RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Word of God
izations and judgments. This rules out all verbal inspiration. Inspiration transpired in the gifts of knowledge, wisdom, prophecy, and the “ discernment of spirits”’ (I Cor. xii. 8-10). The coherent complex of ideas and judgments in which inspiration has obtained expression constitutes revelation in the objective sense; while the sum of the divine acts introduced as real facts and events into history constitutes the same as revealing activity. Revelation (q.v.) is disclosed in accordance with the gradual historical development of the human spirit; not that revelation and such historical development are identical, but that the spirit appropriates revelation after its order in progressive development. This revelation is preserved historically in the sources of the revelation period. The Bible is the historical report of this period and contains essentially the inspired complex of ideas with an interpretation of its given history and related facts. The Holy Spirit has brought to pass a revelation and led to its interpretation, which is the word of God attested to faith by its internal power. The word of God is primarily so called because by this form of human speech the divine Spirit is perceived as operative upon the human heart. Religious experience accordingly forms the test of the true word. On the other hand, the word of God is such by virtue of divine revelation and inspiration. The process whereby the spirit becomes word is “immediate revelation ”’; that whereby word becomes spirit is “mediate revelation.’”” In both cases the actual content of revelation is the same, for what the prophets and apostles experienced and put in words is experienced and received by man to-day in so far as their words communicate the same to him with divine power. Subjectively, the word is adjudged to be the word of God because the Spirit is operative in it; objectively the word is seen to bring the Spirit because it is of the Spirit. Both aspects find their confirmation in the New Testament. Christ spoke the words of God because he had received the Spirit in immeasurable degree (John iii. 34); and his revelation follows from his relation to the Father (Matt. xi. 27). The words of Paul were taught by the Spirit (I Cor. ii. 10, 13); the Gospel which he preached, however, came from Christ himself (cf. { Tim. vi. 3). The “ words of faith” and “ commands of doctrine’’ (Barnabas xvi. 9; cf. I Tim. iv. 6, v. 17), “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints’”’ (Jude 3) and ‘‘ sound doctrine ” (I Tim. i. 10; II Tim. iv. 3) were the chief themes of Gospel preaching, which, however, was held to be derived, in all essentials, from the risen Christ (Matt. xxviii. 18 sqq.; Luke xxiv. 44 sqq.). The recognized relation between the preached word and the word of primitive Christianity necessarily implies that the latter was the source of the former, but the word as preached can never be a mere reproduction of the word as contained in the Bible, being the interpretation given by each period to the Bible. Wherefore the Church properly requires that the Scripture must always remain as the norm of preaching. This does not imply, however, an excessive literalness, but only a general conformity of spirit with spirit. While the Bible also serves the individual for edification, he understands it in the
light of the preached word which is itself made more vivid. The employment of the Bible as the critical norm of prevailing views in the Church is a matter only for the joint effort of the Church and free theological science.
The problem of the connection of word and spirit next arises. The distinction between word and spirit appears first in Augustine, who taught, in contrast with the audible word, the inner word, which is the
Spirit, working in the hearts of the 5. Word elect, producing faith. Medieval theand Spirit. ology, preoccupied by a similar distinction in the sacraments, lost sight of the problem. Luther, in reference to Ps. xxxviii. 2, recalled the position of Augustine; so that, according to him, the Spirit works only in and through the word, though his view was never worked out theoretically. The Reformed theologians, after the manner of Augustine, tended more toward a separation of the two. Martin Butzer antagonized Luther’s position as Thomism; and Calvin, who gave the normative view to Reformed theology, held that God converts by the Spirit, without omitting the instrument of his word. The word incites toward regeneration, but the Spirit illumines, moves, and renews the heart. ‘‘ God works in a twofold way upon his elect, by the Spirit within, and by the word without.’”’ The universal calling is by the latter; the special calling of the elect is by the illumination of the former. A third form of the relation of word and Spirit is the ‘‘inner word” of the mystics in its twofold form: (1) the Spirit operates without any relation to the outer word; and (2) in the depths of the soul the Spirit dwells as the light of reason or conscience. The Rahtmann controversy (see RAHTMANN, HeRMANN) led to a clearer outline. Rahtmann taught that the Scriptures constituted a testimony of God’s will and acts, which God inspired in the apostles and prophets. They, containing the image of God’s being and will, were a guide toward the attainment of an aim, without, however, affording the power to reach it, which was to be furnished by the Spirit. The orthodox reply was to the effect that the Spirit was immanent in Scripture; potentially the Spirit was always in the word, actually only when rightly employed. Upon closer inspection both views contain genuine elements; for though the Spirit must be understood as ever potentially present, this is not to be taken in an abstract sense but as the will of redemption. The word is God’s word not only as to its objective content but also in the impact of man on man within the Christian body. The Spirit is objectively present in the complex of ideas of revelation as well as in its particular interpretation and application, and neither excludes the other.
Thus far the word of God has been considered as identical with the Gospel. From an early period, however, it has been customary to divide the word into the Law, which commands, and the Gospel, which promises and fulfils. The two may be easily confounded with the division of the Old and New Testaments; but the former also contains Gospel, while the latter holds commandments likewise; in fact the Gospel has been termed the “ new law” from the time of the Fathers. Following the Re-
Word of God Wordsworth