“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Heb. 4:12)
Throughout my life, I’ve heard a lot of people quote Hebrews 4:12 as an ode to Sola Scriptura and the importance of studying the Bible. Not only have I heard it, I’ve said it. In this interpretation, the Bible is viewed as being alive and active and having the ability to reveal to us our inner sins, thoughts, and concerns. The Bible is pictured as being able to read our minds and know our hearts.
I think this is a standard interpretive perspective among many people. On one hand, it elevates Scripture and its effectiveness in our spiritual formation. To that, I can say, “Amen!” Yet I’m not convinced this is the most convincing exegetical perspective to hold, nor the most robustly theological!
The phrase “Word of God” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) includes the genitive “of God” (τοῦ θεοῦ) and it is subjective. This means that we’re talking about a message from God. This obviously includes the Bible because the Bible is God’s infallible Word. No arguments there. My issue is when we limit this phrase “Word of God” (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) in Heb. 4:12 to only be the written word. I don’t think that’s contextually as convincing as we might assume.
In the context of the author’s argument, there’s an emphasis on hearing God’s word/voice today. The author uses Psalm 95:7-11, a passage that has already been attributed to the Holy Spirit (cf. Heb. 3:7-11), as the foundation for his argument. This suggests that the author of Hebrews has in mind the spontaneous voice of the Spirit, not just that which was written down. In fact, even in the context of the Psalms, the emphasis was on responding to God’s voice “today,” or, in the moment.
In no way am I suggesting that the Bible isn’t God’s Word and isn’t “active” or “alive.” I’m simply suggesting that Continuationists have it right when they emphasize hearing from God through Scripture and through the various other means that God chooses to speak and/or reveal himself.
Since this is a blog and not an academic paper, I’ll leave any more exegetical work for the comments 🙂
What do you think? Is there more to Heb. 4:12 being all about the Bible?
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
Some thoughts concerning this passage and the doctrine of the (W)word of God. The authority, innerancy and infallibility of Scripture makes more sense to me if it (scripture) is understood to be the interpreted word of God. It’s the churches divinely ordained and designated playground for faith and practice so to speak. I personally cannot use language equating the written word with the Living word (Jesus) for the fear of idolatry.
The bible is subject to interpretation and maintains it’s authority, inerrancy and fallibility (perfectly to me) within the bounds of the multi-vocal & interpretive household of faith and tradition this i where I see it’s life and activity and accept it’s nature as the churches divinely ordained interpreted truth.
Jesus is truth though and is not subject to interpretation (though he is often the OBJECT of interpretation) he is the interpreter of Men’s souls.
I personally think Heb 4:12 within it’s context is clearly teaching about Jesus as the living word.
Able, great thoughts.
I think the context is obviously pointing to a larger theological point that ends up at Jesus (Heb. 1:2 anyone?). So I largely agree with that THEOLOGICAL interpretation. You won’t find me arguing against TMI whatsoever.
However, I wonder if jumping right to the theological “big picture” interpretation ignores the contextual application. Whether we go from point A to the Bible or Jesus, we seem to miss some important points towards our application. Yes, Jesus is ultimate and final “Word of God” and how we can measure other “words.” Yet in the context of Hebrews we also have the concept of “rest,” which I think ALL interpreters agree is, in fact, Jesus.
So I still wonder if we miss how the Lord still speaks to us via the Spirit “today.” I guess I am still prompted to guess that this has something to do with prophetic revelation or God “speaking to my heart” as my Baptist friends say.
I like what you are saying though… yet there is still part of this Barthian perspective that seems to still make Scripture more subjective than my eyes are used to… but maybe that is because I don’t completely buy into Barth?!? And I think I always jump to “worst case scenario” in how some of these ideas play out. However, none of those issues mean you are wrong, haha. And I also still love me some Barthian perspective…
Soooo, still thinking!
But we both apparently don’t see Heb. 4:12 being all about the Bible. That, in my mind, is a start. 🙂
TMI is TIS. Argh. Auto spell.
Loving it Luke, you’re the second person I’ve heard explain this scripture this very way while not taking from the written word. Thanks.
As you know I am a rabid continuist.
Yes you are 🙂 ha ha
Luke, I could not agree more! ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ means WAY more than (and often NOT) the Bible, though there is no way the Bible should be excluded from a cluster of things that comprise God’s word. In fact, defaulting to ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ=The Bible would create some serious theological problems. For instance, Septuagint Greek in Isaiah Is. 38:4 – The Bible certainly didn’t come to Isaiah, though what did come to Isaiah in that prophetic moment was eventually recorded in the Bible. John 1:1, 14 certainly cannot mean “In the beginning was the Bible… and the Bible became flesh and lived among us.”
Luke, I could not agree more! ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ means WAY more than (and often NOT) the Bible, though there is no way the Bible should be excluded from a cluster of things that comprise God’s word. In fact, defaulting to ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ=The Bible would create some serious theological problems. For instance, Septuagint Greek in Isaiah Is. 38:4 – The Bible certainly didn’t come to Isaiah, though what did come to Isaiah in that prophetic moment was eventually recorded in the Bible. John 1:1, 14 certainly cannot mean “In the beginning was the Bible… and the Bible became flesh and lived among us.”
That’s an EXCELLENT point… John 1:1… ha ha… that’s actually funny to even consider! That kind of goes along with what Able was saying too…
Entirely correct, Luke.
Thanks, Jon! Appreciate your encouragement!