Defining ‘Word’ and ‘Word of God’
   1. Rhema
   2. Logos
The creative word of God
   1. NT Scripture passages and their teaching
   2. The NT canon
Appendix 1 - Word of God list
Appendix 2 - Rhema list
Appendix 3 - Logos list
Appendix 4 - Scripture list

Many christians have noted that Jesus uses Scripture to confute and confound the assertions and suggestions of satan in the wilderness (Mtw 4:1-11) but have then gone on to think that Scripture must, in and of itself, contain some sort of power that causes things to be done.

This is partly because, through our traditional belief structures, we’ve equated the phrase the ‘word of God’ with ‘Scripture’ not realising that this equation is extremely tenuous and that, even if a passage or verse can be shown to make this relationship certain, it’s in the minority against the testimony of both Old and New Testaments which speak of the ‘word of God’ as being something that God is currently speaking to individuals or groups of people who are then in a position to accurately know what’s on the heart and in the mind of God.

Some of the people to whom the word of God came wrote these words down - others simply received them, believed them and then acted upon them - and the Bible is littered with records of those things which God said to His people at specific times in their lives and for specific purposes.

But that’s a long way from saying either that what has now been written down must be equated with the ‘word of God’ or that it carries with it the same power which was upon those original words. True, the recorded words of God have specific authority in situations when we come back to them and consider their message to us many years distant from their original utterance, but the power that anoints the words is entirely dependent upon God Himself breathing life into them again, so ‘speaking through them’ to another people and another time.

When we read in the OT, for instance, of the ‘word of God’ coming to someone (I Kings 12:22 - though the OT phrase is normally the ‘word of YHWH’), we would seldom dare to suggest that someone had just gathered up a scroll upon which was written some part of the Bible and then gone and handed it to the prophet - but this is the conclusion we should draw from such passages if we assert and use the terminology of the equation

word of God = the Bible

The NT is careful to normally refer to authoritative writings as ‘Scripture’ (Strongs Greek numbers 1121 and 1124 - Mtw 21:42, Mark 12:10-11, 15:28, Luke 4:18-21, John 7:38, 10:35, 13:18, 19:24, 19:28-30, 19:36, 19:37, Acts 1:16/20, 8:32-33/35, Rom 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2-4, Gal 3:8, 4:30, I Tim 5:18, James 2:8, 2:23, 4:5, I Peter 2:6) the citations in the brackets referring back to an OT reference and showing that this body of literature was regarded as being authoritative.

Many years ago, I once went through the entire NT and looked at each and every occurrence of the phrase ‘word of God’ wherever it occurred. Just recently, I’ve gone back and done a more extensive study of this phrase and the individual word ‘word’ to clarify once more whether what I saw back then was correct (the study is reproduced below).

The reader may want to take the allocation of these references cited as ‘gospel’ but I would strongly urge you to do your own study and to make sure whether what I’m asserting here is correct.

What it made me realise was this - if in the majority of occasions where ‘word’ or ‘words’ is used it refers to what is spoken, the probability of the other occurrences having to refer to what was written was extremely unlikely.

From that moment on, I decided that I would always try to say ‘word of God’ when I was referring to what God is actually saying or what He was actually saying at some time in the past and ‘Scripture’ when I was referring to a body of literature that’s accepted as being authoritative. This is what I’ve tried to maintain throughout all the pages on this web site (though I may have lapsed back into the more traditional phraseology on a couple of occasions, unbeknown to me).

In one sense, it’s quite wrong of me to do this as there’s at least one ‘cut and dried’ occasion where the phrase ‘word of God’ is obviously a reference to what’s written, but most christians today take the ‘Bible’ to be the ‘word of God’ without thinking about what that means and so go on to lose the realisation of what the ‘word of God’ really is (for a definition, see my notes below which have been taken from here Part 1 section 3).

Scripture, then, is rightly applied to that which is written and which carries with it absolute authority in deciding matters where doubt is raised over the correct belief or action - it may even contain the word of God (as defined below - not as defined by our tradition) but it only becomes the word of God when God breathes upon it and gives it life. Usually, believers accept the normal compilation of ancient writings called the Bible and this is, in my opinion, quite correct to do - even though such a belief starts life as something that’s subjective.

The word of God is what God is saying to an individual or group of people at a specific moment in time and may contain Scripture - but it may not have any direct quotation of Scripture in it. It cannot, however, contradict what Scripture says because the latter has authority to determine whether what’s being spoken can be what God is saying at that moment in time.

The word of God must have the life of God upon it and will be empowered by the Spirit of God - and it accomplishes all that God intends through its revealing primarily because the provision of God is upon it and is available to all who hear and positively respond to it.

Defining ‘Word’ and ‘Word of God’

Many years ago, when I first became a believer, there was a theory going round the churches about the ‘rhema’ word of God and depending on who you listened to depended on what version of the teaching you got.

The speaker I heard taught that there were two Greek words used in the NT which stood as the basis of the translation ‘word’ (I soon realised that there are more than two words but that these two words are used in the majority of translations) - the transliterated words ‘logos’ (Strongs Greek number 3056) and ‘rhema’ (Strongs Greek number 4487) - and that the latter always meant the anointed and living word of God that broke burdens and brought life into situations, whereas the former meant something which was truth but which didn’t have the life of God upon it (I’ve since found out that this wasn’t standard ‘rhema’ teaching so it just goes to show how one preacher might take something they’ve heard, develop it and change it into something inaccurate and misleading!).

Not being one to take a person’s word at face value when too much depended on it, I resorted to a concordance and began looking up each and every occurrence of the two words to see if such a theory was accurate and, more to the point, what that would mean for some of the Scriptures that I’d previously read and which might have been given the wrong interpretation by myself.

So, I did the studying and realised very quickly that the theory was wrong. Totally wrong, in fact - let this be a lesson to each and every one of us to always check out the speaker’s words when you get home by recourse to the full testimony of Scripture rather than to the bits that are presented to us!

However, what I did begin to see was that, when I came to the phrase ‘the Word of God’ in Scripture, it rarely referred to that which was written and normally referred to that which was being spoken. This was quite a challenge to me because all I’d ever heard the Church refer to as the ‘Word of God’ was the Bible - but, if my reading was correct, this was a very strange and unusual way of referring to that which was written.

Although I’d be quite happy to rely upon that ‘old’ study, I’ve recently gone through each and every occurrence of the phrase ‘word of God’ once more - in both the RSV and AV - though I’ve been careful to look at the occurrences in the AV when they don’t occur in the RSV to make sure that the phrase is accepted as being part of the older manuscript tradition. This has meant the removal of three passages from the combined list (Luke 4:4, Acts 19:20, Rom 10:17) and the addition of two verses where the RSV has translated the phrase as ‘God’s word’ so that the search doesn’t pick the phrase up (II Cor 2:17, 4:2).

I’ve been extremely strict with myself in going through these Scriptures once more for, even though I should have rightly inferred that some of these Scriptures can’t refer to that which is written, unless it’s obvious from the immediate context that what’s being referred to is what’s being spoken, I’ve consigned the reference to the ‘indeterminable’ list. One such example I’ll give is Rev 6:9 which reads that

‘When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne’

where it’s logically impossible for the writer to be equating ‘word of God’ with what’s written. Rather, the message of the Gospel which was preached must be referred to and I should have consigned this to the ‘spoken’ list. Nevertheless, some might still imagine that the Bible could have been in mind even though it wasn’t in existence at the time of writing - so I’ve refrained from being too logical.

When the verse has spoken about God creating the world by the word of God, I have, however, opted to accept it as evidence that what’s being spoken is what’s meant - I couldn’t imagine anyone being so crass as to take such a statement as referring to that which was written when man hadn’t come into existence at that time and the testimony of Genesis chapter 1 shows that God spoke the world into existence.

The reader should also note that the phrase the ‘word of God’ was very often taken to refer to the ‘message of the Gospel’ by the early Church and that, by inference, that had to mean a proclamation verbally. Indeed, if there’s a majority view for the content of the ‘word of God’ in the NT, it’s that it refers to the message of salvation that announces Jesus Christ to be everything necessary for peace with God.

As can be seen by the list below, the majority of places where the context can be clearly determined show us that the phrase is referring to that which was or is being spoken and not to that which is being written. In this case, then, the other 21 occurrences of the phrase are more likely to take on the meaning of that which is being spoken than that which has been written.

References to that which was spoken
19 times
Luke 3:2, 5:1, 8:11, 8:21, 11:28
Acts 4:31, 6:2, 13:5, 13:7, 13:44, 13:46, 17:13
II Cor 2:17, 4:2, Phil 1:14, I Thess 2:13
Heb 11:3, 13:7, II Peter 3:5

References to that which was written
2 times
Mtw 15:6, Mark 7:13 (parallel passages), John 10:35
It should be noticed here that, out of all the NT occurrences of the phrase ‘word of God’, it’s only on the lips of Jesus that we get the equation that
word of God = that which is written
Indeed, in this case, what’s being referred to is the OT and not the NT writings.
The last of these three verses may not refer to the written word because Jesus speaks about the word of God ‘coming’ to someone even though it was subsequently written down and has formed part of the OT. It really should be excluded from this division but I’ve left it here and given it the benefit of the doubt in my own mind - the first two Scriptures, however, are conclusively referring to that which has been written.
I write ‘conclusively’ but the first of these uses neither of the normal words for ‘word’ (either ‘rhema’ or ‘logos’ - see below) but another quite distinct one which is better rendered ‘commandments’. As I’ve suggested below, this is certainly a place where the early Church may have got the equation
word of God = Scripture
but it would appear that what was meant was the commandments of God and that Mark used the more generic word, whereas Matthew was careful not to equate what the Jews had as their Law with the ‘word of God’ that was being proclaimed throughout the earth. It would seem strange that the second writer would do this unless there was at least something in his own mind which meant that the above equation was possible.

Indeterminable references
21 times
Acts 6:7, 8:14, 11:1, 12:24, 13:48, 18:11
Rom 9:6, I Cor 14:36, Eph 6:17, Col 1:25, I Tim 4:5, II Tim 2:9, Titus 2:5
Heb 4:12, 5:12, I Peter 1:23, I John 2:14, Rev 1:2, 1:9, 6:9, 20:4

References to other concepts in the word
1 time
Rev 19:13

We must realise, therefore, that we’re incorrect to think of this phrase, ‘word of God’, as meaning ‘Scripture’ if we want to bring our own beliefs in line with it. So, when we come to statements such as Eph 6:17 which speaks about

‘...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God’

and Heb 4:12 which describes the word of God as

‘ and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart’

we have to realise that it’s more likely that the early Church understood the phrase as referring to the proclamation of the Gospel rather than, as we do, the reading of Scripture.

But has the additional phrase ‘of God’ served to obliterate the real implication of the ‘stand alone’ concept of ‘word’? While we’ve shown above that the phrase ‘word of God’ refers predominantly to that which is being spoken in contrast to our present day use of the phrase, could today’s Church have inadvertently expanded the simple use of ‘word’ into ‘word of God’ because the testimony of the NT Scriptures was such that the writers referred to that which was written as the ‘word’?

There are two main words employed that are translated ‘word’ as I noted above and it’s to these which we must now direct our attention to answer the question.

1. Rhema
Strongs Greek number 4487
see Appendix 2 for all the NT occurrences of the word

There needs to be very little said by way of an introduction to the list below for ‘rhema’ is nearly always used to convey the concept of the ‘word’ and, as you can see, there are no places in the NT text where it can clearly and unambiguously mean that which was written.

This is in contrast to the following word ‘logos’ which took on different meanings in its use.

The list of verses under the ‘indeterminable’ header may actually not be a choice between that which is written or spoken as they seem to hold the possibility that they could refer to more than these two interpretations but, if the general meaning is accepted as being that which is spoken, there seems to be only the one logical way that they could be taken.

And we should note carefully Eph 6:17 which has usually been taken as a reference to Scripture. If the reference is, rather, to what God is saying, then it throws a totally different interpretation upon the passage and one that we are in desperate need of comprehending more accurately.

References to that which was spoken
56 times
Mtw 4:4, 5:11, 12:36, 18:16, 26:75, 27:14
Mark 9:32, 14:72
Luke 1:38, 1:65, 2:17, 2:29, 2:50, 2:51, 3:2, 5:5, 7:1, 9:45, 18:34, 20:26, 24:8, 24:11
John 3:34, 5:47, 6:63, 6:68, 8:20, 8:47, 10:21, 12:47, 12:48, 14:10, 15:7
Acts 2:14, 5:20, 6:11, 6:13, 10:22, 10:37, 10:44, 11:14, 11:16, 13:42, 16:38, 26:25, 28:25
Rom 10:8, 10:17, 10:18, II Cor 12:4, 13:1
Heb 11:3, 12:19, I Peter 1:25, II Peter 3:2, Jude 17

References to that which was written
0 times

Indeterminable references
8 times
Luke 1:37, 4:4, John 17:8, Eph 5:26, 6:17, Heb 1:3, 6:5, Rev 17:17

References to other concepts in the word
3 times
Luke 2:15, 2:19, Acts 5:32

2. Logos
Strongs Greek number 3056
see Appendix 3 for a list of all the NT occurrences of the word

The transliterated Greek word ‘logos’ occurs in a great variety of translations in the AV so I originally decided to use only those occurrences of the word that are translated either ‘word’ or ‘words’. While this may have limited the extent of the study, it seemed necessary and would have - because the amount of Scriptures being assessed is so large - probably not have given rise to wrong conclusions.

If anything, it would have weighed in favour of the

word = what is written

theory for the AV translates the word with ‘saying’ on 50 separate occasions and with ‘speech’ on 8 occasions out of a total of 330 occurrences in the NT text. In the end, I decided to go through every occurrence of the word to be as fair as I could.

I’ve taken double or triple occurrences in one verse as single uses as the word is coloured the same in each of the occurrences. I should have taken some of these to be defined as the context of previous or subsequent verses dictate but this would have only increased the amount of those assigned to the first list.

There’s a great many places - especially in the Book of Acts - where the writer notes that they ‘preached the word’. In today’s phraseology, this would mean nothing much else than a speaker opening the Bible and expounding either a verse or passage to a listening congregation. It could well be misconstrued as a statement, therefore, that what was being announced in the first century was an exposition of a Scripture that was being read out from a scroll.

But such an interpretation isn’t possible when the practice of the Church is read carefully. It’s plain that such a statement means that they announced publicly the message of the Gospel and never do we read of the mention of a written record that’s read out either as the totality of the ‘preaching’ or as a verse from which the speaker starts by saying

‘I want to explain to you this verse tonight as we gather round the Bible [word of God]’

I’ve taken the phrase, therefore, to mean the public pronouncement of the Gospel message and, therefore, something which was delivered to the hearers independently of the recourse to a written record - even though a written source may be quoted (and even a pagan source, at that - for example, Acts 17:28. Here’s an interesting question for those who believe that the ‘word of God’ is a phrase used with which to label the ‘Bible’. Do these two quotations from the Greek writers become the ‘word of God’ because they appear in the Bible? Or were they the ‘word of God’ before they were quoted? When one realises that the early Church would have regarded the entire message as the ‘word of God’ - as we’re showing on this web page - we can see that the ‘word of God’ goes beyond the limits of the Biblical record).

References to that which was spoken
195 times
Mtw 5:36, 7:24, 7:26, 7:28, 8:8, 8:16, 10:14, 12:32, 12:37, 13:19, 13:20, 13:22, 13:23, 15:12, 15:23, 19:1, 19:11, 19:22, 21:24, 22:15, 22:46, 24:35, 26:1, 28:15
Mark 2:2, 4:15, 4:16, 4:18, 4:20, 4:33, 5:36, 7:29, 8:32, 8:38, 9:10, 10:22, 10:24, 11:29, 12:13, 13:31, 14:39, 16:20
Luke 1:20, 1:29, 4:22, 4:32, 4:36, 5:1, 6:47, 7:7, 7:17, 8:13, 8:15, 8:21, 9:26, 9:28, 9:44, 10:39, 11:28, 12:10, 20:20, 21:33, 22:61, 23:9, 24:17, 24:19, 24:44
John 2:22, 4:37, 4:39, 4:41, 4:50, 5:24, 6:60, 7:36, 7:40, 8:31, 8:37, 8:43, 8:51, 8:52, 8:55, 10:19, 12:38, 12:48, 14:23, 14:24, 15:3, 15:20, 17:6, 17:14, 17:20, 18:9, 18:32, 19:8, 19:13, 21:23
Acts 2:22, 2:40, 2:41, 4:4, 4:29, 4:31, 5:5, 5:24, 6:5, 7:22, 7:29, 8:4, 8:25, 10:36, 10:44, 11:19, 13:5, 13:7, 13:15, 13:44, 13:46, 13:49, 14:3, 14:12, 14:25, 15:7, 15:24, 15:27, 15:32, 15:35, 15:36, 16:6, 16:32, 16:36, 17:13, 19:10, 20:7, 20:35, 20:38, 22:22
Rom 3:4, 15:18, I Cor 1:5, 1:17, 2:1, 2:4, 2:13, 12:8, 14:9, 14:19, II Cor 1:18, 2:17, 4:2, 8:7, 10:10, 11:6, Eph 1:13, 4:29, 5:6, 6:19, Phil 1:14, Col 1:5, 3:17, 4:3, 4:6, I Thess 1:5, 2:5, 2:13, II Thess 2:2, 2:15, I Tim 4:12, 6:3, II Tim 1:13, 2:17, 4:2, 4:15, Titus 1:3, 2:8
Heb 2:2, 4:2, 5:11, 7:28, 12:19, 13:7, James 1:22, 1:23, 3:2, I Peter 3:1, II Peter 2:3, 3:5, 3:7, I John 2:7, 3:18, III John 10, Rev 12:11, 19:9, 21:5, 22:6

References to that which was written
25 times
Mark 7:13 (Mtw 15:6 which is parallel to this and which we included under the list above of the occurrences of the phrase ‘word of God’ actually uses a word which is better rendered ‘commandments’. It may be, therefore, that Mark’s use here is unwarranted in conveying what he meant to show Jesus was talking about. Even so, it does stand as a place where the early Church could have got the equation word of God = Scripture and must be included)
John 10:35 (see the explanation earlier where I’ve noted the alternative viewpoint of this Scripture. We cannot be certain that this verse is referring to that which was written but appears to be more a description of a prophetic utterance that God brought to an individual and that, only subsequently, was it written down), 15:15, 18:15
Rom 13:9, I Cor 15:54, II Cor 10:11, Gal 5:14, I Thess 4:15 (it could be significant here that Paul ‘says’ to his recipients something which is written. Unless specifically referring to that which has been spoken, the word ‘say’ could be employed to refer to words on a sheet of parchment that are a personal message to the recipient - but, having said that, this is also modern day usage and the phrase ‘word of God’ is never used this way), 4:18, II Thess 3:14, I Tim 1:15, 3:1, 4:6, 4:9, II Tim 2:11, 2:15, Titus 3:8
Heb 13:22, Rev 1:3, 22:7, 22:9, 22:10, 22:18, 22:19

References to Jesus
5 times
John 1:1, 1:14, I John 1:1, 5:7, Rev 19:13

Indeterminable references
58 times
Mtw 13:21, Mark 4:14, 4:17, 4:19, Luke 1:2, 1:20, 3:4 (it’s impossible to determine whether ‘words’ refers to what the prophet spoke and which were subsequently written down or to what he wrote deliberately to be recorded before he spoke them), 8:11, John 5:38, 17:17
Acts 6:2, 6:4, 6:7, 8:14, 11:1, 12:24, 13:26, 13:48, 15:15 (see on Luke 3:4), 17:11, 18:11
Rom 9:6, 9:9, I Cor 1:18, 4:19, 4:20, 14:36, II Cor 5:19, 6:7, Gal 6:6, Phil 2:16, Col 1:25, 3:16, I Thess 1:6, 1:8, II Thess 2:17, 3:1, I Tim 4:5, 5:17, II Tim 2:9, Titus 1:9, 2:5
Heb 4:12, 5:13, 6:1, James 1:18, 1:21, I Peter 1:23, 2:8, II Peter 1:19, I John 1:10, 2:14, Rev 1:2, 1:9, 3:8, 3:10, 6:9, 20:4

References to other concepts in the word
32 times
Mtw 5:32, 12:36, 18:23, 25:19, Mark 1:45, Luke 1:4, 5:15, 8:12, 16:2, 20:3
Acts 8:21, 10:29, 11:22, 15:6, 18:14, 19:20, 19:38, 19:40, 20:2, 20:24, 20:32
Rom 9:28, 14:12, I Cor 15:2, Phil 4:15, 4:17, Col 2:23
Heb 4:13, 13:17, I Peter 3:15, 4:5, I John 2:5

So far, we’ve determined that both the single word ‘word’ and the phrase ‘word of God’ or ‘God’s word’ refer in the majority of cases not to that which has been written but to that which has been spoken. It’s necessary, therefore, for us to go on from here to determine what definition we should employ when encountering them.

After all, if the equation

word of God = Scripture

is now incorrect to apply everywhere in the NT, we need to put ourselves right by understanding what both the OT and NT writers seemed to be conveying by the phrase.

I’ve already mentioned above that, when the proclamation of the ‘word of God’ is being mentioned in the NT, the Gospel message being spoken to men and women is what’s primarily in view. But we need to go one step beyond this and ask ourselves whether we might be able to break down the phrase into elements that would explain the concept for us for, as we should realise, when we go out and proclaim the message of the Gospel in the present day, we seem to find that there’s a total different reaction amongst people than occurred in the early Church - that is, the dead aren’t very often raised and the sick healed as an accompaniment and as a confirmation of the message that’s being announced (Mark 16:20).

The creative word of God

When God wants to create, make or accomplish actions, He speaks. Gen 1:3 (see also Gen 1:6-7,9,11,14-16,20-21,24,26-27, Heb 11:3a) notes that

‘...God said...and there was...’

Notice also that, throughout Scripture, God speaks a word that accomplishes all that He desires (Is 55:11). When Jesus wants to create, make or accomplish actions, He speaks. Mtw 8:3 records the command from His lips

‘Be clean...and immediately his leprosy was cleansed’

where we should be careful to notice the use of the word ‘immediately’ - this healing didn’t evolve or come about through a series of events which stretched off into the distance (see also Mtw 8:13, Mark 4:39, 7:34-35).

When believers want to create, make or accomplish actions, they also speak. Believers in the early Church are recorded in Acts 3:6-7 (see also Acts 9:34, 9:40, 14:10) as saying

‘ the name of Jesus...walk...immediately his feet and ankles were made strong...’

The use of the ‘word’ is slightly different in each case - believers aren’t summoning from within themselves some authority that’s naturally resident but using authority that has been granted them by the God they serve (Luke 9:1, 10:19) and God’s power is present in each and every occasion to bring about the authority that’s being asserted.

I’ve made a differentiation between authority and power at this point because it will become apparent later that they need to be correctly applied. ‘Authority’ is that pronouncement that’s an expression of the will of the highest ruling person or group of people. So, therefore, a policeman has authority to stand in the middle of a busy road and command a car to stop because the will of those over him have given him that right.

But, whether he has the power to make the car stop is another matter entirely. If the driver of the car respects his authority, they’ll come to a halt but, if they reject the decisions of the government, the policeman will be forced to get ‘power’ to make the car stop, by calling for greater numbers which will overcome the driver’s reticence.

This, very simply, is the difference between power and authority. Each of us can announce that Jesus has been placed at the right hand of God and is ruling over the universe but, when we want to see that effect situations around us, we need to be able to use God’s power to establish the authority of the King.

A Scripture of interest here - even though it doesn’t teach us about the difference between power and authority - is Is 11:2 where one of the twin descriptions of the Spirit of YHWH is that of

‘...counsel and might...’

where one can see that it isn’t sufficient that a man knows what’s right to do (the counsel) because, without the energising power, all that desires to be done cannot be effectively achieved or established. So words, in and of themselves, are of no lasting worth unless they have the power of God resting upon them to accomplish all that God intends.

But, returning to the opening verses, fundamentally it’s the same type of word (the Creative word of God) which is being used on each of the occasions - the word that was spoken at the beginning of the universe to bring into existence all things that now appear around us.

What, then, is this ‘creative word’?

Concerning the concept of what ‘word’ signifies in Scripture, Zondervan records that

‘From the very first, the Hebrew “word” seems to have had both a noetic element (the thought) and also a dynamic element (the power)’

These twin concepts of thought and power must both be present for there to be a creative word. That is to say, though the Bible can be considered to be noetic (expressing the thoughts of God), it only becomes the living, creative word of God when it has a dynamic element breathed upon it (the breath of God, which is the Holy Spirit).

There have been many denominations who’ve placed greater reliance upon either the one or the other of these twin concepts, becoming unbalanced after a period of time and either ‘blowing up’ (as in the case of those who rely almost solely upon the dynamic - those who practice excessive freedom) or ‘stagnating’ (as in the case of those who rely upon the noetic - those who practice legalism).

Certainly, over recent years, the move away from a noetic based religion to a more dynamic and life-giving one has been necessary - but, instead of arriving at a place where both noetic and dynamic aspects are found working alongside one another, the noetic has too often been forsaken and congregations have sold themselves over to seeking after the dynamic at their own peril with little reliance (in practice) upon the authority of Scripture.

When phenomena manifest themselves within meetings, they’re largely accepted as being ‘from God’ without criteria being present with which to judge and test them.

These fellowships, although gaining attendees and adherents at rates only paralleled and exceeded in revivals, spring into error far too quickly and often disappear as quickly as they appear . These are also the types of churches that attract the attentions of the media with their extremely outward and forthright witness to the manifestations of the Spirit that are occurring within their ranks - but they’re also the ones who are more susceptible to scandal and corruption, there being no responsibility to live moral and upright lives in accordance with Scripture.

On the other hand, some churches have consigned the Bible to a higher place than God ever intended it to have by continually affirming that when the Bible refers to the ‘word of God’ it’s primarily referring to Scripture.

This is far from the truth, however, as we’ve previously seen.

Scripture is most definitely infallible (II Timothy 3:16-17, John 10:35) - and therefore carries with it authority - but it’s not creative unless the noetic element (the thought behind the writing) has a dynamic element (the power) breathed upon it by the Holy Spirit.

Scripture, though rightly used to decide upon theological issues in local churches and to offer reproof and correction when doctrines are brought in to fellowships that do not originate with God, is not inherently creative but solely noetic. It expresses thoughts and concepts but needs the dynamic breath of God to breathe upon it to impart life to both its readers and hearers.

A congregation that elevates the Bible into such a high place where it becomes known as the ‘word of God’ and devoid of an understanding of the creative word, will be a congregation that tends towards legalism and death. Thinking that they’re pleasing to God by the observance of a written code - whether that be Scripture written in the New or Old Testaments or traditions compiled and written by men which may or may not be drawn from it - they’re only living under a type of the Mosaic covenant where individuals strive to please God on the basis of works rather than with faith (belief in and action upon the living word of God - see ‘Faith’).

But God’s creative word at the beginning of the world was both noetic and dynamic. He expressed thought, His intent (‘Let there be a firmament’), and the power with the authority brought His purpose about (‘And it was so’).

In like manner, the Church has a calling to use the creative word of God to speak into situations and see them change because of the dynamic element that’s upon their words.

But we can only use God’s word when we hear God’s word. It doesn’t come by reading but by hearing (or, hearing by reading). It’s this creative word that God desires His people use to change situations in a moment, to create something out of nothing, bring healing where there’s no possibility of it occurring and, simply, to do all those things that Jesus Himself does.

Strongs Greek number 1124
see Appendix 4 for all the NT occurrences of the word

If we’ve now satisfied ourselves that the equation

word of God = Scripture/Bible

is a minority view and that the better equation sees

word of God = that which is being or was spoken

then we need to move on to determine what it is that the NT says about the subject of ‘Scripture’. The Greek word (Strongs Greek number 1124) from which we get our translation is used 51 times in the AV though a couple of these appear to be in verses which are generally accepted today as being duplicated from other parts in the NT. Nevertheless, the RSV also seems to record the Greek word as occurring 51 times - but don’t ask me how cos I’ve gone through a comparison of both the AV and RSV and still can’t figure out how it worked out that way!

There are many more references to the OT writings than can be seen simply by taking the word for ‘Scripture’ but it will serve us as a good preliminary study to limit ourselves to these and their context to come to some understanding of how the concept of ‘Scripture’ relates into the previously discussed concept of the ‘word of God’.

1. NT Scripture passages and their teaching

The NT is careful to normally refer to authoritative writings as ‘Scripture’ and, even though the word ‘authoritative’ is never used, the fact that they’re employed to substantiate what was happening in their own day or those things which had happened in their report of events shows us that they were looked to for an explanation and as a prophetic foreshadowing.

The NT makes a very big deal of what we now regard as the OT Scriptures as being authoritative whether by quoting them directly or by an appeal to their general message (Mtw 21:42, Mark 12:10, John 2:22, John 7:38, 10:35, 13:18, Rom 1:2, 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, I Cor 15:3, 15:4, Gal 3:8, 3:22, 4:30, I Tim 5:18, James 2:8, 2:23, 4:5, I Peter 2:6 - some of these are direct quotations of OT Scriptures while others are more general references to ‘the prophets’ or the like. There are, of course, a great many other places where it simply says ‘it is written’ or something similar, showing the writing’s authority but I’ve not included them in the list) and seeing that what had been written in former times as being fulfilled in those things which they were now experiencing (Mtw 26:54, 26:56, Mark 14:49, Luke 24:27, John 17:12, 19:28, 20:9 - all of which where no Scripture is being quoted, Luke 4:21, John 13:18, 19:24, 19:36, 19:37, Acts 1:16, James 2:23 - all of which where Scripture is being quoted which is sometimes a little bit away from the verse cited).

Even more important to the early Church was that those things which they knew about Jesus were borne witness to by those things which had already been written down - even though to us in the present day, some of their citations and quotations make us go back to the originals and wonder how they managed ever to see in them a direct reference to that which was to come (Mark 12:10, John 5:39, John 7:42, Acts 8:32-35, Acts 17:2, 17:11, 18:28, I Cor 15:3, 15:4, I Peter 2:6).

It stood as a foundation of the early Church, however, that Scripture couldn’t be either broken or refuted (John 10:35) but, at the time of the writing of this Gospel, it’s possible to understand that the men and women who first received the work saw the concept of ‘Scripture’ to go far beyond what we now regard as the OT canon and to be attributable to many of the NT works which would already have been circulating throughout the Church.

Even earlier than the writing of John’s Gospel (if the traditional dates are accepted) is the statement of Peter (II Peter 3:16 - my italics) that

‘...There are some things in [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures

What we should realise here is that Paul’s letters are raised to the level of ‘Scripture’ by Peter’s statements and that, if we were to try and define what that descriptor meant to the original writer, we may not be too far wrong in thinking that works such as our present day Gospels were included in that body of literature being referred to. As a colleague of mine also pointed out, II Tim 3:14-15 is normally taken as a reference to the OT but certain phrases such as

‘...which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus’

might be better taken as a reference to an early copy of the Gospels because the apostle speaks of them as being directly able to be used rather than as something which can be used to see the shadow and to realise the reality who’s now come. Rom 16:25-26 also has a hint that the ‘prophetic Scriptures’ that are being referred to are those which had only recently been written and were being used to announce the work of the Messiah, but the passage is worthy of more than one interpretation and may simply be a way of speaking about the OT foreshadowing, the reality of which was being proclaimed side by side with their reading.

Whether these are accurate interpretations or not are impossible to determine but II Tim 3:16-17 which follows one of the above passages (see also Rom 15:4) is more relevant for our current discussion. Paul there writes that

‘All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work’

We’ll leave a discussion of what must be meant by ‘all Scripture’ until later but we should note here that Scripture has the function of being able to be used in many ways that the one who’s following God might find himself totally equipped and ready for everything that comes to him. It serves a positive and negative use for it both trains the believer and corrects him.

It’s even used by the Jews of Thessalonica (where the OT is meant) to make sure that what was being brought to them by Paul was in accordance with them (Acts 17:11) that they might not be deceived by the words which seemed to be ‘too good to be true’.

In the words of the previous section, we should also consider Scripture to have inherent authority - as the quotations and citations as justification for what was being experienced show us that they were being employed for in the early Church - but we must be careful assigning inherent power to them.

That is, the Scriptures (whatever we finally decide that word means) are fundamentally noetic until breathed upon by the HS, the dynamic. Otherwise, as soon as anyone took even a verse of Scripture and used it in their situation, the power of God would automatically be released and change the situation each and every time. For example, if the Bible has inherent power, we could extract the words

‘Be healed of your disease’

from Mark 5:34 and go around pronouncing it over each and every person that we encountered who was ill and we would see a total and unqualified success. But that would only happen if Scripture had inherent power - rather, it has inherent authority in order that the follower of Christ might be both built up and shown what’s incorrect - power is needed to enforce the authority of the Throne and it’s this that isn’t naturally resident within black or red words on white paper.

In Mtw 22:29 (Pp Mark 12:24), Jesus answered the Sadducees’ question regarding the resurrection (which they didn’t believe in) by announcing that they were wrong, because (my italics)

‘ know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God

That is, the power of God was something which was clearly different from the concept of what the Scriptures were. Instead of Jesus being able simply to say to them that they didn’t know the Scriptures and for it to be taken as a condemnation that they didn’t know the power behind them, He has to speak specifically concerning God’s power because it was distinct from the sacred writings. The Sadducees, then, neither perceived what the Scriptures were saying, nor realised the power of God which was able to bring about the resurrection from the grave.

That the interpretation of Scripture isn’t always obvious is also plain from a few other Scriptures in the NT. When the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading the scroll of Isaiah the prophet (Acts 8:30-35), he was unable to understand it because he wasn’t certain about whom the Scripture had been written. It took Philip to explain to him the application so that he could come to a realisation of the fulfilment in Christ.

However, even a man’s explanation may not be totally sufficient for someone to grasp what the Scriptures mean. Jesus is spoken of plainly as ‘opening’ the Scriptures to the two travellers who were journeying towards Emmaus (Luke 24:32). This may, initially, be taken to mean no more than that he provided an interpretation to the OT verses and passages (Luke 24:27) but, when He appeared to the group as they assembled in Jerusalem later (Luke 24:45) it says not that Jesus simply pointed them to the verses which were particularly relevant to Him but that (my italics)

‘...He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures’

where something spiritual or supernatural is clearly being recorded as having taken place. This is also what the apostle Peter writes in II Peter 1:20-21. He observes that

‘ prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’

He’s saying that the interpretation placed upon Scripture - or, perhaps better, that a pronouncement concerning the hidden meaning and interpretation of Scripture which stands itself as some sort of prophetic utterance - isn’t a matter of a man’s own interpretation and manipulation. The reason being that the original prophetic writings came about as the men and women were moved upon by God, the implication being that it’s only the Holy Spirit who can reinterpret them to show the reader what was meant by them.

Again, as we saw above, the idea is that the power of God, the Holy Spirit, must come upon the Scriptures in order that they might be understood correctly, this implying that He isn’t upon the words until He chooses to be.

We’ve already been using the phrase ‘Scripture’ above without trying to define what we should accept as having that label. In the present day Church, ‘Scripture’ means the Bible (and, as we’ve already noted, it’s also equated misleadingly with the ‘word of God’). But the question still remains as to how we might determine what writings are ‘Scripture’ and which aren’t - and whether we can be totally objective in our discussion of the matter.

2. The NT canon

In this section, I’m using the term ‘canon’ to refer either to the compilation of books which are considered to be authoritative or, if the context indicates otherwise, those books which have been brought together in the modern day in one place which we call the Bible (this latter interpretation seems warranted because many scholars talk about the OT or NT canon but they also, by their own writings, show that they don’t consider them to be authoritative).

We might have begun by asking the valid question as to why the books of the OT canon can be considered as authoritative for, if one is purely objective in this, it’s a necessary point from which to start. Perhaps, even, we should ask whether any work from the hand of man could ever be considered to be authoritative in the affairs of men and women - especially when humanism has undermined the status of absolute truth and insisted on relative truth which can be accepted by one but which is rejected by another.

But I’ve shown above that the writers of the NT accepted the authority of the OT as fundamental to their own belief system and that, when they needed to see what Jesus Christ was to be like, what He was to do and what they should be experiencing, they had no problem to point to a verse here and there in support or refutation of what they were trying to assess.

It seems, then, that authoritative writings are important and that believers didn’t find it necessary to explain why that should be or how they came to that conclusion. Perhaps more should be made of the fact that the Book of Esther is never quoted directly (but see my notes here where I’ve shown that it’s only a verse in Esther that can adequately explain the phrase ‘the riches of His glory’ in Col 1:27) and that it seems to have been rejected by many in Judaism as being worth including in the canon. That believers have now accepted it into their own Bibles might also be worthy of a detailed investigation but, in this short article, all that can be said is that it did, for whatever reason, finally come to be accepted as authoritative (though I’ve never yet heard anyone quote it in the defence of the Gospel or in its proclamation).

So, what concerns us here is to try and determine why the NT canon is what it is without going in to great detail with individual books. The first thing that needs to be said is that much of what follows is purely subjective for, how can we objectively determine that which is infallible when we’re men and women who are obviously fallible? Nevertheless, there needs to be some guiding rule so that believers can see what’s both right and wrong and so realise whether what they’re both experiencing and living is what one would expect as a follower of God.

From purely subjective considerations, therefore, the Bible needs to be accepted as infallible or else we must allow freedom of expression to each and every person who takes the name of Jesus upon themselves without recourse to anything that we might feel is against what we would think is God’s character.

In Zondervan’s very informative article on the NT canon, they list numerous reasons why the earliest writings of the Church came to be leaned upon as authoritative, ranging from the edification of the believer to the refutation of false doctrine, but none of these give us a clear indication of how it’s possible that those books in our NT could have come to have been regarded as reliable witnesses to the Gospel message.

That the NT canon was eventually established and fixed by later ‘councils’ of the Church shouldn’t make us think that it wasn’t until only very late that the authority of certain writings was accepted - and then by men who weren’t necessarily following Jesus as closely as the first believers were. It appears that, even from a very early date, the Church was able to recognise the difference between those which could be relied upon and those which could not.

It would appear, then, that the main criteria for a work to be accepted was that the author was known - this might sound like a strange assessment of the situation but one only has to look at the many ‘dubious’ (I use that word in the place of ‘heretical’) works which have come down to us which were assigned to ‘well-known’ characters of the early years after Jesus’ ascension to realise that it seemed necessary to do just such a thing in order to get the writing accepted. You can be sure that no one would have taken a second look at a manuscript prefaced with the words

‘according to Joe Bloggs’

but one which had the words

‘according to Bartholomew the disciple’

would raise a few eyebrows in case, somehow, a record of that disciple’s observations and recollections had been accurately recorded.

So the authority of the author seems to have been the prime mover in which works were accepted - yet, even here, works such as the letter of James were often disregarded as being spurious because of the content, it would appear - I can only think it had something to do with a misunderstanding of his words about works and faith (James chapter 2).

So, after the author, came the content. But what criteria could possibly be used here that was objective? From a purely subjective assessment of the situation, it appears to me that the believers could only make a decision on the work based either upon their own experience (which authoritative writings are meant to confirm - not the other way round) or upon other writings that had already been accepted as authoritative (that is, both the OT and the NT writings such as the Gospels and the proven genuine letters, especially of Paul).

In order for the present day believer to accept the NT canon to hold it up as being both infallible and authoritative, one has to also accept that God had a guiding hand upon those works that they might be used for just such a purpose (as He would have had to have done for the entire OT) and that the early believers were perceptive enough to be able to distinguish between the genuine and the false.

And that, of course, is purely subjective - and, therefore, a matter of faith!

It would be nice to think that, by the time of the Church councils of the fourth century and beyond, the NT canon was so fixed as to be demonstrably accepted universally but, down through the ages, men and women have agreed or disagreed with books of the NT and have made their voices known publicly. Even some of the Reformers called into question books like Revelation and James (Luther’s remarks that Revelation was a ‘dumb prophecy’ - quoted from Zondervan - could hardly be misconstrued as saying anything other than it wasn’t considered to be authoritative), regarding some letters and writings to be of a much higher value than others (can you have different degrees of infallibility?!) which could, perhaps, be seen as a reflection of the culture in which they lived and of the opposition they faced from the established churches.

No matter which way we look at it, we have to realise that the oft repeated affirmation from Rev 22:18-19 in which the author writes

‘I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book’

cannot be a reference to the NT canon - simply because it wasn’t ‘fixed’ until a much later date and, even then, it’s varied down through time until the present day. But the Church needs a guideline by which to make sure that what it’s experiencing is ‘of God’ and so there has to be some basis for either approving or disapproving those things which are encountered. And there also needs to be a source from which the ways in which God moved in times past can be learned from, that the believer might come to know more fully the God he serves.

Perhaps, when you first started this section, you thought that I might give you some firm foundation upon which you could accept the NT canon as authoritative which was objective in its insight. Unfortunately, this can’t be done even though many have shouted loud and long to make it seem as if there’s an argument that can’t be reasoned against.

That all men and women believe subjectively in authorities as presenting to them truth and fact is also certain, however - one only has to listen to mankind talk about

‘what’s going on in Iraq’

or the

‘troubles that are transpiring in Israel’

to realise that they’ve raised up the media as being the font of all truth and wisdom. Very rarely can someone say

‘This is the trouble that Iraq is experiencing...’

because they’ve been there, seen it and can now relate an eye-witness account. Humans rely on assessing subjective information and making an educated (or, more often, an uneducated) choice as to what they want to believe. The Church is no different, therefore - but the choices made are much more damning or justifying for the individual concerned.

Belief always comes down to a matter of choices - not just when matters concerning God are concerned. Men and women choose to believe one source of information and so effectively choose to ignore another that contradicts. Belief and choice dominate every man and woman’s life so that, what the believer does in accepting the Bible as both infallible and authoritative is nothing different to what others do in everyday life.

Personally, I have no problem in accepting the Old and New Testaments as authoritative - what I find more distressing is those men and women who would affirm the same as me but who would then throw interpretations upon the text which aren’t warranted and which mislead for, in the present day as well as the past, Scripture has been pointed to to justify our own experiences and beliefs rather than to define and change them.

Appendix 1 - Word of God list
Places where the phrase ‘Word of God’ or ‘God’s word’ occurs in the NT

Mtw 15:6
Mark 7:13
Luke 3:2, 5:1, 8:11, 8:21, 11:28
John 10:35

Acts 4:31, 6:2, 6:7, 8:14, 11:1, 12:24, 13:5, 13:7, 13:44, 13:46, 13:48, 17:13, 18:11

Rom 9:6
I Cor 14:36
II Cor 2:17, 4:2
Eph 6:17
Phil 1:14
Col 1:25
I Thess 2:13
I Tim 4:5
II Tim 2:9
Titus 2:5

Heb 4:12, 5:12, 6:5, 11:3, 13:7
I Peter 1:23
II Peter 3:5
I John 2:14
Rev 1:2, 1:9, 6:9, 19:13, 20:4

Appendix 2 - Rhema list
Strongs Greek number 4487

Mtw 4:4, 5:11, 12:36, 18:16, 26:75, 27:14
Mark 9:32, 14:72
Luke 1:37, 1:38, 1:65, 2:17, 2:29, 2:50, 2:51, 3:2, 4:4, 5:5, 7:1, 9:45 (x2), 18:34, 20:26, 24:8, 24:11
John 3:34, 5:47, 6:63, 6:68, 8:20, 8:47, 10:21, 12:47, 12:48, 14:10, 15:7, 17:8

Acts 2:14, 5:20, 6:11, 6:13, 10:22, 10:37, 10:44, 11:14, 11:16, 13:42, 16:38, 26:25, 28:25

Romans 10:8 (x2), 10:17, 10:18
II Cor 12:4, 13:1
Gal 5:14, 6:6
Eph 1:13, 5:26, 6:17

Heb 1:3, 6:5, 11:3, 12:19
I Peter 1:25 (x2)
II Peter 3:2
Jude 17
Rev 17:17

Appendix 3 - Logos list
Strongs Greek number 3056

The word ‘logos’ may be translated in a great variety of ways by different translations. In the AV, the word is rendered only 225 times as ‘word’ out of a total of 330 occurrences because it can convey a different meaning other than it’s usual one.

The reader can use this list as a starting point, therefore, but reference to a good Exhaustive Concordance such as Strong’s would be beneficial, or to a Bible Software program which can pull out all the occurrences of the Greek word and list them - with their text - for them to be individually assessed.

Mtw 5:32, 5:37, 7:24, 7:26, 7:28, 8:8, 8:16, 10:14, 12:32, 12:36, 12:37 (x2), 13:19, 13:20, 13:21, 13:22 (x2), 13:23, 15:12, 15:23, 18:23, 19:1, 19:11, 19:22, 21:24, 22:15, 22:46, 24:35, 25:19, 26:1, 26:44, 28:15
Mark 1:45, 2:2, 4:14, 4:15 (x2), 4:16, 4:17, 4:18, 4:19, 4:20, 4:33, 5:36, 7:13, 7:29, 8:32, 8:38, 9:10, 10:22, 10:24, 11:29, 12:13, 13:31, 14:39, 16:20
Luke 1:2, 1:4, 1:20, 1:29, 3:4, 4:22, 4:32, 4:36, 5:1, 5:15, 6:47, 7:7, 7:17, 8:11, 8:12, 8:13, 8:15, 8:21, 9:26, 9:28, 9:44, 10:39, 11:28, 12:10, 16:2, 20:3, 20:20, 21:33, 22:61, 23:9, 24:17, 24:19, 24:44
John 1:1 (x3), 1:14, 2:22, 4:37, 4:39, 4:41, 4:50, 5:24, 5:38, 6:60, 7:36, 7:40, 8:31, 8:37, 8:43, 8:51, 8:52, 8:55, 10:19, 10:35, 12:38, 12:48, 14:23, 14:24 (x2), 15:3, 15:20 (x2), 15:25, 17:6, 17:14, 17:17, 17:20, 18:9, 18:32, 19:8, 19:13, 21:23

Acts 1:1, 2:22, 2:40, 2:41, 4:4, 4:29, 4:31, 5:5, 5:24, 6:2, 6:4, 6:5, 6:7, 7:22, 7:29, 8:4, 8:14, 8:21, 8:25, 10:29, 10:36, 10:44, 11:1, 11:19, 11:22, 12:24, 13:5, 13:7, 13:15, 13:26, 13:44, 13:46, 13:48, 13:49, 14:3, 14:12, 14:25, 15:6, 15:7, 15:15, 15:24, 15:27, 15:32, 15:35, 15:36, 16:6, 16:32, 16:36, 17:11, 17:13, 18:11, 18:14, 18:15, 19:10, 19:20, 19:38, 19:40, 20:2, 20:7, 20:24, 20:32, 20:35, 20:38, 22:22

Rom 3:4, 9:6, 9:9, 9:28 (x2), 13:9, 14:12, 15:18
I Cor 1:5, 1:17, 1:18, 2:1, 2:4 (x2), 2:13, 4:19, 4:20, 12:8 (x2), 14:9, 14:19 (x2), 14:36, 15:2, 15:54
II Cor 1:18, 2:17, 4:2, 5:19, 6:7, 8:7, 10:10, 10:11, 11:6
Gal 5:14, 6:6
Eph 1:13, 4:29, 5:6, 6:19
Phil 1:14, 2:16, 4:15, 4:17
Col 1:5, 1:25, 2:23, 3:16, 3:17, 4:3, 4:6
I Thess 1:5, 1:6, 1:8, 2:5, 2:13 (x3), 4:15, 4:18
II Thess 2:2, 2:15, 2:17, 3:1, 3:14
I Tim 1:15, 3:1, 4:5, 4:6, 4:9, 4:12, 5:17, 6:3
II Tim 1:13, 2:9, 2:11, 2:15, 2:17, 4:2, 4:15
Titus 1:3, 1:9, 2:5, 2:8, 3:8

Heb 2:2, 4:2, 4:12, 4:13, 5:11 (x2), 5:13, 6:1, 7:28, 12:19, 13:7, 13:17, 13:22
James 1:18, 1:21, 1:22, 1:23, 3:2
I Peter 1:23, 2:8, 3:1 (x2), 3:15, 4:5
II Peter 1:19, 2:3, 3:5, 3:7
I John 1:1, 1:10, 2:5, 2:7, 2:14, 3:18, 5:7
III John 10
Rev 1:2, 1:3, 1:9, 3:8, 3:10, 6:9, 12:11, 19:9, 19:13, 20:4, 21:5, 22:6, 22:7, 22:9, 22:10, 22:18, 22:19

Appendix 4 - Scripture list
Strongs Greek number 1124

This is just a list of all the places where the Greek word occurs from which we get the translation ‘Scripture’ so that the reader might determine for himself the background to the section dealing with it.

Mtw 21:42, 22:29, 26:54, 26:56
Mark 12:10, 12:24, 14:49
Luke 4:21, 24:27, 24:32, 24:45
John 2:22, 5:39, 7:38, 7:42, 10:35, 13:18, 17:12, 19:24, 19:28, 19:36, 19:37, 20:9

Acts 1:16, 8:32, 8:35, 17:2, 17:11, 18:24, 18:28

Rom 1:2, 4:3, 9:17, 10:11, 11:2, 15:4, 16:26
I Cor 15:3, 15:4
Gal 3:8, 3:22, 4:30
I Tim 5:18
II Tim 3:16

James 2:8, 2:23, 4:5
I Peter 2:6
II Peter 1:20, 3:16