Someone recently asked me about a previous post that I did on John’s Logos concept. I’m re-posting that blog post today:-) Enjoy
By Phillip Higley
In his now classic survey text, Christianity & Western Thought, Colin Brown briefly challenges the interpretation by John Herman Randall, Jr., that the λογος (trans. logos) language in the prologue of John is an adoption of “Philo Judaeus’ earlier Platonization of the Hebraic tradition.” Brown’s argument consists of (1) not overlooking “John’s Jewishness and closeness to Jesus’ life and times,” and (2) that viewing λογος through a Philonic paradigm distorts “parallels between John and the Old Testament.” In an attempt to follow Brown’s tentative challenge with more depth, and to show this depth in a briefly stated blog entry, the point before us is to investigate the use of the Greek word λογος and its Hellenistic and Jewish connotations, which may or may not be present, in the Prologue of John 1. Immediate emphasis will be given to a careful contextual analysis of the λογος concept in its Johannine context. It will subsequently be argued that the evangelist’s choice of λογος , as a designation for the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, is neither principally derived from Hellenistic philosophy (e.g., Stoicism) or Jewish philosophical theology (e.g., Philo), but rather from early Judeo-Christian belief informed by Old Testament scripture and by the person of Jesus himself in his revelation of himself to his own disciples. Thus, the evangelist’s perspective is rather unique in light of his Hellenistic context.
Contextual Considerations
The question of the evangelist’s audience is important for understanding his use of λογος, for the word has multi-dimensional qualities in Hellenistic thought. The question remains, however: What did original audiences envisage when they heard or read about the λογος, and what might have the evangelist meant by using the term? Did they hear the Philonic concept of λογος as an impersonal Reason whether human or divine? Did they hear the Stoic concept of λογος which posited the notion of god and the λογος as one in the same? Obviously there are multiple ways of answering these questions, and thus it is not surprising that scholars are in a state of perpetual disagreement on the subject. For example, many reputable minds have placed the gospel’s composition in the late second-century. If the gospel is seen as a late composition, then one might have warrant to presuppose that there is some type of proto-Gnostic induced theological perspective which is present in the prologue. Additionally, this view would probably have to reject the idea that the author was an actual disciple or associated with the twelve.
Another way to look at the problem, however, is proposed by Luke Timothy Johnson. He concludes that late second-century dating of the gospel is based on an assumption that the evangelist’s symbolism (in this case, λογος) is dependent on Hellenistic philosophy. Johnson’s criticism, for example, may be directed toward a smug scholar like Rudolph Bultmann, who held to this type of perspective. In fact, Bultmann interestingly posited that the λογος “hymn” (C. K. Barrett challenges the hymn hypothesis) in the prologue was a synthesized Gnostic composition from Baptist circles. Thus, interpretation of the prologue is in this sense dependant on Hellenistic thought.
Nevertheless, contemporary scholarship is drifting away from understanding the evangelist’s use of λογος primarily through late second-century Hellenism. As an example of such scholarship, Richard N. Longenecker has said, regarding the concept of λογος in ancient Hellenistic thought and literature, that many scholars “have begun to be convinced that such parallels have been considerably overdrawn and that the connections between the New Testament and these bodies of literature are slight.” In agreement, Andrew T. Lincoln notes that “the origins of the prologue’s use of ‘the Word’ are in all probability to be found within earlier Jewish thought about both Wisdom and the Word of God.” (See Lincoln’s The Gospel According to Saint John, p. 95) In any case, even if the fourth gospel underwent multiple redactions, the argument remains that much of what the evangelist communicates in his prologue, and even throughout the text’s entirety, is rooted in a first century Jewish-Christian ethos.
That being said, this certainly does not mean that the author’s use of λογος is somehow void of any Hellenistic connotations at all, for it is indubitable that both he and his late first-century audience were aware of the term. Brown admits, for instance, that “it is possible that John was using language which had meaning to readers who were attuned to Stoicism and Philo.” The principle difference, however, is that the evangelist’s concept of λογος should not first be interpreted through Stoicism or Philo, and then, secondly, Christologically assessed. (This seems to be the error of scholars like Bultmann, Reitzenstein and Bousset, all of whom attributed the Johannine idea’s origin to ancient mythological speculation.) Doing so seems to make a premature hermeneutical leap which the evangelist may not have intended for his audience. This is probably the reason that someone like F. F. Bruce could state with confidence that “it is not in Greek philosophical usage, however, that the background of John’s thought and language should be sought….The true background to John’s thought and language is found not in Greek philosophy but in Hebrew revelation.” I would add to Bruce’s statement with a Barthian twist in that it is not just Hebrew revelation per se, but the revelation of the Triune God who has now revealed himself, who continues to reveal himself, and will eternally reveal himself through the second person of the Trintiy, Jesus Christ-the λογος. Thus, in light of this Johannine λογος concept, a carefully contextual analysis of λογος is still in order.
Conceptual and Literary Context of John’s λογος
With respect to the context of λογος in John’s Gospel, one must remember that “verbal similarities do not necessarily imply conceptual similarities,” as Luke Timothy Johnson reminds us. (It should also be noted that scholars like Carson have postulated that John may be referring to Mark’s opening as well. In this sense, John may be saying something to the effect, “Mark has told you about the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry; I want to show you that the starting point of the gospel can be traced farther back than that, before the beginning of the entire universe.”) Further, “the use of similar words in seemingly similar ways,” D. H. Johnson observes, “can deceive us into thinking that two authors are discussing the same concept. Only when one document is understood in its own right can it be compared to another which must also be understood in its own right.” This proverbial insight especially applies to the the term λογος in the prologue.
As alluded to above, the charge against particular interpreters of the Johannine concept of λογος is that they view dominant or more ancient concepts of the term as a lens through which one should view John’s own use of the term. Although this method can be insightful for additional theological and philosophical research, starting with it can be problematic for understanding the theological significance of John’s message. Put in another way, pushing the concept of λογος through a plethora of Hellenistic categories, in some type of anomalous Kantian fashion, without actually understanding John’s Christology is premature at best, and confusing at worst. Basically it is just a bad hermeneutic. I could go on about the hermeneutical problem, but that is a different post and argument which deserves more in depth treatment.
The Text in Context
The first words of the evangelist’s gospel are perhaps the most profound. The phrase, εν αρχη ην ο λογος (trans. In the beginning was the word) obviously functions as a harkening to the beginning of the Hebrew Bible. Schnackenburg asserts that the production of the “Logos-hymn” in this instance is clearly from “Christian ‘Hellenists’, as is shown by the use of the title ‘λογος’ without any qualification.” (This, of course, does not imply that Schnackenburg does not speak to the correlation to Gen 1, but only that his interpretation leans on the Hellenistic understanding of λογος instead of the Jewish ideal of the creation account.) One wonders, however, if Schnackenburg has devoted more attention to the Hellenistic context of λογος (in this instance) instead of the clear reference to the opening lines of Genesis. After all, it is by no accident that the evangelist begins with the same two words from the LXX: εν αρχη. Further, the Hebrew conception of OT books was always based on the first words of the book; “therefore, the expression would be widely known,” so says Leon Morris. But here in the John 1:1 & v. 14 the emphasis is not just on creation, but according to George Beasley-Murray, it is “to what existed when creation came into being, namely the Word….” Thus, there is an immediate qualification of the term, that is, the allusion and clear echo of Genesis 1 and the concept of God’s speaking. In the Genesis creation account, it should also be emphasized that, as Andrew Lincoln reminds us, “…each stage of creation is depicted as a result of God’s word.” This is particularly important for the contextual understanding of the author’s subsequent elucidation of the λογος, which is part and parcel of a Christological exegesis of Genesis 1.
Another often emphasized feature about the evangelist’s use of λογος as a designation for Jesus, is that the term is absent from the rest of the gospel. Again, some (e.g., Bultmann) have taken this fact as an evidence that the prologue material is a later insertion or “unoriginal” to the rest of the gospel. However, jumping to this conclusion without considering other evidences seems unsound and unwarranted. D. A. Carson mentions, for example, that the prologue, which obviously includes the contextual unfolding of Jesus as the λογος, is written in such a way that the evangelist evidently expected his readers “…to detect a certain progression in his line of thought.” (cf. Carson, The Gospel According to John) What is particularly interesting as well as baffling, then, is that certain scholars make so much out of the subsequent absence of the term. To resolve the apparent “mystery,” the reader must merely read the rest of the gospel for the evangelist’s unfolding of the person of Jesus! Is this not expected of the audience? Furthermore, Johnson rightly says that “the prologue in this case gives explicit expression to the constant assumption behind the deeds and words of Jesus; he acts and speaks as the incarnate expression of God’s speech. As word gives body to thought, so does Jesus give visible expression in the world to the invisible power and presence of God.” (cf. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, p. 535) Johnson is right, but it may also be briefly noted that this same type of literary and theological feature occurs in other gospels as well. Take Matthew’s use of Immanuel, for example (1:23). In a declaration about the fulfillment of a prophecy by Isaiah, Matthew boldly declares that the messiah’s name will be called Immanuel-God with us. However, the Immanuel title is never again used in the gospel. Instead, the person of Jesus is elucidated as God incarnate, who is actually forever with his people (28:20). So then, just as Matthew does not require the actual word “Immanuel” in his later context, so too the author of John also does not require the word λογος. The reason is that Jesus gives substantive definition and embodiment to the concept. This is not that difficult of a point to recognize, and I do not mean to be arrogant in my bringing it up, but I certainly expected more from Bultmann’s treatment of the topic, to be sure.
It is not enough, however, to say that the λογος was just in the beginning, but the evangelist makes it clear that the λογος was with God and that the λογος was God. This declaration seems mysterious if left to itself-and of course it is mysterious even in the context of the whole book. But we are not left with a numinous view of the λογος. On this point we must dispense with the impersonality of the term. Instead, we must profess and recognize that the term corresponds to a person, and not a “concept” per se. Furthermore, consider Longenecker’s pithy summary of the prologue’s Christological structure and content:
John 1.1-5 refers to Jesus in terms of the λογος who is pre-existent with God, essentially divine, the Creator of all that exists, and the source of life and light. John 1:14-18 continues this imagery, speaking of him as the incarnate glory of God the Father who is the promised bringer of grace and the revealer of God’s person. (Longenecker, “The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity,” p. 144.)
In addition to Longenecker’s summary, we may note that the structure and advancement of the λογος concept is Christologically distinct by the evangelist’s understanding of OT motifs as well as his own understanding of the person of Jesus. To demonstrate this, an excurses into these two topics in relation to the evangelist’s λογος is in order.
λογος and debar (Hebrew word for, well, “word”)
Admittedly, the word of God is a complex theological concept in the OT scriptures and their appropriation into second temple Judaism. Nevertheless, we can still posit that the concept of λογος in John’s gospel has parallels in OT scripture with respect to the idea of “the word of God.” On this point, Carson for example notes that in the OT, “‘the word’ of God is connected with God’s powerful activity in creation (cf. Gn. 1:3ff.; Ps. 33:6), revelation (Je. 1:4; Is. 9:8; Ezk. 33:7; Am. 3:1, 8 ) and deliverance (Ps. 107:20; Is. 55:1).” In addition to Carson’s comment, Longenecker says that “probably more to the point in positing a terminological background for the Johannine usage are the statements regarding the Word, Wisdom, and Torah in early Jewish writings, both orthodox and sectarian.” Thus, the word of God in the Hebraic sense, or more specifically, the word of Yahweh, is an important backdrop from which to view the λογος of John’s prologue. We will here look at some of the most striking elements (there are many more) that relate to the word of God motif in OT scripture and Hebrew wisdom literature, as Longenecker has helpfully condensed them:
Judaism understood God’s Word (debar) to have almost autonomous powers and substance once it was spoken; to be, in fact, ‘a concrete reality, a veritable cause’. Thus Sir. 42:15 says that ‘by the word of the Lord his works’, Wisd. Sol. 9:1-3 speaks of God as the One ‘who have made all things by your word, and by your wisdom have formed humankind’; expressions built upon the reference to the creative word of God in Ps. 33:6 and the characterization of the near-personified word in Isa. 55:10f. More graphic still, Wisd. Sol. 18:15 reads: ‘your all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne, a stern warrior.’ (cf. Longenecker, “The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity,” p. 145)
As can be seen by these texts, the λογος concept in John, as it relates to the Hebraic concept of the word of God, is not foreign to Hebrew thinking (let it be known that I’m not saying the Hebrew perspective of λογος is the same as John’s, but I’m merely pointing out that it is not foreign). Thus, we should not be surprised, says Longenecker, that the “…fact that parallels between John’s Logos christology and Jewish Wisdom and Torah motifs are striking.” What is remarkable, however, is John’s attribution of the term to the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, we briefly turn to the evangelist’s perspective of Jesus himself. In reality, however, keep in mind the point of God’s revealing himself through the person of Jesus and in the power of the Holy Spirit. After all, it is not as though John just by happenchance figured out that the λογος was Jesus and then wrote about it/him, but rather it was revealed to him by the Spirit and also the incarnate Jesus himself.
The Message and Person of Jesus
Regarding the λογος concept in John’s prologue, Graham Stanton states that the evangelist “may well have been influenced not only by Greek thought and by passages in Old Testament and Jewish writings, but also by early Christian usage of ‘the word’”. (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, p. 109) This observation of the Christian usage may also be extended to John’s experience and apprehension of the person of Jesus (let us dispense with our modern hubris for a moment and assume that the evangelist is actually the “beloved” disciple; 13:23; 18:15-16; 19:26, 35; 20:2-10; 21:7, 20-23). Stanton follows up with inter-Johannine gospel occurrences of paradox in light of assessing λογος-Jesus-theologically:
…the evangelist [i.e., John] emphasizes that the Word was not independent of God, for he was ‘with God’, or, we might translate, ‘in God’s presence’. The Word is dependent on God, and is not simply to be equated with God; this important point is brought out in the REB translation: ‘what God was, the Word was’ (1:2). In the gospel itself Jesus claims, ‘The Father and I are one’ (10:30), but he also insists, paradoxically, that his relationship with the Father is one of dependence. He refers to himself repeatedly as the one sent by the Father, and, as if to rebut any suggestion that he is a ‘second God’, he states, ‘the Father is greater than I’ (14:28). (Stanton, p. 109)
Stanton rightly makes reference to the paradoxical reality of Jesus’ divinity with pre-trinitarian understandings. We must, however, remember that paradox does not imply contradiction in this respect. Although John presents Jesus as divine in multiple places throughout his gospel, he nonetheless places theological tension between the reality of Jesus-the λογος, being God and yet being Son to the Father from the very first verse. We may look to Karl Barth for a masterful expression of this dynamic: “Jesus Christ, the Word of God, meets us as no other than God, but in another way, in a different way of being compared with God in so far as God speaks the Word, in so far as the Word goes forth from Him. The same revelation thus compels us to separate God and His Word and also to unite them.” (CD I/1/p. 435)
Alongside Stanton’s comment above, Carson recommends that “the wealth of possible backgrounds to the term logos in John’s Prologue suggests that the determining factor is not this or that background but the church’s experience of Jesus Christ.” And it is exactly this experience of Jesus Christ that John is alluding to. Thus, interpreters of the λογος would do well to seriously “…listen to the Evangelist himself,” for if he was actually with Jesus himself, then “we know that his testimony is true” (21:24). Johnson’s exposition of this very point is refreshing:
The Fourth Gospel ultimately derives from an eyewitness designated as ‘the disciple whom Jesus love’…but it also shows how that witness passed through a period of reflection in light of the church’s postresurrection experience. No other Gospel, in fact, is so transparent concerning the ways in which the story of Jesus is read in light of the community’s experience of his resurrection, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and the words of Scripture. (Johnson, The Living Jesus, p. 177)
Thus, these observations are but a few of the many reasons that the Johannine concept of λογος is forever and necessarily tied to the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. How this is theologically understood and communicated throughout the history of the church, however, is a question which remains to be understood.
Conclusion
Theological conversation about John’s concept and use of λογος will continue into the future as it has in the past. This short study has hopefully added to this immense and ongoing conversation. Additionally, debate about the concept and how we are to understand the person of Jesus Christ gives substantive theological purpose to this conversation as well. Nevertheless, we have seen, albeit briefly, that there is tenable evidence to read, understand, and interpret John’s λογος concept as informed by OT scripture and wisdom literature, and by the person of Jesus Christ himself as he is witnessed to in the canon of scripture, and in the proclamation of the church through the power of the Holy Spirit. In this venture of reading about John’s λογος and his Christological elucidation of the term, the interpreter is by no means cautioned against being aware of its Hellenistic connotations or considering them. Rather, as indicated above, the interpreter is cautioned against superimposing Hellenistic philosophies of the λογος onto the person of Jesus. In this sense, we must let the gospel of John be the gospel of John; we must let the evangelist speak and proclaim his message about Jesus Christ, the λογος of God.
____________________________________
Below are references from works I’ve used for my various John studies and included in quotes for this specific study. Additionally, if you are interested in further John studies or systematic theology in the area of Christology, then take a look through the books below. I have provided links to each book on either Amazon or CBD.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. I, Pt. 1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John.Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 36. 2nd ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson 1999.
Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997.
Brown, Colin. Christianity & Western Thought: From the Ancient World to the Age of the Enlightenment, Vol. 1. Downers Grove: IVP: 1990.
Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.
Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Theology. Leicester: IVP, 1981.
Johnson, D. H. “Logos.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, Rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999.
______. Living Jesus: Learning the Heart of the Gospel. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2000.
Longenecker, Richard N. “The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity.” Studies in Biblical Theology. Second Series #17. Naperville: SCM Press, 1970.
Kysar, Robert. “Christology and Controversy.” Currents in Theology and Mission 5.6 (Dec 1978): 348-364. [Go to your library to get this Journal]
Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. Black’s New Testament Commentaries. London: Continuum, 2005.
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John, Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
Randall Jr., John Herman. Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Schnackenburg, Rudolph. The Gospel According to St. John, Vol. 1. Translated by Kevin Smyth. New York: Herder and Herder, 1968.
______. Jesus in the Gospels: A Biblical Christology. Translated by O. C. Dean, Jr. Louisville: WJKP, 2005.
Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Comments (0) 
).
Church Dogmatics I.1: The Doctrine of the Word of God, by Karl Barth
Jonathan Edwards: A Life, by George Marsden
America's Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards, by Robert Jenson
Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern & Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda
The Trinity, by Karl Rahner
The Orthodox Way, by Kallistos Ware
Jack: A Life of C. S. Lewis, by George Sayer
J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography, by Humphrey Carpenter