“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
John 1:1
Some have made the argument that the greek word λογος (logos, “word”) in the opening verses of John’s Gospel should be better translated as “logic.” Gordon H. Clark, Christian theologian and philosopher, once wrote “Any translation of John 1:1
that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.”
However, this hardly follows. Why should we assume that a translation is faulty, or outright wrong, for using “word” over “logic?” Presuppositions notwithstanding, I see no reason why every English translation that has been used by the Church since TyndalWycliffe has been a wrong translation. In fact, I believe the context of 1)the prologue (verses 1-14) of John, and 2) the Gospel of John en toto suggests that our translations have it correct.
Foremost, for the sake of full-disclosure, the word itself does contain the idea of logic within its semantic range (at least, in the idea of reasoning). A semantic range is all the definitions or glosses1 a word contains. So, at the start at least, translating the word as “logic” is a possibility. As we look at a given word, however, we must remember that just because it has a definition within its semantic range that does not mean that it is a possible gloss for that word in a particular context. In other words, we don’t just get to plug-in any gloss we want, but one that fits the definition which is required by its context. If someone asserts that our translations have wrongly used “word” in place of “logic,” the burden of proof is on them to show us why. The problem is that nothing within the context of John’s prologue moves us to think that “logic” is the correct gloss here. John certainly does not include “wisdom language” in his Gospel, which is usually a reason some take it to be “logic” (i.e., Jesus as the personification of wisdom or logic). In fact, one must go to outside philosophers to find the word logos used in such this way- such as Philo and Heraclitus. Of course, John’s intent in writing the prologue is quite different than that of the Pagan Greeks such as Heraclitus, and the Egyptian gods written about in the anonymous Poimander. It seems to me that to understand the Johanine use of logos, we should seek to find what allusions John is actually making. I believe there are two.
The Creation Narrative. The first, and easiest, allusion to find is in the creation narrative of Genesis 1. The beginning words link the prologue directly to the narrative, especially in the Septuagint: Ἐν ἀρχῇ, “in the beginning.” The connection, I believe is clear. The author of Genesis, whom I take to be Moses, describes the events which led to the creation of the universe. All that was to be came about through the creative speech of God, being spoken into existence by God. Continuing in the Septuagint, we find the word εἶπεν (eipen, to speak), which is the 3rd person aorist form of lego the verbal cognate of logos used some nine times. John links Jesus to this creation narrative in two basic ways: first, he claims that Jesus was preexistent2 to the created order (”In the beginning was the Word”), and second, he speaks of Jesus being an agent of creation himself (falling well in line with Paul’s theology, cf. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16). It seems most likely, in light of this allusion to creation, that the word logos is best taken as “word,” pointing to the divine, creative word which brought all things into existence.
The Word which does not return void. This allusion is harder to see at first glance, but when we survey the Gospel as a whole, I think it fits the context rather nicely. This allusion is made to Isaiah 55:11, which states:
“It is the same with my word.
I send it out, and it always produces fruit.
It will accomplish all I want it to,
and it will prosper everywhere I send it.”
(NLT)“so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
(ESV)
Again, the full-disclaimer here is that the word used here is not logos, but rhēma. This word is basically synonymous with logos, when it is used in the sense of utterance or speech. So, if John was alluding to Isaiah 55:11, why didn’t he use rhēma? I believe that John chose to use logos in order to tie Christ directly to the creation narrative (cf verse 3), but brings the allusion to rhēma out through the use of context. Consider the Isaiah account of rhēma:
- It is sent from God.
- It does not return empty, but
- Accomplishes it’s divine purpose.
John portrays Jesus in just this way throughout his entire Gospel. We’ll take a very quick survey of John’s Gospel to see where these ideas are played out. First, the word is sent by God for a particular purpose in Isaiah. We see the same of Jesus in John 6:38-39- “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” Jesus is sent by the Father in order to rescue all of the ones given to him by the Father. The idea of Jesus as sent by the Father (much like the word in Isaiah), is prevalent throughout the Gospel. Second, Jesus, like the word of God in Isaiah, will fulfill his purpose. Again, look to John 6:38-39, particularly, “that I should lose nothing… but raise him up…” and in verse 40, “I will raise him up.” The divine purpose of the sending of Jesus will be accomplished. Third, after accomplishing his purpose, Jesus returns to the Father. Consider John 17:4- “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do”- along with the resurrection narrative of John 20 and his later ascension.
Conclusion. It seems then, in light of these allusions, that we should think that the translators have made the right decision. This does not mean that “logic” as a consideration is absolutely removed, as if one should state that Jesus and the trinitarian God are illogical. Logic, such as the law of noncontradiction, stems from God himself. That is why there is order to the creation. However, the thrust of John’s intentions seems to be rather two-fold. First, in connecting his prologue to the creation narrative, John is also connecting Jesus as the divine, creative word from which all things were made. In this, he is making a case for both the preexistence of Jesus, as well as his divinity. It is, of course, also richly trinitarian. The Word which existed in the beginning, was with God, and is also God. Secondly, Jesus was sent for a divine purpose, namely the lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world, and accomplished said purpose. The death of Christ was vindicated, and shown to be accepted by God, through His resurrection, pointing us to its accomplishment. Furthermore, having accomplished this divine purpose, Jesus, like the word of God in Isaiah, returns to the Father, taking his rightful place of authority. In this way, John’s prologue has its roots running throughout the entire Gospel itself.
——————-
1 The difference between a gloss and a definition is important. For example, some glosses of the word logos are “word,” “reason,” and “message.” Examples of a definition of logos are “a communication whereby the mind finds expression.” When someone looks at a particular words glosses only, they may think that any of them fit a given context. However, it is the definitions which show when to apply which gloss.
2If the Word already was at the time of the beginning, then we should take this to mean that he existed prior to the beginning, and thus to the eternal order. This comes out more in verse 3, where John puts Jesus as the agent of creation- to create something he must, logically, exist prior to it.
15 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Regarding: “…first, he claims that Jesus was preexistent to the created order…”
The text doesn’t say that Jesus was preexistent. It says that in the beginning was the logos. Jesus received his name shortly before his birth. Why can’t we allow the text to say what it actually says?
John 1:14-15
The λόγος became flesh. (v. 14)
αὐτοῦ (him), οὗτος (this), ὃν (who) (v. 15) all have have λόγος as their antecedent. The Him/this/who is the λόγος.
ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. (17) Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. The ἐγένετο of 17 is referring back to the σὰρξ ἐγένετο (became flesh) of verse 14.
Not to mention the Johanine usage of μονογενής (only, unique) which is always used by John of Christ.
It is allowing the text to say what it actually says. The text does not stop at John 1:1
sir- it is part of a bigger pericope. Don’t be pedantic.
If the name of the logos was Jesus, the text would say: In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God. It’s not being pedantic to stick to what the text actually reads.
Autos can as easily be translated “it,” so that the “it” (logos) becomes a “him” (Jesus) only after the incarnation (birth) of Jesus.
In vs 14, the logos (plan, logic, expression of God) became flesh in the person of Jesus. The logos wasn’t the tabernacle; Jesus was the tabernacle (in whom all the fullness of the godhead dwells bodily). It is at this point (the incarnation) that the logos becomes a “him” (Jesus), and it is Jesus who is the only/unique begotten.
The logos was not begotten. Jesus was begotten–at Bethlehem.
edit: I should have said that autos could as easily be translated “it” or “this one”
I would probably disagree that autos would have a semantic range including “this one” as that would be outos used as a substantive. I’ll have to run it through accordance and see what comes up though.
verse 3 states that all things were made through “him” (autos), again pointing back to the logos of verse 1. Paul, agreeing with the flow of John’s narrative, says (in the passage that you yourself quoted) that “all things were created by him” (ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, Col 1:16
), where “him” has Jesus as an antecedent from v. 14 (”beloved son”). Paul continues to say “and he is before all things” in v. 17 - but how could Jesus be before all things if he wasn’t Jesus until the incarnation?
If we are unable to equate the creative logos of John’s prologue with Jesus, then Paul must clearly be in error in the Christ hymn of Colossians 1
.
In his christological hymn in Phil 2
, Paul again speaks of the preincarnate Christ as Jesus:
“who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ut made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”
Phil 2:6-7
How could Jesus 1)not count his equality with God as anything, and 2)make himself nothing, all before 3)taking the form of a servant, and 4) be born in the likeness of men? These are not separate events, but 4 stands in epexegetical apposition (epexegetical participle) with 3. It could be translated “taking the form of a servant [by] being born in the likeness of men.”
The only available option is that Jesus was the pre-incarnate Logos. Suffice it to say, if Paul, through inspiration, is ok with the idea of calling the logos “Jesus” than I am too.
As for your assertion that “The logos wasn’t the tabernacle; Jesus was the tabernacle” that directly goes against verse 14:
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν
And the word became flesh and tabernacled
“As for your assertion that “The logos wasn’t the tabernacle; Jesus was the tabernacle” that directly goes against verse 14 . . . And the word became flesh and tabernacled.”
Skeenooo=”to pitch a tent,” which is also how FF Bruce translates it. Question: who was the “tent,” the logos, or the logos made flesh? And who was the logos made flesh? Jesus. “Destroy this temple…temple of his body.” “In him (the man) dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily.” Note the reference to body in both cases. Jesus didn’t tabernacle in the logos; the logos tabernacled in Jesus.
Edit: Posted too quickly. Meant to say, Jesus didn’t tabernacle in the logos, the logos became a fleshly tabernacle in whom the Father tabernacled.
In answer to your first response:
“Paul continues to say ‘and he is before all things’ in v. 17 - but how could Jesus be before all things if he wasn’t Jesus until the incarnation?”
Regarding the name of Jesus prior to the incarnation, the short answer is, according to Jn 1.1
, the “name” of the logos isn’t Jesus; the “name” of the logos . . . is “logos,” and based on the context (or pericope), there is no compelling reason to make the text mean other than it says. If anything, there may be a compelling reason *not* to. The logos wasn’t called Jesus–the man was, and the logos was not flesh (man) until it *became* flesh (man). Why would the logos be named Jesus before it became flesh in the person of Jesus, at Bethlehem? Jesus means “Yahweh the Savior,” for he “will save [future] his people from their sins” (Mt 1.21), which salvation did not occur prior to the incarnation. It occurred *after* the birth of the man at Bethlehem, whom Joseph was told to name Jesus because of what he *would* do in the future.
As to Jesus being “before” (pro) all things (Co 1.17), it is speaking of his position as “firstborn of all creation” (v 15). Does that mean Jesus was actually “born” before the creation of the heavens and the earth (Ge 1.1)? No. How could Jesus have been born before he was born in Bethlehem, to be the (future) savior of his people?
This is what it means: “He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead” (v18). In other words, Jesus (the “last Adam” 1Co 15.45) was the first-born of the NEW (spiritual) creation, just as Adam was the first-born of the OLD (physical) creation. In Adam, all will physically die (ICo 15.22a); in Christ, all will spiritually live (1Co 15.22b, 45b). (With regard to this, note that Scripture says Adam was a tupos of Christ, Ro 5.14).
“If we are unable to equate the creative logos of John’s prologue with Jesus, then Paul must clearly be in error in the Christ hymn of Colossians 1
.”
Jesus CAN be equated with the logos, but only with the logos MADE FLESH, because Jesus IS the logos made flesh (Jn 1.14
). But the logos was not Jesus prior to the logos becoming flesh, and there is nothing in the text (or pericope) that demands this interpretation. At the incarnation, the logos became that which it was not (flesh), but what you are saying is that Jesus became Jesus. It doesn’t say that.
“In his christological hymn in Phil 2Open Link in New Window, Paul again speaks of the preincarnate Christ as Jesus: ‘who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.’ Phil 2:6-7
How could Jesus 1)not count his equality with God as anything, and 2)make himself nothing, all before 3)taking the form of a servant, and 4) be born in the likeness of men? These are not separate events, but 4 stands in epexegetical apposition (epexegetical participle) with 3. It could be translated ‘taking the form of a servant [by] being born in the likeness of men.’”
Where do you get the idea the passage is talking about the “preincarnate Christ”?
“The only available option is that Jesus was the pre-incarnate Logos. Suffice it to say, if Paul, through inspiration, is ok with the idea of calling the logos “Jesus” than I am too.”
Where specifically does Paul call the “logos” Jesus?
Wayne - here are some of my concerns with your interpretation.
It seems (as would be obvious) that from the very beginning we’re working with no definition of what you mean when you refer to the “logos”. If the logos is not Jesus pre-existent, then who, or what, is it? How do you understand the logos? Is it the reason, or the mind, of God? Is it His logic? Are you working with a Greco-Roman understanding of the logos? or Hebrew?
I would suggest (and you may agree) that because of John’s Jewish affinity that is witnessed through his writings (especially when compared to the DSS) we have to understand the logos through a Hebrew understanding. The Word of God is effective and brings into existence that which does not exist. It is powerful. The Word in Jewish thought serves as the agent of God. It is how God accomplishes His tasks.
And yet, the logos is not an abstract identity. Abstract identities do not take on flesh. Logic no more takes on flesh than Omnipresence or Omnibenevolence. Those are attritubutes of a person, namely God. But we are not talking about an attribute when we speak of the logos. God and the Logos are distinguishable. John says that the Word was “pros ton theon” (or, “face to face with God.”) The logos did not reside within the Father; the Logos was separate from the Father.
Further showing the logos is personal is the fact that he is described as God. Abstract entities are not divine. Love is not God. Light is not God (cf. I John)… instead God is love; God is light. In the same way, God is not logos “reason”… The WORD is God.
Now I know I’m ranting and I may be missing your point, so please clarify if need be. Another question, though: If indeed Jesus was not preexistent, then why does John say that Isaiah saw “his glory” and spoke of “him” (12:41). It’s not a reference to an “it”, but to a person, Jesus Christ. You’d have to jump through some hermeneutical hoops to make sense of your argument here, wouldn’t you?
I agree with Bryan. You’re arguments are pedantic.
“Why call the logos Jesus?” Because John does. His gospel is concerned with clearly presenting Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Only in teh prologue do we have reference to the “logos”. The focus of John’s book is not abstract (”reason” “mind”), it is personal in Jesus Christ
“It seems (as would be obvious) that from the very beginning we’re working with no definition of what you mean when you refer to the “logos”. If the logos is not Jesus pre-existent, then who, or what, is it? How do you understand the logos? Is it the reason, or the mind, of God? Is it His logic? Are you working with a Greco-Roman understanding of the logos? or Hebrew?”
My definition of “logos” is the definition found in any decent lexicon, most of which essentially agree with:
The word by which the inward thought is expressed; also, the inward thought or reason itself; reason; logic; plan; action; word; expression.
That the definition is complex seems appropriate considering its use in John’s extraordinarily simple yet complex prologue–as well as the fact that as to its essence, the logos is God. The text does not identify the logos as “Jesus preexistent”; rather, Jesus is identified as the logos made flesh. In other words, we allow the text to develop our theology rather than vice-versa.
“I would suggest (and you may agree) that because of John’s Jewish affinity that is witnessed through his writings (especially when compared to the DSS) we have to understand the logos through a Hebrew understanding. The Word of God is effective and brings into existence that which does not exist. It is powerful. The Word in Jewish thought serves as the agent of God. It is how God accomplishes His tasks.”
I don’t think God is coming from either a Greek or Hebrew perspective per se. “Logos” is a Greek word, so obviously we must look to Greek to interpret the essential meaning, but God uses words–whether Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek–for His purposes, and seems to feel comfortable borrowing words from the Greeks and giving them His own special “twist” (eg agapee; mysterion).
“And yet, the logos is not an abstract identity. Abstract identities do not take on flesh. Logic no more takes on flesh than Omnipresence or Omnibenevolence. Those are attritubutes of a person, namely God. But we are not talking about an attribute when we speak of the logos. God and the Logos are distinguishable.”
Here is my explanation of John 1
, in brief. All that the logos is, is God, but God is more than His logos. The logos is not a separate “person” of God; the logos IS God–God’s plan and purpose in expression. That is essentially all the text asks us to understand and what the word “logos” means. To put it in a more abstract (and thus a less textual) sense, no man can see God. He is infinite. The logos is that which we perceive of the infinite God. Jesus was God expressed in flesh. The man Jesus Christ was the earthly temple of the infinite God (who does not dwell in temples made by hand), just as was, in a lesser sense, Moses’ tabernacle and Solomon’s temple, which were types of the greater temple to come (Christ). All that we experience of God, we experience in and through the man Jesus Christ, who is the last Adam, the ultimate expression (logos) of God.
“John says that the Word was “pros ton theon” (or, “face to face with God.”) The logos did not reside within the Father; the Logos was separate from the Father. Further showing the logos is personal is the fact that he is described as God. Abstract entities are not divine. Love is not God. Light is not God (cf. I John)… instead God is love; God is light. In the same way, God is not logos “reason”… The WORD is God.”
Everything that God has made came into being by means of His expression (logos) and is thus pros ton theon (”toward the God”). EVERYTHING. The heavens declare the glory of God. The heavens came forth from God’s “mouth,” and point to Him as their creator. To a lesser degree than Christ (who was the logos made flesh) the heavens are pros ton theon: “Do you see our splendor? He made us!” Pros ton theon does imply a relationship, but not necessarily a relationship between two persons. That is and idea that has to be read into the text.
Also, the text does not say the logos “was separate from the Father.” It says the logos was separate (distinct) from Theos (God). “Father” is a term that necessarily implies begetting, whereas in the beginning, the logos already was. Jesus, however, was begotten, as we read in the gospels.
“Now I know I’m ranting and I may be missing your point, so please clarify if need be. Another question, though: If indeed Jesus was not preexistent, then why does John say that Isaiah saw “his glory” and spoke of “him” (12:41). It’s not a reference to an “it”, but to a person, Jesus Christ. You’d have to jump through some hermeneutical hoops to make sense of your argument here, wouldn’t you?”
Sorry, I don’t understand the question re Isaiah. Please elaborate.
“I agree with Bryan. You’re arguments are pedantic. ‘Why call the logos Jesus?’ Because John does. His gospel is concerned with clearly presenting Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Only in teh prologue do we have reference to the ‘logos’. The focus of John’s book is not abstract (”reason” “mind”), it is personal in Jesus Christ.”
Apologies for being pedantic. If I am pedantic, I am sincerely pedantic. I have no desire to engage in goofology or to waste anyone’s time. There is nothing abstract about the use of “logos” in Jn 1
, except to the extent our minds find difficulty with its use.
I’ll respond quickly.
I’m sure we’d be able to sift through this a lot quicker were we not typing all of this out. I’m a terrible typer and can tend to change thoughts half way through a sentence. With that in mind, I’ll try to keep this short.
First, my point with John 12:41
and John saying that Isaiah saw his [Jesus' glory]. My point is that John seems to be saying that Jesus, not just the logos, was the one Isaiah saw in the temple. Now, I understand if you want to say that Jesus did not exist bodily at this point. I even understand if you want to say that his name was not Jesus since he had not been born and thus not named. But it seems that you would have to do the same type of hermeneutical back bends to say that John couldn’t be talking about Jesus here in 12:41, and that he must instead be talking about the logos. The logos isn’t mentioned here. Jesus is.
Also, if we’re going to argue names, its worth pointing out that the logos wasn’t a name for this until John, or more accurately Alexander the Great. Once the OT was translated to the LXX, logos was translated for many of the texts referring to the “memrah” of the Lord (”word”). My argument about your definition of the logos was rooted here.
“The text does not identify the logos as “Jesus preexistent”; rather, Jesus is identified as the logos made flesh. In other words, we allow the text to develop our theology rather than vice-versa.”
I don’t think I’m reading theology into the text. The text says the word became flesh - not just took it on, but became it. It says the Word was eternal, so it seems logical to me (and a plethora of Johannine scholars of whom I’m not part) to take it to say the Word who exists now is not different from the Word who has eternally existed (cf. Cullman; Ladd, Culy; Kostenberger, Schreiner)
And if it is different, does that mean there is change in the Godhead.
I guess when it comes down to it, I just don’t much of what you’re saying. It seems a little trivial (though, maybe a bit harsh to say pedantic). I’ll ask a question for clarity’s sake:
Do you indeed believe that Jesus (”as we call him now”) is the eternal Son of the eternal Father? Or are you suggesting Incarnational sonship? Neither? I’d like to be pointed to some resources where there is perhaps a more fully expressed argument for what you’re saying. Like I said, I’m just not getting it
Thanks Wayne.
“First, my point with John 12:41
and John saying that Isaiah saw his [Jesus' glory]. My point is that John seems to be saying that Jesus, not just the logos, was the one Isaiah saw in the temple. Now, I understand if you want to say that Jesus did not exist bodily at this point. I even understand if you want to say that his name was not Jesus since he had not been born and thus not named. But it seems that you would have to do the same type of hermeneutical back bends to say that John couldn’t be talking about Jesus here in 12:41, and that he must instead be talking about the logos. The logos isn’t mentioned here. Jesus is.”
Maybe I could ask you a question first. Isaiah 6.1
identifies the one who Isaiah saw in the temple as Adonai. In vs 3 this same one is called Yahweh. So with regard to John 12.41
and the preincarnate Jesus, are you saying that Jesus is Adonai, or Yahweh, or both?
“Also, if we’re going to argue names, its worth pointing out that the logos wasn’t a name for this until John, or more accurately Alexander the Great. Once the OT was translated to the LXX, logos was translated for many of the texts referring to the “memrah” of the Lord (”word”). My argument about your definition of the logos was rooted here.”
I understand the history of the word logos, but I don’t accept the idea that John was influenced by it. God chose the precise word, logos, that John used. And I do believe that if there is any passage in the NT where precision is imperative, it’s Jn 1
. God is using the word precisely as He intended it to be used.
“I don’t think I’m reading theology into the text. The text says the word became flesh - not just took it on, but became it. It says the Word was eternal, so it seems logical to me (and a plethora of Johannine scholars of whom I’m not part) to take it to say the Word who exists now is not different from the Word who has eternally existed (cf. Cullman; Ladd, Culy; Kostenberger, Schreiner). And if it is different, does that mean there is change in the Godhead.”
I do not believe that the Word becoming flesh necessitates any change in the Godhead, because it doesn’t say Theos became flesh; it say the logos became flesh. Yes, the logos is Theos, but Theos is more than His logos. The logos is the “expression” of Theos (which is essentially what logos means). Again, this is why precision is important in the passage. It doesn’t mean what it doesn’t say, it means precisely what it says–nothing more, nothing less.
“Do you indeed believe that Jesus (”as we call him now”) is the eternal Son of the eternal Father? Or are you suggesting Incarnational sonship? Neither? I’d like to be pointed to some resources where there is perhaps a more fully expressed argument for what you’re saying. Like I said, I’m just not getting it”
The Scripture says: In the beginning, the logos [already] was. Which begs the question: when did the logos become a “son”? I believe Scripture gives us a very simple answer: Mt 1.21 And she will bear a *Son*, and you shall call His name Jesus.
Thanks for the input, guys. I was hoping this would go a little further, but that’s fine. Lord bless your ministry, Bryan.
Continuing the Discussion