The (S)Word of God (Hebrews 4:12)

Which book describes the Word of God as a “two-edged sword”? Hebrews (Hebrews 4:12)

A long persuasive segment of Hebrews (Hebrews 3:1-4:11) famously concludes with a poem which powerfully affirms God’s word (Hebrews 4:12-13). Harold W. Attridge (b. 1946) calls the brief hymn “a rhapsody on God’s penetrating word” (Attridge, Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible), 46).”

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12 NASB)

Though compared to a sword, the destructive power of God’s word is not being emphasized.

God’s word is described as being alive. David L. Allen (b. 1957) documents:

The use of zon (“living”) to qualify “word” implies personality. Nowhere else in Hebrews in this word used to describe non-personal life, but it is used four times of God, twice of Jesus, and five times of human life. (Allen, Hebrews (New American Commentary), 286)

God’s word is also active. Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) denotes, “The Greek word here is energēs, from which we get our word energy. The Bible is high-voltage. It has the unlimited energy of God behind it and will not return to Him void (Isaiah 55:11). (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 76).”

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) agrees:

The word is “active” in the sense that it speeds to fulfill the purpose for which it has been uttered: this self-fulfilling character which it possesses is well summed up in Isaiah 55:11 where the God of Israel says of “my word...that goes forth from my mouth”: “it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 112)

Peter T. O’Brien (b. 1935) records:

This dynamic understanding of the word of God is in line with the witness of the Old Testament itself, and was familiar in contemporary Judaism. The word of God was regularly thought of as the effective means of God’s creative and judging activity, and was occasionally personified. The instrument by which the word was delivered, that is, the tongue, was occasionally depicted under the image of a sword. In Wisdom of Solomon 18:14-16 the word of God is personified as a warrior who bears the sharp sword of God’s decrees of judgment on the Egyptians at the exodus. There are verbal links with Philo, who exploits the imagery in his own way by finding, among other things, allegorical references to the Logos as a ‘cutter’. (O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 174)

The word of God is compared to a specific type of sword. There are two primary Greek terms used for sword and this one, machaira, is the smaller variety, more akin to a dagger (pictured).

Paul Ellingworth (b. 1931) distinguishes:

The use of μάραιρα (Hebrews 11:34, 37) raises two questions: (1) the type of weapon referred to, and (2) the associations of the term, particularly in metaphorical expressions such as this. In classical and modern Greek alike, ῥομφαια is a large sword while μάραιρα is a knife or sabre (cf. modern Greek μάραιρα, a stab). The distinction virtually disappears in the LXX (see, e.g., Ezekiel 5:1ff.), where both terms are frequent and most commonly translate hereb (in Genesis 11:6, 10 μάραιρα of a sacrificial knife; cf. Josephus [37-100] Antiquities 6. 190 [9.5]). In I Maccabees 4:6; II Maccabees 5:13, μάραιρα must mean “sword”; in Joshua 5:2 “knife,” as perhaps in Luke 22:38...In the New Testament, μάραιρα, is more common than ῥομφαια but there is considerable overlap of meaning: both terms are associated with divine judgment (μάραιρα, Revelation 13:10; ῥομφαια, Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 16), with judicial violence of persecution (μάραιρα, Mark 14:43, 47ff; Acts 12:2; Romans 8:35; Hebrews 11:34, 37; Revelation 6:4, 13:14; ῥομφαια, Revelation 6:8), and, as in the present verse, with the word of God (μάραιρα, Ephesians 6:17; ῥομφαια Revelation 19:15, 21). Sacrificial associations have been suggested for μάραιρα in Luke 22:38, as certainly in Genesis 22:6, 10, but in the present context the meaning is rather that of God’s power, through his word, to examine, to judge, and if necessary to destroy the guilt. The image of a knife is more appropriate to the idea of probing, which is directly expressed in the text; the traditional translation “sword” expresses the underlying thought of divine judgment. (Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 262)

With this precision in mind, The Message paraphrases,“His powerful Word is sharp as a surgeon’s scalpel, cutting through everything, whether doubt or defense, laying us open to listen and obey (Hebrews 4:12 MSG).”

Calvin Miller (b. 1936) recounts:

The Roman infantry used the machaira as its main battle sword. It was not a long, imposing weapon. In fact, it was a very short sword whose double-edged blade extended only about 18 inches. The enemies of Rome must have felt amused when they first saw these world conquerors and empire builders advancing into battle with such miniaturized weapons. But they changed their minds quickly once they saw how effectively the sword served in battle. Rome’s legionaries could chop up all their opponents at close range. The Romans carved an empire out of a barbaric world with an eighteen-inch blade...In a similar way, the sword of God’s Word is our machaira, God’s answer to life’s smothering entanglements. (Miller, Loving God Up Close: Rekindling Your Relationship with the Holy Spirit, 84)

Equating the word of God to a sword is not unique to Hebrews. George H. Guthrie (b. 1959) explains:

Elsewhere in the New Testament, authors associate the sword imagery with the word of God. For example, in Ephesians 6:17 the word of God is referred to as “the sword of the spirit”; in Revelation 1:16, 2:12, 19:15 the “sharp sword” proceeds from the mouth of the Son of Man, a symbol of the dynamic, spoken word of judgment. In Hebrews 4:12-13 the word is a sharp sword of discernment, which penetrates the darkest corners of human existence. (Guthrie, Hebrews (The NIV Application Commentary, 155-156)

James W. Thompson (b. 1942) adds:

The “two-edged sword” is an instrument for battle (cf. Judges 3:16) that was used metaphorically in a variety of contexts (cf. Psalm 149:6; Proverbs 5:4; Revelation 1:16). The sword is a common metaphor for God’s judgment in the Bible and Jewish literature (Deuteronomy 32:41; Psalm 17:13; Isaiah 27:1, 34:5, 66:16; Matthew 10:34; Ephesians 6:17). According to apocalyptic literature, God comes with the sword of judgment (I Enoch 88.2; Revelation 1:16, 2:16, 19:15, 21). (Thompson, Hebrews (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 87)

The most prominent reference aligning word and sword occurs in the description of the “the whole armor of God” (Ephesians 6:10-17). Though the same Greek term for sword is used in both passages, the meaning in Hebrews 4:12 is decidedly different.

Woodrow Kroll (b. 1944) explains:

Hebrews 4:12 contains one of the most powerful ideas about the effectiveness of God’s Word in a person’s life. Based on Ephesians 6:17, we often call the Bible “the sword of the Spirit” as part of the spiritual armor with which God equips the believer. As a sword, God’s Word is a weapon in spiritual warfare. But the passage in Hebrews 4 highlights a different purpose of God’s Word...The context shifts from the sword of the Spirit as a weapon in external conflict to a tool God uses in His internal work in our lives. (Kroll, Hebrews: Our Superior Savior (Back to the Bible Study Guides), 30)

The sword cuts deep. Hebrews affirms the word’s ability to penetrate through the surface to the inner, spiritual reality. Marie E. Isaacs deciphers:

In Hebrews 4:12 “spirit and soul,” “joints and marrow,” and “thoughts and intentions” function not as pairs of opposites but as synonyms. In hellenistic Jewish writings, soul (psychē) and spirit (pneuma) could be used interchangeably...Here the three pairs conjure up the idea of what is ostensibly indivisible. God’s word has the ability to bring judgment even to the seemingly impenetrable. (Isaacs, Reading Hebrews and James: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 67)

Gordon R. Lewis (b. 1926) and Bruce A. Demarest (b. 1935) concur:

Hebrews 4:12...makes no metaphysical distinction between soul and spirit. Rather the text reflects a literary technique in which the author used four pairs of quasi-synonyms to stress the all-inclusive power of the Word in a person’s life. (Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology, 141)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) rhapsodizes:

In time-honored homiletical fashion, the Preacher caps the three points of his sermon-within-a-sermon with a poem, a hymnlike tribute to the power of God’s word (Hebrews 4:12-13). Sharper than any earthly two-edged sword, the speech of God knifes through the curtain between heaven and earth, piercing into the depths of humanity, exposing to view the secret “intentions of the heart.” This sword is so sharp that it can separate even “the soul from the spirit,” dividing between what really matters and what seems to matter. No one can hide from this speech act of God; the word of God unveils every human life, laid bare before the eyes of God. The word of God takes an ordinary day and makes it “today,” takes an ordinary moment and makes it the time of crisis and decision, takes a routine event and makes it the theater of the glory of God, takes an ordinary life and calls it to holiness. (Long, Hebrews (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 61)

Charles R. Swindoll (b. 1934) agrees, processing:

First, it pierces, cutting through the excuses we give, the rationalizations we manufacture and the barriers we raise. Second, the Word of God is able to judge, exposing the truth about our innermost thoughts and motivations and leaving nothing in our lives untouched. Zane Hodges [1932-2008] writes, “The inner life of a Christian is often a strange mixture of motivations both genuinely spiritual and completely human. It takes a supernaturally discerning agent such as the Word of God to sort these out and to expose what is of the flesh.” (Swindoll, Living on the Ragged Edge Workbook: Finding Joy in a World Gone Mad)

John Piper (b. 1946) concludes:

What is the point in saying that the “word of God” pierces to the “division of soul and spirit”? The point is that it’s the Word of God that reveals to us our true selves. Are we spiritual or are we natural? Are we born of God and spiritually alive, or are we deceiving ourselves and spiritually dead? Are the “thoughts and intentions of our hearts” spiritual thoughts and intentions or only natural thoughts and intentions? Only the “word of God” can “judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” as Hebrews 4:12 says. (Piper, Pierced by the Word: Thirty-One Meditations for Your Soul, 23)

How have you experienced the word of God as living and active in your life? Do you view the machaira as an offensive or defensive weapon? What is the world’s sharpest sword? Is there a better analogy for the word of God than a sword ? What is meant by the “word of God”? Is the expression limited to the Bible?

Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) archives:

Considerable debate has occurred concerning the meaning of the term “the word of God” in Hebrews 4:12. The majority of patristic writers and commentators up to the Reformation period took it as referring to Christ as the Word logos of God. But elsewhere in Hebrews we find no indication that the author held to a logos Christology similar to that of the prologue to the Gospel of John. Furthermore, on this interpretation Jesus would be likened to a sword, which is rather odd...A second popular interpretation equates “word of God” with Scripture, meaning the Old Testament. Inasmuch as God speaks to us in Scripture, this interpretation is not wrong, but it is only a secondary meaning. Our author is thinking primarily of God’s direct speech to the heart, and the present statement was probably inspired by his repeated reference to hearing God’s voice in the preceding verses (Hebrews 3:7, 15, 16, 4:2, 7). The Israelites had no access to Scripture, yet they heard the word of God. (Hagner, Encountering the Book of Hebrews: An Exposition, 76)

Archbishop Dmitri Royster (1923-2011) argues there is little difference between interpreting the word of God as Jesus himself and broader readings:

Some modern interpreters seem to avoid identifying this logos with the Logos or Son of God, preferring to see it as a reference to the whole body of revealed truth, and there are some of the Fathers who understand it as both...In any event, the “Word of God” and His word are intimately united, because when God speaks to man in the New Covenant as He did in the Old, it is by means of His Son, His Word. (Royster, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary, 65)

D. Stephen Long (b. 1960) advises not to place limitations on the “word of God”:

Anyone who would confine its meaning to the original material conditions of its production (the author, the original autograph, the concrete people who first heard and received it), would neglect the ongoing material conditions that make Scripture to be Scripture: those who preserve it, continue to receive it as holy, and seek to hear it, repeating its words in nonidentical situations. This is what matters most. (Long, Hebrews: Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, 79)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) resolves:

When Hebrews speaks of the “word of God” (logos tou theou) as “living and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword, cutting to the division between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, able to discern the thoughts and conceptions of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12), it clearly means more than Scripture. It means God: “there is no creature that is not visible to him. All things like naked and exposed to his eyes” (Hebrews 4:13)...Nevertheless, that “word of God” does speak powerfully through Scripture, through God’s son, and now powerfully through the work of the Holy Spirit among them. (Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 46)

How do you define “the word of God”? Does God speak today? Is God’s communication with contemporary believers less “God’s word” than Scripture?

“We must allow the Word of God to confront us, to disturb our security, to undermine our complacency and to overthrow our patterns of thought and behavior.” - John R.W. Stott (1921-2011), Authentic Christianity, p. 105

Pharaoh’s “Hard” Heart (Exodus 11:10)

Whose heart was hardened by God? Pharaoh’s (Exodus 11:10)

The book of Exodus is known for Moses liberating the Israelites from slavery in Egypt. The interplay between Pharaoh and Moses is actually secondary to the story’s primary duel between God and Pharaoh. Though they never speak directly, the story is really a battle between God and Pharaoh, the Egyptian ruler who claimed divinity. Moses merely serves as the emissary between the two “deities”. Throughout the account, the narrative notes 17 times that the Israelites’ freedom was delayed because Pharaoh’s heart was “hardened” (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 13, 22, 8:15, 19, 32, 9:7, 12, 34, 35, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8). In nine of those instances, God is said to be the catalyst behind Pharaoh’s hardened heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8)!

God initiating Pharaoh’s hard heart makes for difficult theology. Skeptics read the story as God coercing the monarch into making poor decisions he might otherwise not have made. This reading, though very natural, pictures God as manipulative, coercive, and culpable in sin. God would also be seen as hypocritical for hardening the ruler’s heart and then punishing him for it. God also would be disciplining someone not acting of their own volition, much less God’s own. Further, God would be foolishly undermining God’s own objective of freeing the Israelites. Perhaps most egregiously, God would be overriding the free will of a human being. Critics denounce God for mistreating Pharaoh who in this scenario is seen as little more than God’s helpless puppet. If God worked in this manner with Pharoah, the same could presumably be done towards others, namely us. As such, the story calls into question God’s justice and goodness.

It is worth noting that the original audience would have never viewed the text in this manner. Pharaoh is the story’s villain and the intended reader would not have sympathized with him. They would have read the text from below, as the underdogs. Exodus is replete with miraculous divine intervention and the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart would be viewed as one more in a long line of miracles. Readers tend not to mind when the miraculous is a violation of nature but object when the miraculous entails a violation of the nature of a human being.

If Pharaoh’s actions were determined by God, was he wrongly punished? Does God play fair? Is God just? Is God good? How do we reconcile God’s actions?

Many explanations have been posed regarding the allegations levied against God in the case of Pharaoh’s heart. One is that God does not compel Pharaoh to do anything that was not in his will. Of the 17 times that Pharaoh’s heart is said to have been hardened, three distinct declarations are made. Nine times God is credited (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 9:12, 10:1, 20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8), five times the claim is presented in the passive form with no source given as to the cause (Genesis 7:13, 22, 8:19, 9:7, 35) and three times Pharaoh himself initiated the hardening (Exodus 8:15, 32, 9:34). At other times the text notes that Pharaoh refused to humble himself (Exodus 10:3) and that he was stubborn (Exodus 13:15). The text also indicates that, at times, Pharaoh’s own magicians had a hand in the hardening of his heart (Exodus 7:22; 8:19). When the story is recounted in Samuel, it is remembered that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (I Samuel 6:6).

Apologist Norman Geisler (b. 1932) and Thomas Howe (b. 1950) hold that God would not directly harden anyone’s heart contrary to their own free choice, but only indirectly, through their own choice. They write, “God in His omniscience foreknew exactly how Pharaoh would respond, and He used it to accomplish His purposes. God ordained the means of Pharaoh’s free but stubborn action as well as the end of Israel’s deliverance (Geisler and Howe, Making Sense of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation, 209). ”

Certainly, even were he totally benevolent, Pharaoh by the nature of his position would have resisted Moses’ request. Through the lens of political science, he could not have afforded either the scandal of losing two million slaves or the economic loss of his labor force. Even so, the text starts with God prophesying that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3-5). If Pharaoh would have acted as he did regardless, why is God implicated in his hardened heart?

In a similar explanation, others propose that the text means that God simply facilitated a process that Pharaoh himself initiated. God does not harden Pharaoh’s heart until after the fifth plague. Previously he did it himself.

Others claim that the text conveys that God presented only the opportunity for Pharaoh’s heart to be hardened and that God permitted it. E.W. Bullinger (1837-1913) wrote that some active verbs “were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in The Bible, 823).” Thus, when the text says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, it means that God provided the occasion for Pharaoh to demonstrate his unyielding attitude. This is true as had God not sent Moses, Pharaoh would have never faced the dilemma of whether to release the Israelites. In this scenario, God is like a parent who takes a spoiled child to a toy store at which the tike pitches a fit when she does not receive the prize she desired. The parent did not create the tantrum, she only placed the child in a position where her character would show. This reading is problematic as the expression is used in the context of a prophecy where the scenario is being described anyway (Exodus 4:21), making this explanation redundant.

The text is naturally more problematic for the Arminian than the Calvinist as Calvinists explain the text with the fact that God can do whatever God chooses to do. The answer is “not to retract the sovereignty of God’s election, or to try to give a rational explanation to doubting men” (Edwin H. Palmer [1922-1980], The Five Points of Calvinism, 33). Some have viewed Paul’s allusion to Pharaoh in Romans 9:17-18 as referring to this instance and subsequently Pharaoh’s hardened heart is simply a way for God’s glory to be revealed.

While God did receive honor through the events in Exodus, there must have been other ways to accrue glory that would not have infringed upon Pharaoh’s free will. This reading seems to have no problem with God causing sin to make Godself look great. It elevates God’s sovereignty at the expense of God’s character.

Infringing upon one’s free will is out of character for God. Is there another case where God even appears to be violating someone’s free will? As this is so irregular, something else may be going on.

The Hebrew word typically used when God “hardens” Pharaoh’s heart is chazaq. It does not carry the same connotation in Hebrew that “harden” does in English. It means “to strengthen, prevail, harden, be strong, become strong, be courageous, be firm, grow firm, be resolute, be sore.” It is used eight of the nine times God is said to have hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:3, 13, 22, 8:19, 9:12, 35, 10:20, 27, 11:10, 14:4, 8). In contrast, when Pharaoh hardens his own heart, the word kabad is used, meaning “to be heavy, be weighty, be grievous, be hard, be rich, be honourable, be glorious, be burdensome, be honoured” (Exodus 8:15, 32, 9:7, 34, 10:1, 14:4). Only in Exodus 10:1 is this verb used of God.

Chazaq is a common term with a generally positive connotation. It is not rendered “harden” outside of being connected to the heart. It often describes assisting someone with a course that they have decided upon. Whereas in English, “harden” has a pejorative feel as traditionally soft heartedness is a virtue, chazaq is at worst neutral. Since nowhere is it said that someone softened the heart, there is not even a negative correlate. Though the hardening of the heart is typically seen as God impeding Pharaoh, God could have potentially been assisting Pharaoh. This would fit with the more normative use of the Hebrew. In changing the translation, the text’s meaning changes.

Pharaoh, who professes to be God, is competing with God and is woefully overmatched. There are two ways in which a dominant player can give an adversary a fighting chance. One can reduce one’s own power or increase the power of one’s adversaries. In chess, one can pull her queen to give the other player a chance or in basketball someone can spot an inferior opponent points. God cannot reduce God’s own power but God can spot Pharaoh. In strengthening Pharaoh’s heart, God is evening the playing field. This interpretation also fits the context as God only addresses Pharaoh’s heart after the fifth plague, a point at which the exasperated ruler might not have been able to do so himself.

Viewing Pharaoh’s heart as strengthened moves the verb from a negative to, at worst, a neutral. Much like receiving an adrenaline rush in crisis, the recipient could use the added strength for good or evil. Perhaps his strengthened heart could have enabled Pharoah to tell his attendants that he was relinquishing the man power his slaves provided.

Whether the reader feels he had a choice or not, what is undeniable is that Pharaoh chose poorly.

Does God still harden people’s hearts? Have you ever known anyone whose heart you felt had been hardened? Has yours? What would have been the results had God not hardened Pharaoh’s heart? What did function did it serve? Does God’s treatment of Pharaoh make you trust God less?