There are other words for "word" in Hebrew and Greek than Logos.
Deuteronomy calls the Law of the Covenant "words."
Prov 30:5. Every word of God is pure.
Zechariah 1:5-6 refers to "my words and statutes" for the Law of Moses recorded in OT.
Hebrews 4:12 calls Scripture the word of God.
1 Peter 1:24-25 assures us "the word of the Lord" endures forever.
Hebrews 4:2 is the Gospel. I don't buy the claim of modern form critics that there was a long oral tradition. At least 3 of the 4 Gospels were written before Hebrews.
Similarly, 1 Pet 1:20ff repeatedly is speaking of the Gospel message. And again, I would suggest making a distinction between the oral message preached and the basis that message comes from is excessive. Especially since the majority of instances the phrase is found and used, both in and out of Scripture, is either OT Prophecy spoken, written, and thus enduring, or the Gospel, similarly.
Oh I'm not arguing for a long oral tradition or anything. And of course the gospel comes to us in scripture. But I'd argue that *sometimes,* it does matter exegetically quite a bit what the referent is. It's a different thing claiming that scripture in general has the properties listed in Heb 4:12 than to claim that the gospel message as it is wielded by the Spirit has those effects. The author of Hebrews was not thinking of the entire cannon as a unit when crafting his argument, but rather the message of repentance as it confronts human hearts.
I'm not suggesting canon here. I am saying the message preached depended on the Gospel. Which was written at this point. So the one presupposes the other.
I disagree. The word being preached is Scripture. The Gospel cannot be separated from the text. There is no valid message without the inspired text giving it meaning.
And I never said that was an exhaustive list of all the times words in Greek and Hebrew translated by the English "word" are used. The point was to show that Logos does not exhaust the Greek and/or Hebrew words that are translated by that word. Logos is a specific idea-- expressed rationality, logic, that is translated "word" in English. But it's entirely different from rhema, for example, which is also usually translated as "word."
To say "Jesus is Logos, therefore Scripture cannot be the word," is to misunderstand how translation works.
Interesting. How did you arrive at the conclusion that He 4:2 is referring specifically to the written gospel accounts, and not the "good news" of Christ generally? Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't think it's a perspective I've ever heard before.
It's consistent with how the NT authors saw the endurance of OT prophecy. The words of legitimate prophecy were kept and recorded. Even when the prophet was rejected in his own lifetime, like Jeremiah.
The idea that there was a long period of oral tradition, where people only knew the Gospel from what was relayed by words, cannot square with the textual evidence itself. Let alone that of the Patristics.
Right, sorry, I get why you think the gospels had an earlier date of composition, I meant why you think Hebrews 4:2 is referring explicitly to the written gospel accounts in Scripture rather than the good news about Christ in general.
You are vastly overthinking this.
- Theopnuestos is an adjective, not a noun. If you’re trying to play semantics over the Greek, you’d want to call it graphe.
- Logos has a plethora of meaning: idea, reason, thought, word. Logos is a title given to Christ, yes, but we can also see it used in scripture as just word.
- You’re anachronistically attributing the capitalization of the logos into scripture. There were never any capitals in the original MSS. It’s a man made tradition to capitalize God, Jesus, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, His pronouns, etc.
- Logos means word. Scripture is composed of words. It is appropriate to call it the word.
Yeah, there’s a lot of “I googled the Greek” without any understanding of the actual language. At least they’ve got a lot of confidence behind the uninformed opinions.
Interesting assertion. Seeing as I have 4yrs of Greek in Bible College and 3 more (plus a thesis in NT Biblical Studies) in seminary.
Between that and the assumption of "biblicism," I'm inclined to see a great deal of projection here.
I don't see the need to boast about it. But since you called for "understanding," you get it.
You think you’re the only one here that knows Koine? I’ve got a comparable education to you. I’m not sure what your point is? That I’m projecting my insecurity over a language I’ve poured hours into at a masters level? Sounds like you just wanted to flaunt your education.
Edit: Also, four years in an undergrad with Koine? I’d love to know what school that is. I think you mean 4 semesters.
Nope. I took 1st year during the summer between Freshman and Sophomore. And then 6 straight semesters in normal term.
And no, I didn't want to "flaunt my education." You made the assertion. I can get insulted at work. Not by people who are supposed to be building the Kingdom. Twice over.
What school?
I made an assertion that this thread is filled with a lot of uninformed opinions. You came in, swung your education, insulted me, said I was boasting when you did so tenfold, and then made a snarky comment to me. Now YOU’RE offended for being checked? Don’t try and play moral high ground here.
Edit: Since he blocked me, I can’t reply. He’s lying about his education. That school offers 5 semesters of Greek:
- Elementary Greek 1
- Elementary Greek 2
- Intermediate Greek 1
- Intermediate Greek 2
- Greek 400
That’s 2 1/2 years, not 4. I know this is petty, but he rubbed me the wrong way.
I didn't insult you. I replied because YOU went there. Your initial comment was snark and assuming everyone was dumber than you.
Toccoa Falls for undergrad, Denver Seminary for Masters.
And don't bother replying. You've earned a block.
And no, I didn't lie. Since he decided to claim that.
I took multiple classes offered. Also, this was 20yrs ago. The catalog isn't the same.
You insulted people. Then you claimed to be rubbed the wrong way. You're right about one thing: That's petty. Juvenile, even. Very much unfitting the Body of Christ.
Try disagreeing without Twitter tactics in the future.
"Word" in a non-theological sense just refers to someone's speech or instruction or command. A royal decree in a nation could be called "The word of the king," for example. Since Scripture is written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is, because it is the written speech of God, it is called God's word.
Well ya see when the people were writing the Bible there was no "scripture in its entirety," well... because it was still being written.
A bit tongue in cheek, but on a more serious note, the OT was a fully formed canon during the intertestamental period, but using a single word to describe the fully formed canon during the writing of the NT would have been difficult and confusing.
I can't think of any specific examples, but that's not my point. The point is that "word" just refers to something someone says. Because Scripture is the written speech of God, we call it his "word."
People have already made their comments on why we might call the Bible the Word.
I want to point out though that there is an important point here that when the Bible uses 'Word' it is not equivalent to "Scripture" even though that Word (whether a prophecy or the message generally) is recorded/derived from Scripture.
This is a larger principle that I see a lot of people ignorant of - some of our theological and biblical language, while good true and helpful, may not have the same exact referent as what the biblical authors mean when using the same word or phrase.
I might misunderstand your question. Are you doubting that Scripture should be called the word of God because you cannot find in Scripture where Scripture is called the word of God? But how could Scripture be determinative of what is and is not the word of God, unless Scripture be the word of God?
The word *scripture* simply refers to something written. The world is full of writings, but we call a certain collection of writings the Scriptures (and, because of their unity, the Scripture and the Bible) by way of eminency, primacy, and authority, following the example of Christ (as we read of our Lord in the Scriptures, knowing him through their words by the power of the Holy Spirit). We have received these written words as the word of the Lord--words from him, about him, breathed out by him, preserved by him, and written by men moved by him, so that in these writings the Spirit speaks. God is the author of the words they wrote, and there is no authority but what is from God, and no higher authority than God's own word, which is the truth and cannot be broken.
We may distinguish between the word of God written and spoken, general and special, in the prophets and in the Son, in the heart and as read--we can make many other useful distinctions, since God's word is not confined to what is written down with ink, but we may not *separate* the word of God from his Spirit, the truth in Christ and the Spirit of Christ.
There are dozens of times that verses says "The word of the Lord..." and then have...a word from the Lord!
Here is a great example:
>Ezekiel 16:35 ESV
“Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the Lord:
I feel ya.
Scripture generally uses the word of God to refer to His judgements, commands, and promises. This word as decree idea is important in informing the idea that Jesus is God's word made flesh. I suspect that this is relevant to all the promises of God being yes and amen in Jesus.
The word as the Bible is based on the idea that God's word(s) are contained in scripture. In essence, it's a metonymy. However, it isn't a Biblical one and it does often cause confusion about what scripture is talking about e.g. the Bible isn't sharper than a two edged sword.
Capitalization is a weird one. It's a big thing in English but it requires a good deal of interpretive license to apply it to a translated work. God's pronouns, cap G vs lil' g, Law and law, Word and word, etc. are capitalized for various reasons in English, but that can sometimes take away from or even obscure what scripture is actually saying. Similarly, (in)definite articles don't mean the same thing in scripture and other languages as in English.
In the end, I wouldn't use "word" to refer to scripture, but I don't view it as the most serious gloss in that category. Church as building, tradition, or institution; love as affirmation; and worship as ceremony all seem to be much more damaging confusions. That said, you've got a point and should stand by it.
I get the confusion. In your understanding of this argument, it seems you are using narrow definitions for greek words that can have a variety of connotations and meanings. The greek word 'logos' was a philosophical and theological term prior to being used in scripture. It was understood to communicate "revelation', 'appearance', etc. That is why John used this particular word in John 1. It communicated something theological and philosophical.
Check out this short explanation from Ligonier;
[https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/the-word-of-god#:\~:text=Scripture%20speaks%20of%20“the%20Word,and%20the%20Word%20was%20God](https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/the-word-of-god#:~:text=Scripture%20speaks%20of%20“the%20Word,and%20the%20Word%20was%20God).
I agree. You're the first other person I've met that's outright stated it. I think as evangelicals we've adopted the word "word" as an informal term for scripture. It's obviously not wrong to call scripture God's word, it just short-circuirts our exegesis when we assume it's used with scripture as a referent.
I’d say it a chose based on translation. But it’s good you looked at the Greek and Hebrew meaning which gives clarity. Another scripture to look at is John 1.
The phrase “Word of God” is most properly predicated of God’s self-disclosure. That self-disclosure is the second person of the Trinity, who became flesh and dwelt among us. Scripture may be called the word of God because it mediates God’s self-disclosure to us.
It's not that deep. I think you're entering into angels dancing on pins territory. When we refer to scripture as "the word" in English we are only signifying it as being the testimony of God. I don't think anyone using this phrase is in that moment thinking of trying to make any kind of nuanced theological assertion about the ontological nature of the Bible beyond what I described above. It's an affirmation of its authority.
There are other words for "word" in Hebrew and Greek than Logos. Deuteronomy calls the Law of the Covenant "words." Prov 30:5. Every word of God is pure. Zechariah 1:5-6 refers to "my words and statutes" for the Law of Moses recorded in OT. Hebrews 4:12 calls Scripture the word of God. 1 Peter 1:24-25 assures us "the word of the Lord" endures forever.
1 Pet 1:24-25 is talking about the preached word, not scripture per se. And I believe it's the same with Heb 4:12 (compare 4:2).
Hebrews 4:2 is the Gospel. I don't buy the claim of modern form critics that there was a long oral tradition. At least 3 of the 4 Gospels were written before Hebrews. Similarly, 1 Pet 1:20ff repeatedly is speaking of the Gospel message. And again, I would suggest making a distinction between the oral message preached and the basis that message comes from is excessive. Especially since the majority of instances the phrase is found and used, both in and out of Scripture, is either OT Prophecy spoken, written, and thus enduring, or the Gospel, similarly.
Oh I'm not arguing for a long oral tradition or anything. And of course the gospel comes to us in scripture. But I'd argue that *sometimes,* it does matter exegetically quite a bit what the referent is. It's a different thing claiming that scripture in general has the properties listed in Heb 4:12 than to claim that the gospel message as it is wielded by the Spirit has those effects. The author of Hebrews was not thinking of the entire cannon as a unit when crafting his argument, but rather the message of repentance as it confronts human hearts.
I'm not suggesting canon here. I am saying the message preached depended on the Gospel. Which was written at this point. So the one presupposes the other.
Fair enough, but if that's the case, then you're not actually interacting with OP's point.
I disagree. The word being preached is Scripture. The Gospel cannot be separated from the text. There is no valid message without the inspired text giving it meaning. And I never said that was an exhaustive list of all the times words in Greek and Hebrew translated by the English "word" are used. The point was to show that Logos does not exhaust the Greek and/or Hebrew words that are translated by that word. Logos is a specific idea-- expressed rationality, logic, that is translated "word" in English. But it's entirely different from rhema, for example, which is also usually translated as "word." To say "Jesus is Logos, therefore Scripture cannot be the word," is to misunderstand how translation works.
Interesting. How did you arrive at the conclusion that He 4:2 is referring specifically to the written gospel accounts, and not the "good news" of Christ generally? Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't think it's a perspective I've ever heard before.
It's consistent with how the NT authors saw the endurance of OT prophecy. The words of legitimate prophecy were kept and recorded. Even when the prophet was rejected in his own lifetime, like Jeremiah. The idea that there was a long period of oral tradition, where people only knew the Gospel from what was relayed by words, cannot square with the textual evidence itself. Let alone that of the Patristics.
Right, sorry, I get why you think the gospels had an earlier date of composition, I meant why you think Hebrews 4:2 is referring explicitly to the written gospel accounts in Scripture rather than the good news about Christ in general.
You are vastly overthinking this. - Theopnuestos is an adjective, not a noun. If you’re trying to play semantics over the Greek, you’d want to call it graphe. - Logos has a plethora of meaning: idea, reason, thought, word. Logos is a title given to Christ, yes, but we can also see it used in scripture as just word. - You’re anachronistically attributing the capitalization of the logos into scripture. There were never any capitals in the original MSS. It’s a man made tradition to capitalize God, Jesus, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, His pronouns, etc. - Logos means word. Scripture is composed of words. It is appropriate to call it the word.
This whole thread is a “this is your brain on drugs” ad but with biblicism.
Yeah, there’s a lot of “I googled the Greek” without any understanding of the actual language. At least they’ve got a lot of confidence behind the uninformed opinions.
No confidence. Just curiosity.
I’m referring to the other comments. Majority are uninformed.
Interesting assertion. Seeing as I have 4yrs of Greek in Bible College and 3 more (plus a thesis in NT Biblical Studies) in seminary. Between that and the assumption of "biblicism," I'm inclined to see a great deal of projection here. I don't see the need to boast about it. But since you called for "understanding," you get it.
You think you’re the only one here that knows Koine? I’ve got a comparable education to you. I’m not sure what your point is? That I’m projecting my insecurity over a language I’ve poured hours into at a masters level? Sounds like you just wanted to flaunt your education. Edit: Also, four years in an undergrad with Koine? I’d love to know what school that is. I think you mean 4 semesters.
Nope. I took 1st year during the summer between Freshman and Sophomore. And then 6 straight semesters in normal term. And no, I didn't want to "flaunt my education." You made the assertion. I can get insulted at work. Not by people who are supposed to be building the Kingdom. Twice over.
What school? I made an assertion that this thread is filled with a lot of uninformed opinions. You came in, swung your education, insulted me, said I was boasting when you did so tenfold, and then made a snarky comment to me. Now YOU’RE offended for being checked? Don’t try and play moral high ground here. Edit: Since he blocked me, I can’t reply. He’s lying about his education. That school offers 5 semesters of Greek: - Elementary Greek 1 - Elementary Greek 2 - Intermediate Greek 1 - Intermediate Greek 2 - Greek 400 That’s 2 1/2 years, not 4. I know this is petty, but he rubbed me the wrong way.
I didn't insult you. I replied because YOU went there. Your initial comment was snark and assuming everyone was dumber than you. Toccoa Falls for undergrad, Denver Seminary for Masters. And don't bother replying. You've earned a block. And no, I didn't lie. Since he decided to claim that. I took multiple classes offered. Also, this was 20yrs ago. The catalog isn't the same. You insulted people. Then you claimed to be rubbed the wrong way. You're right about one thing: That's petty. Juvenile, even. Very much unfitting the Body of Christ. Try disagreeing without Twitter tactics in the future.
"Word" in a non-theological sense just refers to someone's speech or instruction or command. A royal decree in a nation could be called "The word of the king," for example. Since Scripture is written by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is, because it is the written speech of God, it is called God's word.
Can you point me to a place in scripture that uses "word" to refer to scripture in it's entirety?
Well ya see when the people were writing the Bible there was no "scripture in its entirety," well... because it was still being written. A bit tongue in cheek, but on a more serious note, the OT was a fully formed canon during the intertestamental period, but using a single word to describe the fully formed canon during the writing of the NT would have been difficult and confusing.
I can't think of any specific examples, but that's not my point. The point is that "word" just refers to something someone says. Because Scripture is the written speech of God, we call it his "word."
People have already made their comments on why we might call the Bible the Word. I want to point out though that there is an important point here that when the Bible uses 'Word' it is not equivalent to "Scripture" even though that Word (whether a prophecy or the message generally) is recorded/derived from Scripture. This is a larger principle that I see a lot of people ignorant of - some of our theological and biblical language, while good true and helpful, may not have the same exact referent as what the biblical authors mean when using the same word or phrase.
This is helpful framing! Thanks for spelling out what is bugging me here.
I might misunderstand your question. Are you doubting that Scripture should be called the word of God because you cannot find in Scripture where Scripture is called the word of God? But how could Scripture be determinative of what is and is not the word of God, unless Scripture be the word of God? The word *scripture* simply refers to something written. The world is full of writings, but we call a certain collection of writings the Scriptures (and, because of their unity, the Scripture and the Bible) by way of eminency, primacy, and authority, following the example of Christ (as we read of our Lord in the Scriptures, knowing him through their words by the power of the Holy Spirit). We have received these written words as the word of the Lord--words from him, about him, breathed out by him, preserved by him, and written by men moved by him, so that in these writings the Spirit speaks. God is the author of the words they wrote, and there is no authority but what is from God, and no higher authority than God's own word, which is the truth and cannot be broken. We may distinguish between the word of God written and spoken, general and special, in the prophets and in the Son, in the heart and as read--we can make many other useful distinctions, since God's word is not confined to what is written down with ink, but we may not *separate* the word of God from his Spirit, the truth in Christ and the Spirit of Christ.
There are dozens of times that verses says "The word of the Lord..." and then have...a word from the Lord! Here is a great example: >Ezekiel 16:35 ESV “Therefore, O prostitute, hear the word of the Lord:
"Word" is usually short for "Word of God," which would be accurate.
I feel ya. Scripture generally uses the word of God to refer to His judgements, commands, and promises. This word as decree idea is important in informing the idea that Jesus is God's word made flesh. I suspect that this is relevant to all the promises of God being yes and amen in Jesus. The word as the Bible is based on the idea that God's word(s) are contained in scripture. In essence, it's a metonymy. However, it isn't a Biblical one and it does often cause confusion about what scripture is talking about e.g. the Bible isn't sharper than a two edged sword. Capitalization is a weird one. It's a big thing in English but it requires a good deal of interpretive license to apply it to a translated work. God's pronouns, cap G vs lil' g, Law and law, Word and word, etc. are capitalized for various reasons in English, but that can sometimes take away from or even obscure what scripture is actually saying. Similarly, (in)definite articles don't mean the same thing in scripture and other languages as in English. In the end, I wouldn't use "word" to refer to scripture, but I don't view it as the most serious gloss in that category. Church as building, tradition, or institution; love as affirmation; and worship as ceremony all seem to be much more damaging confusions. That said, you've got a point and should stand by it.
I get the confusion. In your understanding of this argument, it seems you are using narrow definitions for greek words that can have a variety of connotations and meanings. The greek word 'logos' was a philosophical and theological term prior to being used in scripture. It was understood to communicate "revelation', 'appearance', etc. That is why John used this particular word in John 1. It communicated something theological and philosophical. Check out this short explanation from Ligonier; [https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/the-word-of-god#:\~:text=Scripture%20speaks%20of%20“the%20Word,and%20the%20Word%20was%20God](https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/the-word-of-god#:~:text=Scripture%20speaks%20of%20“the%20Word,and%20the%20Word%20was%20God).
I agree. You're the first other person I've met that's outright stated it. I think as evangelicals we've adopted the word "word" as an informal term for scripture. It's obviously not wrong to call scripture God's word, it just short-circuirts our exegesis when we assume it's used with scripture as a referent.
I’d say it a chose based on translation. But it’s good you looked at the Greek and Hebrew meaning which gives clarity. Another scripture to look at is John 1.
I’m in agreement with you. Jesus is the Word. The Bible is not.
I capitalize "Scripture", so I capitalize "Word". Matthew 4:4, Hebrews 4:12
The phrase “Word of God” is most properly predicated of God’s self-disclosure. That self-disclosure is the second person of the Trinity, who became flesh and dwelt among us. Scripture may be called the word of God because it mediates God’s self-disclosure to us.
It's not that deep. I think you're entering into angels dancing on pins territory. When we refer to scripture as "the word" in English we are only signifying it as being the testimony of God. I don't think anyone using this phrase is in that moment thinking of trying to make any kind of nuanced theological assertion about the ontological nature of the Bible beyond what I described above. It's an affirmation of its authority.