Note: I began this study inspired to dive deep into the word ‘logos’, and the concepts and life applications that could be gleaned from it, but as I wrote, it became apparent that I should write a separate, preliminary piece unpacking the interpretation of this scripture, for the sake of establishing a good foundation for further study and to illustrate the need to study the Bible critically if you want to not only 1.) get the most out of it, and, 2.) teach others what it says competently.
“For the word of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating as far as to divide soul, spirit, joints, and marrow; it is a judge of the thoughts and ideas of the heart. 13) No creature is hidden from Him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account.”
Lately, I’ve had this question about verse 12:
Because of how verse 13 seamlessly transitions into the subject being “Him”, can we infer that when verse 12 says the “word of God”, it is referring to “Him” as the “word of God”?
Though the usage of the word “it” in verse 12 doesn’t quite fit this hypothesis, it should be noted that at least couple other translations (KJV and NASB) do not include it. Overall, the way this text reads, it looks like the thoughts in verse 13 are a direct progression of the thoughts in verse 12. If that is the case, then it makes more sense to read “Him” into “the word of God” than it would to assume that “the word of God” simply means ‘the Bible’. To illustrate my point, let’s read it that way:
“For the Bible is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating as far as to divide soul, spirit, joints, and marrow; it is a judge of the thoughts and ideas of the heart. 13) No creature is hidden from Him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give an account.”
I wouldn’t read it that way, but maybe you could argue a conceptual link in that both the inspired text and Jesus our savior are both expressions of God. In fact, earlier in the letter to the Hebrews (1:3), the author refers to Jesus as “the exact expression” of God’s nature.
Here is yet another thought: maybe we are trying to define “the word” too narrowly here. What I mean is that the beginning of verse 12 represents a break in the thought or argument being presented: it’s as if the author is taking a break from the presentation of the main argument in order to acknowledge God’s wisdom. Chapters 3 and 4 give a big picture presentation of some of God’s dealings with His people, and in particular the true way to enter His rest and obey Him, and then it’s if verse 12 comes to affirm the wisdom and authority of how God set all that up. And then it seems like 4:14 resumes the big picture presentation. My point is that the way 4:12 uses the word (Greek, ‘logos’), it is meant to be a deep and rich praise of God’s mind and God’s ways. Therefore, don’t read “word” into “logos”, instead, read “logos” into “word”. I would think of “word” here as, ‘the way God has presented Himself’
Here is the affirmation I see in 4:12;
This is the way that God has laid forth, and what He has laid forth (or presented) is living and effective…
According to the Strong’s Concordance, ‘logos’ comes from a verb, ‘lego’, which means;
“properly to ‘lay’ forth, i.e. (figuratively) relate… by implication, to mean”
Fittingly, the word “account” in 4:13 is also logos:
“For the logos of God is living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating as far as to divide soul, spirit, joints, and marrow; it is a judge of the thoughts and ideas of the heart. No creature is hidden from Him, but all things are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give a logos.”
The most important thing about an account is, does it match what actually happened? Is it an accurate reflection of what actually happened? I once came across the idea that in the phrase “two-edged” sword, the word for ‘edge’ is closely related to the word for ‘mouth’. Where this author went with that linguistic link is that saying the same thing that God is saying, and thereby giving ‘two mouths’ to His word, is a weapon of our spiritual warfare. Is this application a stretch for the way the text reads? I don’t know. However, this passage surely does affirm that He sees the naked truth, and that our logos will have to stand before that all-encompassing knowledge. A person’s logos is true only to the extent that it matches what God sees.