Surprisingly, the Bible itself at times warned of false prophets – even from Jeruslaem, Israel. While Jesus questioned himself at times; and assumed that God had abandoned him, in the end. While the Catholic Church does not seem to embrace Jesus as much as Protestants so. Then there is the famous Isa. 22.16-25, when the most secure “peg” and rock on which all was hung, itself gives way.

Today the average Christian assumes that Jesus was the foretold Christ, and even “fully” delivered all that the Christ was to deliver. At the same time though, many Christians more or less intuit, that many of the things promised for us are not yet entirely delivered or complete; nowhere on earth is quite as good as the full “kingdom” promised.

For that reason – as a sort of compromise between belief and unbelief? Or overselfconfidence and modesty? – we might say that many believe that Jesus was a representative of God; but that still somehow, something has been lacking. So that yet another, Second coming, will be necesssary before all the old promises are fulfilled.

Which would mean that some rather dramatically new things must happen, before the Bible comes true.

As was clear in Jeremiah as well, there are many who claim to speak for God, who tell us “God said” this or that; but who are speaking falsely. They are “false prophets,” bad priests, etc.. In that situation, how do we know which of the many voices that depict “God”saying this or that, are right? And which are false? Deut. 18.20-22 tells us how. It is not by blind faith.

God no doubt occasionally speaks authoritatively through some figures; but which ones? Deut. of course never mentions Jesus by name, or probably any of the disciples, and we cannot be entirely sure that any reference to a good “prophet” might be. It might even be to Jesus; but then we have the problem of guessing which of the many interpreters of Jesus in turn, were the accurate ones. And which were the false ones.

In any case, the bottom word regarding language,”words” attributed to “God,” is that some of them are authentic … and some of them are not.

Angels in effect, were the messengers that relayed the word of God to us. However, note that in the Bible itself, even angels are not entirely reliable. Angels sometimes rebelled against God; and we are told not to bow down to them.

By the way, our word “evangelical,” is derived from this etymological history; evangelicals present themselves in effect, as messengers or angels from God.

But again, the medium, the messenger, is often not entirely reliable.

I completely agree that the ‘authority’ of Scripture is only and ever the authority of God. I agree with all of what Bloesch says there, with one exception. Since I believe the identity thesis is yet tenable, I would eschew the language of mediation.

God reveals himself in word and deed. I don’t deny that both are found ultimately in Christ (Heb 1), but that doesn’t sully the written Word or make it any less the Word of God. Because God’s words are deeds – that’s the fulcrum for me.

The reference to Deut 18:18, like those found in Jer 1:9 and elsewhere, served to make the point that God does put his words in human words. I take the “prophetic word” Peter mentions (1 Pet 1:19) as the “tesimony of Jesus” (Rev 19:10). But it’s precisely because of this that Peter is willing to say that the prophetic word in the ‘graphes’ is vindicated. However we interpret this, the surety of the written record was emphasized by the earliest community.

Further, Peter says that the “prophetic word” of the Scriptures (and he has Paul’s letters in mind, too; cf. 3:16) serves as a lamp shining in a dark place, instrumental in the “morning star” arising in their hearts. The coterminacy of revelation with reconciliation, especially in Paul’s letters, should help to underscore the “forcefulness” of God’s words in these particular texts.

I’m more inclined towards Vanhoozer’s treatment of Barth and the identity thesis than I am of the arguments I’ve read to date that equate Scripture with a medium (and of course, the notion preceded Barth). Vanhoozer’s treatment is most succinctly laid out in the DTIB article, “The Word of God.”

Any conversation about revelation and Scripture will ultimately tend toward a discussion of “authority.” Consider the following from Bloesch’s Holy Scripture (1994) in which you see the same basic trajectory you note be carried out (which might address Tyler’s worry about trinitarianism?):

“The authority of scripture rests finally not on the inspired record but on God speaking to us through this record. That brings the Bible to life is the personal encounter with Jesus Christ, who is its pivotal center and culmination. Its authority rests not on the scientific verification of its statements but on the forcefulness of its precepts and promises. The key to inspiration is not whether the text is perfect from a human standpoint but whether we hear the Word of God in the text” [...]

The Scriptures were recorded by human beings but inspired by the Spirit of God. In them the Spirit continues to speak to people today and every day. We should not adore Scripture, because Scripture is not in and of itself divine, but we should respect, even reverence, Scripture as the divinely appointed medium by which God chooses to reveal himself to us” (125, 129).

Thoughts?

@Wittman: Doesn’t Deut 18:18 support Bloesch’s point, that God will place His words in the prophet’s mouth? Isn’t there a kind of “movement” from God to the prophet that requires us to understand it as indirect? And, if we understand this coming Prophet to be the messiah, is there not some kind of identity between God’s Word and God’s Word-via-medium, even as the latter is an indirect reflection of the former (cf. Heb 1:3)?

As long as we don’t reduce its declarative content, propositions, to rationalistic statements whose primary importance is precise coherence with reality, then we can appreciate that the many communicative activities of Scripture are given in propositional form. (cf. Vanhoozer, First Theology, 156).

Bloesch’s analogy may be too Christological at the expense of not being Trinitarian enough, though I’d have to read him myself to be confident in such a charge.