Should “The Word of God” Be Reserved for Christ?

I remember a few years ago reading a blog post where the author postulated that the term “The Word of God” should be reserved for Christ, and not Scripture. That’s how I remember it anyway. It could have been “God’s Word”. Either way, as much as I’ve learned from material on the internet, I’ve been frustrated by hair splitting and things that don’t really matter, which I regret I spent the time reading. This one actually made me wonder. Then there is “bibliolatry”, whatever that means, knowledge being a bad thing, and whatever other ideas people dream up.

Here is John Owen’s take on this. I also like how he skewers some people’s method of reasoning, which is still going on today as much as ever. (This was scanned and OCR-ed, so I apologize for any mistakes I might have missed.)

The first is worded in somewhat of this fashion. “The title of ‘Word of God’ (say our fanatics) belongs to Christ, and to Christ alone. It is therefore blasphemy to confer that title on Scripture. Can you thus honor the Bible, without reducing the honor due only to Christ? Surely the Bible is not Christ! Surely it is letter, and not Spirit! The title of Jesus Christ is ‘the Word of God.’ Leave it to Him, and let the Bible rest content with its own titles and nature!”

But see the trick and deception here. We are to be so led on by our love and reverence for Christ that we are supposed to be blinded to the different uses and significations of the same words. By a mere homonym, a simple coincidence of sound, it is intended to drive us out from under the authority and perfection of Scripture! And note that by this these wretched men are not merely seeking to bring in an objection against the name and title of Scripture alone (if that were so they might at least be deserving of some pity), but no, the case is quite different. By this unique stratagem, they not only strip the Bible of its authority and remove it from its appointed place, but actually are attacking the very personality and divine existence of Christ Himself. By thus limiting all reference to the “Word of God” to Christ Himself, they are free to take all of those texts in which the term does not well fit the historical Christ, God-and-man, and apply them to a fictitious “Christ,” a dreadful argument of their own imaginations, who they equate to the pretended “inner light,” which they say is common to all men, a “no-one knows what” spiritual everything, which is in truth quite nothing at all. When Scripture, in hundreds of places, makes mention of “the Word of God,” of “preaching the Word,” of “spreading” or “reception” of the Word, where the actual physical presence of Christ cannot be intended, they are thus free to twist the passages into anything at all that suits their fancy by this device of an “inner light,” of which they themselves are, of course, the sole possessors, of which nothing at all has been heard up to now. This fiction of an “inner light” or “inner word” must be dealt with in its own proper place, and along with it their fictitious “Christ.”

–John Owen, Biblical Theology, pg. 778-779

He then goes on in much more detail.

But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
Luke 11:28 NASB

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
Revelation 19:13 NASB

2 Responses to “Should “The Word of God” Be Reserved for Christ?”


  1. 1 Steve Martin

    The Word of God is Christ Himself. Christ in preaching. Christ in the Bible. Christ in Baptism and Lord’s Supper.

    There’s only one Word. But it is in all of those things.

    (also in the consolation of the brethren)

    Good post!

    Thanks.

  2. 2 Scripture Zealot

    Thank you and you’re welcome. Thanks for reading and commenting.

    I keep wanting to write a Steve Martin joke, but you’ve already heard all of them too many times.
    Jeff

  1. 1 Should “The Word of God” Be Reserved for Christ? | Cryptotheology
Comments are currently closed.



%d bloggers like this: