Last night, I posted this brief, pithy quote on Twitter.
@RaeWhitlock: “The preaching of the Word of God *is* the Word of God.” (#)
After which, I went to the living room to hang out with Amy for a few hours, and then went to bed. What I woke up to this morning on Twitter were a few surprised and surprising responses . . .
@sagethefool: @RaeWhitlock Who in the world said that? In what context could that possibly be true? (#)
@TravisSeitler: @RaeWhitlock That is theologically (and just plain logically) wrong. (#)
@rschmidtberger: @RaeWhitlock do we really want to say that the preacher’s words are Gods words? ideally sermons should be full of biblical truth (#)
Understandable responses, though. A lot of guys (and gals, for that matter) have said some pretty whack stuff under the guise of “preaching”. Surely we don’t want to attribute the words of some of those jokers to God himself, right?
So where’d this audacious and almost-heretical-sounding phrase come from? Glad you asked. It’s from an early Reformed confessional document called the Second Helvetic Confession.
In context . . .
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 that 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 that waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (I Cor. 3:7). For although “No one can come to Christ unless he be drawn by the Father” (John 6:44), 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.”
Context makes it more clear. When a preacher preaches Scripture in such a way that is faithful to its true meaning, we can be assured that the Holy Spirit is at work, and that his people are receiving the very Word of God from his mouth. This does not mean that preachers are infallible or incapable of error. By no means. What it does mean, though, is that hearers of that Word can and should be assured that, so long as the Bible is preached faithfully, God himself speaks to them in the preaching event.
Perhaps a way to phrase it that’d be more readily understood by today’s readers would be “The Word of God preached is the Word of God.” I dunno. I like the original phrasing, myself.
Thoughts?
10 comments ↓
You missed one tweet in that series: @artboulet: @RaeWhitlock Actually sounds like Barth.
I think Art has a point. Barth taught that the Word of God becomes the Word of God in the act of proclaiming and hearing it, in cooperation with the Spirit.
Another thought: I’m less enthused about the Reformed exaltation of the preacher and its accompanying narrow definition of what constitutes preaching than I once was.
Here is a good blog post that quotes Barth on proclamation of the Word of God as being the word of God along with some helpful commentary.
@Mark: these are the quotes that I was referring to via Twitter.
Yeah, I can see how the quote looks kind of Barthian, but the 2nd Helvetic seems to be pointing to the inherent authority in the Word preached . . . whereas I’ve always seen Barth’s line of thought as almost asserting a lack of inherent authority in the Word (that is, until the Spirit does a work in the hearer).
Hmm… okay, a few things:
The statement in the title is still wrong, because “verbing a noun” is not equal to the noun on its own. (In other words, “driving a car” does not equal “a car.”) That’s what I meant when I said it was “just plain logically” wrong. Your rewording at the end of the post corrects that (now you’re saying that “a noun, when verbed, remains said noun”), so fair dinkum!
But does a car, when driven into a canyon where it blows up into a million pieces and kills all occupants, remain a car? In certain technical senses, yes; but in all practical senses, no.
So I would say the truthfulness of what you’ve posted here all depends on how the following words and phrases are defined:
“Word of God”
“preached”
“in the church”
“preachers lawfully called”
“to be regarded”
Then there’s the whole issue of how some “lawfully called preacher” gets this special blessing/covering when quoting Scripture, but Average Joe Christian’s tongue is on its own.
And while the angel referred Cornelius to Peter, God first had to teach Peter with a series of dreams and visions. So at best, there’s a case for a combination of general and special revelation. The 2ndHC wants to deny special revelation entirely, which is a doctrine borne out of tradition rather than Scripture.
And how is a preacher “lawfully called,” anyway? The only calling I see in 1 Cor 14 is that he has something to say. Or are we confusing “preacher” and “elder” here? And in what context(s) can a “preacher” be said to be “preaching”?
Too many weasel words in this one, so I’ll have to stick to my initial “nope.”
Sounds good to me and in accord with Scripture. As Paul wrote to the Romans, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ. In context he was talking about preachers being sent out to proclaim Christ and Him crucified.
God is still at work today calling men to be set apart for preaching the Word of God each Lord’s Day in the local church.
Private Bible readings and devotions are great and indeed the hearers should be careful to be like the Bereans who check the Scriptures to hold the preacher to account to the full counsel of God’s Word. But God has a special purpose and blessing on the public proclamation of the Gospel, particularly to the church gathered for worship on the Lord’s Day.
“A sense in which” and “with respect to”
Two of the most helpful phrases in the theologian’s vocabulary!
Funny how often Reformed theology can freak out Reformed people. (I mean funny sad, not funny haha).
That objection by Travis Seitler is awful.
Since that tweet I looked more at Scripture when it says “the word of God.” Often it is associated with preaching. Later I listened to Chappell’s message at the Gospel Coalition, combine that with the confession you quoted it is clear that Scripture calls preaching the word of God. t the same time the Bereans are commended to us.
OK, this is an old post, but I’m just finding your blog. My first reaction was, “So who hasn’t already heard this? This is old news!” After all the 2HC has been around for more than a couple of weeks.
The idea isn’t “Barthian”: Barth was a product of the Swiss Reformed Church. This was the air he breathed. Saying this doctrine is “Barthian” is like saying Gandhi got the idea of nonviolent resistance from MLK.
Besides, most evangelicals don’t have a clue what Barth really said, because all they know about Barth is what someone told them Barth said. They’ve never read him for themselves. When Barth talks about the Bible “becoming the Word of God” when illumined by the Spirit, he is not saying that the Bible becomes something that it’s not. When the Holy Spirit illuminates us, then the Bible becomes what it is! This is what St. Paul talks about in I Corinthians 2:14 (The person without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God because they are spiritually discerned.) This is not saying that, apart from the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, the Bible is not the Word of God, but it is saying that, apart from the illuminating work of the Holy Spirit, it may as well not be the Word of God.
Yes, the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God.
Leave a Comment