The question is of interest because the phrase, the "Word of God," in the question is employed ubiquitously among fundamentalists and liberal practice alike. (In many churches, perhaps most, after a reading from the Bible, the reader will declare, "The Word of God," to which the congregation responds, "Thanks be to God.") However, fundamentalist and liberal do not agree as to its meaning or significance. Hence, the plethora of denominations. This makes for troubled understanding, if not outright confusion, among the believers throughout the general Christian ecclesia.
Before I continue, let me disabuse you of my own position regarding this issue. I have been, and still consider myself an evangelical when it comes to understanding God and His Word. I am 87 years old now, and to the best of my memory, I have spent every single day of my adult life reading, studying and meditating in the scriptures. The scriptures are my written guide in life and I thoroughly believe the Holy Spirit uses this exposure for the glory of God in my life. Let me add that no part of this specific piece has been influenced by a third party scholar or student of the scriptures. Every conclusion herein is the product of personal study of the Bible itself.
That said, after much thought and prayer, I have concluded that the evangelical Christian community has erred in how the scriptures should be approached and applied in life. We have come to a place where we all too often consider the Bible on the same level that we consider God Himself. This is misguided and erroneous. It has led us down a path of division and in some cases even contempt for one another.
So -- The preliminary answer to the question above lies is in the response to another plainly obvious concern: How does one define the "Word of God?" If we are to assign this phrase to the Bible, how are we to understand the phrase itself?
1. For this we must turn -- predictably -- to the Bible itself. In the Gospel of John we are plainly told, "The Word was God!" Later in the same passage we are told that "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." This unambiguously identifies Jesus Christ as the "Word of God." I don't think that there are any among those regenerated by the Holy Spirit, who could deny this.
2. However, if we understand the phrase, the "Word of God," to mean: all of the written information and data about God and his character, and all the general written information of which God wishes us to be aware -- but not necessarily binding -- then it is not implausible to identify the Bible as the "Word of God." Nor is it necessary to argue or disagree with the doctrine of plenary, verbal inspiration of the Original Autographs.
3. But, if we define the phrase to mean the "Revelation" of God, then we are dealing with something else altogether. Here, we mean "God revealing himself." If this is what we mean by the "Word of God," then the scriptures, in their entirety, cannot possibly be perceived to be as equal to, or construed to mean the same thing as that phrase. There is much information in the Bible which has nothing to say about God revealing himself, (e.g., the Book of Esther, The Song of Solomon), plus many narrative passages of gross human behavior (Judges 20, et.al.) which do anything but reveal the nature of God.
This observation is not new, going back as far as the teachings of Marcion (c.85-c.160)* So, using revelation as a definition, we must conclude that the Bible contains the Word of God, but in every particular, it is not the same as the Word of God. If this definition is used to define the entire Bible, the notion of plenary, verbal inspiration is disenfranchised, owing to the fact that there are numerous passages which reveal nothing about God.
One should note an appeal to the original language of a passage which addresses this very issue. That passage is 2 Timothy 3:16: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." -- ASV (1901) There was a time in evangelical thought when this earlier version of the ASV was considered "the most accurate version in the English language." It renders this passage as it is literally rendered in the Greek New Testament.
However, every single translation and paraphrase of which this writer is aquainted, other than the ASV, renders the "Every scripture inspired of God" as "All (Every) scripture is inspired of God." The verb "is," is absent in the original. Obviously, that is why ASV did not include it. This verse in 2 Timothy has the scripture itself saying that that it is not all inspired. Since there is no exegetical reason for this verb to be present in English translation, the only rationalale for it is the bias to defend the plenary, verbal translation of today's translations.
Since Jesus Christ is the only absolute, definitive idea of the "Word of God," it follows that he is both revelation and didactic; this is something the scriptures, taken in their entirety, are not. The scriptures are not the same as he, nor are they on the same level as he in either revelation or didactic. The scriptures are not Deity. We do not worship the scriptures. We worship the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Hence, all understanding of scripture must be subject to who Jesus was and is, and what he taught us, and consistent with his ethical standards. If they do not concur, if they are not in harmony with what he taught us about God the Father, then that portion of biblical content must not be accepted as the Word of God. These might include the Hebrew scriptures mentioned above, plus certain relationally irrelevant (to Jesus) passages in the Epistles.
Finally, what of today's (2023) Bibles? There seem to be countless translations and copies of translations. Add to that the paraphrases, of which there are many as well. As one attempts to make sense out of all this, one is compelled to remember the depravity of human mind. "There is none righteous. No, not one."
If you are a Bible student, you would likely affirm, "I seek to discover the most accurate of all the translations." One may respond with the question, "Accurate to what standard?" One answers, "the translation most faithful to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic writings." Yet all these are copies or copies of copies. One would assume each copier of scripture would be someone with empathy and love for them. One would assume the copier or translator would posses a powerful incentive to get it right.
But let us not forget that each person undertaking this endeavor was an unrighteous, depraved, individual -- just like the rest of us. Are we to assert that the fallen nature of mankind had no impact or influence on these copies of copies? Are we to affirm, as many do, that the Holy Spirit preserved every jot and tittle of the Autographs in today's copies of copies? If one does that in humility and honesty, it would be a matter of a certain act of faith. We may, indeed, have this faith, but there is no convincing evidence that this faith is based on fact. The claim of it being an "act of faith," may simply be an opiniion. If this is the case, it would seem obtuse to use it to affirm plenary, verbal, inspiration to all the copies, translations and paraphrases existent in 2023 or thereafter.
The one absolute Lens is the Person of the Jesus Christ -- the WORD himself. In interpreting and understanding the scriptures, Jesus is Himself the hermeneutical metric. Anything that is inappropriate or askew from His Person, His Character, His Teachings, His miracles, or His love, is to be denied the credential, or label of the Word of God.
-- PDM
*Let it be understood that this writer does not affirm Marcion's dualist belief system. This writer rejects all forms of "belief systems." Marcion is mentioned only as an example of early church thought regarding the theology of Jesus vis a' vis, the theology of the Hebrew scriptures.
Home
