Take the 2-minute tour ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)

12 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.

I commonly hear people say that the "word of God" in this verse is the Bible/doctrine/gospel. But that doesn't make much sense for two reasons:

  1. The verses before and after are talking about Christ
  2. I don't know of anywhere else that says the word can discern thoughts

But at the same time, its hard to me to accept that its talking about Christ because I'm not familiar with any other places in the Bible that use similar language when talking about Christ (besides Him being called the Word). And notice "word" is not capitalized.

So who/what is Hewbrews 4:12 referring to?

share|improve this question
3  
I'd like to note quickly that capitalization is purely a translation and editorial decision. The original Greek was written in ALL-CAPs (and sans spaces or punctuation). So don't read too much into capitalization of words in English translations. –  Jon Ericson Oct 23 '11 at 3:53
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The λογος του θεου (word of God) here is probably referring to the message that was spoken. While at this place in the letter it could possibly be ambiguous, in 13:7 it's difficult to see how the same phrase could be understood as referring to Christ. That said, one of the major themes of Hebrews is the close relationship between God and his word, such that the difference virtually disappears in some places.

In addressing the first issue you bring up, let's look at the immediate context of the statement in 4:12. 4:1 sets the context for this entire section and calls back to 2:1-3 where the writer says, "We must pay more careful attention to what we have heard." In 4:1-2, he now draws attention to the promise of rest that has been spoken. In doing so he makes a comparison to the Israelites under Joshua. They too heard a message, but the author points out it had no value to them.

In contrast, the author wants his hearers to receive the promise of rest with faith, and so he reminds his listeners of what was spoken through David: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." When in verse 12, then, when the author reminds his listeners that the word of God judges the attitudes of the heart, we see how: for the Israelites, their hearts were judged and shown hard because they did not receive the promise of rest with faith. The entire context, then, of two groups receiving a message points to understanding the phrase "word of God" as the message spoken by the prophets but "in these last days" "by his Son".

Second, you bring up the odd description of the word of God. Hebrews is very unique in the way it treats the Scriptures. In most of the New Testament - especially in Paul's letters - whenever someone quotes the Scriptures, they use "It is written" or some variant. In Hebrews, though, the Scriptures are always referred to as "spoken" in some sense when they are quoted. The word of God is very active/performative in Hebrews: it sustains the world (1:3), it sets up a priesthood (7:21), it will shake the world (12:25-27). It's not surprising, therefore, for the author in this letter to describe God's word as living and active, dividing soul and spirit, judging thoughts and the heart.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your instincts would be considered correct in Sensus Plenior.

He sustains the world (1:3), He sets up a priesthood (7:21), He will shake the world (12:25-27).

Since Christ is the Righteous judge, He will be the one to discern between the passing thoughts and the intent of the heart.

Before the incarnation he was still the Word. The Hebrew word Torah is a nice one since it means "the complete revelation of God" and is not particular about the form. When we say that he is the Torah on earth and in heaven, distinctions of method of communication disappear.

Though at first glance it may appear that Heb 13:7 doesn't fit, an English translation is difficult there. See how v8 just dangles. I think a case can be made that v 8 is attached as " word of God (Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.)". Paul is notorious for extremely long run-on sentences which are sometimes ambiguous to parse. (Sensus Plenior appears to confirm Paul as the source)

Other places which refer to him as the word are those which refer to him as the bread or the water, since each of those refer to him as the word as well.

share|improve this answer
    
Christ cannot be the actor in 7:21 without contradicting 5:4-5 that shows that Christ did not set himself up as priest. –  Soldarnal Oct 24 '11 at 18:29
    
@Soldarnal The context of 5.1 is " For every high priest taken from among men " Jesus did not make himself a priest in the flesh. Only in resurrection was he made a high priest. By the one who said, "The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)" Now in order for there to be a contradiction, one must say that God didn't say it, or Christ is not God. Furthermore, the law of non-contradiction does not apply ... –  Bob Jones Oct 25 '11 at 0:13
    
Jesus is the unbegotten only son, the only begotten son and the usurping second son, all without contradiction. –  Bob Jones Oct 25 '11 at 0:13
add comment

The word logos in Hebrews 4: 12 is derived from the philosophies of Philo of Alexandria that besides the better known meanings (Son of God, link between man and God,essence of all 'ideas' etc) also used logos from a scriptural point to mean the force emanating from God to order the universe.

share|improve this answer
1  
OK, but can you help us understand why you think this, or where you got the idea from? –  Jack Douglas Sep 23 '13 at 18:19
    
The author of Hebrews and all the educated Hellenist Jews talked in the language of Philo even if they did not agree with him about everything he said. We can only understand their language on their terms. The idea of logos as a 'force' that control the universe is far older than Philo though. Thismeaning makes perfect sense in the context and it is the simplist. Judge for yourselves. –  gideon marx Sep 24 '13 at 17:21
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.