December 13, 2010
-
Word is Christ
The term “word” is used in to describe God the Son, who is Jesus Christ. I have heard a lot of different things about why John used the term, but while I want to throw out a few thoughts, I want to hear what you guys think. John says the following about the “word“:
- “In the beginning was the Word” (v1)
- “The Word was with God” (v1)
- “And the Word was God” (v1)
- “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (v14)
… and then he stops talking about Christ this way (as “the Word“) until he writes his first letter (1 John 1), which follows a similar message:
- “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. [...]“
- (while you’re at it, notice 1 John 1:10′s use of the word)
The significance of the use of the term “word” comes in part from context of the wording of the original language. John wrote in Greek, and we’ve translated it in English to “word.” It is translated from the Greek word logos, whose root is the Greek for “to speak” (logein). This is the same root where we get words like “logic” and “neologism”, and where we get endings of words like biology, technology, meteorology, etc. The original meaning of the word “logos” had different connotations in John’s day, though: speaking, reasoning, studying, etc. “The word” (logos) was picked up by the Greek ancients to talk about significant philosophical ideas. These pervaded their culture.
Today we have different phrases and terms that are tied importantly to philosophers of our day and age who have impacted our culture in significant ways. And even though we don’t know their full philosophic sketch, we still adopt and proclaim glimpses of their philosophy and worldview found in our time. It is not uncommon to hear these words or phrases:
- “kharma” – Hindu philosophy
- “self-actualize” (Abraham Maslow)
- “skeptic” – Pyrrhonic philosophy
- “That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)
- “existential crisis” – Existentialist philosophies
Assuming the apostle John is writing his gospel to a Greek audience, they will be familiar in some meaningful sense with basic phrases that are tied to their culture. The Logos is one of the famous terms that significantly impacted people’s worldviews; see a few examples:
- “Ancient philosophers used the term [logos] in different ways however. The sophists used the term to mean discourse, and Aristotle applied the term to ‘reasoned discourse’ in the field of rhetoric. The Stoic philosophers identified the term with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe.” – Wikipedia
Another cue for thinking that John is writing this way is from the use of the Greek word “arche”, meaning beginning. It pointed to a other Greek ideas of the universe; the arche was the “ultimate underlying substance” or the “ultimate undemonstrable principle.”
Yet John is not just writing to pagan Greeks, those who followed after Mars or Artemis, Jupiter or many gods. No, he is writing particularly, but not only, to Grecian Jews – those Greeks who, because of Jewish heritage or conversion, feared and worshiped the one true God of Israel, Yahweh.
With this we see another side altogether for “the Word”. Remember that in the first line it says that “In the beginning was the Word” (v1) and then “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (v3) This fits a similar pattern as Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God”, and then we see God’s creation acts: speaking things out of nothing into existence. He speaks, things are so; He says words, things become.
The idea is that John is aware that his readers will pick up on the idea that “the Word” isn’t really just some basic form of communication, but rather something greater. He is writing about something they will understand to be significant – both for the Greeks and the Jews.
In “The End of Reason”, Ravi Zacharias quotes Dr. John Polkinghorne on the topic of the logos:
- “The Word, the logos, combines two notions, one Greek, one Hebrew. For the Greek the logos was the rational ordering principle of the universe. For the Hebrew the word of the Lord was God’s activity in the world. [In Hebrew dabar means both word and deed. Hebrew is a language based on verbs, on action.]“
Thus in John’s use of the word logos, it seems like it is supposed to be intended for cosmic weight. He is trying to capture a glimpse for his audience of who Christ was before He was flesh. In the passage as it continues, he describes how Christ relates to the world as Creator/redeemer, to the Father as Son/mediator, and finally in the world as flesh like us in every way yet without sin.
Comments (6)
Logos, I think, is a respectful reference to the eternal Second Person of the Trinity.
Alternately it is a lovely way mind, reason, and language are connected. I don’t think the logos of folks like Plato, though, is the same because it predates the writing of the Synoptic Gospels.
@virtus1 - That is actually a very important question. Did Plato prove Yahweh God’s existence? Did Plato find Yahweh God? I will affirm the Westminster Confession of Faith, which says that by reason and creation we can know God exists, but it is not sufficient for salvation — for that we need revelation. Thus in some sense, I think, yes, Plato may have proven God’s existence, but he could not find any solace or comfort without also having the merciful, compassionate God revealed to him (scripture, oral tradition, vision, etc. of Israel’s God). And, interestingly enough, I just recently read that this was likely John’s intent: to reveal to the Greeks the very same logos of Plato more fully, one which has grace and love and not just truth and justice in the law.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html
@NachDemGeist - This is off topic, but slightly funny. A good friend of mine, David, strongly holds to the Westminster Confession and is a very Calvinist Presbyterian.
I am an old school conservative variety member of the Church of England and thus not quite as Calvinist even though I have unmeasured respect for his philosophy.
The vicar of my parish (Terry) is a hard core post modern politically correct relativist who hates all things masculine. She is the second female assigned to this parish by one the farthermost left wing Bishops in the Anglican Communion. ARGHHHHH!!!!!! I should moderate my position because I hold a great deal of Christian love and respect for her.
Needless to say, I get bashed from both sides regularly. It seems that I am both too conservative and not conservative enough all at the same time. It would be fun to step aside and let David and Terry go at it.
@virtus1 - That isn’t horribly off topic, and is rather interesting. I was raised Baptist (holding to it only loosely), and I have been to a Presbyterian service but twice. I am only meagerly knowledgeably of the WCF, and most familiar with its stances on Scriptures, free will and baptism. I am not in complete agreement with it, I just agree with it on the nature/role of divine revelation at the very least.
Are you in England, or is that CoE in the US or Canada?
I am without many real strong conservative Calvinist voices to my right or my left. I have one, but he just moved away last week! I have plenty of liberal friends, one who is like your vicar (but sounds as though yours is extremely passionate and irrational for the cause, whereas mine is just a regular feminist).
@NachDemGeist - My family has been Anglican for a looong time. There are several Priests and even an Archbishop of Canterbury in the gene pool. Even at that, my family seems pretty split on Calvinism.
I’m not sure my parish’s vicar is irrational, but she definitely is in denial. A homily from last summer was about how wonderful the UN millennium goals are. I was fuming.