Greek words for word of god

Light iron-age reading The Bible

Gabbin’ with God

Old / New Testament Apocrypha Annotated Bible

Analysis

Bible interpolation Bibliolatry Genealogy of Jesus

Woo

Snake handling James Ussher Roman Piso

Figures

Abel Joseph of Arimathea Noah v — t — e

Depending on who you are and what you believe in, the Word of God could mean Jesus, the Bible, the Qur’an, the kama sutra, Dianetics, anything the pope says ex cathedra, the Book of Mormon, the Tanakh and Talmud, the lyrics of Ye, the teachings of David Koresh, the commands of the Pharaohs, the commands of the Sapa Inca, the sayings of the Dalai Lama, the Avesta, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, anything on the internet and Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to mention just a few. This page is primarily going to focus on the Judaeo-Christian Word of God.

Lexicology of “The Word”[edit]

The word Christianity translates into “The Word” in the bible is the Greek word logos (λόγος). This can be seen in bible passages such as John 1:1

“”En archē ēn ho Lógos, kaì ho Lógos ēn pròs tòn Theón, kaì Theòs ēn ho Lógos.

—John 1:1 in its original Greek.[1]

“”In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

—John 1:1 translated into English

A better translation for logos would be “The Reason” or “The Account” as the Greek word logos doesn’t usually translate into the English word “Word.” Rather the Greek word lexis is what translates to word. Lexis is used as a root in words like lexicon which is all the words that make up an area of knowledge, or dyslexia which is a learning disorder that involves difficulty in learning to read or interpret words. It is also the root for lexicology which is the study of words. Incidentally, Lexicology was what was just done. Logos, on the other hand, is the root for the English word logic.

Logos is g3056 in Strong’s Concordance.^[2]

Pre-Christian origins of logos (λόγος)[edit]

“”Philo’s doctrine of the Logos is blurred by his mystical and religious vision, but his Logos is clearly the second individual in one God as hypostatization of God’s Creative Power – Wisdom.

—Marian Hillar[3][4]

The philosophical importance of Logos can be traced to the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus While none of his original writings have survived in their entirety, we do have fragments of his philosophy and some of these fragments describe his belief in logos. One such fragment is DKB2 where Heraclitus says Though the logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own.^[5] This reference makes clear that Heraclitus believes in an independent existence of a universal logos. Another fragment from him reiterates this belief. It is wise, listening not to me but to the logos, to agree that all things are one.^[6]

Stoic philosophers would use Heraclitus’s idea of a universal logos in their model of the universe. Eusebius describes the stoic conception of the universe in the following passage:

“”They (the stoics) say, like Heraclitus, that the element of the existing world is fire… moreover, they say that at certain predestined and definite times the whole world is consumed by fire, and afterwards reorganized again. The primordial fire, however, is as it were just a seed, containing the reasons and causes of all things past, present, and future: and that the combination and sequence of these constitute fate, and knowledge, and truth, and the law of all being, from which there is no escape or avoidance.

—Praeparatio Evangilica Book 15 Chapter 14.[7]

The primordial fire Eusebius referred to is a stoic concept called logos spermatikos (λόγος σπερματικός). According to the Stoics, logos spermatikos was the generative principle of the universe which created and took back all things. The word logos by itself was the ordering principle in the cosmos.^[8]

Diogenes Laërtius would describe logos spermatikos in the following passage:

“”God is one and the same with Reason, Fate, and Zeus… God, who is the seminal reason (logos spermatikos) [note 1] of the universe, remains behind in the moisture as such an agent, adapting matter to himself with a view to the next stage of creation.

—Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers Book 7 135-136[9]

The stoic conception of the universe and logos would continue well into the Roman era. For example,Seneca the Younger, a Roman stoic who lived from around 4 BCE to CE 65, described God as creative reason (logos).

“”Now, however, I am searching for the first, the general cause; this must be simple, inasmuch as matter, too, is simple. Do we ask what cause is? It is surely Creative Reason – in other words, God.

— Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium LXV 12[10]

Pre-Christian origins of dabar (וַיֹּ֥אמֶר)[edit]

The Jews had a different concept of the ‘word’ called dabar (h1697). Dabar is used in passages such as Joshua 1:18 to describe Yahweh’s words. Dabar is also used to describe the words exchanged between two individuals such as in Genesis 27:34.^[11] Dabar was not used to describe Yahweh’s use of speech to create things such as in Genesis 1:3 where “God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” For that the word amar (h559) was used.^[12] When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek to create the Septuagint, the Hebrew words dabar and amar were translated into the Greek word logos. While the words are similar in terms of their literal meaning, philosophically the words are quite different. Greek logos is best descried as a metaphysical concept of a transcendent god whereas dabar and amar are better characterized as the divine utterances or actions of an anthropomorphic god.^[13]

The Greek philosophical concepts of logos and pneuma and their Hebrew equivalents were identified with God by the author(s) of psalms.

“”By the word (dabar) of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath (ruach) of his mouth.

—Psalm 33:6

Hellenistic Judaism and logos[edit]

“”Philo of Alexandria (c25BCE to c50CE) is the foremost example of the input of Greek ideas into Jewish thought, a phenomenon which produced an important type of philosophy and culture during this period, called «Hellenistic Judaism.»

—Earl Doherty[14]

After Alexander the Great created his empire, the Greek culture was heavily influential throughout the region controlled by the Greeks. This influence is referred to as ‘Hellenism’ and the Hellenistic influence was particularly strong among Jews living in the city of Alexandria. This was the city where the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek to create the Septuagint^{[note 2]} It was also the city where Jewish philosophers combined traditional Jewish belief with Greek philosophy. One of the first people to do this was Aristobulus of Alexandria and one of the ideas he promoted was the belief that Plato and Pythagoras drew upon Mosaic Law before the Septuagint was created.

“”It is evident that Plato closely followed our (Mosaic) legislation… for others before Demetrius of Phalerus (350 -280 BCE), and prior to the supremacy of Alexander and the Persians, have translated the exodus… and the exposition of the whole law… also Pythagoras transferred many of our precepts and inserted them in his own system of doctrines.

—Praeparatio Evangelica xiii. 12.[7]

There are no known Greek versions of Mosaic law before Cyrus and Alexander the Great conquered the places Jews lived^[15] or any evidence that Pythagoras and Plato were aware of Jewish thought. Nonetheless, that was what Aristobulus believed and he was influential among the Hellenistic Jews.
Aristobulus also appears to have made an attempt to incorporate logos into Judaism when he argued that God’s words denoted His activates.^[16]

“”For we must understand the voice of God not as words spoken, but as construction of works, just as Moses in the Law has spoken of the whole creation of the world as words of God. For he constantly says of each work, “And God said, and it was so.”

—Praeparatio Evangelica xiii. 12.[7]

The next major Hellenistic philosopher to incorporate the concept of logos into Judaism was Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BCE – c. 50 CE). One of the cultural themes among both the Greek and Jewish cultures during the Hellenistic period was allegorical interpretation of their theological works. One example of this was the Heraclitus who wrote Homeric Problems. In this work, Heraclitus Homericus explained that when Homer spoke of Aphrodite’s infidelity with Ares, he was talking about one of two things. Either Ares was a metaphor for strife and Aphrodite was a metaphor for love and their infidelity represented how ‘these old adversaries (give) up their former contention and (come) together in concord.’ Or Ares was a metaphor for iron, Hephaestus (Aphrodite’s husband) was a metaphor for fire, and Aphrodite represented the craftsmanship needed to turn the iron softened by fire into things like swords.^[17]

In Philo’s case, he applied allegorical interpretation to the Hebrew Scriptures in order to explain their meaning. One passage that Philo applied this technique on was Genesis 1:27 which states “So God created man in his own image, in the image God created he him.” This passage was a theological problem in Hellenistic Judaism as the metaphysical versions of God promoted by the Greek philosophers conflicted with the more anthropomorphic version of God found in Genesis. In essence, the problem was “If God lacks a body, then how could God make man in his own image?” Philo’s solution was to argue that mankind was modeled after God’s logos, which meant creative reason in Hellenistic culture. This allegorical interpretation can be found in passages of Philo’s work such as the following.

“”No mortal thing could have been formed on the similitude of the supreme Father of the universe, but only after the pattern of the second deity, who is the Word (Logos) of the Supreme Being.

—Questions and Answers on Genesis II, 62[18]

Philo would also incorporate the concept of logos into his metaphysical triad. Philo’s idea of how God was organized can be found in the following passage.

“”The one in the middle is the father of the universe, who in the sacred scriptures is called by his proper name, I am that I am; and the beings on each side are those most ancient powers which are always close to the living God, one of which is called his creative power (logos), and the other his royal power. And the creative power is God, for it is by this that he made and arranged the universe; and the royal power is the Lord, for it is fitting that the Creator should lord it over and govern the creature.

—On Abraham, Chp. xxiv 121[19]

Early Christians such as Justin Martyr would continue the philosophy begun by Hellenistic Jewish philosophers. Like Aristobulus and his idea that Plato and Pythagoras had borrowed their ideas from Moses, Justin would argue that Socrates and Heraclitus of Ephesus were unknowingly Christian.^[20] And like Philo, Justin would create his own version of a metaphysical triad that incorporated God’s logos.

Logos as Christos[edit]

There was another religious movement that was occurring during the same time Philo was promoting the idea that humankind was modeled after God’s logos. In Roman Judea, a series of Jewish rebels were claiming to be the Jewish messiah. The first of these was Simon of Peraea and he led a revolt that burnt the royal palace at Jericho. This occurred shortly after Herod died (4 BCE). Another interesting rebel leader was an Egyptian who led a revolt at the Mount of Olives before many of his followers were killed mad he mysteriously disappeared (approximately 52-58 CE). When the Hebrew word for messiah (mashiach)^[21] was translated into Greek it became christos^[22]. The author(s) of John incorporated the idea that logos becomes flesh.

“”And the Word (logos) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

—John 1:14

The idea that Christ was logos has been maintained in Christianity ever since.

The Bible as the Word of God[edit]

While the Greek concept of logos is still maintained by Christians as ‘creative reason’ remains a part of their trinity, there is a different notion among Christians that the Bible is literally the Word of God. They will often use the Word as justification for Divine command theory which for Christians is the position that Biblical injunctions are the only possible basis for morals, ethics, and law.

The idea that the Bible is the word of God presupposes several assumptions:

1. There is a (single, unique — or indeed any) God
2. God uses expressions of ordinary (human) language to express its will, intentions, commands, etc.
3. A literal reading of this language is both necessary and sufficient for establishing moral/ethical/legal precepts

One can take issue with all three assumptions.

1 — Uniqueness of the Word of God[edit]

Counterargument — Even strong belief in a (unique) supreme being (as seen in all monotheistic religions) is insufficient to establish the God of the Bible as this (unique) being

The greatest problem with the first assumption is that the same «word of God» argument can be used to justify in turn the Old Testament system, the New Testament system, the system of Islamic law, the system of Latter Day Saints rules and regulations, and so forth. To the extent that these systems contradict each other in significant aspects, it is clear that they can’t all be the same word of the same God. This, in spite of the contrary intention of those using this phrase as an argument in favor of their particular brand of orthodoxy, opens the door to moral relativism.

2- Verbal revelation[edit]

Counterargument — An equally broad secular mystic tradition asserts that God uses mathematics to lay down the law

The second assumption, that God directly communicated his intentions to the humans who wrote down the Scriptures, looks hopelessly naive. The problem is not just that the idea is naive, for there may be naive ideas that turn out to be right, but rather that we lack evidence. To the extent there is evidence (and we can, for the sake of the argument, admit a broad class of evidence including fables and traditions) the same evidence of divine inspiration is also available for the Buddha, for Confucius, and for other sages outside scriptural bounds. In this respect too, the «word of God» line of argumentation opens the door to moral relativism.

3- Literalism[edit]

Counterargument — As with any writing of great antiquity, the philological and conceptual difficulties in establishing a literal reading are immense.

The final assumption (which usually takes the form that the King James Version of the Bible is all one needs to study) is contradicted by a mountain of scholarship, both religious and secular. Internal evidence in various parts of the Bible credit the Word of God as also the word of (for example) Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, Saint Luke, Saint John, Saint Paul and Saint Peter. Tradition adds other writers: Moses and Ezra, to name but two. Different emphases, different original languages and different styles distinguish different passages. Various religious traditions regard various sets of text as biblically canonical. The revealed Word of God emerges as a Word for all seasons. Moreover, as Thomas Paine pointed out in the Age of Reason the bible contradicts itself thus violating the Law of noncontradiction. Note further that the natural growth of the halakha (and other biblically grounded forms of law over the millennia) proves that those interested in maintaining a biblical system of justice do not find the word of God sufficient as it is. It is also highly debatable whether a religious (let alone Biblical) foundation of morals/ethics/law is necessary.

God’s Word®[edit]

God’s Word® is a registered trademark of God’s Word to the Nations of Orange Park, FL.^[23]

See also[edit]

• Bible code
• Bible translations

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

My older brothers often use words in speech or writing that I have to look up…or pretend I understand until I can find the opportunity to look it up. Their vocabularies far exceed mine. I tell myself that is not because they are more erudite than I am, but because they are much, much older (and so have had many more years to learn all those fancy words)!

There is a benefit to their frequent pedantry, however. It often drives me to the dictionary (albeit sometimes in secret), where I learn new words and their meanings, which then quickly enrich my own conversations and writing.

Something like that has happened over the years in my prayer life. I am far from a scholar, but a handful of Greek words I picked up from studying the Bible have changed my prayers and paid rich dividends in my life:

1)  Agapé
“Love” is a many-splendored thing, the song says. But in English, the word “love” can be so broad in meaning that it becomes practically meaningless.

That is why I sometimes pray more specifically for myself and my loved ones to know and practice agapé, the Greek word the New Testament uses to refer to the self-sacrificing, all-encompassing love of God.

Agapé is the word Paul uses to describe “how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ…that surpasses knowledge” (Ephesians 3:18-19, NIV). So I don’t just pray for love in my life and the lives of those around me, I pray for agapé.

2)  Charis
Charis is a Greek word that means, “grace,” “favor,” “blessing” or “kindness.” It is the word that gives us the English word “charisma” and is the root of the word “eucharist.”

I sometimes use charis when I pray instead of those words (especially the word “bless,” which I have used so much that it has lost much of its meaning).

I ask God to shower charis on me and those I pray for. I ask for our lives to be “Eucharistic.” I ask for a life of “charisma,” of outflowing, grace-spreading influence to those all around.

Read More: 5 Hebrew Words to Pray

3)  Dunamis
When Paul wrote to the church at Ephesus referring to God’s “incomparably great power for us who believe” (Ephesians 1:19, NIV), he used a common Greek word, dunamis. It is the word from which sprang our English words, “dynamic” and “dynamite.”

So when I pray for God’s power to be shown in and through and around me, I sometimes pray for dunamis, because the “dunamis” of that word seems more “dynamic” than the oft-used English word, “power.” See what I mean?

4)  Poiema
One of my favorite Greek words was used by Paul when he told the Ephesian church that “we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Ephesians 2:10, NIV).

The word, “handiwork,” is a translation of the Greek word, poiema. It is a rich word. It can mean “work of art” or “masterpiece.” The English word “poem” comes from poiema.

So, when I give praise and thanks for God’s work in me or others, or pray for His continued craftsmanship in a life or a situation, I pray for poiema, for His masterful artwork to be shown.

5)  Teleios
Another word that expresses far more than any single English word is the Greek word, teleios. It means “complete,” “mature,” or “full grown.” It refers to something (or someone) that is a finished product or well-rounded outcome.

Paul used it (again in the letter to the Ephesians) when he referred to the goal of Christian discipleship, “that the body of Christ may be built up, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature [teleios], attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-13, NIV).

So I will sometimes pray to get closer to teleios in my life and for that “completeness” and conformity to the likeness of Christ to be shown in the lives of those around me.

Just five words, like the five Hebrew words I shared in a previous post, adds depth and breadth to how I pray. In fact, I can say that each word has changed and deepened how I pray, for myself and for others. I would love it if it does something similar for you.

Bert wrote:

Iacobus wrote:
In the Greek text there are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb (e.g. Mark 6:49,11:32; John 4:19, 6:70, 8:44, 8:48, 9:17, 10:1, 10:13, 10:33, 12:6, 18:37). In these places, translators insert the indefinite article «a» before the predicate noun in order to bring out the quality or characteristic of the subject. Since the indefinite article is inserted before the predicate noun in such texts, with equal justification the indefinite article «a» is inserted before the anarthrous θεός in the predicate of John 1:1 to make it read «a god.» The Sacred Scriptures confirm the correctness of this rendering.

Would you suggest translating ….ὁ θεος φῶς ἐστιν in 1 John 1:5 as ….God is a light?

Well, according to Philip B. Harner (previously quoted): «. . . anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are PRIMARILY qualitative in meaning.» So, not always is there understood an «a». For further explanation, read the following, quoted from the 11/15/75 Watchtower (especially noting the fifth paragraph down from the question).

«Questions from Readers

• Does the rendering of John 1:1 in the New World Translation violate rules of Greek grammar or conflict with worship of only one God?

The New World Translation renders John 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Some have objected to the translation “a god,” which appears in the final clause of this verse. They claim that the translators were wrong in putting an “a” in there before “god.” Is this really a mistranslation?

While the Greek language has no indefinite article corresponding to the English “a,” it does have a definite article ho, often rendered into English as “the.” For example, ho Khristos´, “the Christ,” ho Ky´ri·os, “the Lord,” ho The·os´, literally, “the God.”

Frequently, though, nouns occur in Greek without the article. Grammarians refer to these nouns as “anarthrous,” meaning “used without the article.” Interestingly, in the final part of John 1:1, the Greek word for “god,” the·os´, does not have the definite article ho before it. How do translators render such anarthrous Greek nouns into English?

Often they add the English indefinite article “a” to give proper sense to the passage. For example, in the concluding portion of John 9:17 the Greek text literally states, according to the interlinear literal translation by clergyman Alfred Marshall, D.Litt: “And he said[,] — A prophet he is.” There is no definite article before the Greek word for “prophet” here. The translator, therefore, rendered the word as “a prophet,” as do many other English translations.—Authorized Version, New American Standard Bible, also translations by Charles B. Williams and William F. Beck.

This does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the Greek text it should appear in English with the indefinite article. Translators render these nouns variously, at times even with a “the,” understanding them as definite, though the definite article is missing. At Matthew 27:40, for instance, several English Bible versions have the phrase “the Son of God,” though the Greek word for “son” is without the definite article.

What about John 1:1? Marshall’s interlinear translation of it reads: “In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with — God, and God was the Word.” As noted above, no “the” appears before “God” in the final clause of this verse. The New World Bible Translation Committee chose to insert the indefinite article “a” there. This helps to distinguish “the Word,” Jesus Christ, as a god, or divine person with vast power, from the God whom he was “with,” Jehovah, the Almighty. Some persons familiar with Greek claim that in doing so the translators violated an important rule of Greek grammar. Why so?

The problem, they say, is word order. Back in 1933 Greek scholar E. C. Colwell published an article entitled “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament.” In it he wrote: “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. . . . A predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a ‘qualitative’ noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun in spite of the absence of the article.”

At John 1:1 the anarthrous predicate noun the·os´ does precede the verb, the Greek word order being literally: “God [predicate] was [verb] the Word [subject].” Concerning this verse Colwell concluded: “The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun.” Thus some scholars claim that the only really correct way to translate this clause is: “And the Word was God.”

Do these statements of Colwell prove that “a god” is a mistranslation at John 1:1? Perhaps you noticed this scholar’s wording that an anarthrous predicate noun that precedes the verb should be understood as definite “if the context suggests” that. Further along in his argument Colwell stressed that the predicate is indefinite in this position “only when the context demands it.” Nowhere did he state that all anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek are definite nouns. Not any inviolable rule of grammar, but context must guide the translator in such cases.

The Greek text of the Christian Scriptures has many examples of this type of predicate noun where other translators into English have added the indefinite article “a.” Consider, for example, Marshall’s interlinear translation of the following verses: “Says to him the woman: Sir, I perceive that a prophet [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject].” (John 4:19) “Said therefore to him—Pilate: Not really a king [predicate] art [verb] thou [subject]? Answered—Jesus: Thou sayest that a king [predicate] I am [verb, with subject included].”—John 18:37.

Did you notice the expressions “a prophet,” “a king” (twice)? These are anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek. But the translator rendered them with the indefinite article “a.” There are numerous examples of this in English versions of the Bible. For further illustration consider the following from the Gospel of John in The New English Bible: “A devil” (6:70); “a slave” (8:34); “a murderer . . . a liar” (8:44); “a thief” (10:1); “a hireling” (10:13); “a relation” (18:26).

Alfred Marshall explains why he used the indefinite article in his interlinear translation of all the verses mentioned in the two previous paragraphs, and in many more: “The use of it in translation is a matter of individual judgement. . . . We have inserted ‘a’ or ‘an’ as a matter of course where it seems called for.” Of course, neither Colwell (as noted above) nor Marshall felt that an “a” before “god” at John 1:1 was called for. But this was not because of any inflexible rule of grammar. It was “individual judgement,” which scholars and translators have a right to express. The New World Bible Translation Committee expressed a different judgment in this place by the translation “a god.”

Certain scholars have pointed out that anarthrous predicate nouns that precede the verb in Greek may have a qualitative significance. That is, they may describe the nature or status of the subject. Thus some translators render John 1:1: “The Logos was divine,” (Moffatt); “the Word was divine,” (Goodspeed); “the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God,” (Barclay); “the Word was with God and shared his nature,” (The Translator’s New Testament).

Does the idea that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Scriptural teaching that there is only one God? (1 Cor. 8:5, 6) Not at all. At times the Hebrew Scriptures employ the term for God, ’elo·him´, with reference to mighty creatures. At Psalm 8:5, for example, we read: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones.” (Hebrew, ’elohim´; “a god,” New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible) The Greek Septuagint Version renders ?elo·him´ here as “angels.” The Jewish translators of this version saw no conflict with monotheism in applying the term for God to created spirit persons. (Compare Hebrews 2:7, 9.) Similarly, Jews of the first century C.E. found no conflict with their belief in one God at Psalm 82, though verses 1 and 6 of this psalm utilize the word ’elo·him´ (the·oi´, plural of the·os´, Septuagint) with reference to human judges.—Compare John 10:34-36.»»