John 1:1 - Jesus, the "Logos" of God

I'm writing this post for inclusion in the "Jesus the Logician" project from the Evangelical Outpost. 

When I was in seminary I had Ron Nash, author of Faith and Reason, as my philosophy and apologetics prof.  I'm about to disagree with something he said so I'll begin by saying that he is an excellent prof and some of my most profitable studies in seminary came from him.  But I do have a point of contention with him about at least one matter. 

Nash followed Gordon Clark in believing that as the "logos," John 1:1 implies that Jesus is the "logic" of God.  This assumes that the Greek word "logos" depends on Greek ideas and the Greek philosophical tradition for it's meaning.

Toward the end of my seminary career I was preparing for a presbytery licensure exam and one of our NT/Greek profs was kind enough to quiz me to help prepare me and we came to a question about the meaning of John 1:1. So, I told him that this means that Jesus is the logic of God, and this emphasizes the rationality of God.  A buzzer was immediately hit and a trap door opened and wooshed me away.  He told me that was wrong.  He said this view assumes that these uneducated Jewish fishermen sat around reading Plato and Aristotle in their spare time.  His point was that, to understand what this means we have to look to it's Jewish context.

His words are wise - when seeking to understand this passage, we need to look at its biblical background.

Here are a few quotes on this from some New Testament scholars.

In his commentary on John in the Word Biblical Commentary series, George R. Beasley Murray says the following:

Where did these ideas emanate from? Their history stretches beyond the confines of Greek culture. The opening words of the prologue give the clue: “In the beginning was the Word. …” The statement recalls the first word of the Hebrew Bible, בּראשׁית (b^eres̆it…), rendered in the LXX, as in the Gospel, ἐν ἀρχῃ̂. The association was the more evident to the Jews, since they referred to books of the Bible by their opening words, and so “In the beginning” was the Jewish name for “Genesis.” In that beginning God spoke, and the universe was created (Gen 1:3, 6, 9, etc). This representation was entirely comprehensible to Jews, since to them, as to other peoples throughout the ancient Orient, the Word, especially the Word of God, was not so much an expression of thought as a powerful action, a concept not native to Greeks. So we read in Ps 33:6: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.”  

LXX The Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT

Beasley-Murray, G. R. 1998. Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary. Word, Incorporated: Dallas

Note that he says we must ground the meaning in it's Hebrew context where "logos" had the connotation of action, over thought.  And note that he says this is a concept that was not native to the Greeks.

Further, Beasley-Murray shows that the "logos" can also be identified with "wisdom" in the Hebrew wisdom literature:

It is important to observe that the development of the concept of the Word of God in the OT and later Judaism is similarly related to that among Israel’s neighbors. This applies to the association of Word and Wisdom. The connection of Wisdom with the creative Word is already assumed in Prov 8:22–31 (note especially vv 27–31). In Wisd 9:1 there is an explicit identification of Wisdom and the Word: “God of our fathers, and Lord who keepest mercy, who madest all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom formedst man.…”  

Beasley-Murray, G. R. 1998. Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary. Word, Incorporated: Dallas

Again, notice the emphasis of action over thought, as wisdom is associated with the creative work of God.

Hendriksen speaks similarlly:

Surely, the term as employed by the evangelist cannot derive its meaning from such allegorization. It is rooted not in Greek but in Semitic thought.¹⁷ Already in the Old Testament the Word of God is represented as a Person. Note especially Ps. 33:6: “By the Word of Jehovah (LXX: τῷ λὁγῳ τοῦ κυρίου) were the heavens made.” What is probably the best commentary on John 1:1 is found in Prov. 8:27–30:

“When he established the heavens, I was there;

When he set a circle upon the face of the deep.

When he made firm the skies above,

When the fountains of the deep became strong,

When he gave to the deep its bound,

That the waters should not transgress his commandment,

When he marked out the foundations of the earth;

Then I was by him, as a master workman;

And I was daily his delight,

Rejoicing always before him.”

As a New Testament designation of the Christ, the term Word occurs only in 1:1, 14; I John 1:1; and Rev. 19:13. A word serves two distinct purposes: a. it gives expression to the inner thought, the soul of the man, doing this even though no one else is present to hear what is said or to read what is thought; and b. it reveals this thought (hence, the soul of the speaker) to others. Christ is the Word of God in both respects: he expresses or reflects the mind of God; also, he reveals God to man (1:18; cf. Matt. 11:27; Heb. 1:3).

17 Cf. R. Harris, The Origin of the Prologue to St. John’s Gospel, Cambridge, 1917, esp. p. 6; W. F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore, 1940, p. 285; W. F. Howard, op. cit., p. 47; W. P. Phythian-Adams, “The Logos Doctrine of the Fourth Gospel,” CQR, 139 (1944) 1–23.

Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. 1953-2001. Vol. 1-2: New Testament commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary . Baker Book House: Grand Rapids

In his commentary on John in the Pillar series, D. A. Carson says:

Howver the Greek term is understood, there is a more readily available background than that provided by Philo or the Greek philosophical schools.  Considering how frequently John quotes or alludes to the Old Testament, that is the place to begin.
(p. 115)

I say all of that to simply say that we need to be careful about reading something into John 1:1 that isn't there.  In our efforts to show that Jesus is logical, which He is, let's not use bad arguments to prove our case.  We must remember that logic and rationality derives its existence from the character of God and God defines what is rational.

I Corinthians 1:20-25 is the locus classicus for a biblical view of logic:

²⁰ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. ²² Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, ²³ but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, ²⁴ but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.  

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

The Greek philosophers demand wisdom the wisdom of the Greeks is foolishness to God.  Much of what we do in apologetics is designed to show that belief in God is rational.  This is right and true, but we must remember that something is rational, not because it conforms to some logical school of thought, but because it conforms to God's revelation of Himself.  God defines what is rational.

In stating my case that we ought to look to the Jewish background rather than the Greek background to understand "logos," I don't want to overstate my case.  I'm not saying that Jesus is illogical, I'm simply saying that we need to be careful how we apply this particular verse to this issue. 

I would also be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that John 1:1 does speak to Greeks and others outside of 1st century Judaism.  For this I will return to the words of Beasley-Murray:

Here one should heed the words of J. B. Skemp, a classicist, regarding the prologue and the Gospel it introduces: “It may be possible as a tour de force to prove that everything in it could stem from pure Hebrew antecedents, but it will never be possible to prove that its hearers heard it with minds and hearts uninfluenced by Hellenistic meanings of the words they heard read to them” (The Greeks and the Gospel [London: Carey Kingsgate, 1964] 56).  

Beasley-Murray, G. R. 1998. Vol. 36: Word Biblical Commentary : John (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; Word Biblical Commentary. Word, Incorporated: Dallas

Those words provide a wise balance to what I have said.  Though it is doubtful that John had Greek philosophy in mind when he wrote these words, this doesn't mean that his audience didn't hear these words through the lens of their own culture.

I'm offering this post as means of sharpening the understanding of those who hear "Jesus is the logic of God" when they read this passage, but I am not offering this to throw cold water on their fire. 

I can't imagine that any of the gospel writers had the Sawi tribe of Papua New Guinea in mind when they wrote their accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.  I am quite sure that none of them believed that the purpose of Christ's death was to be a "Peace Child" to reconcile warring jungle tribes.  Yet, as Don Richardson showed in his book Peace Child, the Sawi's cultural understanding of the "Peace Child" became a bridge to the gospel for their culture.  While there was not a one to one correspondence between the biblical idea of Christ as redeemer and the peace child, the peace child concept became a means of understanding the biblical concept of a redeemer.
Similarly,the Greeks ideas of wisdom and logic may not necessarily correspond to the bliblical ideas, yet their love for logic and search for wisdom can be a stepping stone to understanding the true nature of the logos.

Comments

[Catez]

Interesting post David. I think of Logos as Absolute Reason - which is infinite. That means it contains absolute purpose, logic, wisdom, creativity and truth. It is beyond our comprehension to fathom God.

[Diane R]

I'm not sure why people think the Greek sense of the word "logos" doesn't imply action. It was years ago that I studied this word in the Greek Lexicon-Dictionary known as "Kittel" (since it was mainly edited by him), but if I remember correctly, it is pointed out there that if one studies how the word "logos" was used by Greek dramatists and writers, one will see that it means an expression of someone's character as demonstrated through his or her words and/or ACTIONS. If that definition is accepted, it should merge nicely in what you have presented here as the Hebrew sense of the word.

So in other words, Jesus as the logos of God is displayed God's character and thought through both His words and the actions that emanated from those words. The Greeks understood that words themselves had little power. It was the actions done as a result of those words that made the words come alive.

[Rev Dimbulb]

Since you raised the point so well that Logos goes far beyond our knee-jerk definitions to include the thought and action of the creative power contained in the spoken word of God, I want to posit something that causes violent reaction among evangelicals: Shouldn't we interpret John 14:6 in the same light? Instead of using "no man comes to the Father except by me" to justify our Christian exclusionism shouldn't we recognize that "by me" Jesus may be referring to the totality of His being, the fullness of the Godhead, more than just the Nazarene carpenter who occupied a body on earth for 33 years? Was He speaking of Himself as the very thought and action of the creative power contained in the spoken word of God? Perhaps He is testing our humility. Can we not leave who is and is not elect to the Logos of God? The answer is: no. Churches have to be the arbiter of salvation to retain power over the flock, so we come up with formulae (sinner's prayer, five questions, fruit inspection, etc.)that satisfy our church boards and deacons and elders but have no real substance is determining who is a "real" Christian. I think Jesus said to love everybody, including enemies and pagans. And love, too, is an action with creative power. (See 1 Cor 13). Please don't bother telling me that I am a hell-bound heretic. I know whom I have believed. I also know PCA ministers and elders who would not know love if it bit them (wherever).

[David Wayne]

Catez - I agree with what you have said here, my point is just that this is not what is necessarily implied in John 1:1 - John wouldn't have been thinking in terms of Jesus as the "absolute reason," but more as the wisdom of God, the creator.

Diane - thanks for the extra info on the Greek conception of "logos." Still, I think that John would have been more conversant with the Old Testament than with Greek dramatists and writers and that the Old Testament concept of "logos" per the Septuagint, would have informed his use of the word.

[David Wayne]

Rev - you seem a bit defensive here or angry here, don't know why, sorry if I said something to cause this. I don't have a problem with your statement:

"shouldn't we recognize that "by me" Jesus may be referring to the totality of His being, the fullness of the Godhead, more than just the Nazarene carpenter who occupied a body on earth for 33 years?"

But that doesn't mitigate against the doctrine of Christian exclusivism. Nor does it mitigate against the centrality of Christ's atoning sacrifice and the necessity of faith.

I don't want to get into a semantic argument but I would agree that a church is not the "arbiter" of salvation, while saying that this doesn't rule out their (or their leaders) roles as shepherds of the flock. Shepherds must be able to distinguish sheep from wolves or they are failing to fulfill Paul's admonitions in Acts 20:28.

Further I agree with you on our obligation to love everyone, even enemies and I agree that many PCA elders are unloving, as I myself have been known to be unloving at times. But I am wondering what your point is here?

Reading between the lines I take it that you have been hurt by someone in the PCA and since I am a PCA pastor my blog is giving you a convenient place to vent. That's fine - I realize that many of us have given offense and if there is something you want to talk about I am happy to correspond with you offline.
God bless

[Rev Dimbulb]

Sorry, I did not intend to sound angry. I guess, "From the abundance of the heart the fingers type." I am a former PCA pastor who was hurt by my church and Presbytery. I love your site and believe that your emphasis on grace is the Biblical balance. It is just that my experience is while we preach the doctrines of grace, we apply the doctrines of the Pharisees. Everyone knows Christians teach tradition for the Word of God. I'm not so much angry as I am passionate that American Evangelicalism (including the PCA) is doctrinally straight as a gun barrel and just as empty spiritually. (thanks, Vance Havner).
Thank you, David.

[David Wayne]

"It is just that my experience is while we preach the doctrines of grace, we apply the doctrines of the Pharisees."

How true, how sadly true.

[Dr.MR]

I like the way you think. You are logical, but first and foremost biblical. The latter does, indeed, define and determine the former.

[William Tanksley]

Nice post; challenging.

I question, though, whether your list of the uses of logos to refer to Christ is complete. Hebrews appears to use Logos to refer to Christ as well; many people prooftext it to be talking about the Scriptures, but that's not highly likely, since the Scriptures available at the time were Old Testament, and the author was describing the superiority of the new life to the old.

[Catez]

Hi David,
Yes, I do see what you are saying. I think we aren't saying anything too different too each other. I see Reason as Wisdom really. I'm just balancing it in much the same way you do towards the end of your post. Reason is more than logic - I've blogged on this recently when discussing postmodernism and it's absence of reason. John may have been using a Hebrew context but his gospel definitely went beyond Hebrew thinking - and hs use of Logos in Jn 1:1 is marvellous - it goes beyond any Greek definition. God is supremem wisdom, reason - he is not just the logic, he is the creator of logic. That's where I was coming from really. I think you put it well.

[bryanm]

This is a fascinating topic and one that I would like to see more of. Logic and reason seem to be dead among most people these days. Critical thinking seems to be slipping away from our society and so I'm glad to see this type of discussion. So, here's my two cents perhaps going down a slightly different path here. As Norman Geisler author of Come Let Us Reason, said, "Theology is a logos about the theos -- the logic of God. Theology is a rational discourse about God. The basis of all logic is that some statements are true and others are false. If this word about God is not a logical word, then what is it? The whole idea of theology is that rational statements can be made about God. Even someone who says the opposite has just made a rational (although untrue) statement about God. Logic is undeniable." Logic comes from God, not God from logic. But when it comes to how we know things, logic is the basis of all thought.

[Michael Buttrey]

Reading your article (which is excellent, as always) reminded me of a short passage in Lesslie Newbigin's Proper Confidence which I just read, so I dug it out:

"Logos, for the Greeks, referred to the ultimate, impersonal entity which was at the heart of all coherence in the cosmos. For the Hebrews, it referred to the Word of the living, personal God by which He created and sustains the cosmos. John, however, says the "Word became flesh", a particular man (or Man) whose story the gospels tell."

It strikes me that neither the Greeks nor the Hebrews nor Moderns are comfortable with the idea of the Logos becoming a person (or Person) that we can see and talk to - which is part of the reason why the gospel is "foolishness" (1 Co 1:23).

[Anonymous]

Jesus was a Jew. Logos is better understood as "Devar" - the Hebrew word.

[Alan R. Craig]

David, with my lengthy studies on this verse (John 1:1), I see a simple explanation of its wording - please permit me to present that view.

If we were to simply think back to the early 'genesis' of man, it was no doubt God's purpose that man, as His loving creation, reflect His paramount qualities of Love, Justice, Wisdom and Power. The fact that man chose a course of independence from this did not negate that intended purpose. For, in time, it would become apparent that 'independence from God' would not benefit man, but would only lead to the evident conclusion that the family of man was never meant to function and live without the wise and loving direction of their heavenly Father, their maker, God.

Now, to later have another who then did meet the same challenges but, this time, showed an unwavering willingness to be completely obedient, makes clear that this one, in now truly emulating the intent of God, could thus be appropriately referred to as "logos" - as a true and complete reflection of the mind, will and purpose of God. He was the one who could be relied upon for showing us all that 'way' of obedience, that is, in setting the pattern to follow. By means of his faithful example, we too would each be afforded the opportunity to also reflect those very same qualities. Although this would be something of a challenge, it nonetheless opens up for each of us the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of finally being joined together with others, those of whom, as true members of the family of God, have also come to appreciate that, in time, God will (according to His promises) bring about the necessary changes to the world, finally make for peace for all those who have displayed a 'meekness' (being teachable) towards such insightful truths about themselves - especially about their continued need for the loving direction of their heavenly Father, the one who had begun it all.

Sometimes I find that when trying to understand some of these things we all can so easily miss an, otherwise, very simple thing.

Agape, Alan.
john1one @ earthlink . net
www . goodcompanionbooks . com

[David Wayne]

Thanks Alan

[Wayne]

"Though it is doubtful that John had Greek philosophy in mind when he wrote these words, this doesn't mean that his audience didn't hear these words through the lens of their own culture."

With respect, whatever John himself may have had in mind, he wrote what was put into his mind by God. God decided what the text of John 1.1 would read, not John.

[Wayne]

You know, that is such an obvious point, yet I've never really thought about it that way. Early translators would not have had the MSS and reference works available to us today that allow us to compare and parse and split all the various hairs of Koine grammar/vocabulary. Yet God intended that not only the gospel, but the NT as well, be spread abroad--throughout the earth, to all the various peoples and cultures, and in all the various languages. As important as Gr grammar/vocabulary is (very important), He would have "built in" a certain "flexibility" to His Word to allow for--not sloppiness (!)--but a fairly wide latitude of translation. For instance, how to translate "logos" into a primitive language with a very limited vocabulary? I'm not saying "it's only the thought that counts," but God is certainly able to anoint translations of His Word (and does!) whenever and wherever it accurately conveys the Truth. This would have been as much the case in the second century as it is today. Anyway, you got me to thinkin'.

Thanks