Why do evangelicals interpret Heb 4:12 with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the text of the Bible?

Question

Heb 4:12:

For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any double-edged sword, penetrating as far as the separation of soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (CSB)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (KJV)

is quoted a lot by evangelicals in promoting devotional Bible study as though the act of reading the Bible text in itself produces the benefit that the Pastor of the book of Hebrews mentions in the verse, i.e. "judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart". But technically, isn't it true that it is NOT the text on paper that "judges" but Jesus (God the Word) speaking to us? Jesus is the one living, not the text.

The theme of the sermon makes it clear what "word of God" refers to, cf Heb 1:1-2:

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors by the prophets at different times and in different ways. In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. God has appointed him heir of all things and made the universe through him. (CSB)

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (KJV)

which more precisely refers to the words God spoke by the OT prophets, culminating in His word by Jesus's body, life, action, and words. V. 2 alludes to the words through which God spoke creation into existence (Gen 1) that the Pastor implied as "through Jesus". It seems clear to me that proper exegesis should center the referent of "the word of God" in Heb 4:12 on Jesus who indeed is living and present preaching to us through the various ways alluded by Heb 1:1-2:

• prophecy to OT fathers by the prophets
• voice of our conscience (part of the created order),
• the beauty & order of nature herself (testified in Job, Psalms, etc.)

rather than ONLY through the words of the text of the Bible (though of course the Bible is the inscripturated word of God also). Furthermore, the more immediate context of Heb 4:12 is Heb 3:1-4:13 about the warning from the lesson learned at Kadesh Barnea's rebellion where they didn't heed the word of God delivered through Moses. Thus the warning of that passage is so that we heed Christ's words to our soul TODAY (cf frequent reference to Ps 95:7-8) now that God has spoken to us a lot more clearly by sending Jesus, His own incarnation, greater than the word He spoke to Moses.

So why do Evangelicals, whenever they cite the verse in many sermons, Bible study guides, proof-text for apologetics, etc., regularly shift the referent of Heb 4:12 from Jesus to the text of the Bible itself, even broadening the scope to the NT text that has yet to be recognized as Scripture?

2 illustrations of the consequence of bad exegesis

I think my concern for my evangelical brothers and sisters is important when considering the two disturbing practices I notice which seems directly to follow from this bad Evangelical exegesis:

1. In several evangelical churches I have attended, they imply that to obtain the benefit in Heb 4:12b, reading the Bible text in itself is more efficacious than other books (such as a good theology book, the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book), as though God works in a MORE SPECIAL MANNER in producing the benefit when the text read is the Bible but not other books. They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons. Some even eschew using a commentary, fearing that the commentator's interpretation obscures Scripture rather than making it brighter to the mind! To me this is not coherent. Doesn't the agent need to be someone LIVING rather than words on a page?

   But Evangelical careful readers (adopting the Berean discernment) certainly prioritize the teaching in Scripture to serve as a norm and a rule to judge whether a book elucidate or distorts the orthodox teachings of the Bible. Thus they pick and choose better parts of C.S. Lewis books and quote judiciously from writers such as Dallas Willard / A.W. Tozer. When a Christian reading those books became convicted of their sins and obtained more wisdom to know their hearts more clearly (thus obtaining the benefit of Heb 4:12b), can we not say it was Jesus speaking through those books? Can we not say it was Jesus speaking through a Biblical sermon prepared with lots of research including the use of commentaries, philosophy, and theology books? No one is going to mistake those books as "word of God", put them on the same level as the Bible, or attribute the author or the pastor as "Jesus speaking".

   By the way, I am in no way disputing the status of the text of the Bible as Scripture, nor am I excluding Scripture from the "word of God". Evangelical doctrines of

   • Verbal inspiration of Scripture
   • Infallibility of Scripture
   • Sola Scriptura as the norm for interpreting other sources such as tradition, council canons, patristic writings, church doctrines, post-NT prophecies, etc.
   • Protestant understanding of canon of "recognition" instead of Magisterium

   can be derived from other parts of the Bible instead of misusing this verse in support of the above, which in turn make the above doctrines stand on a less secure foundation.

2. The advice I got from several fundamentalist leaning evangelicals is that to evangelize you HAVE to look for an opportunity to cite a series of strategic Bible verses as though by the very act of reading them aloud to the non-Christian you're speaking to, the Holy Spirit can work BETTER in convicting him/her. One such sequence is this:

   1. Romans 10:9
   2. John 1:12
   3. John 3:36
   4. Rev 3:20
   5. Rom 6:23

   They say I am NOT supposed to let my own explanation to cloud over the reciting of those verses, even explanation of the CONTEXT of each verse! Nor is it necessary to let him/her talk about his/her current misunderstanding of the gospel or the difficulties he/she has with Christianity. One should simply recite the verses to let them "work" in the hearer's heart unmediated by explanation. I think I'm justified to say that this practice is adding a mystical element to the Bible text itself, as though the text has mystical power akin to incantation.

So my question is: Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with the "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to the words of the Bible text instead of to the Living God?

Answer 1

I think I see the source of your observations (which, surprisingly, doesn't seem to be addressed in the prior Answers). Let's look at some of your specific points and see where they lead...

Several evangelical churches I have attended, they promoted the view that reading the Bible text in itself is more special than reading a good theology book (or the Catechism, or a C.S. Lewis book)

Well... yes? The difference is comparable to listening to a great teacher versus reading a book that someone else wrote about that teacher. The latter is an additional step removed from the source and shaped by the biases of the intermediary, so of course that's less desirable than going directly to the source.

Why is it that evangelicals regularly ascribe the referent of "the word of God" in this verse to the Bible text itself whenever they cite the verse?

Scripture is the (recorded) Word of God. It's the closest (see above), in this lifetime, most of us will get to hearing God's voice directly. Moreover, most Evangelicals believe Scripture to be divinely "inspired"; that is, God Himself guided the authors in what they should write. Such divine inspiration is almost never attributed (by non-Charismatic Evangelicals, anyway; other sects may disagree) to anything other than Scripture. Thus, "the text itself" is the very words God chose to express. Moreover, we generally believe that God, being infinite in knowledge and wisdom, expressed Himself in a way that transcends time and culture; that is, Scripture itself is what He chooses to speak to us even today.

They seem fearful as though theology books can be more corrupting than the effect of uninformed straight reading of the Bible that has the risk of bad private interpretation if not checked by the church's interpretation mediated by the pastor's sermons.

Ah, here we get to an interesting question (and perhaps the most important point you raise), to which my response, as a conservative Evangelical, is that many evangelicals "throw out the baby with the bathwater". When considering this, it's necessary to understand some history of the Reformation and recognize the belief that "the church's interpretation" has been wrong, even very wrong, before. From this we obtain the Protestant principle of Sola Scriptura which properly states that Scripture is the final, binding authority, and that all interpretations must be subject to what Scripture teaches. This principle is affirmed by Paul in Galatians 1:8, and was formulated specifically to reject the Roman Catholic Church's claim that the Pope has the ability to make binding interpretations, even when such contradict Scripture.

Many Protestants, however, took this a step further into Solo Scriptura, which is what you have observed; that no resource other than Scripture itself is allowed to be used to aid in understanding Scripture. These sorts of Evangelicals tend to place high stress on a believer's individual faith and interpretations. As noted, I believe this comes from an inherent distrust of authority, that, having seen how the RCC went astray, goes to the opposite extreme of distancing themselves as far from the RCC as possible, even to the extent of discarding what wasn't bad.

As I'm sure you've noticed, I don't agree with Solo Scriptura. However, I recognize the principle, and hopefully I've explained well enough to shed some light on the points you've raised.

p.s. "Evangelical" is a poorly defined term. A Germany "evangelical" for example would be called a "Lutheran" elsewhere, while some "evangelicals" would insist that Lutherans aren't "evangelical". Personally, I don't have a precise definition of "evangelical", but my closest offhand approximation would be any Christian that agrees with the Chicago Statement and rejects all forms of works-righteousness.

---

Additional reading:

• https://www.jumpintotheword.com/2020/04/21/sola-scriptura-or-solo-scriptura/
• https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-solo-scriptura.html

Answer 2

I think it is primarily a blurring of the distinction between logos and rhema.

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word (logos) preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. - Hebrews 4:2

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word (rhema) of God. - Romans 10:18

For the word (logos) of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word (rhema) that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4

It has been my experience, as an evangelical in conservative evangelical circles, that the distinction between logos and rhema is sometimes blurred with an emphasis placed too heavily upon the memorization and repetition of rhema, as though there were some latent power in the arrangement of particular letters in a particular language.

It has also been my experience as an evangelical in charismatic evangelical circles that not nearly enough emphasis is placed upon the actual individual words of the Bible, with a preponderant emphasis upon just getting the gist across.

There is a balance to be struck. The Word (logos) is preached in order to manifest the Christ who is that Logos made flesh. Words (rhema) of Scripture are used to accomplish this. It is the word (rhema) of faith that is preached. Hearing comes by this word (rhema) and faith comes by that hearing. That faith then is mixed with the hearing of the word (logos), the gospel preached, and great profit is gained.

The Truth, as God has revealed it to us in the Bible, is line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. There are great sweeping principles more akin to logos and they are laid out for us in very precise and varied rhema. Both are needed, always.

Theology tomes, voluminous commentaries, and great works by thoughtful men who have received the word (logos) and are saturated in the word (rhema); (folks like Lewis, Chesterton, and Schaeffer to name a paltry few) can be extremely valuable to those who are like minded, who receive and process information in similar fashion.

But it must be remembered, and this (I believe) is critical, the the written works of so many great and faithful folk are only of value in so far as they represent and are faithfully obedient to what we have written in the Bible, both logos and rhema.

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word (logos) with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures (graphe, which is to say written rhema) daily, whether those things were so. - Acts 17:11

The very words of the apostle Paul were received as logos and verified according to the rhema that was already written and they were praised by him for doing so. If we follow any particular human teaching, accepting how they interpret and present logos without verifying in rhema, we are in danger of blindly swallowing whatever error they may be entertaining.

It is also possible to so focus on rhema that logos is all but drowned out in the noise. Most conservative evangelicals that I know are more focused on logos when preaching and then turn to rhema when teaching and this is a good balance. Unfortunately, many of those same are teaching from the pulpit more often than they preach.

Answer 3

OP: Why do evangelicals tend to conflate "word of God" in Heb 4:12 with "text of Scripture", thus with a meaning that ascribes animacy and agency to a bunch of words?

The better question is why do certain religions conflate "word of God" with their Tradition or their Books?

The OP cites supposedly good theology, like the Catechism, as if it were better than the Scriptures handed down. This simply circles back to my question. Why is your Catechism better than or, ok, on par with Scripture?

To answer the OP, the idea that Scripture is being referenced in Heb 4:1, but not at John 1:1, goes back some 2,000 years. They knew false ideas would infiltrate the church.

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. Irenaeus AH Book III Chapter 1, verse 1.

Why was this important? To avoid those boasters.

For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. -ibid-

Justin Martyr had this to say here about Scripture as the word of God.

“And the same sentiment was expressed, my friends, by the word of God [written] by Moses,

Ignatius too understands it like Evangelicals.

Now, as to Philo the deacon, of Cilicia, a man of reputation, who still ministers to me in the word of God

So, Evangelicals do not conflate "word of God" to also mean someone's Interpretation, Tradition, or Book as some would hope, but rather understand the phrase as those first believers understood it; that is, to mean Scripture.

TO ADD: Christ defines the sower's seed as the word of God (Luke 8:11). There are four results. One hears, but the evil one steals it away. Two hears, but it falls on rocky ground. Three hears, but it falls among thorns. Four hears, and produces fruit.

The point is that they all hear the word of God. How has this happened over the last 2,000 years? Preachers preaching Scripture.

Answer 4

Hundreds of years before Jesus was born, and before any of the New Testament writings were begun, God's inspired word said this - through his prophets of old:

"And unto this one I look attentively; unto the humble and bruised of spirit, and who is trembling at My word... Hear the word of Jehovah, ye who are trembling unto His word." Isaiah 66:2 & 5 Y.L.T.

As for speaking words from the scriptures...

"Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name. And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serve him not." Malachi 4:16-18 A.V.

God observes the attitudes of those who are his people; he listens to their words and remembers those who revere him and his words.

While it is true that the eternal Word of God (who left heaven and was known as Jesus of Nazareth), is primarily The Word of God, it is only in the Bible that we get his inspired words. Only in the written pages do we get the gospel of Christ, the gospel of salvation. And we are told that God has chosen "the foolishness of preaching" to reach the lost. His word, and his gospel, are to be spoken out aloud.

There are still 985 languages with no Scripture and no translating work in progress. Currently, 1 in 5 people still do not have access to the Bible in their language, according to Wycliffe Bible Translators in their State of the Bible Report 2024. How desperately one-fifth of the world's population need Christians, who tremble at God's word, to come along and speak the words of scripture to them! How those people need God-fearing preachers to minister in the power of the Spirit by the 'foolishness' of preaching. That's all verbal stuff. But the written word had to come after the incarnate Word, to send the power of salvation into the world. All this was written down and preserved through the centuries, often at the cost of torture and death by those who personally knew the power of the word of God, and knew it had to be proclaimed.

Yes, some have a superstitious, almost mystical approach to the Bible, and that is wrong. But the difference between them, and those who tremble at God's word is like night and day.

Answer 5

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

It is true the word is not merely the words written in scripture but it is the Son of God given to sinners of which all scripture in one way or another was written that you might receive and believe in the Son of God. It is also true that the word on its own, though perfect like silver refined seven times is useless to save without the Spirit opening our eyes the moment we read and think about it, and this is also true when sharing our thoughts with other believers around the word wether in a bible study or bible commentary for the mere ‘letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”. (Corinthians 3:6) and this is true in the days when scripture pointed to Christ before his coming as well for David said, “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law.” (Psalms 119:18) However God’s word is infinitely superior to any other collection of thought for “the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.” (Psalms 12:6)

Why is this so? First it is the only book that will tell you, no matter who you are,that unless you receive Christ you deserve to suffer eternal wrath and shows many convincing proofs of the horrible truth of it. When children go to Sunday school they hear about Noah and the flood and draw animals with crayons and think about how beautiful the rainbow is, but what other book in the world describes an infinite all powerful God who so hates sin, so judges the world in righteousness that we accept it just for him to down all the children, and the young teenagers and all the adults leaving only a handful left?
Can there be a more terrible and frightening God invented by any man or any theologian? Imagine the fear of a man all alone in the woods who encounters a bear charging at him? Now imagine an all powerful being set upon punishing a man into a roaring unquenchable wrath, which the flood merely typified for us to ponder? Imagine the infant in his baby crib when the fire came upon Sodom and Gomorrah with God swearing to Lot he would have saved that city if there were only 10 righteous souls.

Now contrast this universal worst nightmare with a God who so loved those damned souls that he would take up upon his own person human flesh in order to become the biggest sinner of the universe, absorbing all mens sin, though having no sin of his own, in order to grant any who receive him to freely obtain God’s full approving love, abundant joy, peace and eternal life without any work of righteousness whatsoever?! Who would ever in human reason think of something so optimistic and so impossible to imagine except the perfect word of God?! Who even among believers fully preach the severity of God’s justice or the infinity of his grace and love? Yet, as even many believers will raise some useless objections, or some feeling of need to add some clarification, which would take away from this glorious truth, the scripture alone purely argues it on its every page. If we do not have his word, his perfect words, available for the Spirit to manifest the glory of Christ to us, we would all be atheists by now. We would all be damned to hell.

Clearly any objective person with any amount of faith can see why the scripture is needed, for we can’t live without daily inhalation of every word of God by faith in our savior, our rescuer, Jesus the God-Man, Christ.