are only true in tension. Break that tension, and you have a cult leader. When you absolutize either side, you have a heresy. But in the anvil of that tension, saints are made.

Comments

[henderrob]

Some of the tension between the voices is met in the acceptance of apparent contradictions in the mystics of the ancient church. I believe they saw or heard more than one message when listening to God. How can a finite understand the infinite?

[Dave Shackleton]

Some very interesting comments here, but I believe there has to be a note of caution added. There are those who emphasise the Word (i.e. Bible) and those who emphasise the Spirit (i.e. Quakers). In reality we have to be somewhere in the middle to have a real relationship with the Living God. If you imagine that Word is at one end of the spectrum, and Spirit at the other (a bit like the West and East points on a compass if that makes sense) then I would humbly suggest that placing yourself somewhere close to the mid point between the centre of the line and Word is the safest place to be (I really hope that makes sense). That way we leave ourselves open to the Spirit, but in the safety of the infallible revelation that God has given to us in the Bible. I may not be infallible, and you may not be, but all Scriputre is God breathed, and that is what we are called to test the prophetic against. Let's be open to the Spirit but within the safety of the infallible.

[pam teigen]

I need the Children can you hear me version of this article. I am intrigued and trying to grasp the content but lost a little in the overall lingo...thanks

[jodyB]

Hi...

WOW... i struggle with this... if the Bible says this.... and also says that--- how do i know which is right...

You know... i Do NOT Know.... But i Do know that in Christ Alone my Victory Stands.

I am a Child of God, a Precious daughter who is constantly battling painful depression/sexual/relationship addiction... etc.

I want to KNOW GOD.. and be filled by His Spirit.

I hope you are still here... as i so need to talk!

i am struggling.. I happened (hmmm was it a God-thing?) on this site by Googling "For we struggle not against flesh and blood.." and then looking into the Global Harvest Healing here in Abbotsford...

there was a blog by someone that suggested you do not see the Bible as the Word of God...

as i read thru this Blog i see that you do see the Bible as the Word of God, but not the Whole word of God... Isn't Jesus the Word of God???

in the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The same was in the Beginning with God.. and the Word became flesh and Dwelt among us... " John 1:1-3,14

Thx for listening... i am in desparate need of prayer and healing...

see blog i am reading now...

http://thefightofourlife.wordpress.com

jodyB

[anonymous]

Jody B -
i read your comments, and just want to say i will remember you and the place you find yourself in.
Bless you, sincerely!

[brad]

Dear Jodi,

Thanks for your comments. With you, I regard Jesus as the Word of God. The Bible faithfully testifies to that Word, even though the authors are frequently inspired to share from a variety of angles.

For further thought on discerning the Bible through Christ--as well as my thoughts on the watchdog websites--please read my article on "Watchmen versus Watchdogs" at: http://clarionjournal.typepad.com/clarion_journal_of_spirit/2007/10/watchmen-versus.html

[Eddie]

Brilliant! I too came across this as a link from someone saying you had lost your belief in the Bible as the word of God. Indeed, I believe you have truly found the purpose of scripture - to come alive and point us to Christ! So much of what you say does resonate with myself. Whilst I am a Brit and we tend not to have quite the same "Doctrine police" extremists as in some parts of the US, it is there and there is a definite if unspoken pressure to feel "guilty" if we try and take another angle on things - eg is Jonah literal? Christ came to set us free - let's set the word and the words free to enable us to really be so. Thanks again.