Greg R. Scharf

Abstract

             �Praedicato verbi Dei est verbum Dei� (The preaching of the word of God is the word of God). So reads, allegedly, the Second Helvetic Confession, written by Heinrich Bullinger in 1561. This paper explores what Bullinger actually wrote, what he meant, how defensible the statement is biblically, and the implications of our findings for preachers and teachers of preachers.

Introduction

            Heinrich Bullinger (1505-1574) was a scholar, rector of a theological academy, pastor, and preacher. He succeeded Ulrich Zwingli in 1531 as pastor of the church in Zurich where he was known for community service, hospitality, and for sacrificial care for those perishing during the plague epidemic of 1564. He wrote the Second Helvetic Confession originally as a codicil to his last will and testament to the Zurich church (http://www.creeds.net/helvetic/Helvetic_Intro.htm). Because of its concise clarity it became a widely appreciated summary of the best of reformed thinking. 

Textual matters

            Although the words quoted above are perhaps the most frequently cited part of the Second Helvetic Confession, they are not part of the original text itself. According to Edward Dowey they are a marginal heading, which �reflects an authentic lifelong preoccupation of Bullinger with the viva vox, whether the viva vox Domini to patriarchs, prophets, and apostles (Decades I.i), or the oral and audible passing along �as if by hand� of the gospel from Adam to Moses, or the living preaching which even �today� is the usual means of announcing the Gospel� (Dowey 9). Indeed, The Creeds of Christendom begins the fourth paragraph of the first chapter of the Confession not with the words cited in the abstract, but with these: �Proinde cum hodie hoc Dei verbum per praedicatores legitime vocatos annunciatur in Ecclesia, credimus ipsum Dei verbum annunciare et a fidelibus recipe, neque aliud Dei verbum vel fingendum, vel coelitus esse exspectandum: atque in praesenti spectandum esse ipsum verbum, quod annunciatur, non annunciantem ministrum, qui, etsi sit malus et peccatur, verum tamen et bonum manet nihilominus verbum Dei� (Schaff 237-238). [�Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe 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.�] (www.creeds.net/helvetic). As all documents, this one needs to be understood in its context and as part of the other works of Bullinger.

What Bullinger meant

            In what sense is the preaching of the word of God actually the word of God? Edward J. Dowey, Jr., in an essay based on the standard Latin edition of the confession, examines this question in the light of Bullinger�s other writings and other reformed creeds of the day, all of which were penned against the backdrops on the one hand of exalted ecclesiastical authority, and on the other, of the excesses of those who claimed direct revelations from God. While acknowledging that Bullinger asserts three times in the opening lines of the confession that the Bible is the Word of God, Dowey argues that there is not a simple �one-to-one correspondence between Word and Bible� (8). What makes preaching equivalent to God�s word is that its meaning �is not originally from men but is God�s word, will and meaning� (Bullinger�s Summa, III.iii). Dowey concludes, �Thus, the Bible is called the Word of God because of that which it reveals, not in an exclusive and unique sense, but in a sense transferable to another instrument carrying out the same function� (8, 9). This functional linkage between the two terms paves the way for an understanding of how preaching, including contemporary preaching, can be said to be the word of God. In preaching, the function of God exhorting his people is achieved, as long as the preacher does not depart from the norm of Scripture. � . . . Scripture alone is the sufficient and authoritative norm also of preaching� (10). That is, the link between Scripture and preaching whereby both can be referred to as the Word of God is instrumental, not normative. Preaching is not normative the way the Bible is. The Spirit provides an external word together with inner illumination. �The external Word, which is Scripture alone normatively and Scripture and preaching together instrumentally, has as its scopus (purpose) the saving Word, Christ� (12). Preaching functions as the word of God when it is the Spirit-illumined exposition of Scripture properly interpreted and expounded for the faithful by a duly authorized preacher to reach the hearer in his concrete situation (13). For Bullinger, proper interpretation meant that Scripture is to be interpreted in ways drawn from the Bible itself (Dowey 14) so that it can be expounded for man�s salvation and God�s glory (Dowey 15). In practice this meant studying the original languages, giving attention to literary and historical contexts, and comparing the text with �like and unlike texts� of Scripture (Dowey 15-16). All this was to be done out of love for God by those who humbly call upon the Holy Spirit (Dowey 17). Learned, ancient fathers and councils are to be followed so long as they agree with Scripture. Where controversy arises, the sole arbiter is, to use Bullinger�s phrase, ��God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true . . .�� (Dowey 17). That appeal to God�s voice in Scripture may seem somewhat circular, but it rests on Bullinger�s bedrock conviction that the main themes of Scripture are clear and consistent and can therefore be readily summarized (Dowey 15).  

Can this opinion be confirmed by Scripture?

            If Dowey�s analysis of Bullinger is substantially accurate�and I have found no solid reasons to doubt it�then we must ask whether the Scriptures themselves lend credence to this view that preaching is instrumentally but not normatively the Word of God. To answer that question, we must explore where the phrase �the word of God� and its variants are used in the Bible in relation to Christian preaching, and seek to determine if the distinction between functionality and normativity can be maintained. 

We surveyed the New Testament occurrences of the phrase �word of God� (and equivalent forms using pronouns for God or Lord) along with similar expressions, �word of the Lord� and �word� when used of preached discourses, and rarer expressions like �word of truth� (Eph. 1:13) or �word of salvation� (Acts 13:26), �word of the cross� (1 Cor. 1:18), and �word of encouragement� (Acts 13:15).  Such expressions are most often used in these contexts as shorthand for the gospel message as preached (Acts 17:13 ), testified and spoken (Acts 8:25 ), proclaimed (Acts 15:36 ), and taught as it was in Corinth for a period of 18 months (Acts 18:11 ). This word was heard (Acts 10:44 , 13:44 , 19:10 ), received (Acts 11:1; 1 Thess. 2:13 ), and believed (Acts 4:4). It sounded forth from those who received it (1 Thess. 1:8). Yet this �word� was not merely conceived as an adequate summary of gospel truth but as something that had a life of its own. As spoken by Jesus, it had authority and power (Luke 4:36 ). Significantly, it was fruitful not only when Jesus spoke it. Even when others proclaimed it, it did not fail ( Rom. 9:6); it grew, multiplied and bore fruit (Luke 8:11 , Acts 6:7; 12:24 ; 13:49 ; 19:20 ). It ran and was glorified (Acts 13:48 , 2 Thess. 3:1). This word that was preached abides forever (1 Peter 1:25 ). Moreover, Jesus distinguished his word from the word of his followers yet linked the two in their effects. �If they kept my word they will keep yours� (John 15:20c). �I pray for those who will believe in me through their [the apostles�] word� (John 17:20b). In Luke 10:16 Jesus addresses the seventy-two (not just the twelve) and affirms the instrumental and representative nature of their speech on his behalf and strengthens it by adding the negative, �The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who sent me.�

A closer look at some key passages will lead to conclusions that suggest an answer to the question, Was Bullinger right?

John 14:24. �He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.� The Lord Jesus himself clearly set the pattern for his followers and sent them as he was sent (John 20:21 ). His message, his word, was received, not created. As he received his message from the Father, we receive our message from Christ. Similarly, what Paul received he passed on to others (1 Cor. 15:3). Further, he chided the recipients for thinking of themselves as the source of the word of God. �Did the word of God originate with you . . . ?� (1 Cor. 14:36). The pattern established by Christ was copied by the apostles who traced their message back to its divine source. They thought of it as the word of God.

1 Thess. 2:13. �And we also thank God continually because when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.� This is perhaps the clearest identification of the word of God and human preaching. The repeated phrase �word of God� underscores how Paul and his coworkers matter-of-factly perceived their word and how the Thessalonians received it. Their preaching was more than mere human speech to both speakers and hearers; it was in fact the word of God. That word went to work in their listeners to regenerate them and create fruit in their lives. The evidence of its power was that it sounded forth in their region not merely as a word echoing off them but re-broadcast by them, having transformed their lives in the process. Significantly, the plural (�we�) implicitly includes Silas and Timothy in the preaching since elsewhere Paul does not hesitate to use the first person singular (�I�) when he is referring only to himself even in letters where co-authors are noted. See, for instance, Col. 1:24-25 and 2:1-5 as compared to Col. 1:28-29. Even if it be argued that this plural is a literary convention with Paul as the presumed speaker, other texts describe presumed non-apostles as �speaking the word of God.� Philippians 1:14 does so as does Hebrews 13:7 where the writer refers to other leaders �who spoke the word of God to you� (13:7).

1 Peter 1:23-25 �For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, �All men are like grass, and their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.� And this is the word that was preached to you.�

This text underscores the instrumentality of the word of the Lord which is both living and life giving like the seed which the sower sows in Jesus� parable. It states that the word endures and cites Is. 40:8 to reinforce that truth, rendering �the word of our God� as �the word of the Lord� which stands forever and equating that with �the word that was preached [gospelled] to you.� Following the Septuagint, Peter uses the word rhếma in the citation and leaves no room for equivocation or ambiguity by using it again in the following identification with what was preached. In Isaiah �the word of the Lord� is usually something spoken to be heard as opposed to being read. Isaiah calls people to hear the word of the Lord. By parallelism the word of the Lord is identified with the law in 2:3 (�The law will go out from Zion , the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.�) and in 5:24 (�. . . for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel.�)  Astonishingly, in Is. 44:26, the Lord reveals himself as the servant of the servants of the word, his messengers, by carrying out their words. So the citation of Is. 40:8 by Peter indirectly links proclamation to both the law and therefore Scripture (the written word) and to God who backs his word by vindicating those who speak according to it (Is. 8:20 ).

1 Peter 4:11. �If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God.� In context, these words remind us that for God to get the glory we must use gifts he has given to minister his grace. Those who have speaking gifts speak as those supplied with words of God. Those who serve do so in the strength God supplies. The emphasis in this cryptic statement is on the way we are to speak, not what we speak, although we speak as we do because of the word we have received. The word l�gia, rendered �oracles� in some translations, occurs only two other times in the NT. In both cases it refers to part of the Hebrew Scriptures, our Old Testament. Moses . . . �received living words (l�gia) to pass on to us.� (Acts 7:38 ) [The Jews] �have been entrusted with the very words (l�gia) of God.� (Rom. 3:2) So those whom Peter admonishes in 1 Peter 4:11 are to speak in a way that reflects the source, nature, and certainty of our message. The source of our speaking is to be Scripture. The grammatical construction does not imply the Christian speaker is to speak as if he is speaking the very words of God, but as speaking the words of God. The plural, �words� adds a dimension of verbal precision not implied by the other expressions �word of God� and �word of the Lord.� He should speak as one to whom words have been given by God. This does not mean that words are given independent of Scripture or above it, for even where New Testament prophets speak in the assembly, their words are to be weighed and tested (1 Cor. 14:29, 1 Thess. 5:20-21). Presumably the standard by which they are tested is what stands written (1 Cor. 14: 34 , 37).

            Taken together, the intentional example of Jesus who always and only spoke the word he received from the Father, the matter-of-fact labeling in Acts of the message proclaimed as the word of God, and the descriptive and prescriptive teaching in the epistles concerning what apostles and others preached and listeners received, and how all who speak are instructed to do so, confirm that the phrase, the word of God may validly be used to describe what preachers proclaim. On the other hand, to say that the phrase may be appropriately used to describe the content of preaching is not the same as asserting that what is preached is equivalent to the Bible although the phrase �word of God� applies to both. We should expect to hear God�s voice when the Bible is read and when preachers preach its contents for the purposes for which it was given, but the spoken word is always derived from, constrained by, and in submission to the written word.

What difference does it make?

            People in Bullinger�s day tended to discount preaching because of the weaknesses of the preacher or to consider it unnecessary because of the inward illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. Neither excuse for failing to expect God to speak through preaching stands when the preacher is duly called and preaches the word of God to the church.  No other word from heaven is to be sought or anticipated. Even though God could speak to us directly, he has ordained that �hearing comes through the word of God,� (Rom. 10:17 ) which, in the context, clearly refers to preaching. Bullinger argues from Matt. 10:20, Luke 10:16 and John 13:20 that this happens because the Spirit of the Father speaks through preachers so that those who listen to them listen to Christ. That emphasis on the outcomes of preaching underscores the instrumental nature of preaching as the word of God.

            Bullinger�s purposes for identifying the preaching of the word of God with the word of God point toward implications for contemporary preachers and those who equip them to preach as well as those who listen to preaching.  

1. If the preaching of the word of God is the word of God, then we who lead churches should make sure that preaching has the prominent, central place among the means God has given to make his nature and will known and to achieve his purposes for the church. Other means have their place, but what can compare with hearing the voice of God that we may live?
2. If the preaching of the word of God is the word of God, then those who preach should spare no effort to make sure that what they preach conforms to the content, tone, and purposes of the written word of God. That is, the sermon should be faithful not only to the passage being expounded but also to the immediate and extended literary context in which it is found.
3. If preaching the word of God is the word of God then we who preach should expect God�s voice to be heard when we preach. To expect less is to settle for something less that God intends.
4. If the preaching of the word of God is the word of God, then those who speak on God�s behalf should anticipate that God�s word will go to work in those who hear it as such. Because God�s word is living and active, the force of the teaching, correction, rebuking it undertakes are God�s work through us, not merely our work to achieve his purposes. We preach in hope.
5. If the preaching of the word of God is the word of God, then the triumph of his word in its work in listeners defines success in preaching, not how hearers rate the preacher. This fact does not excuse ethical carelessness, as 1 Thess. 2:1-12 makes plain, but it does free us from reliance upon our rhetorical skills (1 Cor. 2:1-5).
6. If the preaching of the word of God is the word of God then those who hear the word preached should take it as seriously as they would if God were speaking directly to them. Our hearers should listen expectantly and soberly and do what God asks them to do. They should say with Cornelius, �Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us� (Acts 10:33).

Works Cited  

Dowey, Edward A., Jr. �The Word of God as Scripture and Preaching.� Later Calvinism: International Perspectives. Ed.  W. Fred Graham. Vol. 22, Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, Kirksville , MO : Northeast Missouri State University , 1994. 5-18.

Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom with a History and Critical Notes. Ed.  David S. Schaff.  Sixth Edition. Vol. 3, �The Evangelical Protestant Creeds with Translations.� Grand Rapids : Baker, 1966. 237-238.

�The Second Helvetic Confession�Historical Note.� Creeds of Christendom. <http://www.creeds.net/helvetic/Helvetic_Intro.htm> quoted from The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part I, Book of Confessions. Louisville , KY : Geneva Press 1966.