The 'WORD' of God?

JimiTime

We all know the opening of the Gospel according to John. Jesus is referred to as the 'Word' of God. What does that actually mean?

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Jesus is referred to as the 'Word' of God. What does that actually mean?

In the standard greek manuscripts, λόγος (logos) is the word which is usually translated into English as "Word", with the loss of probably all of its many Greek philosophical connotations.

In Platonic thought, logos (truth from reason) existed in contradistinction with mythos (truth from story or allegory), and to a lesser extent, in contradistinction with techne (skill, artisanship; broadly, a white-collar versus blue-collar divide).

In Aristotelian thought, logos referred to an Aristotelian argument-from-reason, thereby, in the context of John, asserting that the christian deity was a deity which arose from pure reason, rather than a deity which arose from sophistry (foreign gods) or emotion (traditional Greek deities).

Stoic philosophy took Aristotle's ideas, add a dash of Platonism and other Hellenistic memes, and created the notion that logos was the sense of logic and reason which guided the entire universe, humans and deities included.

Now that I check what Philo of Alexandria -- who did much work to unite the Jewish religion with Greek philosophy -- had to say, I see that he used the word logos to mean the pre-existing plan for the universe, humans included. A plan which was guided by the "reason" contained within earlier Platonic/Stoic/Aristotelian meanings of the word.

Ultimately, it's impossible to know exactly what John meant by using the word "logos" there. Most likely, he intended a mixture of all of the previous contexts, asserting a deity which was reasonable, which was derived from reason, which had planned the universe and which was prescient. John's use of the term was certainly the most successful early linkage of reason in its broad sense with the idea of a monotheistic deity.

Whatever else it means, λόγος certainly does not mean "word".

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Whatever else it means, λόγος certainly does not mean "word".

Ah, not so fast. I wouldn't be so certain if I were you.

Now that I check what Philo of Alexandria -- who did much work to unite the Jewish religion with Greek philosophy -- had to say, I see that he used the word logos to mean the pre-existing plan for the universe, humans included. A plan which was guided by the "reason" contained within earlier Platonic/Stoic/Aristotelian meanings of the word

Philo did not just get his concept of logos from Plato. As an Alexandrian Jew, he would have used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). The Septuagint repeatedly uses logos to translate the Hebrew d'var (word). So Philo, and indeed John, would be very familiar with using the word logos to refer to the Word of God.

One very interesting thing about the Hebrew word d'var is that it has a dual meaning. It normally means 'word' but it can also mean an 'event'. Therefore it, and its Greek translation logos, would have been perfect for John to convey the idea that the Incarnation of Jesus was an epochal event and also the ultimate revelation, or Word, of God.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Ultimately, it's impossible to know exactly what John meant by using the word "logos" there....Whatever else it means, λόγος certainly does not mean "word".

"By the word (Dabar) of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Psalm 33:6

"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." John 1:3


One only needs to read the above verse of Psalm 33 and John 1:3 to know what John intended Logos to mean in John 1:1.

As in verse 6 of Psalm 33 above, it was by the spoken Word that God created all things. That should clear any confusion up as to what John 'meant' by using logos.

The literal of John 1:1 should read as follows:

"In the beginning was the Logos (Word), and the Logos was 'with' (literally facing) the Theos (God), and the Logos was Theos"

Notice that there is no definite article (the) before the last Theos in that verse? It does not say: 'and the Logos was the Theos. It says that: 'the Logos was Theos', as in, of the same essence as the Theos but not 'The' Theos. The Greek is very careful in pointing this out.

He was one with the God, as in, He was of the same essence as the God but separate from the God. Jesus prayed to the Father in John 17 the following:

"Holy Father, protect them (speaking of His followers from all ages) by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one."

Basically what John is saying is that this Word (which became flesh and dwelt among us) was in the beginning with the God, and was the means by and through which the God created everything, and that it was this Word or speaking agent which in the fullness of time became flesh and dwelt among us.

By Him (The Word) were all things made. Christ was the Eternal Word, the speaking agent through whom and by whom God made the heavens and the earth, who also preexisted the heavens and the earth, which makes sense of Jesus' claim John 8:58: "...before Abraham was I AM"



"...man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." Deuteronomy 8:3

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." Matthew 24:35

"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful." Revelation 21:5

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,"
Revelation 21:1

"Forever oh LORD thy Word is settled in Heaven" Psalm 119:89

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Philo did not just get his concept of logos from Plato. As an Alexandrian Jew, he would have used the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). The Septuagint repeatedly uses logos to translate the Hebrew d'var (word). So Philo, and indeed John, would be very familiar with using the word logos to refer to the Word of God.

Yes, the primary meaning of "logos" is "word" and no doubt translates the Hebrew d'var or whatever it is quite adequately. However it appears rather rarely in the OT (four times by my count in the KJV) and it seems to be really quite an unimportant idea. John, on the other hand, gives it top billing. First line and all that.

PDN wrote: »

One very interesting thing about the Hebrew word d'var is that it has a dual meaning. It normally means 'word' but it can also mean an 'event'. Therefore it, and its Greek translation logos, would have been perfect for John to convey the idea that the Incarnation of Jesus was an epochal event and also the ultimate revelation, or Word, of God.

An interesting idea were it not for the fact that (a) the NT was written in Greek and not Hebrew and (b) John continues "and the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" indicating that John thought that Jesus was the incarnation of the underlying order which guided the universe (which incarnation is, I believe, is one of the very few ideas which is original with christianity).

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

The literal of John 1:1 should read as follows:
"In the beginning was the Logos (Word), and the Logos was 'with' (literally facing) the Theos (God), and the Logos was Theos"

Actually, that last bit is the wrong way around. The Greek goes:

John wrote:

εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

which, translated literally, means "In beginning was the word and the was {(moving) in the direction of}/{at the side of} god and god was the word".

BTW, christianity's embracing of the word "god" as the name of their deity, or the parallel assertion that their deity was nameless, seems to have been one of christianity's few other original coinages. Neatly avoiding the endless problems that the jews had when trying to work out how to refer to their own named monotheistic deity, Yahweh.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Actually, that last bit is the wrong way around. The Greek goes:which, translated literally, means "In beginning was the word and the was {(moving) in the direction of}/{at the side of} god and god was the word".

I can concede that, 'moving in the direction of'/'at the side of'/'facing', God was the Word, you sort of get the idea John was conveying, The Word was still 'with' the God in the beginning.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, christianity's embracing of the word "god" as the name of their deity, or the parallel assertion that their deity was nameless, seems to have been one of christianity's few other original coinages. Neatly avoiding the endless problems that the jews had when trying to work out how to refer to their own named monotheistic deity, Yahweh.

That's weird because the God of the Bible was never nameless whether it is in the Old Testament or the New. God was known to His people by the names El, Elohim, Elshaddai, and Jehovah.

It states in Exodus:

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name JEHOVAH (Yahweh) was I not known to them." Exodus 6:3 Brackets mine.

"And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations." Exodus 3:15

The name Lord in the verse above is translated from the Hebrew word 'Yahweh' (Jehovah) and it is by this name that God Himself specifically states that He is to be known to them. The Israelites considered it so holy that after time it became unlawful for them to utter it. This was not a law from God, it was self imposed and it was contrary to God's prior revelation to them. They were to know Him by this name, He says it Himself. Its amazing the damage that can be done when traditions of men take precedence over the Word of God.

Anyway, Hebrew is a pictorial language and the name Yahweh conjures up the picture of holding back pressure from a water source, (akin to squeezing a modern day garden hose) the water is ever ready to be unleashed. God wanted to be specifically revealed through this name, ready to be unleashed for the needs of his people. He said in Exodus 16:26 "I am the LORD (Yahweh) that healeth thee" (Jehovah Rophi or Rapha). This was a specific name for specific circumstance (bad health) that God revealed by Himself. But there were other names that the Israelites themselves projected onto the name Jehovah which was a result of how they experienced God working in their lives, like Jehovah Gira for instance (the Lord provides) or Jehovah Nissi (the Lord is our banner) or Jehovah Shalom (the Lord is my peace) and so on.

The name Jesus is a Greek cognate of the name Yeshua which was a Hebrew contraction of Jehovah Oshua (the Lord our helper). Joseph was specifically told to name Him this name Yeshua before His birth and this name was retained by Him after His resurrection, He said to Paul for instance "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting..." Acts 9:6

Nameless deity? I think not.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Yes, the primary meaning of "logos" is "word" and no doubt translates the Hebrew d'var or whatever it is quite adequately. However it appears rather rarely in the OT (four times by my count in the KJV) and it seems to be really quite an unimportant idea.

There's just one problem with that idea. The author of John's Gospel didn't actually use the King James version of the Bible. However, we do know without a shadow of a doubt that he used the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament. And, I've just done a quick check by laying the Septuagint side by side with a Hebrew Bible, the word d'var is translated as logos 10 times in the first 3 Chapters of Jeremiah alone. And each time the obvious translation is 'word'. So, we've gone from your 4 instances in the entire OT to 10 instances in a tiny portion of just one book! And, just by dipping into Isaiah and Daniel, I can see dozens more occasions where logos means 'the word of the Lord'.

it seems to be really quite an unimportant idea. John, on the other hand, gives it top billing. First line and all that.

No, I think it is actually a very important idea, and I will demonstrate that in a minute by quoting some instances where logos is used in the Septuagint in a way that prefigures John's Gospel.

However, even if you were right and the concept of the logos was unimportant in the Old Testament - that would still be consistent with the way in which New Testament writers use the scriptures. For example, Psalm 110:1 seems to be fairly unimportant in the Old Testament (The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.") yet it is quoted in the New Testament 22 times, more than any other Scripture! Now, this does not mean that the New Testament writers borrowed the idea from Greek philosophy. It simply means that they saw an Old Testament Scripture, irrespective of how important it seemed in Judaism, as speaking of a key Christian concept (in this case the ascension).

An interesting idea were it not for the fact that (a) the NT was written in Greek and not Hebrew

Yes, which is precisely why I am referring to the Septuagint - the GREEK translation of the Old Testament that John used.

and (b) John continues "and the Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" indicating that John thought that Jesus was the incarnation of the underlying order which guided the universe (which incarnation is, I believe, is one of the very few ideas which is original with christianity).

The idea of the Word being both Creator and coming to dwell among us is based on Old Testament texts that, in the Septuagint, use the word logos. For example:

Psalm 107:19-20
Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he saved them from their distress. He sent forth his word (LOGOS) and healed them; he rescued them from the grave.

Psalm 119:89-90
Your word (LOGOS), O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. Your faithfulness continues through all generations; you established the earth, and it endures.

Manach

Just to interject, from the Attic Greek course I took, I seem to remember that logos was translated a word that defined things. From Liddell & Scotts' lexicon (ed.1920) as "the word by which inner thought is expressed". However to use logos for a word, would not have been too far of the mark based on other definitions of it.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Nameless deity? I think not.

I think you've missed my point slightly. To cut to the rub: in the OT, the jewish deity was named, and was one of many who appear in the tales of the OT. In the NT, the deity was almost exclusively referred to as "god", cleverly allowing people to conflate their own specific image of a deity in which they felt they could believe, with the more general and (crucially) unrebuttable notion of a nameless uberdeity.

It was a neat evolutionary trick which seems to have made the notion of the nameless christian deity a far fitter meme than ones which contained other specific, named deities.

robindch

Manach wrote: »

I seem to remember that logos was translated a word that defined things. From Liddell & Scotts' lexicon (ed.1920) as "the word by which inner thought is expressed". However to use logos for a word, would not have been too far of the mark based on other definitions of it.

λόγος derives from λέγειν "to speak", so "word" is a respectable single-word translation of λόγος. But it's a translation that seems to obsecure at least a much as it illuminates and at this remove, it's simply impossible to work out exactly what John meant. Liddell and Scott spend over a page listing separate meanings and contexts for the word.

PDN wrote: »

So, we've gone from your 4 instances in the entire OT to 10 instances in a tiny portion of just one book! And, just by dipping into Isaiah and Daniel, I can see dozens more occasions where logos means 'the word of the Lord'.

I should have been more specific above -- I was referring to the phrase "the word of god" which occurs four times in the KJV. The phrase "the word of the Lord" occurs quite regularly.

PDN wrote: »

No, I think it is actually a very important idea, and I will demonstrate that in a minute by quoting some instances where logos is used in the Septuagint in a way that prefigures John's Gospel.

John may very well have been keeping in mind the jewish connotations of "word". But given that so many ideas from ancient Greek philosophy were introduced into John's gospel (particularly, but other christian texts also) which did not exist in earlier jewish writings, it seems peculiar to think that "word" could only have had a jewish context (which is what your pov seems to be; please correct me if it's not).

But perhaps it did only have a jewish context. Maybe it didn't. Could have been a mixture, or he could have been making a play on words whose intention is long lost.

Whatever the truth of it, John was certainly the most literate of the gospel-writers and his Greek is much the most elegant. Given that, it seems certain that he would have known the Platonic texts well, since they were, and remain, the finest examples of prose in ancient Greek.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I should have been more specific above -- I was referring to the phrase "the word of god" which occurs four times in the KJV. The phrase "the word of the Lord" occurs quite regularly.

Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding you.

Judaism, from quite early on, had such a reverence for God that they saw it as being impious even to speak His Name. For example, even today you find many Jewish websites that refer to 'G-d'. You see this in the New Testament where Mark (written for a Gentile audience) refers to 'the Kingdom of God' but Matthew (written for Jews) refers to 'the Kingdom of Heaven'.

Therefore it is reasonable to view the phrases 'Word of the Lord' and 'Word of God' as being synonymous.

it seems peculiar to think that "word" could only have had a jewish context (which is what your pov seems to be; please correct me if it's not).

No, I am not ruling out any hellenist influence. I just think, in the light of the Septuagint, that it is somewhat overblown by many commentators. I think it more likely that the Jewish use of logos was the primary influence upon the author of John's Gospel.

Excelsior

robin, PDN, I as ever, bow to your superior knowledge in this domain but is there a sense in which the logos of John 1 might maps on to the personification of wisdom in Proverbs? Even if we leave aside Manach's point about the logos being the explication of the inner sense of things and instead look for a flatter understanding of the word in relation to its legei root, Jesus as logos is still very much the spoken word of God. In Hebrew thought, the word of the Lord is seen to have primal power and in Proverbs 8, for example (although non-canonical inter-testamental examples abound), this wisdom-word takes on personhood forms.

So how would you guys let such Hebrew texts inform our reading of John 1? Would they not push in the direction of interpreting John's meaning to be something like the classical creedal statements on Christology?

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Whatever the truth of it, John was certainly the most literate of the gospel-writers and his Greek is much the most elegant. Given that, it seems certain that he would have known the Platonic texts well, since they were, and remain, the finest examples of prose in ancient Greek.

You sure? I'm surprised. Out the Gospel writers I thought Luke was the closest to the Classical Greek style.