Jesus and helpful notes on the Λογος (Logos) of John 1:1

I have had several good comments and compliments actually on this little missive I recently wrote and shared with some friends. I think this august group will enjoy this...

Jesus of the κοσμος: Helpful, Scintillating Notes on the Λογος (Logos) of John 1:1

The Gospel of John is not much like the other three Gospels in the New Testament (the Synoptics - as they pretty much look alike and are similar), and my surmise is due to the underlying thinking of John from theological if not philosophical thought with the λογος (Logos) as the background to everything about John’s view of Jesus, which gives us the difference in tone, chronology, theology, etc. in the Gospel of John. It is truly in a class of its own.[1]

One of the truly great English scholars of the scriptures, C. H. Dodd, in his discussion worked mainly within the range of the Stoics two aspects of λογος, namely the λογος ένδιαθετος and λογος προφορικος - which is the λογος in the mind and that of the actual uttered λογος - i.e., “thought” and “word.”[2]

Many scholars through the last few centuries, since the rise of critical exegesis of the Bible from the Renaissance era have looked to the Stoics, as well as the Old Testament itself, Plato, Heraclitus, Philo, and other areas and people’s use of this word with its myriads of meanings, the full range of which perhaps has not been measured yet to our day.

“In Gnosticism the logos is a mythological intermediary being between God and man. He is not the creator of the world, but above all revealer, and as revealer also redeemer.”[3] This emphasis is different from the Stoic which leads us to “that which is rationally ordered, such as proposition in mathematics or what we call ‘law’ in nature.”[4] Philo says the logos can be considered, actually called “God” since that is the form the logos, that God chose to reveal himself.[5] Interestingly, Max Pulver in his analysis of the Round Dance of Jesus in the Acts of St. John shows how this “gnostic” work separated the logos from Jesus so they could not be the same thing or person. Yet St. John says in this “Acts” work that “according to the essence and the selfhood, speaking to us, it is the delimitation of all things. And the vast elevation of the stable from the unstable, and the harmony of wisdom - of the wisdom that is in harmony.”[6]

Dodd contends “the divine λογος is not simply the uttered words. It is άληθεια [eternal truth]. That is to say, it is a rational content of thought corresponding to the ultimate reality of the universe… hence, while the λογος of God is rational content of thought, it is always in some sense uttered, and because it is uttered becomes a life-giving power for men.”[7] The divine δυνάμεις [power, being able, capability][8] Philo calls λογος. Yet, the German scholar of the Bible, the well known in his day, Dr. Augustus Tholuck, (ca. 1850’s) also noted how Philo “denominates this λογος as ό πρεσβυτατος υίός του Θεου (the eldest son of God) ό προτογονος (the first born) and even ό δευτερος Θεός (the second God)... he sometimes uses σοφία (sophia) too, in the same sense as λογος.”[9]

The dogma contained in the doctrine of the Logos by the end of the 17th century was as Tholuck presented a litany of scholars advocating the λογος to be “but a personification of the divine reason… God as object of himself is the Word, for in the Word (that is, regarded as an internal thing) the spirit becomes objective to itself. The Word is consequently the principle through which God is revealed to himself… as he now contemplates himself in the Word, he beholds the fullness of his own essence, and in this the archetypes of the world, for the works of God, which, according to Romans 1:20, mirror ‘the eternal power of the Godhead’ of God, must have been the thoughts of God.”[10]

John, according to the classical scholar David Fideler, “...describes the nature of the ‘Word’ as a cosmic forming principle.” He continues, “Logos designates the power of ‘reason’ the pattern or order of things, the principle of relationships, and an articulated organized of something… it has the same meaning as both the Latin words ratio and oratio… as in continued geometrical proportion… the natural order of things, the principle of reason, relation and harmony, which exists both within the natural fabric of the universe, and within the human mind. It is the faculty whereby one thing is related to another through analogy, or the power of ‘proportional insight.’ The heart of the cosmic pattern and the source of existence, its emblem is the sun, the source of life and light.”[11] It is this sense then, that perhaps Philo meant that the λογος and the powers give us the summation of God’s emanations. “The λογος, the sum of all the powers.”[12]

Dodd explains “Its order and meaning express the mind of a transcendent creator… his thought which is the principle of reality in the universe. His thought however is not merely a meaning or plan visible in the universe; it is also the creative power by which the universe came into being and is sustained.”[13] The λογος did not merely descend upon Jesus, enter into Him, or abide in Him. The λογος became the σαρξ[14] or human nature which he bore.”[15]

“He is the Reason and Mind of the cosmos… there was an analogy between the Logos of God, which had become incarnate in Jesus, and the logos of humanity, which was incarnate in each person and perceptible to each person from within… this name [Logos] was given to him because he exists in all things that are...thus the cosmos was reliably knowable and at the same time it remained mysterious, both of these because the Logos was the Mind and Reason of God. Because the Logos incarnate in Jesus was the Reason of God, it was also possible to see the Logos as the very structure of the universe… that harmony, binding together the atom and the galaxy, was expressed in cosmic systema, all of it brought about by the magnificence of the Creator-Logos...the identification of the Creator-Logos in Jesus as the foundation for the very structure of the universe and the belief that the Logos of God is in the whole universe...the Logos, as the Savior of the cosmos, became incarnate in Jesus Christ...by becoming incarnate in Jesus, the Logos had enabled human beings to transcend themselves and, in a pregnant phrase of the New Testament, ‘to become partakers in the divine nature.’ (2 Peter 1:4).”[16]


Endnotes
1. John Shelby Spong, “Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus,” HarperSanFrancisco, 1992: 167. “More than any other biblical writer, the author of the fourth Gospel seems to warn against, inveigh against, and show the absurdity of that all-too-human tendency to seek to capture divine mystery in literalized propositional statements.”
2. C. H. Dodd, “The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel,” Cambridge University Press, 13th reprint, 1988: 263. Hereafter cited as “Interpretation.”
3. Oscar Cullman, “Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments,” Translated as “The Christology of the New Testament,” by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall, The Westminister Press, Revised, 1963: 252.
4. Dodd, “Interpretation,” p. 263.
5. Alan F. Segal, “Two Powers in Heaven,” Brill, 2002: 163.
6. Max Pulver, “Jesus’ Round Dance and Crucifixion According to the Acts of St. John,” in “The Mysteries, edited by Joseph Campbell, Bollingen Series, Princeton University Press, 1955: 181. Cf. Elaine Pagels, “The Gnostic Gospels,” Vintage Books, 1981: 88-89; Also Cf. Frederick H. Borsch, “The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man,” Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, SCM Press, 1970: 82, where the Son of Man theme and Jesus is “conceived of as a cosmic figure who has been endowed with God’s own creative power (we may think of John 1:1ff).” The logos and Son of Man related to Jesus is snug.
7. Dodd, “Interpretation,” p. 267.
8. Spiros Zodhiates, “The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary New Testament,” World Bible Publishers, 1992: 485-486. Cf. “Greek-English Lexicon,” Liddell & Scott, New edition Supplement, 1968, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, Reprint, 1983: 452, indicating force, influence, authority, sometimes of bodily physical strength also, depending on the context.
9. Dr, Augustus Tholuck, “Commentary on the Gospel of John,” translated from the German by Charles P. Krauth, T & T Clark, 1859: 62-63. I got this very fine, erudite and scholarly tome in a used book store for $7.58! For whatever reason, I knew the name and reputation, how or when I learned of Tholuck, I have no idea, so when I saw it, I immediately grabbed it and purchased it. I was also fortunate enough to nab his gigantic commentary on the Psalms also.
10. Tholuck, “Commentary,” p. 67, 69.
11. David Fideler, “Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism,” Quest Books, 1993: 37-39.
12. Alan F. Segal, “The Two Powers,” p. 177.
13. Dodd, “Interpretation,” p. 277.
14. “Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,” Royal Publishers, 1952: 437 - “Sarx the holy humanity of the Lord Jesus, in the totality of all that is essential to manhood, i.e., spirit, soul, and body.”
15. Dodd, “Interpretation,” p. 284.
16. Jaroslav Pelikan, “Jesus Through the Centuries,” Yale University, 1985: 63-68.

That was great. I've understood this for some time, but there was some good new insights in that. I'll scrape it and save it. Thanks.

The Word or Logos as a person who became flesh - John 1:14.
Not once does the Bible state that the person of Jesus is co-eternal with his God.
Pre-human heavenly Jesus had a beginning of existence according to Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 B.
God had No beginning being from everlasting according to Psalms 90:2.
Thus, only God was ' before ' the beginning of anything, whereas pre-human Jesus was "in" the beginning but Never ' before ' the beginning as his God was ' before ' the beginning.
The idea of co-equal also comes from borrowing and shaping from Plato and Not from Scripture.

Why do people make it so complicated? The Word of God is not another being, it is God's spoken words, everything that comes out of the mouth of God is God's Word. Just like my words that come out of my mouth is my Word.
And who is Philo? This person is neither a prophet nor an apostle of God, he has nothing to do with the Bible. John quotes from Psalms 33:6-9 about the Word of God.

Teritos said:

Why do people make it so complicated? The Word of God is not another being, it is God's spoken words, everything that comes out of the mouth of God is God's Word. Just like my words that come out of my mouth is my Word.
And who is Philo? This person is neither a prophet nor an apostle of God, he has nothing to do with the Bible. John quotes from Psalms 33:6-9 about the Word of God.

Click to expand...

Philo was a Jew who lived in Alexandria, a "Hellenized Jew" in other words. His Logos is referring to the God of Jewish scriptures, so that does have to do with "the bible". It's not "nothing to do with the bible". And it is important to understand how Logos was being used by contemporary authors at the time, to give insights into how and why John was using that term, and in what ways to describe truths about God in what he is trying to communicate to his readers.

This is basic good, solid hermeneutics and biblical scholarship. Otherwise, you're just pulling stuff out of thin air from 2000 years after the fact and projecting your own modern views upon ancient authors. That's why it matters. You cannot ignore Philo here. Especially since John's Logos is very similar to Philo's Logos. The OP article contains important information for Christians to try to understand about their tradition's own texts. It very much matters, and has everything to do with the Bible.

Teritos said:

Why do people make it so complicated?

Click to expand...

I agree, why? but the bible tells us who the word is... John 1:1c "and the Word was God.". the key to John 1:1 is in the word "WITH". which certify John 1:1c, "and the Word was God", the same one person. just as Isaiah confirms also the "WITH", as the same one person. Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." the First "WITH" the last?, yes, just as in John 1:1. it's the same one PERSON. and here's why, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."
I am he, the first, "WITH", the Last, but the first is "ALOS", the Last..... BINGO, the same one person. yes, Jesus is the First and the Last.

PICJAG, 101G

Also, it is crucial to know that there are, without the slightest exaggeration on my part, hundreds of thousands of pages written on the Logos within the last 200 years. It is not just a simple proposition. In the above article I merely put together a few interesting ideas in a really short quickie readable presentation. I have seen 300 page books on just this topic. Tens of thousands of scholarly papers exist discussing it as well from every angle under the sun. It is one of the most complex, yet truly fascinating subjects in Christianity... I will present more later as I have time to put some material together. Just one more indication of its serious significance. The Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon has 3 entire pages of small print, 2 column pages just defining it from the few sources we have from the ancient Greeks. It was a major topic for them as well.

Philo and Logos - Part 1

An article by Frederick C. Grant of the Union Theological Seminary, New York City says,

“Another term found in koine [New Testament] Greek and adopted by the early Christians is Logos (Word), meaning...the divine mediator between God and the world (John 1:1-18) or the divine thought or utterance, by which - or by whom - all things hold together (Colossians 1:17); that is, the One who is God’s agent in the creation and the continued existence of the universe (Hebrews 1:3). Such a term is not entirely philosophical: its real background...is not Stoicism or Stoical Platonism so much as it is the theosophical or ‘mysteriosophical’ theorizing of various religious cults and movements found here and there in the ancient Near East" [the most influential and best-known of these being that of the Jewish theosophy of Philo - T2]. - Encyclopedia Americana, 1957, vol. 3, p. 654.

“The outstanding Alexandrian Jew [‘the chief representative of Alexandrian Judaism’ - J. B. Lightfoot’s commentary: Epistle to the Philippians, p. 130] is, of course, Philo Judaeus (20 B.C.-A.D. 50). .... It has been said rightly that the history of Christian philosophy ‘began not with a Christian but a Jew,’ namely Philo of Alexandria.” - p. 35, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), 1985, Fortress Press.

“The idea of a Logos, an immanent reason in the world, is one that meets us under various modifications in many ancient systems of thought, - Indian, Egyptian, Persian. In view of the religious syncretism of the second century, it is barely possible that these extraneous theologies may have exercised some influence on the Fourth Evangelist, but there can be little doubt in regard to the main source from which his Logos doctrine was derived. It had come down to him through Philo, after its final development in Greek philosophy.” - p. 146.

“…. every verse in the Prologue offers striking analogies to corresponding sayings of Philo. We have seen reason to believe that John had acquainted himself directly with the works of the Alexandrian thinker, and consciously derived from them.” - p. 154, The Fourth Gospel, Its purpose and Theology, E. F. Scott, D.D.

“Philo, the famous Jewish philosopher, .... is the most important example of the Hellenized Jews outside Palestine... he believed wholly in the Mosaic scriptures and in one God whose chief mediator with the world is the Logos” - Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1988.

Speaking of theosophy and Philo,
We find that Philo Judaeus was a “Jewish philosopher: b. about 20 B.C.; d. not later than 54 A.D.”
“...his philosophy was thus strictly a theosophy. It rested, as its direct foundation, on the Jewish scriptures as an inspired revelation....”
According to Philo, “Between God and the world there is an intermediate being, the Logos.” And “The Logos is the most universal of all beings except God.”
Philo also (unlike the pagan Greek Stoic philosophers) “gives the Logos the titles of Son of God [John 1:34], paraclete [‘Comforter,’ ‘Advocate,’ ‘Helper’ - 1 John 2:1], and mediator between God and man [1 Tim. 2:5].” - Americana, 1957, v. 21, pp. 766, 767.
Philo also:
“differentiates the Logos from God as his work or image [2 Cor. 4:4].” Philo’s Logos is also “first-born son [Ro. 8:29]....divine [a god - Jn 1:1] but not God, is with God [Jn 1:1], is light [Jn 1:4],...manna [Jn 6:31-51],...and shepherd [Jn 10:11].” - Encyclopaedia Britannica, p. 251, vol. 14, 1968. (Cf. Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 8, p. 135.)
And,

“Philo describes the Logos in terms which often bear striking resemblance to NT descriptions of Christ .... Philo distinguishes God as the cause by which [and]..., the Logos as that through which (di’ hou),... the cosmos originated” [Jn 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6] and “even as θεος [‘a god’] in a subordinate sense” [Jn 1:1] and one “from which drawing water one may find eternal life instead of death [Jn 4:14].” - A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 135, vol. 3, Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988 printing.
We also see that:

“Philo....made use of it [Logos] on the basis of such passages as Ps. 33:6 to express the means whereby the transcendent God may be the Creator of the universe and the Revealer of himself to Moses and the Patriarchs. .... On the side of biblical exegesis the Logos is identified with the Angel of the Lord...and is described...as High Priest [Heb. 6:20], Captain and Steersman, Advocate (Paraclete) and the son of God.” - p. 703, New Bible Dictionary.

In fact, Philo even said that
“the Logos is the eldest son [first-born or created] of God.” [Ro. 8:29] - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (trinitarian), p. 639, vol. 3 (also vol. 1, p. 178), 1986, Zondervan.

TBC

Philo and Logos - Part 2

Trinitarian Dr. H. R. Boer also tells us:

“Philo...put a mediator between God and the world. This mediator he found in the Logos. He is the greater of the powers with which God is surrounded [these ‘powers’, the angels of God, are sometimes called ‘gods’ by Philo, the first Christians, and even in the Bible itself - T2]. In him Philo saw a divine power that is less than God [cf. John 1:1c, AT and Moffatt], standing between God and the world. Through him God has created all things [cf. John 1:3]. Later, this thought played a large role in the attempt of Christian thinkers to explain the relationship of Christ to God.” - A Short History of the Early Church, 1976, p. 12.

“Philo of course conceives of the Logos - which he occasionally calls divine (θεος) [literally, ’a god’], but never ‘God’ (ὁ θεος) - as the highest angel and as the highest idea at the same time....” - p. 126, John 1, Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

We even find Philo saying: the Divine Logos “has been anointed” [Messiah/Christ means the ‘Anointed One’] and “his father being God, who is likewise Father of all” - p. 69, Philo, vol. 5, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press.

The Encyclopedia Britannica also tells us about Philo’s “Logos”:
“Thus there is close similarity of symbolism between Philo and the fourth evangelist [John], and they move in the same [Jewish] world of thought ....” - p. 251, vol. 14, 1968.

And the trinitarian Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 833, also admits:
“Though it is clear that the author [John] was influenced by the same background of ideas as Philo, his identification of the Logos with the Messiah was entirely new.” – Oxford University Press, 1990. (But, of course, we have seen a connection between one who has been anointed [messiah] and the Logos in the works of Philo described in Philo, vol. 5, quoted above.)

Yes, as we have seen above, a large number of highly distinctive descriptions of the Logos by Philo have also been used by John to describe his Logos: Jesus! These terms are used by Philo alone, not by other trinitarian-proposed sources of John’s Logos concept!

Philo alone took the term “Logos” from the Greek concept and modified it to match Old Testament scriptural concepts (including “Wisdom” - Prov. 8:22-30 and “Word” in Ps 33:6).
“There is evidence, however, especially in Philo, that the form of the Logos was virtually identical in substance with that of Wisdom [in Prov. 8].” - p. 126, John 1, Ernst Haenchen, Fortress Press, 1984.

After discussing all other trinitarian-proposed origins of John’s concept of the Logos (including, of course, those of the Stoics; the OT Wisdom concept; etc.) and rejecting them all, a respected trinitarian work concludes:
“In the question of the origin of the Logos-concept [by John], pre-eminent significance is therefore to be attributed to Hellenistic Judaism [Philo].” - p. 1117, vol. 3, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan.

Respected Church historian Cairns (trinitarian) also tells us:
“Multitudes were later mentioned as becoming a part of the Church (Acts 5:14). It is rather interesting that many of these were Hellenistic Jews (Acts 6:1)” - p. 60, Christianity Through The Centuries, Zondervan, 1977.

So there were many Hellenistic Jews who had become Christians and were, therefore, familiar with Philo’s Logos at the time John wrote his Gospel.

In fact, we are told at Acts 6:7, 9 that there were Alexandrian Jews in Jerusalem when Stephen was martyred. And Acts 18:24 tells us that even Apollos was an Alexandrian.

John simply could not have used a strictly pagan Greek philosophy as a basis for his ‘Logos.’ As popular trinitarian New Testament scholar Dr. William Barclay tells us,
“John thinks in Jewish categories because he could do no other.” - p. 80, The Letters of John and Jude, 1976 ed.

And the Universal Standard Encyclopedia, p. 6596, vol. 18, 1954 ed., tells us that “[Philo is] considered the greatest Jewish philosopher of his age.” And, “To Philo the divinity of the Jewish law was the basis and test of all true philosophy.”

Even the famed Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics tells us that John must be referring to Philo’s conception of the Logos:
“It is clear from the tone of the Prologue [John 1:1-18] that Philo’s conception of the Logos, or something akin to it, was already familiar to those for whom the Evangelist [John] wrote. No explanation of the word Logos is given [anywhere in the entire Gospel]; and almost every verse in this Prologue might be paralleled from Philo [and only Philo].” - p. 136, vol. 8.

And the trinitarian The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, says:
“Only the Philonic Logos-teaching [Philo’s teaching of the Logos] provides a clear theological scheme in which the Word possesses a like unity with God and a like distinction from him, and in which both creative and sustaining activity in the universe and revelatory activity towards man is ascribed to it. Further, the necessarily unique concept of incarnation is nevertheless a proper development of the identification of Philo’s [and only Philo’s] Logos with the Ideal Man [Jesus].” - vol. 2, p. 909 (also see the New Bible Dictionary, pp. 703-704, 2nd ed.).

“... in the cosmology explicit in the Prologue [verses 1:1-18 of the Gospel of John] and elsewhere there is evidently close kinship to the Philonic allegory.” - p. 934, New Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), 2nd ed., Tyndale House Publ. (trinitarian), 1984.

“With striking vigour and originality of thought Philo built up a religious philosophy, in which the Logos is endowed with personality” - A Dictionary of the Bible, Hastings (ed.), p. 283, Supplement, 1988 printing, Hendrickson Press.

I don’t intend to accuse the Apostle John of actually adopting part of Philo’s theosophy (and certainly not the pagan philosophy [Stoicism] of the Greeks), but if he were making a comparison between Christ and a popularly understood Hellenistic concept of the word Logos at that time, he would have used the popular Logos concept of Philo, the Jewish theosophist who at least based his theosophy “as its direct foundation on the Jewish scriptures as an inspired revelation.”

As The Expositor’s Greek Testament tells us in its introduction to the Gospel of John: “The idea of the Logos was a Jewish-Alexandrian idea, and that the author sought to attach his Gospel to this idea is unquestionable…. But the term and the idea of the Logos are used by the author to introduce his subject to the Greek readers. As Harnack says: ‘The prologue [John 1:1 - John 1:18] is not the key to the understanding of the Gospel, but it is rather intended to prepare the Hellenistic reader for its perusal’.” - p. 671, Volume One.

And if John were writing to a group of the “many ... Hellenistic Jews” who had become a part of the Church (or who were at least interested in Christianity), there would be no need to explain the Logos concept which they were already familiar with from Philo’s Hellenistic Judaism. (The lack of any explanation of his Logos concept by John has been troubling to many students of the Prologue of the Gospel of John.) And that concept is that the Logos (although the second highest power in the universe, the Son of God, the Mediator between God and Man, the one through whom God created all things) is an intermediate entity who is not the Most High God but is ‘a god’ (theos)!

The Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up pretty well:
“The Logos which having been in the beginning, and with God, and divine [‘a god’], had entered human life and history as the Word ‘made flesh!’ .... But the identification of Jesus with the Logos was not tantamount to recognizing him as ‘God.’ Neither the ‘Word of God’ in Hebrew nomenclature nor the Logos in Greek speculation was ‘God’ though it was definitely ‘divine’ [‘a god’].” - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p.25.

John 1:1c - "a god"

W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he and the rest of the trinitarian scholars listed here, choose not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:
“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in a footnote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

(Of course if you carefully examine the grammar of John 1:1c and compare it with all other truly parallel examples in John's writings, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word is [or “was” in John 1:1c] a god’ is what John intended.)

Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.

In the Prologue of the Gospel of John (written about 90 A.D.) we see that John 1:1c reads in the original language: και θεος ην ὁ λογος (“and god was the word”). This has been translated as (1) “and the Word was a god,” (2) “and the Word was divine,” and, most often, (3) “and the Word was God.”

There are a number of questions concerning this and the rest of the Prologue to the Gospel of John.
Since John did not explain his concept of the Word (Logos), what would his readers have understood him to mean when he used the term in the Prologue? And, more important, what would his readers have understood as the meaning of και θεος ην ὁ λογος (“and god was the word”) at John 1:1c?

Although some trinitarians hotly dispute it, (1) when an unmodified, nominative case ‘god’ (θεος) in the original Greek of the earliest NT manuscripts) has the article (ὁ) with it (ὁ θεος) in all the writings of the Gospel writers, it always refers to the most high God and is translated into English as “God,” and, (2) it is an easily proven fact that when an unmodified nominative case count noun (like ‘god, or ‘man’: θεος or ἄνθρωπος) has no article (ὁ) with it, as in John 1:1c above, it should normally be translated into English as an indefinite noun (like ‘a god’ or ‘a man‘) no matter what its position in the sentence!

For example, see John 4:19 (“a prophet”); John 6:70 (“a devil”/“a slanderer”); 9:24 (“a sinner”); John 10:33 (“a man”); John 18:37a (“a king”); etc. So grammatically, as well as contextually, the proper rendering of Jn 1:1c is “the Word was a god”!

Or examine my studies of it:

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-11c-primer_21.html
or

Examining the Trinity

While I think the O.P. has some interesting philosophical points, I think the most applicable and down to earth and realistic points have been made by some of @tigger2's points that keep the discussion and description of "the Word" in John, grounded in the person of Jesus rather than in metaphysical, non-personal properties. In the context of John 1:1, the context in early Christian Literature was as a reference to the an actual person and reference to the Messiah, Jesus.

Clear
δρτωακω

Clear said:

While I think the O.P. has some interesting philosophical points, I think the most applicable and down to earth and realistic points have been made by some of @tigger2's points that keep the discussion and description of "the Word" in John, grounded in the person of Jesus rather than in metaphysical, non-personal properties. In the context of John 1:1, the context in early Christian Literature was as a reference to the an actual person and reference to the Messiah, Jesus.

Clear
δρτωακω

Click to expand...

But to not understand the metaphysical, is to miss the point of John's inclusion of it, the setup to the entire gospel in fact, has an intended point to it. Understanding, or at least attempting to peer into the Metaphysical nature of the Logos, is central to his Jesus in his gospel. "And the Logos became flesh". That's a "wow!" statement.

The prologue to John's gospel is not just some casual reference to his family tree. It is to say that Divine Light that created the world, God, the Divine itself, became flesh, and that is who, and what Jesus is. That is what the prologue to John's gospel is telling the readers who the Christ is; God incarnate. The Light of the World.

Windwalker said:

But to not understand the metaphysical, is to miss the point of John's inclusion of it, the setup to the entire gospel in fact, has an intended point to it. Understanding, or at least attempting to peer into the Metaphysical nature of the Logos, is central to his Jesus in his gospel. "And the Logos became flesh". That's a "wow!" statement.

The prologue to John's gospel is not just some casual reference to his family tree. It is to say that Divine Light that created the world, God, the Divine itself, became flesh, and that is who, and what Jesus is. That is what the prologue to John's gospel is telling the readers who the Christ is; God incarnate. The Light of the World.

Click to expand...

Hi @Windwalker

I don't want to diminish the application of philosophical thoughts to developing models of meaning. I think there is value in symbology and such trains of thought. My orientation is historical and while I think even John may have had esoteric philosophical thoughts, my bias is to see his main purpose in writing his testimony is to apply it to the man/God Jesus as the messiah of the Jews and the Christ of the atonement for mankind. I do not see John as wanting to stray too far from the ability of the average people to understand this specific witness.

I do realize my bias may keep me from seeing esoteric thought and philosophical considerations.

I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful

Clear

Clear said:

Hi @Windwalker

I don't want to diminish the application of philosophical thoughts to developing models of meaning. I think there is value in symbology and such trains of thought. My orientation is historical and while I think even John may have had esoteric philosophical thoughts, my bias is to see his main purpose in writing his testimony is to apply it to the man/God Jesus as the messiah of the Jews and the Christ of the atonement for mankind. I do not see John as wanting to stray too far from the ability of the average people to understand this specific witness.

I do realize my bias may keep me from seeing esoteric thought and philosophical considerations.

Click to expand...

As with any deeper spiritual texts, there are layers to the onion to peel back on the journey to the knowledge of God. No end to it, in fact. I agree with you that John wants to address the Jewish expectation of the messiah. But Jews were only half of his audience, which is why Philo's Logos was a perfect choice as a known thing by both Jew. John has the reputation as being the "spiritual gospel" for a reason.

It stands out from the synoptics particularly in this way. The thread of the Divine in him, is the key to awakening the Divine in us. The metaphysical, while most definitely can be an esoteric topic for the mind, is something nonetheless I believe John intended to speak through his presentation of Jesus as Logos among us, is the central theme to all audiences, of all stages of faith. It's about awakening the Divine in us, so that we like Jesus, can be the Light of the World, and be "one even as we are one".

While it's true, some are not ready for "strong meat", I believe the beauty of John's gospel is just that there are layers to it. But it's not that the spiritual comes later on. It comes right at the outset and is throughout the whole thing. How deeply the individual can plumb those will change over time, but it is introduced even to those who require "milk". Logos, as the eternal God, is the Nature of Jesus, the Manifestation of the Divine, or the Divine Human. That's John's Jesus, and who invites everyone else to take on that same Nature in themselves.

Clear said:

I hope your own spiritual journey is wonderful

Click to expand...

Thank you. You as well.

Windwalker said:

As with any deeper spiritual texts, there are layers to the onion to peel back on the journey to the knowledge of God. No end to it, in fact. I agree with you that John wants to address the Jewish expectation of the messiah. But Jews were only half of his audience, which is why Philo's Logos was a perfect choice as a known thing by both Jew. John has the reputation as being the "spiritual gospel" for a reason.

It stands out from the synoptics particularly in this way. The thread of the Divine in him, is the key to awakening the Divine in us. The metaphysical, while most definitely can be an esoteric topic for the mind, is something nonetheless I believe John intended to speak through his presentation of Jesus as Logos among us, is the central theme to all audiences, of all stages of faith. It's about awakening the Divine in us, so that we like Jesus, can be the Light of the World, and be "one even as we are one".

While it's true, some are not ready for "strong meat", I believe the beauty of John's gospel is just that there are layers to it. But it's not that the spiritual comes later on. It comes right at the outset and is throughout the whole thing. How deeply the individual can plumb those will change over time, but it is introduced even to those who require "milk". Logos, as the eternal God, is the Nature of Jesus, the Manifestation of the Divine, or the Divine Human. That's John's Jesus, and who invites everyone else to take on that same Nature in themselves.


Thank you. You as well.

Click to expand...

@Windwalker

I like some of the points you make here. Thanks.

Clear

Windwalker said:

As with any deeper spiritual texts, there are layers to the onion to peel back on the journey to the knowledge of God. No end to it, in fact.

Click to expand...

I agree to a point, one of the Layers is the term "WITH" in John 1:1. many think this word means, 1. accompanied by (another person or thing). but we suggest to you, look at it's second definition, #2. possessing (something) as a feature or accompaniment. and it is this second definition that reveals a layer to understanding John 1:1.

1`01G

Clear said:

While I think the O.P. has some interesting philosophical points, I think the most applicable and down to earth and realistic points have been made by some of @tigger2's points that keep the discussion and description of "the Word" in John, grounded in the person of Jesus rather than in metaphysical, non-personal properties. In the context of John 1:1, the context in early Christian Literature was as a reference to the an actual person and reference to the Messiah, Jesus.

Clear
δρτωακω

Click to expand...

I cannot possibly disagree with this in any manner. It was my intention simply to show that since there is a lot more about the Logos than most of us suppose, then the same for Jesus as a person. Enhancing the overall comprehensive context of Logos, in my opinion, thus enhances the overall comprehensive context to Jesus. That there is powerful philosophy behind and within the concept of Logos only intriguingly enhances the theme that Logos has now become a person. It builds Jesus, it doesn't minimize him. This was why I slapped the little paper together. I appreciate this entire discussion, there are some really great people around here!

I see what you mean by wishing to keep it down to earth, but equating Jesus with Logos is not getting down to earth in any manner, it is flat out jolting, shocking, and entirely unprecedented as John intended. It is getting into the eternities, not keeping things down to earth that the fullest ramifications of Jesus=Logos takes us. It HAS to continue shocking us or we minimize its significance is all I am saying, therefore the extra background added to what Logos actually intends and means. It is not simple and not supposed to be. It is not down to earth, nor is it supposed to be. It is electrifying! That is what it is supposed to be. It is meant to turn our heads and make us truly take a double if not triple take.