THE WORD OF GOD

A Long Overdue Reexamination

As of late I have allowed myself to participate in a great many online discussions regarding the nature of our Lord Jesus. Suffice it to say I exited the arena as frustrated as I was convicted. The dogma of Catholicism has been jammed down the Christian throat for nearly two millennium. And the generational trauma and clenched cheeks at cries of 'Heretic!' are as alive now as ever, though thankfully, we're no longer burned at the stake.

But that's a post for another day (this post). Today I am going to discuss how and why Jesus was never meant to be called "The Word of God." Let's jump right in:

John 1:1-2:

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

"En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos. Houtos ēn en archē pros ton theon."

"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν"

LOGOS

Upon learning more about Classical and Koine Greek and their secular and Biblical usage, I'm of the firm belief that this is a mistranslation. Calling logos ("word") a he is like calling a mesa (Spanish word for a table) a she.

In fact, the idea of Jesus as logos didn’t emerge until Justin Martyr described Jesus as such in the mid second century. Though it should be noted that Martyr did not write of Jesus as equal to God, but as somewhat of a "second god." I would contend that it’s also important to note that we should not hinge our entire understanding of Jesus on the 2,000-year-old writings of one man. It’s thereby appropriate to dismiss such writings from Irenaeus (180-190 AD), Clement of Alexandria (190-210 AD), Tertullian (210-220 AD), and Origen (230-250 AD) because, while their work was thoughtful and beautiful, they were merely following the trend set by highly popular Justin Martyr. It’s almost as though they were competing for who could have the highest Christology. You can almost imagine the one-upmanship:

Philo: "The Logos is God's divine reason and wisdom!"

Justin Martyr: "Hold my wine- JESUS IS LITERALLY THE LOGOS ITSELF!"

Tertullian: "Yeah! And it's like... a tree growing from a root!"

Origen: "And check this out - I compiled six manuscripts to prove it!" *proceeds to ignore all of Greek literature*

Martyr was a towering figure in early Christianity and had a significant influence on his contemporaries and successors. His ideas were seen as bold and innovative, especially because he effectively bridged the gap between Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine, making Christianity intellectually appealing to the educated classes of the Roman Empire. But bold and innovative as they may have been, were they an accurate reflection of the truth?

Philo of Alexandria (early 1st century AD) is often mistakenly attributed to describing the logos as Jesus, but in his extensive writings on logos as a defining principle (which is the proper understanding of the Greek word, per Thayer’s Greek Lexicon and others) he actually never equated it to Jesus. Neither did Heraclitus, Plato, or Aristotle.

The truth is, there is also no indication of an intent to personify the word "logos" inherent in any of the Greek grammar present within this entire passage in John, nor is there any such personification of "logos" present in the entirety of Greek literature that I have been able to find.

This should not be confused with variable gender words, such as "amigo/amiga" in Spanish, or "philos/phili" in Greek, the terms for "friend." Logos, however is a fixed gender word, like "mesa," because it is not meant to describe a person. Were a female to be metaphorically described as logos, logos' gender would remain the same.

As I mentioned before the most common definitions of logos are reason, logic, principle, law, rationale, etc. We can see Biblical examples of this usage in Acts 18:14 and 1 Peter 3:15. However, in secular Classical and Koine Greek these definitions were overwhelmingly ubiquitous. If not for perseveration on a single definition within the Bible, I contend they'd be more common there as well.

This misunderstanding is thereby entirely anachronistic, meaning a later theological development is being applied backward in time to an earlier writing; in this case the Gospel of John.

HOUTOS VS. AUTOS

Greek had no punctuation, no capitalizations, and is a gendered language. This would mean the pronoun would need to fit the gender and number of any noun, and it would be all the more imperative without punctuation, so the subject isn't lost. What's more, verse 2 defines houtos/οὗτος as "he," but this is not the most common usage. To sum it up in an oversimplified (but still accurate) way, houtos/οὗτος in its various forms means "this," and autos/αὐτός in its various forms means "he." Perhaps a better way to categorize it is that houtos/οὗτος is more indicative, as in pointing something out, and autos/αὐτός is more reflective, as in referring back to someone/thing. We’ll broach the nuance of the various forms as needed to illustrate my point in a minute. In the meantime, here are some examples of houtos/οὗτος being used correctly:

1. Plutarch, Alexander 1.3 (1st-2nd century AD, "these"): "οὕτως ἡμῖν δοτέον εἰς τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς σημεῖα μᾶλλον ἐνδύεσθαι καὶ διὰ τούτων εἰδοποιεῖν τὸν ἑκάστου βίον"

   Translation: "thus we must be permitted to enter rather into the signs of the soul and through these form each person's life"

2. Aristotle, Metaphysics 980b (4th century BC, "this/these"): "καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα φρονιμώτερα καὶ μαθητικώτερα τῶν μὴ δυναμένων μνημονεύειν ἐστί... μανθάνει δ᾽ ὅσα πρὸς τῇ μνήμῃ καὶ ταύτην ἔχει τὴν αἴσθησιν... αἱ γὰρ πολλαὶ μνῆμαι τοῦ αὐτοῦ πράγματος μιᾶς ἐμπειρίας δύναμιν ἀποτελοῦσιν"

   Translation: "and because of this, these are more intelligent and better at learning than those unable to remember... and whatever has memory and possesses this sense learns... for many memories of the same thing produce the power of one experience"

3. Aristotle, Metaphysics 981a (4th century BC, "this"): "τοῦτο δ᾽ ὅτι οἱ μὲν τὴν αἰτίαν ἴσασιν οἱ δ᾽ οὔ. οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἔμπειροι τὸ ὅτι μὲν ἴσασι, διότι δ᾽ οὐκ ἴσασιν"

   Translation: "and this is because some know the cause and others do not. For those with experience know the 'what' but do not know the 'why'"

4. Aristotle, Metaphysics 981b (4th century BC, "this"): "οὗ δ᾽ ἕνεκα νῦν ποιούμεθα τὸν λόγον τοῦτ᾽ ἐστίν, ὅτι τὴν ὀνομαζομένην σοφίαν περὶ τὰ πρῶτα αἴτια καὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς ὑπολαμβάνουσι πάντες"

   Translation: "this is why we are now making this discussion, that everyone supposes wisdom so-called to be concerned with the first causes and principles"

5. Plato, Republic 327b (4th century BC, "this one here"): "καί μου ὄπισθεν ὁ παῖς λαβόμενος τοῦ ἱματίου, κελεύει ὑμᾶς, ἔφη, Πολέμαρχος περιμεῖναι. καὶ ἐγὼ μετεστράφην τε καὶ ἠρόμην ὅπου αὐτὸς εἴη. οὗτος, ἔφη, ὄπισθεν προσέρχεται"

   Translation: "And the slave boy caught hold of my cloak from behind and said 'Polemarchus bids you wait.' And I turned around and asked where he was. 'This one here/Here he is,' he said, 'approaching from behind.'"

This pattern, which runs through Classical and Koine Greek, indicates that there is no inherent personification present with the usage of houtos/οὗτος. The personification would depend upon whether or not the subject is inherently a person, in which case "logos" is not. So it would be a mistake in translation to consider houtos/οὗτος "this person" or "he," as opposed to "this thing" or "it," because logos is inherently linguistically a thing, not a person, like "mesa" in Spanish.

Phew okay, still with me? Okay, therefore it would be imperative to use verbs or pronouns that communicate the intent to personify. However, that is not the case:

• Lack of inherent personification in verbs:

  • The main verb used, ἦν (ēn), the imperfect form of "to be," doesn't suggest personification.

  • The preposition πρὸς (pros/"toward") doesn't imply personification either.

  • If personification was intended we would see the use of more dynamic verbs typically associated with persons.

  • These would be personal interaction verbs or emotional/cognitive verbs such as "to walk," "to work together with," "to speak," etc.

  • This would look like something like, "This one was dwelling with and working together with God in the beginning."

Therefore, autos/αὐτός would be more beneficial for conveying personification. If the author's intent was to clearly personify the logos/λόγος from the outset, using autos/αὐτός would have been a more explicit choice, as it is used to mean "he." Some might argue that the use of houtos/οὗτος here purposefully maintains a certain ambiguity. I would have to wholeheartedly disagree. From this analysis we can see that the language used here most certainly does not indicate any intent to personify the word "logos," therefore no ambiguity.

Additionally, it seems that houtos/οὗτος was the go-to word for referring to masculine concepts/objects for a somewhat silly reason:

• The masculine words will end in "ς," or "s" in English

• The word for "it" in ancient Greek was the gender neutral, or neuter auto/αὐτό

• But if used with masculine words like logos/λόγος now the gender would disagree

• But if we add an "ς," or "s" to auto/αὐτό it now reads as "he," autos/αὐτός

• So houtos/οὗτος, or "this," becomes the natural grammatically correct choice over "it"

In short, a neuter "he" is an "it." It is thereby crucial that we understand that the author of John was actually trying not to personify logos. This was not necessarily out of conscious avoidance per se, but because it was simply not intended. Had it been the intent, αὐτός/autos would have been the move, for once.

Here are some examples that illustrate my point about autos/αὐτός:

1. Plutarch, Alexander 2.1 (1st-2nd century AD, "he/himself"): "λέγεται δέ Φίλιππος ἐν Θρᾴκῃ τῇ Ὀλυμπιάδι συμμυηθείς αὐτός τε μειράκιον ὢν ἔτι κἀκείνης παιδὸς ὀρφανῆς ἐρασθῆναι"

   Translation: "It is said that Philip, having been initiated into the mysteries in Thrace with Olympias, he himself while still a youth, fell in love with her when she was an orphan girl"

2. Plutarch, Alexander 2.2 (1st-2nd century AD, "himself"): "ὁ δὲ Φίλιππος ὑστέρῳ χρόνῳ μετὰ τὸν γάμον εἶδεν ὄναρ αὑτὸν ἐπιβάλλοντα σφραγῖδα τῇ γαστρὶ τῆς γυναικός"

   Translation: "And Philip some time after the marriage saw in a dream himself placing a seal on his wife's belly"

3. Polybius, Histories 1.9.4-8 (2nd century BC, "he"): "τοὺς μὲν πολιτικοὺς ἱππεῖς καὶ πεζοὺς αὐτὸς ἐν ἀποστήματι συνεῖχεν, ὡς κατ᾽ ἄλλον τόπον τοῖς πολεμίοις συμμίξων, τοὺς δὲ ξένους προβαλόμενος εἴασε πάντας ὑπὸ τῶν βαρβάρων διαφθαρῆναι: κατὰ δὲ τὸν τῆς ἐκείνων τροπῆς καιρὸν ἀσφαλῶς αὐτὸς ἀπεχώρησεν μετὰ τῶν πολιτῶν εἰς τὰς Συρακούσας... αὐτὸς δὲ παραγενόμενος εἰς τὰς Συρακούσας βασιλεὺς ὑπὸ πάντων προσηγορεύθη τῶν συμμάχων"

   Translation: "he held back the citizen cavalry and infantry at a distance, as if to engage the enemy at another location, and putting forward the mercenaries he allowed them all to be destroyed by the barbarians. And at the moment of their retreat, he safely withdrew with the citizens to Syracuse... and he, arriving at Syracuse, was proclaimed king by all the allies"

4. Plato, Republic 330a (4th century BC, "he/himself/same"): "δι᾽ αὑτὸν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν πόλιν εὐδοκιμοῖ, ἀπεκρίνατο ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸς Σερίφιος ὢν ὀνομαστὸς ἐγένετο οὔτ᾽ ἐκεῖνος Ἀθηναῖος. καὶ τοῖς δὴ μὴ πλουσίοις, χαλεπῶς δὲ τὸ γῆρας φέρουσιν, εὖ ἔχει ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος, ὅτι οὔτ᾽ ἂν ὁ ἐπιεικὴς πάνυ τι ῥᾳδίως γῆρας μετὰ πενίας ἐνέγκοι οὔθ᾽ ὁ μὴ ἐπιεικὴς πλουτήσας εὔκολός ποτ᾽ ἂν ἑαυτῷ γένοιτο"

   Translation: "famous because of himself rather than because of the city, he answered that neither would he himself, being from Seriphus, have become famous, nor that man, being from Athens. And for those who are not wealthy and bear old age with difficulty, the same argument holds - that neither would a decent man easily bear old age with poverty, nor would an indecent man, though wealthy, ever become content with himself."

And my point about auto/αὐτό:

1. Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 1.16.7 (2nd century AD, "itself"): "ὅ ἐστιν ἀνθρώπου πρὸς αὐτὸ τὸ δέον πραχθῆναι δεδορκότος"

   Translation: "which is characteristic of a person looking toward what needs to be done itself"

2. Polybius, Histories 1.1.3-4 (2nd century BC, "it itself"): "αὐτὸ γὰρ τὸ παράδοξον τῶν πράξεων, ὑπὲρ ὧν προῃρήμεθα γράφειν, ἱκανόν ἐστι προκαλέσασθαι"

   Translation: "for it itself, the extraordinary nature of the events which we have chosen to write about, is sufficient to attract"

3. Aristotle, Metaphysics 982a (4th century BC, "itself"): "ὁ γὰρ τὸ ἐπίστασθαι δι᾽ αὐτὸ αἱρούμενος τὴν μάλιστα ἐπιστήμην μάλιστα αἱρήσεται"

   Translation: "for he who chooses knowing for itself will especially choose the highest knowledge"

4. Aristotle, Metaphysics 982b (4th century BC, "it itself"): "μαρτυρεῖ δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ συμβεβηκός"

   Translation: "it itself, what happened, bears witness"

And a few Biblical, for good measure:

1. Matthew 3:17: "And behold, a voice from heaven saying, 'This (houtos/οὗτός) is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'" (ESV)

2. Hebrews 3:3: "For this (houtos/οὗτός) one has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who built the house has more honor than the house." (NKJV)

3. John 1:5: "The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (auto/αὐτὸ)." (NIV)

4. Revelation 21:3: "And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Look, God's home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself (autos/αὐτός) will be with them.'" (NLT)

Consequently, absent doctrinal concepts that did not exist at the time John was written, logos remains an "it." That said, Thayer's Greek Lexicon would allow for this equally, if not exceedingly linguistically valid translation of John 1:1-2:

"In the beginning was the principle. And the principle was towards God, and God was the principle. This was with God in the beginning."

And John 1:14:

"And the principle became flesh and dwelt within us, and we contemplated the glory of it. A glory unique from the Father, full of grace and truth." 

Hopefully this is starting to ring some conceptual bells. Paul states in 2 Corinthians 3:18, "And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." And 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 states, “Do you not know that you are God’s temple, and that God’s spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.”

They’re all talking about the same thing folks.

THE WORD OF GOD

HOW?

For Revelation 19:13 let's go back to the transliteration of the original Greek of v12-14: "And the eyes of Him are like a flame of fire And upon the head of Him royal crowns many Having a name having been written which no one knows if not He Himself And having been clothed with a garment having been dipped in blood And is called the name of Him The Word of God and the armies who were in heaven were following him upon horses white having been clothed in fine linen white pure"

Of course, ancient Greek had no capitalizations. And having been written in scriptio continua, there were no paragraphs or punctuations. So let us try punctuating it: "And the eyes of Him are like a flame of fire. And upon the head of Him royal crowns many having, a name having been written which no one knows if not He Himself. And having been clothed with a garment having been dipped in blood. And is called the name of Him. The Word of God and the armies who were in heaven were following him upon horses white, having been clothed in fine linen white pure."

Here I have chosen to place the punctuation differently, with a period after "Him," starting a new sentence with "The Word of God." The Greek syntax and grammar remain accurate. This would now be interpreted as Jesus being called upon, and the power of God's Word and heaven are behind him. We can see evidence of κέκληταί/keklētai, the Greek word for call here, being used as such in Matthew 22:3, Luke 14:16-17, and Acts 2:39. 

This reading maintains Jesus' supreme position, with both the Word of God and the heavenly armies following him. It aligns with other New Testament concepts of Jesus fulfilling and wielding God's Word (e.g. Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:16-21, Luke 24:44-45 to name a few).

The Word of God following Jesus also symbolizes his actions and judgments being in perfect accordance with divine will and scripture.

This reading creates a smoother transition to verse 15, which describes the sword coming from his mouth, often associated with the Word of God.

WHY?

We obviously can't go moving periods around in the Bible willy-nilly, so why here? Just to support my viewpoint? Hardly, let's take a look at the pattern we're provided:

In the New Testament when someone is being nicknamed a direct, descriptive phrase, the structure is as follows:

"Will be called (descriptive phrase)" or "(descriptive phrase) will be called"

In the original Greek, we can see examples of this as follows:

1. Matthew 5:9: "They sons of God will be called" / "αὐτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ κληθήσονται" 

2. Luke 1:32: "This one will be great and Son of Highest will be called" / "οὗτος ἔσται μέγας καὶ υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσεται"

3. Luke 1:35: "The being born holy will be called Son of God" / "τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς θεοῦ"

4. Luke 1:76: "And you and, child, prophet of Most High will be called" / "καὶ σὺ δέ, παιδίον, προφήτης ὑψίστου κληθήσῃ"

Conversely, when someone is being given a name, it is structured as such:

"And you shall call the name of him (name)"

1. Matthew 1:21: "And you shall call the name of him Jesus" / "καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν" 

2. Matthew 1:23: "And they shall call the name of him Emmanuel" / "καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ" 

3. Luke 1:13: "And you shall call the name of him John" / "καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννην"

4. Luke 1:31: "And you shall call the name of him Jesus" / "καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν"
   

WHO?

Within this clear pattern Revelation 19:13 stands out for two main reasons. Let’s take a look:

"And is called the name of him The Word of God" / "καὶ κέκληται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ"

• Neither follows the pattern for names nor titles

• Resembles name pattern but used for a title, and linguistically unusual

So here we clearly see that the aforementioned pattern has seemingly been inverted. A title, "Word of God," has by appearances been indicated as a name. Let’s take a closer look at the structure to see what insights we can glean.

Without getting too technical, the perfect passive verb κέκληται (is called/has been called) indicates a completed action with ongoing results. So we could understand this easier as “the ball has been rolled,” or “the decision has been made.” Recognizing this, we could infer the end of a sentence here, allowing the verb to function naturally. It should be noted that failure to do such creates a potential tension within the Greek phrasing.

This also allows τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ (the name of him) to be the subject of this verb, which is grammatically sound. Therefore, the next phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ (The Word of God) can stand as the subject of a new sentence, which is also grammatically valid in Greek.

THE OULTLIERS

All that aside, there are a couple potential outliers to this pattern. In John 1:42 when Jesus renames Peter, He doesn’t say “we shall call the name of you Peter.” He just says “you will be called a rock, which means a stone or boulder.” The Greek word for boulder of course being petros, or Peter. It would appear from the Greek context that this was intended as a nickname, not a given name. We can possibly see evidence of this in Matthew 17:25, Mark 14:37, and John 21:15-17, where in moments of seriousness and gravity, Jesus calls Peter by his given name, Simon. With that in mind we can safely rule this out.

Another outlier could perhaps be in old testament prophecies, such as Isaiah 9:6 where titles such as "wonderful counselor," and "prince of peace" are introduced with the Hebrew phrase "his name will be called." This is fairly common in the Old Testament. However, considering this is a different language with a different syntax, and from a different culture, I believe we can also safely rule these out.

THE ARGUMENTS

I have come across two scripturally based arguments that are easily refuted when taking a look at the original Greek text. The common accusation regarding these contentions is that I am ignoring the context.

The point I am attempting to make in this section is that context does, in fact, matter. But an atypical definition should only be considered in instances where the common definition cannot be assumed because it doesn't linguistically fit or appears to deliver a nonsensical outcome. At present, all possible definitions are being denied in favor of definitions that are all but nonexistent in the majority of Greek literature. That’s an awful lot of context being ignored.

Additionally, it cannot be overstated that using a word in an atypical manner would have been highly illogical, especially considering the persecution the writers endured to spread this message. Greek was a profoundly established language due to the immense amount of philosophical and political literature that had already been written. So why not simply pick a word that the writer would be certain could effectively portray their intended meaning, rather than one they could be almost certain would be misunderstood? 2 Corinthians 1:13 (NLT) states, "Our letters have been straightforward, and there is nothing written between the lines and nothing you can't understand. I hope someday you will fully understand us." While it obviously wasn’t Paul who wrote the Gospel of John, one should infer the sentiment persisted.

COLOSSIANS 1:15-18

"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy."

The word used for creation here is ktiseōs/κτίσεως, and the word for created is ektisthē/ἐκτίσθη, or for simplicity’s sake Ktisis/κτίσις and Ktizo/κτίζω respectively. The issue that arises from this definition is that it is only found in the Bible. Throughout all of Greek literature that I am aware of I cannot find a single instance in which these words are used to denote creation ex nihilo, that is, out of nothing. Words like dēmiourgéō/δημιουργέω (to create or craft as in artistry) and poiéō/ποιέω (to produce, bring about, or accomplish, as in a task) are what we see in the tremendous catalog of Greek philosophical writings regarding the nature of man and existence. And even then, those words are most often accompanied by phrases like "ek tou mē ontos/ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος: out of non-being," or "ex ouk ontōn/ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων: from things that are not," because alone they do not denote the idea of creation in this sense. For example I would not say "I created dinner," I would say "I made dinner" in the mundane sense. If I meant to express that something more magical happened, it would be more appropriate to say something like, "I created dinner out of nothing," in the same sense a magician might claim to pull something "out of thin air."

If we take a look at the tremendous catalog of political writings from ancient Greece, we find the common, widely used definition of Ktisis/κτίσις is "establishment, foundation, or settlement." And the common, widely used definition of Ktizo/κτίζω is "establish, found, or settle."

Understanding this, we could retranslate the verses as follows: "The Son is the representation of the invisible God. The firstborn. The whole foundation. For in him all things were established: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been established through him and upon him. He is before all things, and in him all things unite. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that He might be first in all things."

I would contend that this translation is more valid than the traditional, as it stays true to the well-established definitions Ktisis/κτίσις and Ktizo/κτίζω.

HEBREWS 1:2

"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe."

The word used for made here is epoiēsen/ἐποίησεν, meaning to produce, to do, or bring about. But we’ll get to that in a minute.

Let’s instead start with the word used for the universe, aiōnas/αἰῶνας, meaning ages and eternities, or time in the celestial sense.

Once again, if we zoom out from the narrow focus of these Biblical definitions and take a look at the profoundly established Greek literary examples, it becomes apparent that these words were not used in a sense that denoted their Biblical definitions. Here are a few examples:

1. Plato (4th century BC): In Timaeus (37d-38a), Plato uses the term αἰών to describe an eternal, unchanging reality in contrast to the physical, temporal world. However, Plato does not directly equate aiōn/αἰών with the universe as we understand it today. Instead he associates it with an overarching, timeless realm that encompasses all of existence.

2. Aristotle (4th century BC): In De Caelo ("On the Heavens"), Aristotle uses αἰών to refer to the eternal nature of the heavens and the cosmos. For Aristotle, the heavens and celestial bodies are eternal and unchanging, making aiōn/αἰών a fitting term to describe their timeless existence.

3. Stoic Philosophy (3rd century BC): Stoic philosophers, such as Chrysippus, use aiōn/αἰών in a cosmological sense, referring to the entirety of time and the cosmos as an interconnected whole. The Stoics believed in a cyclical universe that is both eternal and bound by a rational order.

4. Philo of Alexandria (1st century AD): Although not strictly secular, Philo's writings bridge Hellenistic Greek thought and Jewish theology. In his work, De Opificio Mundi ("On the Creation of the World"), Philo uses aiōn/αἰών to describe the created order, but more as an eternal framework within which the physical world exists.

5. Ptolemy (2nd century AD): The astronomer Ptolemy uses the term aiōn/αἰών in reference to the heavens and celestial bodies, which were believed to be part of an eternal and unchanging realm.

In short, there are not really any strict secular examples of the word aiōnas/αἰῶνας being used to denote the created universe. It’s more appropriately used to describe time in a celestial sense, such as the astrological ages. Here it is being used as such in the Epistles:

1. 1 Corinthians 2:7: "But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages (aiōnōn/αἰώνων) for our glory." (ESV)

2. Ephesians 2:7: "...so that in the coming ages (aiōsin/αἰῶσιν) he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (ESV)

3. Colossians 1:26: "The mystery that has been kept hidden for ages (aiōnōn/αἰώνων) and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord’s people." (NIV)

4. Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the ages (aiōnas/αἰῶνας) were prepared by the saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing. (YLT)

5. Jude 1:25: "To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power, and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages (aiōnos/αἰῶνος), now and forevermore! Amen." (NIV)

And from the Gospels:

1. Matthew 12:32: "And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age (aiōni/αἰῶνι) or in the age to come." (ESV)

2. Matthew 13:39: "The enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age(aiōnos/αἰῶνος), and the harvesters are angels." (NIV)

3. Matthew 13:40: "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age (aiōnos/αἰῶνος)." (ESV)

4. Mark 10:30: "Who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age (aiōni/αἰῶνι) to come, eternal life." (ESV)

5. Luke 16:8: "For the sons of this age (aiōnos/αἰῶνος) are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the sons of light." (ESV)

Using this word to represent the created universe as we understand the term in modern speech is thereby a slight slant on the translation. In fact, if one wanted to describe the created order, kosmos/κόσμος was already firmly established as the term to do such by Aristotle, Plato, Plutarch, stoic philosophers, pre-Socratic philosophers, and Roman and Hellenistic scientific writings. That said, in the Bible aiōnos/αἰῶνος is said to mean universe, and kosmos/κόσμος to mean world, as in the earth. That is not the case in basically all of Greek literature. We have the Septuagint to blame for this tilted meaning, but more on that in a minute. So with the definition of aiōnos/αἰῶνος slanted ever so slightly out of the abstract and into the physical, the definition of poieō/ποιέω would now mistakenly fall out of "do" and into "make."

Anyways, with this broader context in mind, we could then appropriately (and validly per lexicon definitions) retranslate Hebrews 1:2 as follows:

"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he carried out the ages."

In this sense we can see that "carried out the ages" would just indicate that Jesus was the culmination of what God intended to bring about throughout time. This would be a translation that is more in line with the broader meanings of the Greek words used here. Now we see that this also falls in line with many New Testament sentiments of Jesus’ role:

1. Matthew 5:17-18: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

2. Luke 24:44: "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.'"

3. Acts 3:18: "But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer."

4. John 5:39-40: "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

5. Luke 4:21: "He began by saying to them, 'Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.'"

However, it should be noted that these scriptures do not use the word in question (poieō/ποιέω) to express doing, accomplishing, fulfilling, or bringing about. But we can find it used as such in the following verses:

1. John 5:36: "For the works which the Father has given me to accomplish— the very works that I do (poiō/ποιῶ)— testify about me"

2. Matthew 23:3: "So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do (poieite/ποιεῖτε) what they do (poiousin/ποιοῦσιν)"

3. John 15:14: "You are my friends if you do (poiēte/ποιῆτε) what I command you"

4. James 4:15: "Instead you ought to say, 'If the Lord wills, we will live and do (poiēsomen/ποιήσομεν) this or that'"

5. Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does (poiōn/ποιῶν) the will of my Father"

And some secular examples of such usage:

1. Plutarch (1st-2nd century AD), Life of Alexander, 14.1: "ἤλπιζε καὶ Διογένην τὸν Σινωπέα ταὐτὸ ποιήσειν"

   Translation: "He expected that Diogenes the Sinopean would do (ποιήσειν) the same thing"

2. Plutarch (1st-2nd century AD), Life of Solon, 15.3: "τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποιήσατο πρῶτον πολίτευμα" Translation: "For this he carried out (ἐποιήσατο) as his first political act"

3. Aristotle (4th century BC), Economics (Oeconomica), Book 2, 1348a: "λόγους ἐποιήσατο πρὸς τὴν ἑτέραν στάσιν ἐν ἀπορρήτοις"

   Translation: "He carried out (ἐποιήσατο) secret discussions with one of the factions"

4. Aristotle (4th century BC), Economics (Oeconomica), Book 2, 1346b: "περιελθόντος δὲ τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐποίησεν, ὥστε συνέβαινεν ἐν δέκα ἔτεσι κεῖνόν τε ἅπαντα ἔχειν"

   Translation: "And when the year had passed around, he did/carried out (ἐποίησεν) this same thing, so that it happened that in ten years he had everything..."

5. Plato (4th century BC), Apology 19a: "καὶ πλέον τί με ποιῆσαι ἀπολογούμενον"

   Translation: "and accomplish/do (ποιῆσαι) something more in making my defense"

6. Xenophon (4th century BC), Memorabilia 1.1.4: "καὶ πολλοῖς τῶν συνόντων προηγόρευε τὰ μὲν ποιεῖν, τὰ δὲ μὴ ποιεῖν"

   Translation: "And to many of his associates he would prescribe what things to do (ποιεῖν) and what not to do (μὴ ποιεῖν)"

7. Thucydides (5th century BC), Histories 1.28: "ἢν καὶ ἐκεῖνοι τοὺς ἐν Ἐπιδάμνῳ ἀπαγάγωσι, ποιήσειν ταῦτα"

   Translation: "if they [the Corinthians] would withdraw their men from Epidamnus, they [the Corcyraeans] would do (ποιήσειν) these things"
   

A few things stand out to me here. First, even their use of language makes it apparent that the Greeks were deep thinkers. The word epoiēsen/ἐποίησεν could rightly mean both "do" and "make." This insinuates a notion that doing something also creates something, manifests something that has an ongoing result in some sense. I think it’s also important to understand that defining their speech in terms of our language is putting them into boxes that they didn’t have. Autos/αὐτός, for example, means he/she/it for us. But I think its important to understand that for them it was the same word for all. There was no distinction.

It’s important to note that these ubiquitous definitions subsisted throughout ancient Greece. I am coming from the standpoint that the scholarly distinction between Classical, Koine, and Biblical Greek writings is largely false, or at best profoundly embellished. That is to say, the differences were not nearly as vast or as common as they’re made out to be, nor were the classifications existent as such in the ancient world. "Classical" Greek was taught to anyone well-off enough to be educated. Koine Greek is what would have been utilized in less formal situations. This is the difference between the thesis paper vs. the note on a windshield.

THE SEPTUAGINT

Since this post is getting long already, I’ll be brief about the fallacies regarding using the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, as a litmus for Greek language usage.

• The Septuagint was:

  • A limited-purpose translation for Alexandrian Jews

  • Often wooden, word-for-word translation producing awkward Greek

  • Not representative of typical Greek usage

• Using the Septuagint to justify atypical Greek meanings in the NT:

  • Assumes NT authors knew and used the Septuagint

  • Ignores their actual Greek-speaking, non-Jewish audience who would not have been familiar with Septuagint Greek

  • Is like using Chinese word for word translation into English as a measure of typical English

• The scholarly position ignores Jewish reverence for Hebrew preservation (which still exists in the Jewish faith today) and text transmission, including:

  • The importance of learning Hebrew

  • The sanctity of original texts

  • The unlikelihood of wide Jewish acceptance of Greek translation

• The NT writers used terms like epoiesen, ktizo, and aionas - which had clear, established Greek meanings of "accomplish/make," "establish/found," and "ages"

• Greek had explicit terminology for creation ex nihilo that NT authors could have used if that's what they meant to convey

• The NT authors were writing for Greek audiences unfamiliar with the Septuagint, who would have understood these terms in their normal Greek sense, not the atypical, niche Septuagint sense.

However, Acts 6:1 does mention "Hellenists" (Greek-speaking Jews) vs "Hebrews," suggesting some Jewish communities did primarily use Greek. Ἑλληνιστής (Hellēnistēs) literally means one who "Hellenizes" or adopts Greek ways - it's actually a term that can carry a negative connotation, similar to how we might view someone who abandons their culture's traditions.

This fits with the broader context of Acts 6:1 mentioning:

1. The γογγυσμὸς (complaining/murmuring) - suggesting real cultural tension

2. The context of widows being neglected - possibly due to cultural divisions

3. The fact this term appears rather than Ἕλλην (Hellēn, meaning Greek) or another more neutral term

So rather than the neutral or positive spin modern translations often give it ("Greek-speaking Jews"), the text might be capturing actual cultural conflict between those maintaining Hebrew traditions and those adopting Greek ways.

IN CLOSING…

It is paramount to consider the cultural context in which the Old Testament and New Testament were written, as well as a perceived intention of the authors, in order to gain a well-rounded and complete understanding of the ideologies, motivations, influences, and communication styles.

I believe this is what most translations of the Bible utterly fail at, focusing more on reinforcing doctrine introduced and enforced by Rome (like they did here) than making any attempt to ascertain the true intentions of the writers in their place and time.

Centuries to millennia ago, when the traditional interpretations of these scriptures and words were formulated, we did not have the tools and knowledge at our disposal that we have today. We have come a long way from a world where the common man, often half-starved and illiterate, was actively discouraged from seeking God through personal study. Today we literally have the entirety of human knowledge, discovery, and education in the palms of our hands.

And we’re no longer murdered in cold blood for disagreeing with the established powers.

Maybe it’s time we start checking their work?

Thanks for reading! God bless you!