Preaching of the word of god is the word of god

image description


Written by Sam Chan


Reviewed By Peter Adam

The Reformer Heinrich Bullinger asserted, “The preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God,” and he followed this with the claim, “Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very word of God is preached, and received by the faithful.” (The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566)

Sam Chan’s book is a serious, comprehensive and contemporary study of this famous Reformation claim that preaching the Word is the Word. He begins with an instructive study of this claim in the theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin, and he shows the biblical and theological structure of this notion in their writings and ministry. He then turns to the Bible and uncovers material which supports this claim, promised in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New, especially in the context of the proclamation of the gospel. He points to the preached gospel as the Word of God (p. 79). Next he investigates the intention and results of preaching as found in the Bible itself. All this covers material which has been studied by others, but Chan brings it together with particular clarity.

He then turns to contemporary speech-act theory, which investigates how human language functions. In particular, it shows that human language includes: locution, the act of saying; illocution, the act performed in saying; and perlocution, what is achieved by saying. Speech-act theory has been developed by J. L. Austin and J. R. Searle. Within Christian thought it has been variously used by Kevin Vanhoozer, Gordon McConville, and Nicholas Wolsterstorff to develop a theology of how the Bible serves and functions as the Word of God. One of the great values of this approach is that it focuses on what the Bible was doing, or rather, what God was doing through those words. It is good to ask of a Bible passage, “What do these words mean?” It is even more profitable to ask “What was God doing or working to achieve through these words?” and, “What is God doing or working to achieve through these words to this congregation today?”

This is such a useful insight, as I think that the three great claims the Bible makes for itself are its power, authority, and truth/trustworthiness. If the Bible had/has no power, preachers would have to work very hard, and so would hearers! Sam Chan uses this speech-act theory to explain what happens when we preach the Bible, and in particular what happens when we preach the gospel:

To preach the gospel as the word of God is to re-locute and re-illocute the divine speech act, the gospel, which itself was once locuted and illocuted by the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, and which now continues to be locuted and illocuted in the canonical Scripture.

On the same page he adds, “The preaching ought to have the same locutionary force, illocutionary force, and intended perlocutionary effect … as that of the Bible passage being expounded” (p. 223).

All this is to say that when God speaks in human words, those words function in ways which conform to the way that other human words function. Of course they are also divine words, but they are not less than human words in the way they function. We make a similar observation about the literary styles or genres of biblical literature. When used by God they commonly retain the normal patterns of their genres. The strength of Chan’s book is to apply the insights of speech-act theory that has been applied to the Scriptures themselves to the preaching of those Scriptures. His study illuminates many aspects of preaching, and supports the claim that the preached word of God is the word of God. This claim reminds me of an apt description of the preaching of John Donne: “a projection of the eloquence of Scripture” (John Chamberlin, Increase and Multiply [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press], 28).

The book demands concentrated reading, but is well worth the effort. For those who want to think further on these matters, the book prompted the following questions:

  • There are some suggestions in Scripture that the God who originally spoke these words continues to speak them today (e.g. Matt 23:31–32; Acts 7:38; Heb 3:7; 1 Pet 1:23). When we read merely human texts, the authors are not now speaking them to us. But if God is still speaking the same words to us at the moment we read them, does this influence the functioning of these words?
  • In most instances today, the Bible we study, read, and preach is a translated Bible. What effect does this have on the locution, illocution and perlocution of the text? What is lost in translation, and what effect does translation have? (This relates to both reading and preaching the Scriptures.)
  • Literary style or genre is an essential element of rhetoric. The human rhetoric of the Scriptures was the product of divine verbal inspiration. So is it helpful to claim that the effects achieved by human rhetoric in other literature are replaced by the work of the Spirit in the case of the Bible (pp. 88, 204)? Did the Spirit not inspire and use the human rhetoric of the Bible?
  • The same claim that Chan makes about re-locution, re-illocution and perlocution in regard to preaching the Scriptures could be made about reading them, especially their public reading in church. What are the differences between Scripture read and Scripture preached, according to speech-act theory?
  • Furthermore, literary style or genre is an essential feature of locution, illocution, and perlocution. However, there is a difference between the straightforward reading of the Scriptures and the preaching of the Scriptures. In reading the Bible, locution, illocution and perlocution is preserved, whereas in preaching the style is changed, even if the preacher attempts to convey aspects of that style in the sermon. Does this influence the claims that we can make about preaching?
  • Is not the rhetorical style of the Bible changed when the Bible is preached, even when the preacher attempts to retain some aspects of the original text by reflecting them in the sermon? For the rhetoric of the Scriptures is supplemented, complemented, and transformed (if not side-lined!) by the rhetoric used by the preacher in the sermon.

This is a worthwhile and stimulating book, and I recommend it highly.



Peter Adam

Peter Adam
St. Jude’s Carlton
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia


Baptist Christian Forums


  1. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Well-Known Member

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Or Praedicatio verbi dei est verbum dei for all you Latin buffs out there. ;)

    I came across this statement by Heinrich Bullinger in the Second Helvetic Confession of 1562. How do you brothers feel about the truth of it. If it is correct, it exalts the preaching of the word and renders the avoidance of hearing the word preached in church inexcusable.

    Note that Bullinger did not say that preaching is the word of God. No, it is Biblical preaching that is God’s word. We are to be Bereans (Acts 18:11) and check out what we hear from the pulpit to ensure that it is indeed the preaching of the word of God. But Paul wrote, ‘For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it, not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe’ (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The Thessalonians heard Paul’s preaching and recognized it for what it was: the very word of God.

    So whadd’ya think? :)

    • Agree Agree x 2


  2. Reformed

    Reformed
    Well-Known Member

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,948
    Likes Received:
    1,690
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Paul admonished Timothy to preach the word.

    2 Timothy 4:1-2 4:1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.

    In Timothy’s time, the canon of scripture was not complete. Timothy was to use the scripture that he had available. When Timothy preached the word, he was proclaiming, «Thus sayeth the Lord!» That is what every preacher is doing when he proclaims scripture. Only scripture is the word of God. To the extent that a preacher is proclaiming God’s word verbatim, his preaching is the word of God.

    • Agree Agree x 2


  3. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Well-Known Member

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,556
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I think it can be understood as accurate, with caution. If the truth of the word is preached, it doesn’t cease to be true just because it is preached. I could see western Christians running amok with this, though, with revering every word as true because it comes out of some preacher’s mouth.


  4. RighteousnessTemperance&

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,952
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    Faith:
    Baptist

    When Paul, for example, preached or taught as an apostle, he indeed spoke (or wrote) the word of God, and we rightly consider it so where recorded, and could wish for more. This does not, however, translate directly to us, or even to those yet spiritually gifted then. Consider the following verses written to early Christians:

    «Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge,» (1 Corinthians 14:29).

    «Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil.» (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22).


  5. RighteousnessTemperance&

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,952
    Likes Received:
    1,397
    Faith:
    Baptist

    A special difficulty lies in the nature of Scripture. Scripture, while truly the word of God, obviously contains more than just God’s perspective, and is not always explicit. If not handled faithfully and contextually, one easily ends up with a perversion. While I have heard preaching from inspiration that would lift my believing soul to very heaven, I have also heard teaching delivered with a charisma that would send one to that unholy pit whence it came.

    «Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world,» (1 John 4:1).

    • Useful Useful x 1


  6. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Well-Known Member

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    18,196
    Likes Received:
    2,638
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Me too. When the Spirit is in the preaching, both to the sower and the eater, it truly is the word of God. No question about it.

    8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith Jehovah.
    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
    10 For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
    11 so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isa 55


  7. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Well-Known Member

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    18,196
    Likes Received:
    2,638
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I think ‘the word of the LORD’ coming to His servants and them relaying it to others is a very very old arrangement.

    If you’ve electronic Bibles, do the word search:

    «word of the LORD/God/Christ/Jehovah/Yahweh came»

    • Like Like x 1


  8. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Well-Known Member

    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,328
    Likes Received:
    2,037
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I quite agree; this is the key. Not all preaching is the preaching of the word of God.
    Here is part of John Robinson’s farewell sermon to the Pilgrim Fathers:

    ‘We are now ere long to part asunder, and the Lord knows whether ever we shall live to see one another’s faces. But whether the Lord has appointed it or not, I charge you before God and His blessed angels, follow me no further than I follow Christ; and if God shall reveal anything to you by any other instrument of His, be as ready to receive it as ever you were to receive any truth by my ministry. For I am confident the Lord has more truth and light to break forth from His holy word. I bewail the state and condition of the Reformed churches, who have come to a full-stop in religion, and will go no further than the instrument of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn beyond what Luther saw; the Calvinists, they stick where Calvin left them. This is a misery much to be lamented; for though they were shining lights in their times, yet God did not reveal His whole will unto them, and if they were alive today they would be as ready to and willing to embrace further light, as that they had received. Keep in mind our church covenant, our promise and covenant with God and one another, to receive whatsoever light or truth shall be made known to us from His written word. But take heed what you receive for truth- examine it well and compare and weigh it with other Scriptures of truth before you receive it. It is not possible that the Christian world should so lately come out of such thick anti-Christian darkness, and that the perfection of knowledge should break forth at once.’

    One thing that ‘broke forth from God’s holy word’ shortly after this event was the Particular Baptist churches. :)
    I think this extract is remarkable for its humility. These are the days of celebrity Christianity. We have preaching tours by ‘famous Christians’ to promote their latest book or CD, and promoters of Christian conferences feel the need to bring in well-known preachers at considerable expense in order to achieve a good attendance. Robinson knew nothing of this. He did not commend his books or his sermon collections to his departing congregation, but rather God’s word whether preached or written. He bids his people to follow Truth from whatever source they find it, regardless of denomination.

    Secondly, he did not view the Bible as a dead letter that could be studied, fully comprehended and exhausted as water can be drunk out of a bottle leaving it empty, or as a butterfly can be pinned and exhibited in a display cabinet. To Robinson, the Bible was a living thing, and he understood the well-known, but neglected saying of the Reformers: Ecclesia Reformata semper Reformanda. ‘The Reformed Church is always in need of Reformation.’ He did not regard himself or his church as the final authority of truth, but bade his congregation, while holding fast to the church covenant, constantly to search the Scriptures to see what the Holy Spirit might reveal to them. In our day, we seem to have either those who rush to the latest fad in Christianity without the careful, prayerful study of the word that Robinson commended and those who feed upon them by introducing ever-stranger novelties into their books in order to make money, or those who, having adopted one or other Confession, set it in stone and treat it as if it were Holy Writ.

    • Like Like x 3

BLOG - Word

The fourth paragraph of the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, written by the Swiss Reformer (and successor to Ulrich Zwingli) Heinrich Bullinger, begins with this famous title: “The Preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.” In that paragraph, Bullinger says the same thing in different words: “Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is preached” (emphasis added).

To modern ears, this may sound too bold, even arrogant. After all, Bullinger isn’t saying preaching God’s Word is giving a message about the Word; he’s saying preaching God’s Word is God’s Word. Wouldn’t it be better to say this differently? More humbly? Why didn’t he just say that preaching “explains” the Word of God? Or “points to” the Word of God? Maybe that it “teaches” the Word of God? Or at least that it is “according to” the Word of God?

Looking back at church history, however, we see Bullinger’s view was hardly unique. Martin Luther said the same thing in almost the same words: “one must see the word of the preacher as God’s Word” (Luther’s Works 22, 526). John Calvin declared in one of his first writings, “I demand only this, that faithful people be allowed to hear their God speaking and to learn from his teaching” (emphasis added). In the fourth book of his Institutes, Calvin makes the same point about the ministry of the Word in the church: “…among the many noble endowments with which God has adorned the human race, one of the most remarkable is, that he deigns to consecrate the mouths and tongues of men to his service, making his own voice to be heard in them“ (emphasis added). Brian Chapell states that as preachers “we do not merely speak about Jesus to his people; we speak as Jesus speaks to his people” (emphasis original). J.I. Packer writes that “Christian preaching is the event of God himself bringing to an audience a Bible-based, Christ-related, life-impacting message of instruction and direction through the words of a spokesperson” (emphasis original). Phillip Ryken argues that “An expositor….himself is only God’s mouthpiece, speaking God’s message into the ears of God’s people, and thus into their minds and hearts.” A crucial claim of Greg Scharf’s book Let The Earth Hear His Voice is that “God actually speaks through people who speak in his name.” Indeed, the view that “the Word of God preached is the very Word of God” is the Protestant view of preaching.

Now, to be clear: none of these theologians are arguing that the preacher is therefore infallible or that the sermon is thus perfect or on par with Scripture. Bullinger, anticipating the objection, goes on: “the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; who, although he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God abides true and good” (emphasis added—ouch!) Calvin, similarly, states that “Therefore, to teach us that the treasure offered to us in earthen vessels is of inestimable value…God himself appears and, as the author of this ordinance, requires his presence to be recognised in his own institution….Those who think that the authority of the doctrine is impaired by the insignificance of the men who are called to teach, betray their ingratitude.”

In other words, the preacher, who is “evil,” “a sinner,” “insignificant,” and merely an “earthen vessel,” is hardly inerrant or perfect, and does not “impair” this doctrine. Rather, the Reformers made the same distinction Chapell does: “The humble answer lies in discerning the source of any message that seeks to present the truths of a biblical text….the frailties and faults of preachers do not change the essential nature of the treasure they steward. To the extent that their preaching is true to Scripture, God’s Word yet echoes in the church.” This is why, then, expositional preaching is so crucial for the life of the church. When a preacher sets out, from the beginning of his preparation, to ensure that the message of his preaching is the message of the text, he is doing everything in his power to ensure that what he preaches is indeed the very Word of God.

To summarize, then, preaching is the Word of God only insofar as it rightly communicates the meaning and applications of the Scriptures, the Word of God written—but, insofar as it does do that, then preaching is to be regarded as nothing less than God himself speaking to the congregation.

Bullinger, then, was merely one of the first to state what has for hundreds of years been the Reformed doctrine of preaching. An even more important question, though, is this. Is the Reformed view the biblical view? Yes, it is. Paul commends the Thessalonian Christians for receiving the Gospel in just this fashion: “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers” (1 Thes. 2:13). And in case someone were to object that Paul, being an apostle inspired by God, cannot be a model for preaching today, notice that Paul used the first-person plural (“we,” “us”), meaning he is including his fellow-worker Silas—who wasn’t an apostle!—as one whose “word” was received “not as the word of men but…of God.” Similarly, Paul tells the Corinthians that in this “ministry of reconciliation,” proclaiming the Gospel, “we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us” (2 Cor. 5:20, emphasis added). Note that this is not merely about preaching in the church, either—Paul is saying that every time any Christian believer summons the lost to be reconciled, God is speaking through that believer (again, to the extent that the Christian is being faithful to the text)—but it certainly includes preaching. It is for this reason that elders are given the charge Paul gave to Timothy: “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:1-2); Paul doesn’t say “preach about the Word” or “preach according to the Word,” but tells Timothy that the very thing to be preached, the very nature and content of his preaching, is to be itself God’s Word.

This is a humbling truth for preachers; it means that the only thing a preacher has left to “take credit for” is error, if the preaching is, to the extent that it’s true, God speaking through him! But it is also humbling for the listener. If the right preaching of the Word is God speaking to us, then when we gather for worship on Sunday, we are indeed gathering to hear the Living God speak to us. That has staggering implications for how we approach worship. Indeed, this truth shapes the doctrine of the Christian life as a whole. Next week I’ll look at some practical implications of this truth for us as listeners.

In his book Preaching with Confidence, James Daane tells of an amusing incident. He says:

As I entered the pulpit one Sunday morning, a small boy whispered to his mother, “There’s God.” After the service, the mother related the incident to me with obvious amusement. I, too, found it amusing. But reflecting on the incident later I was reminded of the mysterious words of Jesus, “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). In the sober light of these words the faulty religious perceptions of a small boy reflected biblical truth in a way that the amusement of his mother did not.1

Dr. Daane goes on to say, “A preacher is not God, of course.”2 I am sure we would all agree to that. Nonetheless, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s Directory for the Public Worship of God says, “In the sermon God addresses the congregation by the mouth of his servant” (art. 3, sec. 3).

The Bible at the Center⤒🔗

One of the things stressed by the Reformers of the sixteenth century was the concept of sola Scriptura.

They translated the Bible into the language of the people and put it in their hands. At the same time, they put the pulpit (instead of the sacraments) at the center of the church’s worship.

The Word of God is one of the means of grace, and they understood, in the words of the Shorter Catechism, that:

the Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching, of the Word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation (Q. 89).

For Martin Luther and John Calvin, nothing was more important than the preaching of God’s Word. 3 In this they were recovering the perspective of the apostles, especially Paul.

We live in an age when once again preaching is falling on hard times. Evangelicals have expended a great deal of energy defending a high view of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, but have failed in large measure to combine it with a high view of preaching. The terms preach and preacher have fallen into disrepute. People say, “Don’t preach to me.” All too often there is good reason for this. Far too many Christians, including ministers, regard the sermon as just another message with no special authority. The preacher is not seen as having a message to declare and the authority to say “Thus saith the Lord” – to call upon people to repent, to believe, to obey. The pulpit is just another platform or lectern, and all too often it is a private stage upon which to perform in an entertaining fashion.

A Message from God←⤒🔗

The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians is one of the earliest of his writings. In it, he writes to the young church in Thessalonica about the preaching he did in that city. In 1:5 he declares,

Our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.

In chapter 2 he relates that he had come to Thessalonica from Philippi, where he had been beaten and imprisoned for preaching. Yet he had boldness in God to proclaim the gospel to the Thessalonians amid much opposition (2:2). In verse 4 he adds,

Just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak.

Paul did not see himself as some religious leader who had thought up a new system to proclaim. His message was from God. Furthermore, his message had God’s stamp of approval. God had set him apart for this task.

Verse 9 is important, for there Paul reminds the Thessalonians, “We proclaimed to you the gospel of God.” Here Paul uses a New Testament term for preaching. Preaching is proclaiming the gospel. Paul sees himself as a herald – an official spokesman for God, the King. He was sent out like heralds of old to cry, “Hear ye! Hear ye! This is the king’s law, what he expects of his subjects.” The herald never gives his own message. He is the spokesman for the king. He proclaims what the king has decreed. All this brings us to verse 13, which is the key passage for our consideration. Paul says,

For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.

Effective Preaching←⤒🔗

In Acts 17:2-9 we read of Paul’s ministry in Thessalonica. There was a synagogue of the Jews in that city,

and according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ’  (vss. 2-3).

Paul was proclaiming Jesus as the Christ, and he was using the Scriptures – that is, the Bible of his day – to set forth this message. There were people in Thessalonica who were persuaded and who believed. So effective was the preaching of Paul and his companions that the Jews were jealous and caused a riot. They claimed that these men had upset the world with their teaching.

What does Paul say about his preaching in Thessalonica? He says that the believers “received from us the word of God’s message” – but he goes even further. He says they received it “not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Paul’s preaching was effective, not because he was a great religious expert or because he had some special religious experience to share, but because men heard from him not the words of man, but of God. His preaching was “an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation” (Shorter Catechism, Q. 89).

Can we have men who will turn the world upside down today by their preaching? Some will say that Paul could preach the way he did because he was an apostle. Indeed, Paul was an official eyewitness of the resurrected Lord. He was one of the foundation stones of the church. He wrote books, such as 1 Thessalonians, which were inspired. They are the Word of God. We can see how Paul’s preaching was not the words of man, but really the words of God.

It is true that modern-day preachers are not apostles. They are to build on the foundation of the apostles, with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone, but they do not have the same apostolic authority. Nevertheless, the modern-day preacher still has the authoritative Word of God. He does build on the foundation that has been laid, but he builds not with his own wisdom or his own religious ideas. Rather, he builds with the authority of God’s Word, and when he declares that Word, he speaks for God. True preaching cannot be severed from the Word of God. The preacher declares, “Thus saith the Lord.” As long as he stands on God’s written Word, as long as he faithfully expounds that Word, he can and should expect those who hear in faith to hear God’s word for their life.

How will the church find and train such preachers? Only as she holds before her sons the high calling of being spokesmen for God and as she demands from her preachers not dialogue or sharing or religious drama, but true proclamation of the Word of God.

The Puritan Board

  • Forums

  • The Church

  • Preaching

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

preaching as word of God


  • Thread starter
    Scott

  • Start date
    Nov 2, 2005

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


  • #1

I have heard that John Murray and other reformed commentators have argued that the «word of God» referred to in Rom. 10:17 (and the related context) refers to the preaching (meaning not just reading aloud the text of scripture, but the sermon) of the scriptures. Is this right? Can anyone outline this argument?

Both Calvin and Matthew Henry to affirm that Rom. 10:17 refers to preaching, but it is unclear whether they simply mean reading aloud the text of scripture (which may not have made sense given the incomplete nature of the NT at that time).

DTK

Puritan Board Junior


  • #2

Originally posted by Scott
I have heard that John Murray and other reformed commentators have argued that the «word of God» referred to in Rom. 10:17 (and the related context) refers to the preaching (meaning not just reading aloud the text of scripture, but the sermon) of the scriptures. Is this right? Can anyone outline this argument?

Both Calvin and Matthew Henry to affirm that Rom. 10:17 refers to preaching, but it is unclear whether they simply mean reading aloud the text of scripture (which may not have made sense given the incomplete nature of the NT at that time).

The context strongly suggests it…v. 14, And how shall they hear without a preacher? (khru,ssontoj from khru,ssw, «proclaim as a herald») …and v. 15, And how shall they preach (khru,xwsin from khru,ssw) unless they are sent?….How beautiful are the feet of those who preach (euvaggelizome,nwn from euvaggeli,zw, «to announce glad tidings») the gospel of peace,

In other words, the nouns and verbs employed by the apostle here are derived from two Greek words that are always translated in the context of preaching, and never in terms of reading. Thus their (i.e., Murray, Calvin, and Henry’s) hermeneutical contention in this context is firmly rooted in the grammar of the text.

But there is another grammatical point to be kept in mind as well. The phrase in v. 14, And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? as translated in the NKJV and the NIV can be a bit misleading. There is no preposition «of» in the original text, and the strict translation should be whom they have not heard, thus the emphasis is that Christ Himself is speaking through the voice of the preacher sent by Him in the proclamation of the Gospel, and we wouldn’t expect Christ to be reading His good news, but proclaiming it. Again, this contextual evidence sets the stage for identifying the word of Christ (r`h,matoj Cristou/) in v. 17. The word of Christ is thus the gospel proclaimed by Christ through his sent servant.

I don’t think that this verse is intended to deny that people have been and are converted through the reading of God’s word, but rather emphasizes the normal activity of Christ in the proclamation of the Gospel.

DTK

[Edited on 11-2-2005 by DTK]

  • #3

Insightful as always DTK, thanks!

JOwen

JOwen

Puritan Board Junior


  • #4

Dear bother,

The word rheÌ„ma (word) is to be understood in the context of verse 15, which speaks quite clearly about the «œpreaching» of the gospel. Now, rheÌ„ma as opposed to logos (also translated word), is «œthe living word spoken» or «œlife giving word». The immediate context is preaching and hearing the word of God, so the phrase «œword of God» should be likewise.

Kind regards,

Jerrold H. Lewis
Pastor

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


  • #5

But there is another grammatical point to be kept in mind as well. The phrase in v. 14, And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? as translated in the NKJV and the NIV can be a bit misleading. There is no preposition «of» in the original text, and the strict translation should be whom they have not heard, thus the emphasis is that Christ Himself is speaking through the voice of the preacher sent by Him in the proclamation of the Gospel

David: Thanks — very helpful and makes sense. I had heard the «of» argument and could not recall it. I think this is the point from Murray I was forgetting. Certainly seems consistent with Luke 10:16 and the like.

Are we to understand this proclamation from Christ being the entire message from the preacher (such as the entire sermon), assuming it is faithful to scripture?

Thanks,
Scott

DTK

Puritan Board Junior


  • #6

Originally posted by Scott
Are we to understand this proclamation from Christ being the entire message from the preacher (such as the entire sermon), assuming it is faithful to scripture?

Thanks,
Scott

Scott,

I think what you are positing is true in a broader sense, but not necessarily to be argued from this specific text, because the distinct emphasis of the text seems to identify «the word of Christ» in v. 17 with the proclamation of the gospel specifically.

But with respect to this «broader sense,» I don’t think I will ever forget an illustration that I heard from a man who is the most powerful preacher I’ve ever been blest to sit under, Pastor Albert N. Martin. In his series, «Rightly Receiving the Word,» he illustrated the principle of which you speak in the following way…He said (and I paraphrase), «Just suppose someone received a special revelation from God that Isaiah would rise from the dead, and be in our midst on such and such a date, at such and such a time. And sure enough, at the appointed date and time Isaiah appeared on the scene, opened his mouth and began to proclaim, «Thus saith the LORD…» What would our whole mental and spiritual disposition be in that context as we try to imagine how we would respond to God’s prophet proclaiming God’s word?

Pastor Martin went on to point out, that if we come to the ministry of the word wherein we are to sit under an exposition of the Book (prophecy) of Isaiah chapter 1, and our attitude or disposition is in any way qualitatively different from the way we would give heed to Isaiah returning from the dead and speaking «thus saith the LORD,» then there is something terribly defective in our approach to the ministry of the word as listeners. He said, «Granted, there would be some psychological factors, perhaps, that would make some element of it different, and that God doesn’t dehumanize us when He reveals Himself to us and makes us his own…But, nonetheless, if we gave any kind of qualitative reverence or submission to the spoken word of Isaiah that we would not give to the written word of Isaiah when rightly expounded, then we have something terribly defective in our understanding of the ministry of the word as the Scriptures are opened and proclaimed in our hearing.»

It made a very powerful impression upon me from that day to this, and I have never forgotten it. This is the kind of consciousness we need to cultivate when we come to the ministry of the word, when the Scriptures are opened and applied to our lives, namely, that we are having direct dealings with God in and through the word of God as it is preached. There is something utterly sacred about our attending to the word of God carefully and reverently, each and every time our ministers stand before us behind the sacred desk and proclaim it.

While God’s normal means is to accomplish this task through his duly ordained and sent servants, sometimes his word comes through unexpected channels, e.g., Balaam’s donkey. And I have learned some of the greatest lessons through a jackass of a man in a pulpit, and occasionally even from the lips of a child, «Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants…» (Ps 8:2).

But I do not believe that it can be gainsaid from the overall evidence of the Bible, that when God’s appointed minister stands and proclaims God’s word to His people, we are to stand in awe of the act that is transpiring in our presence, and to receive it, as it were, from the very portals of heaven when rightly proclaimed.

DTK

DTK

Puritan Board Junior


  • #7

I’m getting old, I also meant to follow up with this word from Calvin…

John Calvin (1509-1564): Those who think the authority of the Word is dragged down by the baseness of the men called to teach it disclose their own ungratefulness. For, among the many excellent gifts with which God has adorned the human race, it is a singular privilege that he deigns to consecrate to himself the mouths and tongues of men in order that his voice may resound in them. Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill and trans. Ford Lewis Battles, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, reprinted 1977), Book IV.i.5, p. 1018.

DTK

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


Puritan Sailor


  • #9

The emphasis upon the preaching being the Word of God is also prominent in continental reformed theology. Notice the Belgic Confession stresses this. You can also see this in Peirre Marselle’s The Relevance of Preaching. In our American context, we would shy away from that idea because we are so worried about heretical preachers in our pulpits. But the concept of the preacher being Christ’s herald, proclaiming with all His authority, cannot be forgotten or ignored.

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


  • #10

Regarding the exposition, as opposed to the reading of text, in what sense is it appropriate to say that this exposition, or sermon, is «God’s Word.» It would not carry the weight of scripture, so in what sense is it God’s word? Is it analogous to having a herald show up and have an ambassador proclaim a king’s message, even though the ambassador uses his own words? Of course the ambassador can be a rogue or otherwise deviate from his king’s message, but that does not undermine the authority with which he speaks the true message.

Patrick: Do you recommend Marselle’s book? If so, I will have to grab a copy.

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


  • #11

Also, in what sense, if any, is Christ present in the exposition of the Word? In the ambassador analogy, the king is present only vicariously, or in the sense that he is represented. His person is entirely in another location. Is Christ present (mystically, or otherwise) in preaching and, if so, how?

Puritan Sailor


  • #12

Originally posted by Scott
Regarding the exposition, as opposed to the reading of text, in what sense is it appropriate to say that this exposition, or sermon, is «God’s Word.» It would not carry the weight of scripture, so in what sense is it God’s word? Is it analogous to having a herald show up and have an ambassador proclaim a king’s message, even though the ambassador uses his own words? Of course the ambassador can be a rogue or otherwise deviate from his king’s message, but that does not undermine the authority with which he speaks the true message.

Patrick: Do you recommend Marselle’s book? If so, I will have to grab a copy.

I do recommend it. It’s short and a great introduction to the theology of preaching. The principles are great. But I would keep the terminology to yourself. Americans would probably not like you to speak of preaching that way.
:)

JohnV

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate


  • #13

Here’s my concept of it, Scott. I think it follows the Continental Reformed concept mentioned by Patrick.

In Ezra’s time the congregation stood up when the Word of God was read. The idea, it seems to me, is that there be a deep reverence for God’s Word as His Word: when He speaks, we give all our attention and revere it.

In the same way, the reading of the Bible is a deeply reverent and austere moment in the time of worship. These are His words, holy and full of grace. When a minister preaches, therefore, it must be in keeping with that deep reverence. If he shows any kind of disrespect to it at all, such as detracting from the message, or from its authority, or from its pespicuity and sufficiency, then that calls into question his own adherence to that Word as its messenger and expositer.

When the people listen to the preaching of the Word, it is for the the Word that they are listening, not for a man’s word. Since it is clear that God has chosen, specifically stated in His Word ( note: the text you cited ), to cause His Word to be heard through the agency of preachers, it would follow that those who long to hear that Word would give all their attention to preachers as if it were God Himself, since He says that this is how He will do it.

So it follows that preachers preach the Word, and only the Word; and that listeners attend to it as if it were the Word itself.

DTK

Puritan Board Junior


  • #14

Also, in what sense, if any, is Christ present in the exposition of the Word? In the ambassador analogy, the king is present only vicariously, or in the sense that he is represented. His person is entirely in another location. Is Christ present (mystically, or otherwise) in preaching and, if so, how?

I don´t think that this is the sort of question that can be answered beyond the simple point that Christ is present by His Spirit. I think the ambassador analogy emphasizes that the representative of the King has no authority to deviate from the message entrusted to him by the King. There is the sense that Christ the King is present vicariously in His servant, but that is to be conceded when we say that Christ is present spiritually. I´m not sure that the word «œmystically» (what nuance of the word is one after here, cryptically, unintelligibly, subjectively?) is especially helpful apart from saying that Christ is present spiritually. When Paul comes to speak of his experience among the Corinthians, he describes his proclamation as delivered «œin demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God» (1 Cor 2:4-5). In His second epistle while utilizing the ambassador analogy, he writes, «œNow then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ´s behalf, be reconciled to God» (2 Cor 5:20), to emphasize they are not speaking in their own name or acting on their own authority, and to show that the reception or rejection of their message is the reception or rejection of the King Himself, thus Christ´s ministers are in some sense Christ´s substitute or representative («œon Christ´s behalf,» or «œin Christ´s stead»). I´m personally convinced that Paul´s description of his experience as a «œdemonstration of the Spirit and of power,» emphasizes that Christ by His Spirit worked in a manner through Paul that lifted his proclamation up beyond his own efforts and endeavors (persuasive words of human wisdom) to a position wherein he became the medium through which the Spirit worked efficaciously in the hearts of those to whom Paul spoke. We are dependent not only on the Spirit´s anointing (if we may speak of it in this way) upon the preacher, but on the Spirit´s activity in the hearts of those who listen. For if Holy Scripture teaches us anything, it teaches us that grace is not automatically conveyed in the ministry of the word (Heb 4:2). For it was Paul´s desire that their faith should not rest or stand in anything other than the power of God, indeed as Paul testified of the Thessalonians, «œFor this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe (1Thess 2:13).

But asking this question is somewhat akin to asking the question, «œwhat is unction?» There´s an old illustration that comes to mind of an old black minister who responded to this question in this way, «œUnction? I don´t knows what it is, but I knows what it ain´t!» His point is, he knew when God was present «œin demonstration and power,» and when he was simply offering the effusions of his own mind. We who have preached understand by our own experience what he was getting at. I´m not adept at explaining what it is, but I know what it isn´t. And I know when it´s sensibly present, and I know sometimes sensibly when it´s not. And sometimes, unction is present and I never knew it in the act of preaching. But the point is, whether sensibly conscious of unction or sensibly unconscious of it, we can be sure that when we remain faithful to the word of the King, he will accomplish the purpose for which he has sent His word, for God gives seed to His sower and bread to the eater.

Now, the parable of the sower, as well as historical instances from the Gospels, make it abundantly clear that there is also with the preached word, the presence of the activity of the evil one (Mk 4:15; Lk 8:12, Matt 13:19; Mk 1:21ff; Lk 4:31ff). From the accounts of demonic activity in opposition to our Lord´s own preaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, we learn that the devil is no respecter of sacred days, sacred places, sacred scripture or sacred people. And whenever Christ is present by His Spirit in His word, one can be sure that the devil will in some measure, either directly or indirectly, perhaps through medium of one of his minions, be there to oppose it. This being true, I think it establishes the need for the presence of Christ by His Spirit to work not only through His servant, but in the hearts of those who would hear.

Being a preacher, this subject is not only of great interest to me, but vital as a practitioner. But I need to stop now, other duties demand my attention…

DTK

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


  • #15

John are you talkign about the exposition as well as the scripture that is actually read?

JohnV

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate


  • #16

Scott:

Yes, I am. Though the exposition is done through weak men, yet it is the way that God has chosen to feed the sheep from His Word. To say it differently, not to heed the preaching of the Word is to ignore God Himself.

But this goes for the preacher many times more than for the listener, since he is the one through whom the Spirit feeds His sheep. If he neglects his call, in order to feed the sheep with his own feed instead, then he is robbing not only himself, but also those whom he was commissioned to feed.

Preaching is a calling, a gift. It isn’t a job that you get trained for, and then apply for position. If the Spirit does not call one to it, it is wrong to take that office upon oneself.

Yet each one of us, whether in office or not, is commanded by that same Spirit not to heed false prophets and teachings. So a minister is subject not only to the ruling elders, but also is accountable to the congregation. And its not a matter of allowable opinion within the standards of the church, for that is not his calling. The WCF, for example, is the confessional, constitutional, ecclesiastical limitation put upon what is and is not properly derived from Scripture, accumulatd from all the centuries of doctrinal struggle in church history. If some things are not clear, then they are not God’s Word, since His Word is perspicuous and sufficient. And the peacher has no business making up God’s mind for Him on matters He did not reveal.

I personally take a pretty strong stand on this, as not being an office-bearer in the church. Adding to the Word is a breaking of God’s Word, which the Word explicitly condemns, along with adding curses upon the one who does this. Preaching is not a licence to theologize, but to preach established, approved theology.

Contra_Mundum


  • #17

From the 2nd Helvetic Confession (the French Protestant/Heugenot confession)

The Preaching of the Word of God Is the Word of God.
Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.

Neither do we think that therefore the outward preaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written «And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor . . ., for they shall all know me» (Jer. 31:34), and «Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth» (1 Cor. 3:7). For although «no one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father» (John 6:4), and unless the Holy Spirit inwardly illumines him, yet we know that it is surely the will of God that his Word should be preached outwardly also. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, «He shall tell you what you ought to do.»

  • #18

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
From the 2nd Helvetic Confession (the French Protestant/Heugenot confession)

The Preaching of the Word of God Is the Word of God.
Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe the the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.

Neither do we think that therefore the outward preaching is to be thought as fruitless because the instruction in true religion depends on the inward illumination of the Spirit, or because it is written «And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor . . ., for they shall all know me» (Jer. 31:34), and «Neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth» (1 Cor. 3:7). For although «no one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father» (John 6:4), and unless the Holy Spirit inwardly illumines him, yet we know that it is surely the will of God that his Word should be preached outwardly also. God could indeed, by his Holy Spirit, or by the ministry of an angel, without the ministry of St. Peter, have taught Cornelius in the Acts; but, nevertheless, he refers him to Peter, of whom the angel speaking says, «He shall tell you what you ought to do.»

Excellent quote!! :up::up::up:

(However, just to clarify, the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 was the work of Bullinger and is considered the Swiss-German Confession as opposed to the French (Huguenot) Confession of Faith of 1559 prepared by Calvin.)

Contra_Mundum


  • #19

Thanks for the correction, VH.

Of course. Helvetia is the old Latin name for Switzerland. I should have remembered. Do you know if any French speaking churches used it? Perhaps in Switzerland? (I’m trying to figure out how I associated it with the French in my mind.)

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

fredtgreco


  • #20

«The word is like the sun in the firmament. Thereunto it is compared at large Ps. 19. It hath virtually in it all spiritual light and heat. But the preaching of the word is as the motion and beams of the sun, which actually and effectually communicate that light and heat unto all creatures, which are virtually in the sun itself.» John Owen

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


  • #21

Thanks. All helpful. Another question. If the preaching of the Word is the Word, then how does that not intrude into the doctrine of sola scriptura?

  • #22

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Thanks for the correction, VH.

Of course. Helvetia is the old Latin name for Switzerland. I should have remembered. Do you know if any French speaking churches used it? Perhaps in Switzerland? (I’m trying to figure out how I associated it with the French in my mind.)

[Edited on 11-4-2005 by Contra_Mundum]

That’s an interesting question, Bruce. It seems that some other churches, included the French Reformed Church, did «adopt» the Second Helvetic Confession at some point, but I’m not clear on what exactly was meant by «adopt» and how adopting the SVC impacted the previously binding French Confession of 1559.

At the same time the Swiss again felt the need for a new common confession, and a conference was called to meet in Zurich. Bullinger’s confession was considered and a few changes were made in it, to which Bullinger consented. It was published in German and Latin on March 12, 1566, and had the approval of Berne, Biel, Geneva, The Grisons, Muhlhausen, Schaffhausen, and St. Gall. This Second Helvetic Confession (Confessio Helvetica posterior) was soon translated into a number of languages ranging from French to Arabic and was adopted by the Scots in 1566, the Hungarians in 1567, the French in 1571, and the Poles in 1578.

Certainly, the French and Swiss Protestants made common cause given that Calvin was French-born but lived in Switzerland and was friends with Bullinger and other German Reformed leaders. That unity must have been a bulwark during the Counter-Reformation era.

DTK

Puritan Board Junior


  • #23

Originally posted by Scott
Another question. If the preaching of the Word is the Word, then how does that not intrude into the doctrine of sola scriptura?

Scott,

Here are three quotes from Muller that I think help to answer your question, the third of which I think answers your question directly. I thought about simply posting the last quote by itself, but the two previous quotes were too helpful (at least in my opinion) to ignore. Given your interest in this area, you really ought to purchase these four volumes by Muller, especially Volume two.

Richard A. Muller: The Word of God provides the universalis Christi ecclesia with «œall things fully expounded which belong to a saving faith, and also to the framing of a life acceptable to God.» For this reason, the text itself commands that nothing be taken away and nothing added to its message (cf. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18-19). Scripture, therefore, provides a standard for «œtrue wisdom and piety, the reformation and government of churches, instruction in all duties of piety, and, finally, the confirmation and condemnation of doctrines and the confutation of all errors.»
Having presented Scripture as the foundation of Christian faith and practice, Bullinger moves on to what is a virtually unique series of paragraphs in the Reformed confessional literature: the role of the Word preached in the life of the church. When the biblical Word is preached, Bullinger argues, «œthe Word of God itself is announced and received by the faithful» «” or as the marginal summaries given in Niemeyer read, «œScriptura verbum Dei est. . . . Praedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei.» No other Word of God is to be expected by Christians, and this Word, as preached, is to be regarded as authoritative despite limitations inherent in the means. Echoing Augustine on the Sacraments, Bullinger insists that the Word, not the minister, ought to be our proper object: «œeven if he is evil and a sinner, the Word of God remains nonetheless good and true.»
The importance of this relation of Scripture as living Word to preaching, albeit unique in the confessional literature, was not lost on later Reformed dogmaticians. Indeed, Bullinger´s discussion of the issue in a confession that enjoyed such broad and continued use in the Reformed churches seems to have guaranteed the dogmatic importance of the topic. The later theological systems remained in contact with the confessional norms «” despite their technical and disputative character «” with the life of the church. Both the living character of the inscripturated Word and the importance of lively exposition remain topics dealt with in theological system even during the high and late orthodox eras.
Bullinger also takes pains to state that this «œoutward preaching» ought not to be opposed to or devalued by a doctrine of the inward illumination of the Spirit. It is true that effective «œinstruction in religion» depends on the inward working of the Spirit, but that inward working is usually conjoined with appointed, external means. Thus, the teaching of Paul that «œfaith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God» (Rom. 10:17) provides a normative statement for Christian practice, despite the possible exception of a purely inward and spiritual work of God. «œWe recognize,» writes Bullinger, «œthat God can sometimes also also illuminate human beings, whomever and whenever he chooses, without an external ministry, for such is his power. We speak, however, of the usual practice of instruction, bestowed on us by God both by commandment and by example.» The point draws on the scholastic distinction between absolute and ordained power: de potentia absoluta God may work without means, but de potential ordinata God covenants to work means that he has appointed. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), pp. 83-84.

Richard A. Muller: In the present of the church, both the prophetic Word and the preaching «” indeed, the person! «” of Christ are mediated by the scriptural testimony: the living biblical Word provides the necessary access to the message of salvation and to the covenantal history in which it is lodged. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), pp. 83-99.

Richard A. Muller: It is important that the famous marginal title in the Second Helvetic Confession, «œPraedicatio verbi Dei est verbum Dei.» «” «œthe preaching of the word of God is the word of God» «” be understood in the context provided by these distinctions between the eternal Word and the Word written. The statement is typically taken as an indication of the incredibly dynamic character of the Reformers´ doctrine of Scripture and of their existential emphasis upon preaching, but it is also clear that it in no way stands over against a fairly strict identification of Scripture as Word of God and, indeed, rests on such an identification. Thus, the previous marginal title reads, «œScriptura verbum Dei est.» Bullinger insists that preaching the «œwords» was the Word because he was convinced that the text of Scripture was not merely a witness, but, because of the work of God and the spirit of God, a form of Word itself. It was surely not the intention of the confession to claim either that every sermon ought to be regarded as divine Word or that the moment of revelation that produced the words of the text was somehow automatically re-presented in the pulpit through the activity of the clergy: the confession simply indicates the permanent and authoritative relation between the words of the text and the Word of God that they convey. Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725: Vol. II, Holy Scripture, The Cognitive Foundation of Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 187.

DTK

Scott

Scott

Puritan Board Graduate


  • #24

Thanks. I don’t understand this: «Bullinger insists that preaching the «œwords» was the Word because he was convinced that the text of Scripture was not merely a witness, but, because of the work of God and the spirit of God, a form of Word itself.»

Can anyone help me better understand what this means?

Contra_Mundum


  • #25

I think the simplest way to understand it is: that in a Holy Ghost demonstration of power (1 Cor. 2:1, 4), when the Word written is proclaimed aloud by an appointed herald, since the promise is attached, when that Word is faithfully and accurately proclaimed a form of the Word is actually present in the preaching. This is not inspiration, such as the prophets or apostles or biblical writers experienced. Rather it is proclamation to be received «as it is in Truth, the Word of God» (1 Thess. 2:13).

It’s not just that we hand someone a Bible, and say, «Look there—the Word of God.» And so it exists as a witness, all by itself. In a carnal way (by way of analogy) a skillful lecturer can make the dry witness of a textbook «come alive.» How much more, when the «living and active» Word is proclaimed by a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:5; 7:55)?

DTK

Puritan Board Junior


  • #26

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
I think the simplest way to understand it is: that in a Holy Ghost demonstration of power (1 Cor. 2:1, 4), when the Word written is proclaimed aloud by an appointed herald, since the promise is attached, when that Word is faithfully and accurately proclaimed a form of the Word is actually present in the preaching. This is not inspiration, such as the prophets or apostles or biblical writers experienced. Rather it is proclamation to be received «as it is in Truth, the Word of God» (1 Thess. 2:13).

It’s not just that we hand someone a Bible, and say, «Look there—the Word of God.» And so it exists as a witness, all by itself. In a carnal way (by way of analogy) a skillful lecturer can make the dry witness of a textbook «come alive.» How much more, when the «living and active» Word is proclaimed by a man full of faith and the Holy Ghost (Acts 6:5; 7:55)?

Pastor Buchanan,

Carefully nuanced, and very well put.

DTK

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Forums

  • The Church

  • Preaching

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; (17) so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (4:1) I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: (2) preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. (3) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, (4) and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. (5) As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Why Is God’s Word so Prominent in Corporate Worship?

In our series on worship, which will come to an end in two more weeks, we need to ask this question: Why is preaching so prominent in our corporate worship services? Almost half the time of a typical morning worship service is taken up with preaching the Word of God. That is a remarkable proportion and demands some explanation.

But why should I spend time teaching you about preaching, when you are not in seminary preparing to preach? There are three simple answers. First, you will know better what to do with preaching if you understand biblically why it is here. Second, you will be able to assess whether you are, in fact, hearing the right kind of preaching if you know biblically what it is supposed to be. Third, if you know what true preaching is, you will be able to discern and call the right kind of preacher when my time is up in this pulpit. So it has huge implications for your life and family and the future of the church — and all the churches — if the people of God know what true biblical preaching is and why it is so prominent in corporate worship.

Now this question — Why is preaching so prominent in corporate worship? — is really two questions. One is: Why is the Word of God so prominent? And the other is: Why is this form of presenting the Word of God so prominent? Someone could simply read the Bible for half an hour rather than listen to preaching, and that would certainly make the Word of God prominent. Or one could lead a discussion of the Bible for a half-hour. Or one could do mainly academic analyses of vocabulary and grammar and historical circumstances in the Bible. So we must ask not only why is the Word so prominent, but why is preaching, as such, so prominent.

Let’s take the first question: Why the prominence of God’s Word in our corporate worship?

God Revealed Himself as the Word and by the Word

The first reason is that God has chosen to reveal himself as the Word and by the Word. John 1:1 says, «In the beginning was the Word.» Not in the beginning was the song, or in the beginning was the drama. God identifies his Son, who himself is God, as the Word. This is tremendously important. «In the beginning was the Word.» The Son of God is the Word of God. He is God’s communication to the world, God’s Word.

God has also chosen to reveal himself not only as the Word but also by the Word. Look at our text, 2 Timothy 3:16, «All Scripture is inspired by God.» This means that God ordained to speak to us and reveal himself to us and interpret his deeds in history for us by inspiring written words. That’s what «scripture» means: writings. All the Scripture — all the writings in the Jewish-Christian canon — are inspired, God-breathed. Or as 2 Peter 1:21 says, «No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God.» The scriptures of the Old and New Testament are God’s revelation of himself to us.

So the first two answers to why the Word is so prominent in worship is that God revealed himself as the Word and by the Word. If worship is meant to be a spiritual communion with God and a reverent, loving response to God, then at the heart of worship must be the revelation of God himself, and he has ordained to be known mainly by his Word.

God Performs His Work by His Word

But we can say more. Worship is a response to God’s work, and the Word of God is the means by which he works in the world. This is the way it was in the beginning when God created by his Word (Hebrews 11:3). And this is the way it has been ever since as God performs great acts by his Word. For example, we know that Jesus simply spoke and seas were calmed (Mark 4:39), fevers were cooled (Luke 4:39), demons were cast out (Mark 1:25), sins were forgiven (Mark 2:10), the blind received their sight (Luke 18:42), the dead were raised (Luke 7:14). God worked by means of his Word!

But we also know that God goes on working by his Word. Consider our text again: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, «All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.» In other words, the way God brings about the good works of his people is by the Word. This is why Jesus said that men will see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16). God works by his Word to do his works through his people in his world.

You can see this again and again in the Bible. For example, Psalm 1:3 says that the man who meditates on the Word of God day and night will «be like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither; and in whatever he does, he prospers.» So the Word brings fruit and makes a person prosper in the will of God. Or consider Hebrews 4:12, «For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.» The Word is God’s agent in the great work of conviction and judgment. Or recall John 17:17, where Jesus prays to his Father, «Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.» The great work of sanctification God does by the Word of God. And the list could go on and on.

The point is that worship is about knowing and admiring and savoring God through his works. And these works are seen in his Word and performed by his Word. Therefore the Word is prominent in worship.

God Brings About New Birth by His Word

Let me mention one other reason why the Word is so prominent in worship. Worship depends utterly on the spiritual miracle of the new birth and the ongoing work of reawakening faith. And these miracles God does by the Word. For example, 1 Peter 1:23, «You have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.» New birth is worked by God through the Word. This means that the life we need to worship authentically comes by the Word. No life, no worship. No Word, no life.

Not only that, the constant reawakening of faith Sunday after Sunday comes by hearing the Word of Christ: «So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ» (Romans 10:17) — not just the first time, but over and over again.

So the Protestant church has put the Word of God at the most prominent place in corporate worship because worship is a seeing and savoring of God himself, and God reveals himself as the Word, and by the Word. In particular, God does his works in the world by his Word and gives new life by his Word and awakens faith by his Word. Without the Word of God, there would be no life, no faith, no work, no revelation and no worship. The Word of God is to worship as air is to breathing.

Why Is Preaching so Prominent in Corporate Worship?

Now the second question is: Granted that the Word of God should be so prominent in worship, why is this particular form of the word called «preaching» so prominent?

Notice what follows in our text right after declaring that all Scripture is inspired by God (in 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Immediately Paul says (4:1-2), with amazing solemnity and high seriousness, «I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word.» So it is clear that for this young minister of the Word (see 2 Timothy 2:15), preaching was to be a prominent activity. And the context of 3:16-17 seems to imply that preaching is not just for evangelism on the street corner or in the synagogue, but for the saints who need (as verse 2 says) «reproof, rebuke, exhortation, patience and instruction.»

So we could say, we preach because 2 Timothy 4:2 says we should. But I want to go beneath that and ask Why? Why is it so fitting in God’s scheme of things that preaching be so prominent in worship?

Old Testament and New Testament Precedents

One answer is that there is a biblical precedent for explaining the Scriptures in public worship. For example, in Nehemiah 8:6-8 it says, «Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God; and all the people answered, ‘Amen, Amen,’ lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground . . . the Levites, helped the people to understand the law, while the people remained in their places. And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly; and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading» (RSV). So there was not only the reading of the law, but there were called and appointed men who «gave the sense» and «helped the people understand the law.» And all that was in the context of blessing the Lord and lifting the hands and falling down in worship.

In the New Testament, the Jewish synagogue continued this pattern. For example, in Luke 4:16ff, Jesus came to Nazareth early in his ministry and entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and read from the prophet Isaiah about his own coming, and then sat down and began his interpretation: «Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing» (Luke 4:21). This was the typical synagogue pattern: the Word read and then an interpretation and application of the Word.

You see it also in the book of Acts. Paul comes to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch and in Acts 13:14-15 it says, «On the Sabbath day they went into the synagogue and sat down. After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, ‘Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.'» And Paul stands up and preaches (verses 16-31).

So the first reason that preaching became central in the church was that this was the pattern established in the Old Testament and in the New Testament synagogue.

The Twofold Essence of Worship

But there are two reasons for the prominent place of preaching in worship that go deeper than this. They have to do with the twofold essence of worship: understanding God and delighting in God. Jonathan Edwards explains God’s goal in worship like this:

God glorifies himself towards the creatures also [in] two ways: (1) by appearing to them, being manifested to their understanding; (2) in communicating himself to their hearts, and in their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying the manifestations which he makes of himself. . . . God is glorified not only by his glory’s being seen, but by its being rejoiced in. . . . [W]hen those that see it delight in it: God is more glorified than if they only see it; his glory is then received by the whole soul, both by the understanding and by the heart.1

So there are always two parts to true worship. We can say it in two pairs: there is seeing God and there is savoring God. You can’t separate these. You must see him to savor him. And if you don’t savor him when you see him, you insult him. Or another pair would be this: in worship there is always understanding with the mind and there is always feeling in the heart. Understanding must always be the foundation of feeling, or all we have is baseless emotionalism. But understanding of God that doesn’t give rise to feeling for God becomes mere intellectualism and deadness. This is why the Bible continually calls us to think and consider and meditate and remember on the one hand, and to rejoice and fear and mourn and delight and hope and be glad on the other hand. Both are essential for worship.

Now preaching is the form that the Word of God takes in worship because true preaching is the kind of speech that consistently unites these two aspects of worship, both in the way it is done and in the aims that it has. When Paul says to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2, «Preach the word,» the word for «preach» is a word for «herald» or «announce» or «proclaim» (κηρυξον). It is not a simple word for teach or explain. It is what a town crier did: «Hear ye, Hear ye, Hear ye! The King has a proclamation of good news for all those who swear allegiance to his throne. Be it known to you that he will give eternal life to all who trust and love his Son.» I call this heralding «exultation.» Preaching is a public exultation over the truth that it brings. It is not disinterested or cool or neutral. It is passionate about what it says.

Nevertheless this heralding contains teaching. You can see that as you look back to 2 Timothy 3:16 — the Scripture (which gives rise to preaching) is profitable for «teaching.» And you can see it as you look ahead to the rest of 2 Timothy 4:2, «Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.» So preaching is expository. It deals with the Word of God. True preaching is not the opinions of a mere man. It is the faithful exposition of God’s Word.

Expository Exultation

So in a phrase, preaching is «expository exultation.»

In conclusion, then, the reason that preaching is so prominent in worship is that worship is not just understanding but also feeling. It is not just seeing God, but also savoring God. It is not just the response of the mind, but also of the heart. Therefore God has ordained that the form his Word should take in corporate worship is not just explanation to the mind and not just stimulation to the heart. Rather the Word of God is to come teaching the mind and reaching the heart; showing the truth of Christ and savoring the glory of Christ; expositing the Word of God and exulting in the God of the Word.

That is what preaching is. And that is why it is so prominent in worship. It is not a mere work of man. It is a gift and work of the Holy Spirit. And therefore it happens most and best where a people are praying and spiritually prepared for it. That is what we will talk about next week.

For now, pray for me and pray for yourselves. And let us seek with all our might to become a people who live and worship by the power of the Word of God — read and memorized and taught and preached. Amen.

Preaching the Word of God is preaching the Power of God!

2 Timothy 4:2-4 (KJV) 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

I. Preach the Word.

Be ready in season and out of season. We should try to convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and with our teaching of the Word of God.

A. The title, «The Word of the LORD» is found 240 times in the Old Testament and 13 times in the New Testament. The title, «The Word of God» is found 3 times in the Old Testament and 44 times in the New Testament. The Bible is the «Word of God». That is why it needs to be preached, taught, heard, and learned.

B. Everyone with not receive the Word. Romans 3:4 says Even when it is unpopular — «let God be true and all men liars»

C. Preaching includes teaching, proclaiming, studying, loving, and standing on the Word of God.

D. The Word is powerful. Hebrews 4:12 says, «For the Word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.»

II. Psalms 119 — David proclaims the power of God’s Word. David in this Psalm describes God’s Word in 48 different ways. Here are few.

1. A revelation of His ways Psalms 119:3 (KJV) They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Psalms 119:16 (KJV) I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word. 3, 15

2. The Word of God is the source of cleansing Psalms 119:9 (KJV) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

3. The Word is a ready counselor Psalms 119:24 (KJV) Thy testimonies also are my delight and my counsellors.

4. It is the source of life Psalms 119:25 (KJV) My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy word.

5. It is a tower of strength Psalms 119:28 (KJV) My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthen thou me according unto thy word.

6. The Word directs to the way of salvation Psalms 119:41 (KJV) Let thy mercies come also unto me, O LORD, even thy salvation, according to thy word.

7. It give the source of hope Psalms 119:49 (KJV) Remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope.

8. The Word is a source of comfort Psalms 119:52 (KJV) I remembered thy judgments of old, O LORD; and have comforted myself.

9. The Word is the foundation of good judgment and knowledge Psalms 119:66 (KJV) Teach me good judgment and knowledge: for I have believed thy commandments., Psalms 119:130 (KJV) The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

10. It is a source of delight Psalms 119:92 (KJV) Unless thy law had been my delights, I should then have perished in mine affliction.

11. Having the Word of God is better than riches Psalms 119:72 (KJV) The law of thy mouth is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver.

12. The Word of God gives us an eternal plan Psalms 119:89-91 (KJV) 89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. 90 Thy faithfulness is unto all generations: thou hast established the earth, and it abideth. 91 They continue this day according to thine ordinances: for all are thy servants.

13. The Word of God is sweeter than honey Psalms 119:103 (KJV) How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!

14. It is a lamp to the feet Psalms 119:106 (KJV) I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.

15. The Word is a light to the pathway of life Psalms 119:105 (KJV) Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

16. The Word gives a source of joy if obeyed Psalms 119:111-112 (KJV) 111 Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart. 112 I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end.

17. The Word is something to be loved more than silver and gold Psalms 119:127 (KJV) Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.

18. The Word of God is the source of light Psalms 119:130 (KJV) The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

How is Preaching the “Word of God”? Advice for Preachers, by Sam Chan
August 15, 2016
Kyle Roberts

The following is an interview with Sam Chan (Ph.D., M.D.), an Aussie theologian, preacher, and medical doctor who writes and gives talks from the Bible about life, faith and work. Sam is a public speaker for City Bible Forum and works as a physician in Sydney. Sam has just published the book, Preaching as the Word of God: Answering an Old Question with Speech-Act Theory.

How did you land on the subject of preaching for your main research interest (i.e. dissertation and now this book)?

Before I went to seminary, I was a preacher. I was regularly being asked to preach at churches, schools, and conferences.

So I went to seminary to learn to become a better preacher. But along the way I was intrigued by the

Sam Chan, via Espresso Theology

Sam Chan, via Espresso Theology

question – what gave me the right to preach at all?

Who was I to think that my human words were the same as God’s words? I am a finite, fallen, and fallible person. So how on earth could I claim to be preaching God’s Word? And how could any preacher claim to be preaching God’s Word?

And why have preaching at all? If the Bible is the Word of God, then why don’t we just read the Bible? Why do we need preaching—which is basically the subjective explanation and application of the Bible by a human interpreter?

To answer this, I used a three-pronged approach: (1) a historical theology of Luther and Calvin’s views of preaching. (2) A biblical theology of preaching in the Bible’s storyline. And (3) I used philosophical theology by applying speech-act theory.

What surprised you in writing your book?

Three things surprised me.

First, I was surprised by the high view of preaching of Luther and Calvin. They made it one of the marks of the true church.

But more than that, because of Luther and Calvin, preaching is the climax of the Protestant church service. Just think about that. Everything in our Protestant service is designed to set up preaching as the climactic moment when we hear God. According to the Reformers, preaching is the God-human interface.

Which then sets up the question. Can preaching be everything that the Reformers claim that it is? A mark of the true church? The voice of God? The God-human interface?

Second, I was surprised by some of the images of preaching in the Bible. Often we only think of preachers as prophets or teachers. But Isaiah’s Suffering Servant was also a Preaching Suffering Servant. The Bible then applies this image to Jesus, the apostles, and finally the Christian Church.

Third, I was surprised by how neatly speech-act theory applied to preaching. Up until now we’ve mainly applied speech-act theory to the written Word of God. But speech-act theory, as the name implies, is an even better fit for the spoken Word of God.

Basically, if the preacher is indeed preaching the Word of God, then the preacher is performing a speech-act—i.e., God’s speech-act.

How would you assess the status of preaching today? Are there lots of good preachers? More bad ones? Is preaching still viable in our age?

PICKWICK_TemplateSpeech-act theory gives us some brilliant criteria for assessing the status of preaching today.

For example, if we only preach propositions from the Bible, then we’re only locuting (speaking) the Word of God, but failing to perform its illocutionary (indended, communicative) act.

Or if we only preach for emotional and existential impact, then we might be illocuting without locuting the Word of God.

Or if we try to manipulate our audience, then we are aiming for perlocution (intended effect of communication) without the necessary prior locution and illocution of the Word of God.

What advice would you give you to preachers today?

See yourself as the Preaching Suffering Servant of Isaiah

And understand that we are locuting and illocuting the Word of God, and then praying that the Spirit will use our words for God’s desired perlocution (i.e., intended, transformational effect).

And for some of us, that means doing proper exegesis of the Word of God so that we are better locuters.

For some of us, that means we need to illocute as well as locute. We are doing more than just teaching and explaining the Word of God. We are performing God’s speech-acts, such as blessing, promising, warning, judging, and covenanting.

And for all of us, we need to pray that the Spirit uses our speech-act for the perlocution of the Word of God.

"The Pulpit," via Flicker CC 2.0 (cropped)

“The Pulpit,” via Flicker CC 2.0 (cropped)

Понравилась статья? Поделить с друзьями:
  • Preacher of the word
  • Preach you the word
  • Pre style word wrap break word white space pre wrap pre
  • Pre intermediate word games
  • Pre heresy word bearers