|
| |
Definitions and Usages
The De-Mystified Logos by Phil Maxwell July 2000; Revised August 2003
Up↑ | Introduction | Definitions and Usages | Poetical Structure | Unoriginal Thoughts | Grammar Considerations | Logos as God | Logos as Creator | Logos as Flesh | Conclusion | De-Mystified Logos (MS Word format) | De-Mystified Logos (PDF version) | Trinitarian-Unitarian Debate
1. The ‘word’ or ‘logos’ is a THING, not a
PERSON
By definition the Greek word ‘logos’ (Strong’s
NT:3056) is a thing – an ‘it’ – not a person or ‘he’.
More to the point, (as will be discussed in more detail later) the word
‘logos’ WAS specifically a thing in the minds of John and his
contemporaries, though common understanding of the term has since taken on a new
definition that renders it a person, specifically the person of Christ.
Through this subtle perversion of the original thought of John’s
Prologue comes the notion that God Himself became a man.
Were the original and correct understanding of the logos maintained, the
notion that the word or logos was intended to literally mean the person of God
would not seem so viable to so many.
While this may seem a minor point, Yahshua’s followers
are repeatedly instructed to be on their guard against just such apparently
benign deceptions. The devil, the
father of lies who is first introduced in Scripture as a serpent who is above
all more subtle and crafty than all other creatures (Ge 3:1), is very good at
concealing the true nature of his works. The
Parable of the Tares (Mt 13:24ff), for instance, speaks of how the children of
the devil would discretely infiltrate the ranks of believers on the heels of the
Church’s birth and go virtually unnoticed until just before the end of the
age. Likewise, as Peter warned, “there
will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive
heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (2 Pe 2:1).
I could go on, but the point is clear:
The secret introduction of destructive heresies into the Church founded
by Yahshua and His apostles was inevitable.
The “mystery of iniquity” Paul said was already sown (2 Th 2:7) was
to remain hidden until near the end of this age.
Since we are not merely interested in what the
Greek word ‘logos’ did not mean, some discussion on the true historical
meaning of it is in order. In
addition to appearing 326 times in the New Testament, it permeates other
literature also. Literally,
‘logos’ means a collecting or collection of thoughts, whether expressed or
not, but that barely scratches the surface of all the connotations it bore in
the minds of the Greek speaking people of 2,000 years ago.
On the generic meaning of the word, Vincent’s Word
Studies in the New Testament describes the general definition of the term:
Hence, logos (NT:3056) is, first of all, "a
collecting or collection" both of things in the mind, and of words by
which they are expressed. It therefore signifies both the outward form by
which the inward thought is expressed, and the inward thought itself,
…As signifying the outward form it is never used in the merely grammatical
sense …but means a word "as the thing referred to:" the
"material," not the "formal" part: a word as embodying a
conception or idea.2
Similarly,
the United Bible Societies Handbook (UBS) says:
Though the Greek term logos may be rendered
"word," it would be wrong to think it indicates primarily a
grammatical or lexical unit in a sentence. …The term logos, though
applicable to an individual word, is more accurately understood as an
expression with meaning; that is, it is "a message," "a
communication," and, as indicated, a type of "revelation." A
literal translation, therefore, more or less equivalent to English
"word," is frequently misleading. 3
When
used with the definite article (‘ho logos’), as in John 1 and other
New Testament verses, it specifically indicates THE word of God, the means by
which Yahweh has done everything from creating the material universe to
communicating His will and purposes to man through the prophets, Scripture, and
most notably, His Beloved Son, Yahshua. The
word also carried certain cultural connotations beyond the Scriptures in
John’s day, but there is no context outside of later developing Christian
doctrines in which logos was regarded as a person instead of a thing. Even in
Modern English, the basic definition of all nouns begins with its connotation as
a person, place, or thing, and so it was also with regard to the Greek word
‘logos’ in the first century A.D., and to them, logos was decidedly a thing.
In
historical context, the concept of the logos went well beyond the literal
definition of the word. The logos
was to God as the human soul is to a person. Similarly, while we may refer to
someone’s soul as though it were a person itself (e.g. every soul was
present and accounted for…), we do not truly consider a person’s soul a
distinct being apart from their body and spirit. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) explains it
this way:
Logos in Philo and Greek-Jewish philosophy meant both
reason or thought and its utterance, "the whole contents of the divine
world of thought resting in the Nous of God, synonymous with the inner life
of God Himself and corresponding to the logos endiathetos of the human soul;
on the other hand, it is the externalizing of this as revelation corresponding
to the logos prophorikos in which man's thought finds expression (Schultz).
Compare also the references to Creation by "the word of God" and its
personifications; 4
It is commonly assumed that the ‘word’ or ‘logos’
in John 1:1ff was intended to introduce the person of Christ as a second,
distinct, and literal person apart from God (i.e. ‘God the Son, the second
person of the triune Godhead’). However,
this interpretation of the prologue of John’s Gospel is quite problematic for
several reasons. Chiefly, it
interprets the passage according to a definition of the word ‘logos’ that
didn’t exist at the time of John’s writing, that the logos and Christ are
absolute synonyms. Vine’s
Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words unveils how this definition came into
being, inadvertently exposing how it is rooted in subsequent interpretations of
what John wrote rather than existing definitions at the time he wrote it:
logos NT:3056 denotes …(II) "The Personal
Word," a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated
by the statements of doctrine in Jn 1:1-18…5
Proving the point, the “statements of doctrine”
referred to include doctrines like “His
relation in the Godhead”, “His deity”, and “His incarnation” – all
directly reflecting tenets of the trinitarian concept of the nature and identity
of Christ, a view that even trinitarians admit wasn’t defined until well after
the apostles’ lifetimes. In other
words, the interpretation of the ‘logos’ as the person of Christ is based on
the later developed trinitarian concept of Yahshua as ‘God the Son, the second
person of the triune God’, not on any existent definition of the logos at the
time. John’s gospel was written
so its readers“may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing you may have life in His name” (Jn 20:31), not to
perpetuate new and previously unheard of definitions of existing words, which
would be absurd. Demonstrating this
dichotomy, the McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia (MSE) outlines this
development of Christological views as follows:
…belief in the Trinity and the Deity of Christ was
three or four centuries gradually forming; that during this period the range
of opinions concerning Jesus was as widely varied as at the present time; that
two or three hundred years after the death of Christ it was still doubtful,
and settled only by the majority of a council, whose decision was secured
through the influence of a newly converted emperor, whether the Christian
Church should regard Jesus-as a person in the Godhead, or, as the apostle
Peter declared him, a man approved by signs and wonders which God did by him.6
Though the error of applying a definition to a word
that was non-existent at the time it was written is obvious, ISBE well states
the point:
A person has interpreted the thoughts of another when
he has in his own mind a correct reproduction or photograph of the thought as
it was conceived in the mind of the original writer or speaker. It is
accordingly a purely reproductive process, involving no originality of thought
on the part of the interpreter. If the latter adds anything of his own it is
eisegesis and not exegesis. The moment the Bible student has in his own mind
what was in the mind of the author or authors of the Biblical book’s when
these were written, he has interpreted the thought of the Scriptures.7
There is no shortage of generally reputable sources that
suggest a definition of the Greek word ‘logos’ that includes the person of
Christ. In fact, inasmuch as the
true definition of a word is established through its common usage, it has
actually come to mean just that. Reflecting
how pervasive this thought is, the paraphrased Living Bible even goes so far as
to insert “Christ” in place of ‘logos’ in the text of John 1 (though not
in the other 300+ places ‘logos’ appears in the Greek!). However, just as it would be wrong read an 18th
century account of a ‘gay’ man as referring to his sexual orientation, so is
it wrong to apply more recent definitions of the Greek word ‘logos’ to
Scriptures written in the 1st century.
Just like any literature, the words of Scripture should be interpreted
according to their meaning at the time they were written.
Doctrine should be formulated from Scripture, but Scripture should not be
interpreted from doctrine.
Words can and do bear different meanings to
different people at different times, but ultimately mean whatever their
originator intends them to mean. Since
we can’t ask John to explain himself, discerning the true thought behind his
use of the Greek ‘logos’ in the prologue of his gospel necessitates the use
of external references such as dictionaries, lexicons, and literature.
The overwhelming testimony of such resources indicates that whatever else
may be said of the connotations of the ‘logos’ in John’s day, it was
universally regarded as a thing, not a person, even when used in close
connection with God, His will, and His works.
Thus, the notion that John intended to convey the thought that the logos
was literally the person of God who literally became the man Yahshua the Messiah
has no merit. Rather, this simply represents a retroactive definition
assigned to John’s words by non-apostolic theologians striving to make the
Scriptures support a different answer to the question already answered in
Scripture about Yahshua’s identity: He is <i>“the Christ, the Son of
the living God.”</i> (Mt
16:16) The ‘logos’, the word of
God, is the expression of His will and power, not Him personally.
2. Personification of the Logos
A. Of the ‘word of Yahweh’ in the Old Testament
Since
logos is a thing by definition (not a person) that John represented as a person,
we have a perfect example of the literary tool known as personification, which
the American Heritage Dictionary defines as “A figure of speech in which
inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are
represented as possessing human form.”8
Literature
throughout the ages, especially poetry, is replete with personifications, and
the Bible is no exception to this. In fact, we need look no further than the Old
Testament to not only find examples of personification, but even specific
examples of the word or logos being personified. The following examples all
reflect just such a personification of the ‘word’ of Yahweh. (Note:
‘word’ in the following verses is translated from Hebrew ‘dabar’, which
was translated ‘logos’ in the Septuagint.):
He sent His word and healed them, And delivered
them from their destructions. (Ps 107:20)
He sends forth His command to the earth; His word runs very swiftly.
(Ps 147:15)
So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return
to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in
the matter for which I sent it. (Isa 55:11)
Now,
obviously, we aren’t going to conclude from the above verses that the word or
logos of Yahweh is a distinct person who charges out of His mouth, runs swiftly,
and heals people along the way before returning back to Yahweh. Why not?
Because the personification of the logos in these verses clearly
represents a literary tool that is not intended to be taken literally.
Neither do we take verses like “God is love” or “God is
light” to mean that Yahweh is actually light or love or vice-versa (1 Jn
1:5, 4:8, 16) because we know that love and light are things whereas Yahweh,
though not human, has personal identity. Literal interpretations would convey an
altogether different, erroneous, and absurd meaning from these verses, but that
is exactly what is commonly done with logos in John 1 to the same end.
The fact that the logos of Yahweh is presented as a person in John 1 does
not change the fact that it is a thing, and failure to recognize this will most
certainly yield misunderstandings.
Moreover,
the concept implied by the personification of logos, that it is the embodiment
of Yahweh’s will, works, and revelation to man, was well established long
before John set his pen to writing his Gospel record. In addition to the
previously mentioned examples regarding the personified logos in the Old
Testament, both Job 28 and Proverbs 8-9 stand out as notable passages where
virtually the same concept is communicated as wisdom personified. The UBS
Handbook summarizes as follows:
Among certain of the Greek-speaking Jews of New
Testament times, there was much speculation about the "wisdom" of
God, which God "made in the very beginning, at the first, before the
world began" (Pr 8:22-23). In the Wisdom of Solomon (written during the
first century B.C.), "wisdom" is close to becoming a personal being,
standing beside God when he made the world (Jn 9:9) and making holy souls to
be God's friends (7:27). In philosophical Judaism of New Testament times, the
Word largely assumes the functions assigned to "wisdom" in these
writings. Thus, by the time that John writes his Gospel, the Word is close
to being recognized as a personal being, and it has roles relating to the
manner in which God created the world and to the way in which God reveals
himself to the world that he brought into being.3
Even
though both wisdom and the word, being considered virtual synonyms, are “close
to being recognized as a personal being,” there is still no inference of
literal personhood in view with regard to either term. The whole point of
personification as a literary device is to attribute personhood to a thing, but
doing so does not constitute either a metamorphosis of that thing into a literal
person or a redefinition of the thing personified.
B. Of the ‘Memra’ (word of Yahweh) in the Targums
In John’s day, the only copies of the Scriptures were hand written and
relatively scarce. In general, common people were only familiar with it through
regular readings in the Synagogues. One practice that had developed in these
public readings was that various paraphrases called the Targums became common,
and these included the substitution or paraphrase of various revelations of
Yahweh as ‘the memra’. ISBE
explains:
5. Targums: Finally in the Targums, which were popular
interpretations or paraphrases of the Old Testament Scripture, there was a
tendency to avoid anthropomorphic terms or such expressions as involved a too
internal conception of God's nature and manifestation. Here the three
doctrines of the Word, the Angel, and Wisdom are introduced as mediating
factors between God and the world. In particular the chasm between the Divine
and human is bridged over by the use of such terms as me'mera'
("word" ) and shekhinah ("glory" ). The me'mera proceeds
from God, and is His messenger in Nature and history. But it is significant
that though the use of this expression implied the felt need of a Mediator, the
Word does not seem to have been actually identified with the Messiah.9
And Vincent adds,
After the Babylonish captivity the Jewish doctors
combined into one view the theophanies, prophetic revelations and
manifestations of Jehovah generally, and united them in one single conception,
that of a permanent agent of Jehovah in the sensible world, whom they
designated by the name [Memra] ("word," logos (NT:3056)) of Jehovah.
The learned Jews introduced the idea into the Targums, or Aramaean paraphrases
of the Old Testament, which were publicly read in the synagogues, substituting
the name "the word of Jehovah" for that of Jehovah, each time
that God manifested himself. Thus, in Ge 39:21, they paraphrase, "The
Memra was with Joseph in prison." In Ps 110. Jehovah addresses the first
verse to the Memra. The Memra is the angel that destroyed the first-born of
Egypt, and it was the Memra that led the Israelites in the cloudy pillar.10
The
average Jew of John’s day, who relied on public readings for their knowledge
of the Scripture, was accustomed to having ‘the memra’ meaning ‘the
word’ read in place of not only ‘the word of Yahweh’, but of Yahweh
Himself. Thus, while the actual text of Gen 39:21 reads, “But Yahweh was
with Joseph….”, what was read in the synagogues was, “But the Memra
[Word] was with Joseph…”; likewise, Ps 110:1 was read as “The Memra
[Word] says to my Lord…”, while the actual text says, “Yahweh says
to my Lord…”.
ISBE
calls this the “deified law”, and, again, associates it with the logos:
This process of abstraction had gone farthest in
Alexandria, where Jewish thought had so far assimilated Platonic philosophy,
that Philo and Wisdom conceive God as pure being who could not Himself come
into any contact with the material and created world. His action and
revelation are therefore mediated by His Powers, His Logos and His Wisdom,
which, as personified or hypostatized attributes, become His vicegerents on
earth. But in Palestine, too, many mediating agencies grew up between God and
man. The memra', or word of God, was not unlike Philo's Logos. The deified law
partly corresponded to Alexandrian Wisdom.11
The
important thing to note here, again, is that none of these valid precedents
regarding the logos or word of Yahweh indicate literal personhood, according to
ISBE:
The Bible, on the other hand, while speaking of Him as
invisible, and unknowable through merely human effort (Job 11:7-8; Jn 1:18 ) ,
yet reveals Him in Christ, who is God and man. Jewish mysticism endeavored to
solve the problem of creation by the invention of the 'Adham qadhmon
(archetypal man), and earlier by Philo's Logos doctrine and the Memra' of the
Targums. But these abstractions have neither reality nor personality.12
Under
the article on Logos, ISBE also comments:
As a Palestinian Jew familiar with current Jewish
ideas and forms of devout expression, it would be natural for him [John] to
adopt a word, or its Greek equivalent, which played so important a part in
shaping and expressing the religious beliefs of the Old Testament people. Many
scholars consider that we have here the probable source of Johannine language.
In the Old Testament, and particularly, in the Targums or Jewish paraphrases,
the "Word" is constantly spoken of as the efficient instrument of
Divine action; and the "Word of God" had come to be used in a
personal way as almost identical with God Himself. In Rev 19:13, we have
obviously an adoption of this Hebrew use of the phrase.
…it has been pointed out by Weizsacker (Apostolisches Zeitalter) that the
Word of God is not conceived in the Old Testament as an independent Being,
still less as equivalent for the Messiah, and that the rabbinical doctrine
which identifies the memra with God is of much later date.13
Again, the evidence all indicates
that John incorporated established thought and style in the prologue of his
Gospel, but that same evidence also very clearly excludes the conclusion of the
word of Yahweh being an independent being.
C. Of the Logos in Philosophy
The
personification of the logos can also be found in non-Biblical writings of that
era, most notably in the writings of Philo.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew and contemporary of John who sought to
reconcile various philosophical and religious views of the logos. While he is of
no value to this discussion as a source for doctrine, his works are useful in
determining the common usage and understanding of the term ‘logos’.
While being careful to note profound distinctions between their doctrine
regarding the logos, Vincent concedes that Philo’s concept of logos had a
prominent influence on John’s use of the word, commenting:
Philo's conception of the Logos, therefore, is: the
sum total and free exercise of the divine energies; so that God, so far as he
reveals himself, is called Logos; while the Logos, so far as he reveals God,
is called God.
... It is doubtful whether Philo ever meant to represent the Logos formally
as a person. All the titles he gives it may be explained by supposing it
to mean the ideal world on which the actual is modelled.
... John's doctrine and terms are colored by these preceding influences.
During his residence at Ephesus he must have become familiar with the forms
and terms of the Alexandrian theology.14
ISBE
also confirms this, writing,
Historically, the Logos-doctrine of John has undoubted
links of connection with certain speculative developments both of Greek and
Hebrew thought. The Heraclitean use of the term "Logos" (see above,
I) to express the idea of an eternal and all-embracing Reason immanent in the
world was continued, while the conception was further elaborated, by the
Stoics. On the other hand, the later developments of Hebrew thought show an
increasing tendency to personify the self-revealing activity of God under such
conceptions as the Angel, Glory, or Name of Yahweh, to attach a peculiar
significance to the "Word" (me'mera') by which He created the heaven
and the earth, and to describe "Wisdom" (Job, Proverbs) in something
more than a figurative sense as His agent and coworker.
...How far, and whether directly or indirectly, John is indebted to Philo and
his school, are questions to which widely different answers have been given;
but some obligation, probably indirect, cannot reasonably be denied. It is
evident, indeed, that both the idea and the term "Logos" were
current in the Christian circles for which his Gospel and First Epistle were
immediately written; in both its familiarity is assumed.15
ISBE
also offers the following insight into Philo’s (and, thus, many others)
doctrine regarding the logos:
…The all-pervading Energy of Heraclitus, the
archetypal Ideas of Plato, the purposive Reason of Aristotle, the immanent
Order of the Stoics are taken up and fused with the Jewish conception of
Yahweh who, while transcending all finite existences, is revealed through His
intermediatory Word. …Though in His inner essence God is incomprehensible by
any but Himself, He has created the intelligible cosmos by His self-activity.
The Word is therefore in Philo the rational order manifested in the visible
world.
Some special features of the Philonic Logos may be noted: (1) It is
distinguished from God as the instrument from the Cause. (2) As instrument by
which God makes the world, it is in its nature intermediate between God and
man. (3) As the expressed thought of God and the rational principle of the
visible world, the Logos is "the Eldest or Firstborn Son of God." It
is the "bond" (desmos) holding together all things (De Mundi,
i.592), the law which determines the order of the universe and guides the
destinies of men and nations (same place) . Sometimes Philo calls it the
"Man of God": or the "Heavenly man," the immortal father
of all noble men; sometimes he calls it "the Second God," "the
Image of God." (4) From this it follows that the Logos must be the
Mediator between God and man, the "Intercessor" (hiketes) or
"High Priest," who is the ambassador from heaven and interprets God
to man. Philo almost exhausts the vocabulary of Hebrew metaphor in describing
the Logos. It is "manna," "bread from heaven," "the
living stream," the "sword" of Paradise, the guiding
"cloud," the "rock" in the wilderness.
These various expressions, closely resembling the New Testament descriptions
of Christ, lead us to ask: Is Philo's Logos a personal being or a pure
abstraction? …After all has been said, his Logos really resolves itself
into a group of Divine ideas, and is conceived, not as a distinct person,
but as the thought of God which is expressed in the rational order of the
visible universe.16
While
John wasn’t affirming Philo’s doctrine, neither was he employing the term
‘logos’ in a vacuum. Philo’s concept of the logos was very influential and
familiar to John’s contemporaries, and the personification he employed in
discussing the concept seems to be more or less emulated in John’s prologue.
It is, therefore, perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility that John had
no intention of declaring the literal personhood of the logos, but rather simply
represented it as such in keeping with the literary precedent that had been
established long before his time and perpetuated through Philo and numerous
others. At least this theory has ample documented precedent that includes the
Scriptures themselves, whereas the theory that John intended the logos to be
perceived as a literal person apart from God seems to have little if any real
support.
Yet,
even though such philosophically developed ideas may not have intended to
represent the logos as a literal person, it is possible that the doctrine of the
logos as a literal person was spawned later by their tendency to personify the
concept known as the logos. This would certainly not be the only case where
supposed Christian doctrine and practices could be traced to pagan or secular
roots. Referring to Philo’s doctrine of the logos, ISBE notes, “Christian
thought laid hold of this idea, and employed it as its master-category for the
interpretation of the person of Christ.”17 However, it would
seem that while even the philosophers clearly intended their personification of
the logos to be an abstraction, it somehow evolved in Christian circles to be
taken literally, but that doesn't mean John meant it that way.
   
|
