Word
WORD
One of the titles of the second person of the Trinity, indicating perhaps that by his acts and teachings God is revealed, somewhat as thought is by words, 1Jo 1:1 5:7 Re 19:13. “The word of the Lord” was a common phrase in the Old Testament, always denoting some revelation of Jehovah. Long before the coming of Christ, the Jewish paraphrasts of the Bible used “The Word” in the passage where Jehovah occurred in the original; and the term was familiar to Jewish writers as the name of a divine being, the Son of God.To show its true meaning and its application to our Savior, was of great importance to John, the last of the inspired writers, in whose later years certain errors as to the person of Christ, borrowed from Eastern philosophy, had begun to creep into the Christian church. He describes “The Word” as a personal and divine Being, self-existent, and coexistent from eternity with the Father, yet distinguished from him as The Son, the creator of all created things, the source of all life and light to men, and in the fullness of time incarnate among men, Joh 1:13,14 . John’s gospel is full and clear respecting the divinity of Christ, Joh 20:31 .
Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary
Word
The English substantive word is used in the RV to translate two Greek originals, and . Of these is by far the more common, occurring 194 times in the NT, excluding the Gospels. In 153 of these it is translated word; in the remainder it has a rather wider significance, e.g. treatise (Act 1:1), matter, reason, or account (Act 8:21; Act 10:29; Act 15:6; Act 18:14; Act 19:38; Act 19:40; Act 20:24, Rom 14:12, Php 4:15; Php 4:17, Heb 4:12; Heb 13:7; Hebrews 13 :1Pe 3:15; 1Pe 4:5). It is used generally to mean speech or utterance (Act 14:12; Act 20:2, 1Co 1:5; 1Co 2:1; 1Co 2:4; 1Co 14:9, 2Co 8:7; 2Co 10:10; 2Co 11:6, Eph 4:29; Eph 6:19, Col 4:6). In Act 11:22 it is translated report, in Col 2:23 show (i.e. pretext). In Act 6:5; Act 7:29, 1Co 15:54, 1Ti 1:15; 1Ti 3:1; 1Ti 4:9, 2Ti 2:11, Tit 3:8 it is translated saying. In the last five of these passages the phrase is the same, faithful is the saying ( ), which seems to refer to a quotation from a Christian hymn or from some recognized liturgical formula.
Clement uses 11 times. In 9 of the passages it is simply equivalent to word in the ordinary sense. But he twice introduces a quotation from the OT with the phrase For the holy says (ad Cor. 13, 56), and there the sense seems to approach closely to that attached to the word in the quotations from the Pastoral Epistles given above, i.e. a statement of recognized authority.
is found three times in the Didache and twice in the Epistle of Barnabas. But in neither of these writings is it employed in any way which cannot be paralleled from the NT.
Ignatius has it three times (Magn. viii., Rom. ii, Smyrn. inscr.). In the first of these he refers to our Lord as the Word of God; in the second he calls himself a Word of God, meaning that his life and death are a testimony which is not to be interfered with by his friends. He greets the church of Smyrna as being in the Word of God, where the is conceived as the inward monitor which directs the Christians life (cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii. [1889] vol. ii. p. 288).
Outside the Gospels is found only in 29 passages of the NT, 14 of these being in Acts. It is always translated word in the RV except in Act 5:32 (things) and Act 10:37 (saying). Of the 15 passages in which it occurs elsewhere six are quotations from the OT. It is used once by Clement (ad Cor. 30) in a quotation from Job 11:2-3. It is not found in the Didache, Ep. Barn., or Ignatius. There is nothing in its use by the NT writers which calls for special comment.
In many passages of the NT no special significance attaches to . It means simply that which is said. But the Word, or the Word of God, or the Word of the Lord is frequently used in a semi-technical sense for the content of the message which the Church is charged to deliver. Thus in Act 4:29 the infant Church prays for courage to speak thy word with boldness in the face of persecution. In Act 6:2 the apostles refuse to forsake the word of God to serve tables. After the appointment of the deacons the word of God increased. It is unnecessary to multiply examples of this usage. In Act 16:36 is used of the message sent by the magistrates at Philippi to St. Pauls jailer. We find it combined with a number of different substantives: e.g. grace (Act 14:3; Act 20:32), exhortation (Act 13:15, Heb 13:22), salvation (Act 13:26), promise (Rom 9:9), the Cross, i.e. the gospel of the Crucified Saviour (1Co 1:18), wisdom and knowledge (1Co 12:8), truth (2Co 6:7, Eph 1:13, Col 1:5, 2Ti 2:15, Jam 1:18), the word of Christ (Col 3:16), life (Php 2:16, 1Jn 1:1), hearing (Heb 4:2), righteousness (Heb 5:13), oath (Heb 7:28), prophecy (Rev 1:3; Rev 22:7; Rev 22:9-10; Rev 22:18-19; cf. the of 2Pe 1:19), patience (Rev 3:10), testimony (Rev 12:11). Word is contrasted with power or reality in 1Co 4:20, 2Co 10:11, Col 3:17, 1Th 1:5, 1Jn 3:18. This distinction is common in writers of the classical period, e.g. Thucydides.
In most of these passages the meaning is a spoken message. The content is not precisely defined, and might vary a good deal from time to time. But is also applied to written documents. Thus the mention of the word of promise in Rom 9:9 is followed by a quotation of the angels pledge to Abraham (Gen 18:10). In 2Pe 1:19 the whole corpus of the prophetic writings is summed up as the prophetic . In Gal 5:14 the whole Law is said to be summed up in one , Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. In 2Ti 1:13 the pattern of sound words which the Apostle exhorts Timothy to hold may be presumed to be some definite doctrinal statement, of the nature of a creed. In Revelation 22 the phrase the words of the prophecy of this book occurs 4 times, the words of this book once, meaning the exact text which the writer has just completed. Thus as a rule word in the NT means rather more than in current English. But the meaning is sometimes narrowed to the one customary among ourselves.
is personal in two passages in the apostolic writings: 1Jn 1:1, where the author speaks of having seen and handled the Word of life; and Rev 19:13, where it is said that the name of the crowned heavenly horseman is called The Word of God. But any discussion of the Johannine Logosdoctrine lies outside the scope of this article.
In Heb 4:12 (For the word of God is living, and active, etc.) there is perhaps a slight approach towards a personification of the spoken or written Word. There is a somewhat similar metaphorical use of in Eph 6:17 (Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God).
R. H. Malden.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Word
is in Hebrew () often put for thing or matter; as Exo 2:14. “Surely this thing [Heb. word] is known;” “Tomorrow the Lord shall do this thing [Heb. word] in the land” (9:5); “I will do a thing [Heb. word] in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle ” (1Sa 3:11); “And the rest of the acts [Heb. words] of Solomon” (1Ki 11:41). So likewise the Gr. , which properly signifies an utterance, came to denote any sensible object or occurrence.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Word
It was observed by the late Dr. McCaul [See his Essay on ‘Prophecy’ in Aids to Faith.] that ‘whether we take the Hebrew Scriptures as true or not, it is an incontrovertible fact that the fundamental idea of the Hebrew religion is that Jehovah is a God who reveals Himself to his creatures; that He has not left the human race to grope their way to the regions of religion or morality as they best can, but that from the beginning He has taken his children by the hand, cared for their welfare, made known to them his will, and marked out for them the way to happiness.’ in accordance with this undeniable fact, the Divine Being is represented as speaking by word of mouth with his creatures.
Under the general title ‘the Word of the Lord’ in the O.T. we find not only the law of the ten commandments (literally, the ten words) uttered by the Divine Voice on Mount Sinai, but also all the promises, warnings, precepts, prophecies, revelations of the Divine character, and messages of mercy, which proceeded from God through the medium of ‘holy men of old.’ in the Psalms and prophetical books the whole body of revealed truth, including all historical manifestations of God’s righteous and merciful rule, appears to be referred to as the Word of the Lord. Occasionally the utterance of speech on God’s part is taken as identical with the exertion of his power, as when we read that ‘ by the word of the Lord were the heavens made’ (Psa 33:6); and again, ‘Man doth not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’ (Deu 8:3); and again, ‘He sent his word and healed them’ (Psa 107:20). Throughout Scripture a distinction is drawn between the Will of God and the expression of that will or the Word of God. He was not content with willing that there should be light, but He said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light; thus without the Word was not anything made that was made (see Joh 1:3).
The mode of transmitting the message from God to man was by no means uniform. God said to Moses, ‘Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb or deaf or the seeing or the blind? have not I, the Lord? now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say’ (Exo 4:11-12). A little further we learn that Moses was to transmit the Divine message to his brother Aaron, and that he was to pass it on to the people; thus Moses was to be to Aar on in the place of God. this would imply the suggestion of the substance of what was to be said, though not necessarily the dictation of the words in the remarkable instance of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer 36:1-32.) God spoke the words to Jeremiah, and he dictated them to Baruch, who wrote them down in the vision in which Ezekiel received his special appointment as a messenger from God to Israel, he is directed to eat the roll on which the woes to be inflicted up on the people were recorded. Having thus made the message his own, he was to go forth with the words ‘Thus saith the Lord.’
The most ordinary Hebrew terms setting forth the Divine utterances are amar (), to say, and davar [Whence devir () oracle, is derived. See 1Ki 6:5, and later passages.] (), to speak. The former refers rather to the mode of revelation, and the latter to the substance. Hence davar is frequently rendered thing, as in Gen 15:1; Gen 19:8; compare Luk 1:37. Milah () has also been rendered word in thirty passages, nineteen of which are in Job and seven in Daniel. It is used in 2Sa 23:2, ‘The spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue;’ Psa 19:4, ‘Their words unto the end of the world.’ in the LXX the verb amar is generally rendered and and the noun and ; davar is generally rendered , and the noun generally , sometimes , and in thirty-five passages . Milah is rendered and ; and Nam (), to utter or assert, which is rare in the earlier books and frequent in the later, is rendered . Peh (), mouth, is rendered word in Gen 41:40 and fourteen other passages.
In the N.T. ‘the word of God’ frequently stands for the truths contained in the O.T.; but it often stands for ‘the Gospel,’ i.e. the story of the life, teaching, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Christ, together with their bearing on human life and destiny.
Christ Himself is called ‘the Word,’ both at the beginning of St. John’s Gospel and elsewhere; and though it is usually supposed that this title was given to Him by the Evangelist with especial reference to the philosophical theology current in his time, the usage of the O.T. is quite enough to justify and to suggest it.
The LXX usage of and does not justify a profound distinction between these words in the N.T. The first, perhaps, stands for the utterance, and the second for the drift and re as on of what is uttered. See 1Pe 1:23; 1Pe 1:25, where they are combined.
Fuente: Synonyms of the Old Testament
WORD
To the Israelites of Old Testament times, Gods word was not simply something written down or spoken out, but something active. It had within it the power of God, so that when God expressed his will, that will was carried out. When God said, Let there be light, there was light (Gen 1:3). Through the active word of God, the universe was created (Gen 1:3; Gen 1:6; Gen 1:9; Gen 1:14; Gen 1:20; Gen 1:24; Gen 1:26; Heb 11:3; 2Pe 3:5). Gods word could not fail. Whatever it said would happen had to happen (Isa 55:10-11). Gods word had such life and power that people often thought of it almost as if it was a person the living agent or messenger of God (Psa 33:6; Psa 107:20; Psa 147:15; Psa 147:18).
Jesus the Word
In the New Testament Jesus is called the Word (Greek: logos) (1Jn 1:1-3). Greek philosophers of the first century used logos in reference to what they believed to be the principle of reason in the universe, but this is not necessarily the way the Bible uses the word. The word logos as used in the New Testament may contain some reference to the Greek ideas, but it is better understood in relation to the Old Testament meaning of word.
The Word of God is the living and active agent of God. It existed before creation and was the means by which God created. The New Testament shows that this Word is more than merely likened to a person, it is a person; no longer it, but he. He is not only with God, he is God. This Word is Jesus Christ, who came into the world as a human being. He is the living Word, the living expression of God. His words and deeds are the words and deeds of God (Joh 1:1-4; Joh 1:14; cf. Gen 1:1; Gen 1:3; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:1-3; Rev 19:13; Rev 19:16). (For details see JESUS CHRIST; SON OF GOD.)
The written and spoken Word
Because God has spoken to the world through Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is the Word. Similarly, because he has spoken through the Scriptures, the Scriptures are the Word (Psa 119:105; Mat 15:6; Joh 10:35). When, however, the Bible writers speak of the written or spoken Word of God, they are usually referring not to a one-volume book such as our Bible, but to the Word of God as announced or preached by Gods representatives. (For details of the Bible as the Word of God see INSPIRATION; SCRIPTURES.)
Prophets, for example, were Gods spokesmen, and their announcements were the authoritative Word of God for his people (Isa 1:2-4; Isa 1:18; Jer 23:22; Eze 1:3; Hos 4:1; Joe 1:1; Amo 1:3; Heb 1:1-2; see PROPHECY). Likewise the preaching of the gospel by the New Testament apostles was the proclamation of the Word of God (Act 4:31; Act 13:44; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5-6; 1Pe 1:23; 1Pe 1:25; see GOSPEL; PREACHING). The instruction in Christian doctrine that followed was the teaching of the Word of God (Act 18:11; Col 3:16; 1Th 2:13; Heb 13:7; see TEACHER).
This spoken Word became also the written Word and, like the personal Word Jesus, was living and active. It is still living and active today, and does Gods work in the hearts and lives of those who hear it or read it (Heb 4:12).
Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary
Word
WORD.(, ) is employed in the Gospels in a large variety of senses: (1) articulate utterance of any kind; (2) the inspired word of Scripture (cf. Mar 7:13making the word of God of none effect through your traditions); (3) a Divine message generally (Luk 3:2 The word of God came to John in the wilderness, so Luk 4:4; Luk 8:11; Luk 11:28); (4) the word of the kingdom, i.e. the gospel message (Mat 13:19 ff., Mar 16:20, Luk 5:1); (5) Christs word of authority (Luk 4:36 What a word is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him); (6) in the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel, Christ Himself is the Word made flesh (see Logos).
The peculiar significance attached to the spoken word is to be explained in the light of Hebrew usage. In the OT, as in all primitive thought, a word is something more than an articulate sound with a given import. It is endowed with a certain power and reality. It carries with it some portion of the life and personality of the speaker. This is true more especially of a word spoken by God. Such a word is instinct with the Divine will, and effects by its own inherent power the thing which it indicates. As the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, so shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth; it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please (Isa 55:10 f.). The word delivered to the prophets is here conceived as an active power, which will bring about its own fulfilment. So in His creation and government of the world, God effects His purpose by His word (Genesis 1, Psa 33:6; Psa 33:9; Psa 107:20). It is regarded not simply as a commandment, but as a vital energy which is sent forth from God and realizes His will.
The references in the Gospels are coloured throughout by this Hebrew conception. Even where Divine utterance is not in question, a value is ascribed to words which does not belong to them according to our modern modes of thought. For every idle word that a man speaks, he shall give account in the judgment;for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned (Mat 12:36 f.). Jesus regards the most casual word as more than wasted breath. It is a spiritual force, and the man who sets it free is responsible for the good or evil which it produces. A similar estimate of the value of words underlies the many injunctions against profane, or foolish, or thoughtless, or unkind speech (Mat 5:22; Mat 5:34-37, Luk 12:10, Mat 12:34). Such words have all the significance of wicked actions. Coming from within a man, they express his mind and character even more truly than deeds, and will bear witness of him in the Judgment.
The influence of the OT conception appears more clearly, however, in the allusions to Christs own word. It is the vehicle of His wonder-working power. It has virtue in it to heal diseases and to quiet the winds and the sea. In several passages the word is explained as one of kingly authority, which had might over the spiritual agencies at work in nature (cf. Luk 4:36, Mat 8:16). But the radical idea is undoubtedly that of a word with power (Luk 4:32) analogous to the Divine word. To give effect to His will, Jesus had only to utter it; the word that went out from Him was itself quick and powerful, and acted in His stead. In this sense also we must interpret the references to the message of Jesus as the word. As thus described, the gospel is something more than the Christian teaching or the proclamation of the Messianic Kingdom. The idea is suggested that a new power had entered the world through Jesus, and communicated itself in His spoken message. Thus in the parable of the Sower, the word is compared to seed which contains in itself wonderful potentialities. All that is required of men is the right disposition of heart; the message, once received into the good ground, will henceforth work of itself, with a living and ever-increasing power.
In the Fourth Gospel, more especially, the allusions to the words of Jesus have everywhere a pregnant meaning. The words that I speak unto you are spirit and life (Joh 6:63); Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you (Joh 15:3); He that heareth my word hath everlasting life (Joh 5:24);in such sayings and many others the idea of whole-hearted assimilation of the teaching of Jesus is certainly present, but it is by no means the only, or the central, idea. It is indeed characteristic of the Fourth Gospel that Jesus says little by way of positive teaching. He Himself, in His own Person, is the revelation, and the words ascribed to Him have reference mainly to His supreme worth as the Light of the worldthe Way, the Truth, and the Life. Because they thus give expression to His Divine claim, they in a manner represent Himself. To accept the words is to receive Jesus, in His life-giving power, into ones heart (cf. Joh 15:7 If ye abide in me and my words abide in you).
It has often been suggested that the peculiar emphasis on the words of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is intended to illustrate the thesis of the Prologue that He was Himself the Word made flesh. The absence of the Logos theory from the body of the Gospel would thus be counterbalanced by the many references to the words. Against this view, however, it may be urged: (1) that no consistent rule is traceable in the use of and , as might have been expected if the writer were working out some definite idea; (2) that in the Prologue bears a twofold significance (word and reason) which can nowhere be discerned in the later references. The more probable conclusion is that the value assigned to the words, of Jesus is connected, not so much with the specific Logos doctrine, as with the general conception that Jesus was one in nature with God. His words were therefore of the same quality as the Divine creative word. They were spirit and life (Joh 6:63).
Literature.Smend, Alttest. Theol. p. 87 f. (1893); Wendt Die Lehre Jesu (1901); H. Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol. ii. 396 f. (1897); Titius, Die Johann. Anschauung der Seligkeit, 70 f. (1900); J. Ker, Serm. i. 1; J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain. Serm. v. 29; F. W. Robertson, Serm. iv. 145; R. W. Church, Pascal, and other Serm. 255.
E. F. Scott.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Word
WORD.Apart from the personal use of Word as a title of Christ (see Logos), its Biblical interpretation presents few difficulties. Both in the OT and in the NT the original terms employed may pass from the meaning speech to signify the subject matter of speech. In some passages there is uncertainty as to whether the tr. [Note: translate or translation.] should be word or thing. For example, 1Ki 11:41 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] has or words, or matters as alternatives to the acts of Solomon. In Act 8:21 thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter probably means in the matter in dispute, which was the coveted power of imparting the gifts of the Holy Spirit; but the RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] word is preferred by some expositors, who think that the reference is to the word preached by the Apostles and its attendant blessings (cf. Mar 1:45, Luk 1:2). The EV [Note: English Version.] retains word in Mat 18:16 and 2Co 13:1, although Deu 19:15 reads: At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall every matter be established.
J. G. Tasker.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Word
In Scripture this is used for the uncreated word, which John calls Christ by, in relation to his eternal power and GODHEAD, (Joh 1:1) etc.-and also the written word, the word of God, which the Hebrews called Dabar. See Christ
Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures
Word
wurd: The commonest term in the Old Testament for word is , dabhar (also matter thing); in the New Testament , logos (reason, discourse, speech); but also frequently , rhema. Rhema is a word in itself considered; logos is a spoken word, with reference generally to that which is in the speaker’s mind. Some of the chief applications of the terms may thus be exhibited:
(1) We have the word of Yahweh (or God; see below) (a) as the revelation to the patriarch, prophet, or inspired person (Gen 15:1; Exo 20:1; Num 22:38, etc.); (b) as spoken forth by the prophet (Exo 4:30; Exo 34:1; 2Ki 7:1; Isa 1:10, etc.). (2) The word is often a commandment, sometimes equivalent to the Law (Exo 32:28; Num 20:24; Deu 6:6; Psa 105:8; Psa 119:11, Psa 119:17; Isa 66:2, etc.). (3) As a promise and ground of hope (Psa 119:25, Psa 119:28, Psa 119:38, etc.; Psa 130:5, etc.). (4) As creative, upholding, and preserving (Psa 33:6; compare Gen 1:3 ff; Psa 147:15, Psa 147:18; Heb 1:3; Heb 11:3; 2Pe 3:5, 2Pe 3:7). (5) As personified (in Apocrypha, The Wisdom of Solomon 18:15; Ecclesiasticus 1:5, the Revised Version margin omitted by the best authorities). (6) As personal (Joh 1:1). Logos in Philo and Greek-Jewish philosophy meant both reason or thought and its utterance, the whole contents of the divine world of thought resting in the Nous of God, synonymous with the inner life of God Himself and corresponding to the logos endiathetos of the human soul; on the other hand, it is the externalizing of this as revelation corresponding to the logos prophorikos in which man’s thought finds expression (Schultz). Compare also the references to Creation by the word of God and its personifications; see LOGOS; incarnated in Jesus Christ (Joh 1:14; 1Jo 1:1, 1Jo 1:2; Rev 19:13, His name is called, The Word of God, Ho Logos tou Theou). See PERSON OF CHRIST. (7) Cannot be broken, endureth forever (2Ki 10:10; Psa 119:89; Isa 40:8, etc.). (8) A designation of the gospel of Christ: sometimes simply the word; with Jesus the word of the Kingdom (Mat 13:19; Mar 2:2; Act 4:4, Act 4:29, Act 4:31, etc.). In John’s Gospel Jesus frequently speaks of His word and works as containing the divine revelation and requirements made through Him, which men are asked to believe in, cherish and obey (Joh 5:24; Joh 6:63, Joh 6:68, etc.); the words of God (Joh 3:34; Joh 8:47; Joh 14:10; Joh 17:8, Joh 17:14, etc.); His word (logos and rhema) is to be distinguished from lalia, speech (compare Mat 26:73; Mar 14:70), translated saying, Joh 4:42 (Joh 4:41, Many more believed because of his own word (logos); Joh 4:42, not because of thy saying (lalia), the Revised Version (British and American) speaking); in the only other occurrence of lalia in this Gospel (Joh 8:43) Jesus uses it to distinguish the outward expression from the inner meaning, Why do ye not understand my speech? (lalia), Even because ye cannot hear my word (logos). (9) Words are distinguished from power (1Co 4:20; 1Th 1:5); are contrasted with deed (Mal 2:17; 1Co 4:20; 1Jo 3:18). (10) Paul refers to unspeakable words (arrheta rhemata) which he heard in Paradise (2Co 12:4), and to words (logoi)…which the Spirit teacheth (1Co 2:13).
For word the Revised Version (British and American) has commandment (Num 4:45, etc.); for words, things (Joh 7:9; Joh 8:30; Joh 9:22, Joh 9:40; Joh 17:1), sayings (Joh 10:21; Joh 12:47, Joh 12:48); for enticing words, persuasiveness of speech (Col 2:4); conversely, word for commandment (Num 24:13; Num 27:14; Jos 8:8, etc.), with numerous other changes.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Word
A title of Jesus.
Joh 1:1; Joh 1:14; 1Jn 5:7; Rev 19:13 Jesus, The Christ, Names, Appellations, and Titles of
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Word
Word (logos). The, is one of the titles of Jesus Christ. The term occurs only in the writings of John. Joh 1:1-14; 1Jn 1:1; Rev 19:13.
Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible
Word
logos (G3056) Word, Discourse
mythos (G3454) Account, Fable
Logos means sermo (discourse) as much as verbum (a connected discourse in a single word), and there has been much discussion concerning which of these words best translates the highest application of logos (Joh 1:1). We will not dwell on this exceptional and purely theological employment of logos. In the New Testament logos frequently is used to refer to that word which eminently deserves the name “the word of God” (Act 4:13) and “the word of the truth” (2Ti 2:15; cf. Luk 1:2; Act 6:4; Jam 1:22). In this regard, we may discuss the similarities and dissimilarities between logos and mythos. Once there was only a slight difference between these two words, but the meaning of mythos grew so that eventually a great gulf separated it from logos.
Mythos passed through three distinct stages of meaning, though it never completely lost its first meaning. Initially, mythos did not refer at all to fables and still less to that which is false. During this period of its use, mythos stood on equal footing with rhema (G4487), epos (G2031), and logos. The relationship between mythos and myo, myeo (G3453), and myzo shows that mythos originally must have signified the word within the mind or the word muttered on the lips, though there are no actual examples of such a usage. Already in Homer, mythos was used to refer to the spoken word. The tragic poets and others who were dependent on Homer continued to use mythos in this way, even at a time in Attic prose when mythos almost had exchanged this meaning for another.
In the second stage of the development of mythos’s meaning, it was used in antithesis to logos, though in a respectful and often honorable sense. Mythos was used to refer to that which is conceived by the mind as contrasted with that which actually is true. It did not refer to a literal fact but to something that was “truer,” to something that involves a higher teaching, to “an unreal account [logos] symbolizing the truth,” as Suidas said. According to Plutarch: “Mythos is an image and likeness of logou.” There is “an account [logos] in myth [mytho]” that may have infinitely more value than many actual facts. According to Schiller, it frequently is true that “a deeper import lurks in the legend told our infant years than lies upon the truth we live to learn.” By the time of Herodotus and Pindar, mythos was being used in this sense. As we have observed, in Attic prose mythos rarely has any other meaning.
But in a world like ours, a fable easily degenerates into a falsehood. “Tradition, time’s suspected register that wears out truth’s best stories into tales,” always works to bring about such a result. Story, tale, and many other words attest to this fact. In the third stage of the development of mythos’s meaning, it came to refer to a fable in the more modern sense of that word, to a fable that is not the vehicle for some lofty truth. During this stage of its development, mythos refers to a lying fable with all its falsehood and pretenses. Thus Eustathius wrote: “Mythos in Homer is the simple account [logos], but in later writers it is unreal and fabricated, having an appearance of truth.” This is the only sense of mythos in the New Testament. Thus we have “profane and old wives’ fables” (1Ti 4:7), “Jewish fables” (Tit 1:14), and “cunningly devised fables.” The other two occasions of the word’s use (1Ti 1:4; 2Ti 4:4) are just as contemptuous. Initially, legend was an honorable word that referred to that which is worthy to be read, but it came to designate “a heap of frivolous and scandalous vanities” (Hooker). Legend has had much the same history as mythos, since similar influences were at work to degrade both. J. H. H. Schmidt said:
Mythos came to denote a fictitious story because the naive faith in the ancient traditions, which had retained their transmitted titles, was gradually lost. Thus mythos like logos implies antithesis to reality, however in such a way as simultaneously pointing out the silly and improbable character of fiction.
Although logos and mythos began their journey together, they gradually parted company. The antagonism between these words grew stronger and stronger until they finally stood in open opposition. This is true of words as well as of people, when one comes to belong to the kingdom of light and truth and the other to the kingdom of darkness and lies.
Fuente: Synonyms of the New Testament
Word
denotes (I) “the expression of thought,” not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e.g., Luk 7:7; 1Co 14:9,1Co 14:19; (b) a saying or statement, (1) by God, e.g., Joh 15:25; Rom 9:9; Rom 9:28, RV, “word” (AV, “work”); Gal 5:14; Heb 4:12; (2) by Christ, e.g., Mat 24:35 (plur.); Joh 2:22; Joh 4:41; Joh 14:23 (plur.); Joh 15:20. In connection with (1) and (2) the phrase “the word of the Lord,” i.e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ, 1Th 4:15; of the gospel, Act 8:25; Act 13:49; Act 15:35-36; Act 16:32; Act 19:10; 1Th 1:8; 2Th 3:1; in this respect it is the message from the Lord, delivered with His authority and made effective by His power (cp. Act 10:36); for other instances relating to the gospel see Act 13:26; Act 14:3; Act 15:7; 1Co 1:18, RV; 2Co 2:17; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 5:19; 2Co 6:7; Gal 6:6; Eph 1:13; Phi 2:16; Col 1:5; Heb 5:13; sometimes it is used as the sum of God’s utterances, e.g., Mar 7:13; Joh 10:35; Rev 1:2,Rev 1:9; (c) discourse, speech, of instruction, etc., e.g., Act 2:40; 1Co 2:13; 1Co 12:8; 2Co 1:18; 1Th 1:5; 2Th 2:15; Heb 6:1, RV, marg.; doctrine, e.g., Mat 13:20; Col 3:16; 1Ti 4:6; 2Ti 1:13; Tit 1:9; 1Jo 2:7;
(II) “The Personal Word,” a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated by the statements of doctrine in Joh. 1:1-18, declaring in verses Joh 1:1-2 (1) His distinct and superfinite Personality, (2) His relation in the Godhead (pros, “with,” not mere company, but the most intimate communion), (3) His deity; in Joh 1:3 His creative power; in Joh 1:14 His incarnation (“became flesh,” expressing His voluntary act; not as AV, “was made”), the reality and totality of His human nature, and His glory “as of the only begotten from the Father,” RV (marg., “an only begotten from a father”), the absence of the article in each place lending stress to the nature and character of the relationship; His was the shekinah glory in open manifestation; Joh 1:18 consummates the identification: “the only-begotten Son (RV marg., many ancient authorities read “God only begotten,”), which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him,” thus fulfilling the significance of the title “Logos,” the “Word,” the personal manifestation, not of a part of the Divine nature, but of the whole Deity (see IMAGE).
The title is used also in 1Jo 1:1, “the Word of life” combining the two declarations in Joh 1:1,Joh 1:4 and Rev 19:13 (for 1Jo 5:7 see THREE).
denotes “that which is spoken, what is uttered in speech or writing;” in the singular, “a word,” e.g., Mat 12:36; Mat 27:14; 2Co 12:4; 2Co 13:1; Heb 12:19; in the plural, speech, discourse, e.g., Joh 3:34; Joh 8:20; Act 2:14; Act 6:11,Act 6:13; Act 11:14; Act 13:42; Act 26:25; Rom 10:18; 2Pe 3:2; Jud 1:17; it is used of the Gospel in Rom 10:8 (twice), Rom 10:17, RV, “the word of Christ” (i.e., the “word” which preaches Christ); Rom 10:18; 1Pe 1:25 (twice); of a statement, command, instruction, e.g., Mat 26:75; Luk 1:37, RV, “(no) word (from God shall be void of power);” Luk 1:38; Act 11:16; Heb 11:3.
The significance of rhema (as distinct from logos) is exemplified in the injunction to take “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God,” Eph 6:17; here the reference is not to the whole Bible as such, but to the individual scripture which the Spirit brings to our remembrance for use in time of need, a prerequisite being the regular storing of the mind with Scripture.
Notes: (1) Epos, “a word,” is used in a phrase in Heb 7:9, lit., “(as to say) a word,” RV, “(so to) say,” AV, “(as I may so) say;” logos is reasoned speech, rhema, an utterance, epos, “the articulated expression of a thought” (Abbott-Smith). (2) In Rom 16:18, AV, chrestologia, “useful discourse” (chrestos, “beneficial”), is rendered “good words” [RV, “smooth … (speech)”]. (3) For logikos, 1Pe 2:2 (RV, “spiritual”), rendered “of the word,” AV, see MILK. (4) For the verb apangello, rendered “to bring word,” see BRING, No. 36. (5) In Mat 2:13, AV, eipon, “to tell” (RV) is rendered “bring … word.” (6) For “enticing words,” Col 2:4, see ENTICE and PERSUASIVENESS. (7) For “strifes of words,” 1Ti 6:4, AV, and “strive … about words,” 2Ti 2:14, see STRIFE, STRIVE. (8) For suntomos, Act 24:4, “a few words,” see FEW, B. For the same phrase see FEW, A, Nos. 1 and 2.
Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words
Word
Sometimes the Scripture ascribes to the word of God certain supernatural effects, and often represents it as animated and active: He sent his word and healed them, Psa 107:20. It also signifies what is written in the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, Luk 11:28; Jam 1:22; the divine law which teaches and commands good things, and forbids evil, Psa 119:101; and is used to express every promise of God, Psa 119:25, &c, and prophecy or vision, Isa 2:1. This term is likewise consecrated and appropriated to signify the only Son of the Father, the uncreated Wisdom, the second Person of the most holy Trinity, equal to and consubstantial with the Father. St. John the evangelist, more expressly than any other, has opened to us the mystery of the Word of God, when he tells us, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made, Joh 1:1-3. The Chaldee paraphrasts, the most ancient Jewish writers extant, generally make use of the word memra, which signifies the Word, in those places where Moses puts the name Jehovah. They say, for example, that it was the Memra, or the Word, which created the world, which appeared to Moses on Mount Sinai, which gave him the law, which spoke to him face to face, which brought Israel out of Egypt, which marched before the people, and which wrought all those miracles that are recorded in Exodus. It was the same Word that appeared to Abraham in the plain of Mamre, that was seen of Jacob at Bethel, to whom Jacob made his vow, and acknowledged as God, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, then shall the Lord be my God, Gen 28:20-21. The manner in which St. John commences his Gospel is strikingly different from the introductions to the histories of Christ by the other evangelists; and no less striking and peculiar is the title under which he announces him the Word. It has therefore been a subject of much inquiry and discussion, from whence this evangelist drew the use of this appellation, and what reasons led him, as though intending to solicit particular attention, to place it at the very head of his Gospel. That it was for the purpose of establishing an express opinion, as to the personal character of him it is used to designate, is made more than probable from the predominant character of the whole Gospel, which is more copiously doctrinal, and contains a record more full of what Jesus said than the others. As to the source from which the term Logos was drawn by the Apostle, some have held it to be taken from the Jewish Scriptures; others, from the Chaldee paraphrases; others, from Philo and the Hellenizing Jews. The most natural conclusion certainly appears to be, that, as St. John was a plain, unlearned man, chiefly conversant in the Holy Scriptures, he derived this term from the sacred books of his own nation, in which the Hebrew phrase, Dabar Jehovah, the Word of Jehovah, frequently occurs in passages which must be understood to speak of a personal Word, and which phrase is rendered [the word of the Lord] by the Septuagint interpreters. Certainly, there is not the least evidence in his writings, or in his traditional history, that he ever acquainted himself with Philo or with Plato; and none therefore, that he borrowed the term from them, or used it in any sense approaching to or suggested by these refinements:in the writings of St. Paul there are allusions to poets and philosophers; in those of St. John, none, except to the rising sects afterward known under the appellation of Gnostics. The Hebrew Scriptures contain frequent intimations of a distinction of Persons in the Godhead; one of these Divine Persons is called Jehovah; and, though manifestly represented as existing distinct from the Father, is yet arrayed with attributes of divinity, and was acknowledged by the ancient Jews to be, in the highest sense, their God, the God with whom, through all their history, they chiefly had to do. This Divine Person is proved to have been spoken of by the prophets as the future Christ; the evangelists and Apostles represent Jesus as that Divine Person of the prophets; and if, in the writings of the Old Testament, he is also called the Word, the application of this term to our Lord is naturally accounted for. It will then appear to be a theological, not a philosophic appellation, and one which, previously even to the time of the Apostle, had been stamped with the authority of inspiration.
Celebrated as this title of the Logos was in the Jewish theology, it is not, however, the appellation by which the Spirit of inspiration has chosen that our Saviour should be principally designated. It occurs but a very few times, and principally and emphatically in the introduction to St. John’s Gospel. A cogent reason can be given why this Apostle adopts it; and we are not without a probable reason why, in the New Testament, the title Son of God should have been preferred, which is a frequent title of the Logos in the writings also of Philo. Originating from the spiritual principle of connection, between the first and the second Being in the Godhead; marking this, by a spiritual idea of connection; and considering it to be as close and as necessary as the Word is to the energetic mind of God, which cannot bury its intellectual energies in silence, but must put them forth in speech; it is too spiritual in itself, to be addressed to the faith of the multitude. If with so full a reference to our bodily ideas, and so positive a filiation of the second Being to the first, we have seen the attempts of Arian criticism endeavouring to resolve the doctrine into the mere dust of a figure; how much more ready would it have been to do so, if we had only such a spiritual denomination as this for the second! This would certainly have been considered by it as too unsubstantial for distinct personality, and therefore too evanescent for equal divinity. One of the first teachers of this system was Cerinthus. We have not any particular account of all the branches of his system; and it is possible that we may ascribe to him some of those tenets by which later sects of Gnostics were discriminated. But we have authority for saying, that the general principle of the Gnostic scheme was openly taught by Cerinthus before the publication of the Gospel of St. John. The authority is that of Irenaeus, a bishop who lived in the second century, who in his youth had heard Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John, and who retained the discourses of Polycarp in his memory till his death. There are yet extant of the works of Irenaeus, five books which he wrote against heresies, one of the most authentic and valuable monuments of theological erudition. In one place of that work he says, that Cerinthus taught in Asia that the world was not made by the Supreme God, but by a certain power very separate and far removed from the Sovereign of the universe, and ignorant of his nature. In another place, he says that John the Apostle wished, by his Gospel, to extirpate the error which had been spread among men by Cerinthus; and Jerom, who lived in the fourth century, says that St. John wrote his Gospel, at the desire of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus and other heretics, and chiefly against the doctrines of the Ebionites, then springing up, who said that Christ did not exist before he was born of Mary.
It appears, says Dr. Hill, to have been the tradition of the Christian church, that St. John, who lived to a great age, and who resided at Ephesus, in Proconsular Asia, was moved by the growth of the Gnostic heresies, and by the solicitations of the Christian teachers, to bear his testimony to the truth in writing, and particularly to recollect those discourses and actions of our Lord, which might furnish the clearest refutation of the persons who denied his preexistence. This tradition is a key to a great part of his Gospel. Matthew, Mark, and Luke had given a detail of those actions of Jesus which are the evidences of his divine mission; of those events in his life upon earth which are most interesting to the human race; and of those moral discourses in which the wisdom, the grace, and the sanctity of the Teacher shine with united lustre. Their whole narration implies that Jesus was more than man. But as it is distinguished by a beautiful simplicity, which adds very much to their credit as historians, they have not, with the exception of a few incidental expressions, formally stated the conclusion that Jesus was more than man; but have left the Christian world to draw it for themselves from the facts narrated, or to receive it by the teaching and the writings of the Apostles. St. John, who was preserved by God to see this conclusion, which had been drawn by the great body of Christians, and had been established in the epistles, denied by different heretics, brings forward, in the form of a history of Jesus, a view of his exalted character, and draws our attention particularly to the truth of that which had been denied. When you come to analyze the Gospel of St John, you will find that the first eighteen verses contain the positions laid down by the Apostle, in order to meet the errors of Cerinthus; that these positions, which are merely affirmed in the introduction, are proved in the progress of the Gospel, by the testimony of John the Baptist, and by the words and the actions of our Lord; and that after the proof is concluded by the declaration of Thomas, who, upon being convinced that Jesus had risen, said to him, My Lord, and my God,’ St. John sums up the amount of his Gospel in these few words: These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;’ that is, that Jesus and the Christ are not distinct persons, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Apostle does not condescend to mention the name of Cerinthus, because that would have preserved, as long as the world lasts, the memory of a name which might otherwise be forgotten. But, although there is dignity and propriety in omitting the mention of his name, it was necessary, in laying down the positions that were to meet his errors, to adopt some of his words, because the Christians of those days would not so readily have applied the doctrine of the Apostle to the refutation of those heresies which Cerinthus was spreading among them, if they had not found in the exposition of that doctrine some of the terms in which the heresy was delivered; and as the chief of these terms, Logos, which Cerinthus applied to an inferior spirit, was equivalent to a phrase in common use among the Jews, the Word of Jehovah,’ and was probably borrowed from thence, John by his use of Logos rescues it from the degraded use of Cerinthus, and restores it to a sense corresponding to the dignity of the Jewish phrase.
The Logos was no fanciful term, merely invented by St. John, pro re nata, [according to circumstances,] or even suggested by the Holy Spirit, as a suitable title for a prophet by whom God chose to reveal himself or his Word. It was a term diversely understood in the world before St. John began his Gospel. Is it possible, therefore, that he should have used the term without some express allusion to these prevailing opinions? Had he contradicted them all, it would, of course, have been a plain proof, that they were all equally fabulous and fanciful; but by adopting the term, he certainly meant to show, that the error did not consist in believing that there was a Logos, or Word of God, but in thinking amiss of it. We might, indeed, have wondered much had he decidedly adopted the Platonic or Gnostic notions, in preference to the Jewish; but that he should harmonize with the latter, is by no means surprising; first, because he was a Jew himself; and, secondly, because Christianity was plainly to be shown to be connected with, and, as it were, regularly to have sprung out of, Judaism. It is certainly, then, in the highest degree consistent with all we could reasonably expect, to find St. John and others of the sacred writers expressing themselves in terms not only familiar to the Jews under the old covenant, but, in such as might tend, by a perfect revelation of the truth, to give instruction to all parties; correcting the errors of the Platonic and oriental systems, and confirming, in the clearest manner, the hopes and expectations of the Jews.
While the reasons for the use of this term by St. John are obvious, the argument from it is irresistible; for, first, the Logos of the evangelist is a person, not an attribute, as many Socinians have said, who have, therefore, sometimes chosen to render it wisdom. For if it be an attribute, it were a mere truism to say, that it was in the beginning with God; because God could never be without his attributes. The Apostle also declares, that the Logos was the Light; but that John Baptist was not the light. Here is a kind of parallel supposed, and it presumes, also, that it was possible that the same character might be erroneously ascribed to both. Between person and person this may, undoubtedly, be the case; but what species of parallel can exist between man and an attribute? Nor will the difficulty be obviated by suggesting, that wisdom here means not the attribute itself, but him whom that attribute inspired, the man Jesus Christ, because the name of our Saviour has not yet been mentioned; because that rule of interpretation must be inadmissible, which at one time would explain the term Logos by an attribute, at another by a man, as best suits the convenience of hypothesis; and because, if it be, in this instance, conceived to indicate our Saviour, it must follow, that our Saviour created the world, (which the Unitarians will by no means admit,) for the Logos, who was that which John the Baptist was not, the true Light, is expressly declared to have made the world. Again: the Logos was made flesh, that is, became man; but in what possible sense could an attribute become man? The Logos is the only begotten of the Father; but it would be uncouth to say of any attribute, that it is begotten; and, if that were passed over, it would follow, from this notion, either that God has only one attribute, or that wisdom is not his only begotten attribute. Farther: St. John uses terms decisively personal, as that he is God, not divine as an attribute, but God personally; not that he was in God, which would properly have been said of an attribute, but with God, which he could only say of a person; that all things were made by him; that he was in the world; that he came to his own; that he was in the bosom of the Father; and that he hath declared the Father. The absurdity of representing the Logos of St. John as an attribute seems, at length, to have been perceived by the Socinians themselves, and their new version accordingly regards it as a personal term.
If the Logos be a person, then is he Divine; for, first, eternity is ascribed to him: In the beginning, was the Word. The Unitarian comment is, from the beginning of his ministry, or the commencement of the Gospel dispensation; which makes St. John use another trifling truism, and solemnly tell his readers, that our Saviour, when he began his ministry, was in existence! in the beginning of his ministry the Word was! It is true, that , the beginning, is used for the beginning of Christ’s ministry, when he says that the Apostles had been with him from the beginning; and it may be used for the beginning of any thing whatever. It is a term which must be determined in its meaning by the context; and the question, therefore, is, how the connection here determines it. Almost immediately it is added, All things were made by him; which can only mean the creation of universal nature. He, then, who made all things was prior to all created things; he was when they began to be, and before they began to be; and, if he existed before all created things, he was not himself created, and was, therefore, eternal. Secondly, he is expressly called God; and, thirdly, he is as explicitly said to be the Creator of all things. The two last particulars have often been largely established, and nothing need be added, except, as another proof that the Scriptures can only be fairly explained by the doctrine of a distinction of divine Persons in the Godhead, the declaration of St. John may be adduced, that the Word was with God, and the Word was God. What hypothesis but this goes a single step to explain this wonderful language? Arianism, which allows the preexistence of Christ with God, accords with the first clause, but contradicts the second. Sabellianism, which reduces the personal to an official, and therefore a temporal, distinction, accords with the second clause, but contradicts the first; for Christ, according to this theory, was not with God in the beginning, that is, in eternity. Socinianism contradicts both clauses; for on that scheme Christ was neither with God in the beginning, nor was he God. The faith of God’s elect agrees with both clauses, and by both it is established: The Word was with God, and the Word was God. See UNITARIANS.
Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary
Word
Joh 1:1 (a) This is a personification of the Lord JESUS CHRIST. JESUS spoke and His Godhead and Deity were revealed at once. His words revealed His character. When He spoke everyone knew at once that it was the voice of GOD. He spoke with life-giving power. He spoke with transforming power. It is as when one speaks on the telephone to a friend many miles away. The moment the voice is heard, the friend recognizes the person, and visualizes his appearance. CHRIST is the Word of GOD.