Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ John

[Pariah]

If it isn't clear, it isn't clear.

[jimwalton]

You seem to be inferring that because it isn't clear to us, it wasn't clear to the author, which is a solid non sequitur. John doesn't need us to know his source, but instead what he means by it—and what he means by it is clear.

[Pariah]

Nope. Not clear.

[jimwalton]

So what you are saying is this: When your professor says something you don't understand, or you don't know where he or she got their information, it's fair to conclude your professor "doesn't know what he is on about." And when your best friend says something without telling you where they heard that, it's proper to figure they don't know what they're talking about. If Stephen Hawking (RIP) doesn't explain something to your satisfaction, Hawking is obviously the problem. Hmm.

[Pariah]

Yes. John's writing about Logos isn't useful if nobody understands it. Some professors are dumb, etc.

[jimwalton]

There's a distinction between where John got the idea for logos, and what he intended to convey by it. The first we don't know, the second is clear. We know that the Apostle Paul at times borrowed terms from the culture around him and repurposed them for Christianity. It doesn't matter so much where he got them, because he changed their meaning for his context.

Regardless of where John got the idea, he uses logos to speak of Jesus's eternal existence rather than being bound by the limitation of human existence. This "Word" (logos) was there at the beginning, ergo, He had no beginning. This "Word" existed with God, and He existed as God. Already we can tell that John's use of logos doesn't correspond to those of any Greek or Roman writer, namely Homer or the Stoics. Then John tells us that the "Word" was the Creator of all things. Here he gets close to Heraclitus's use (the principle that controls the universe) and that of Marcus Aurelius (the generative principle in nature), but John's use differs from them in that, for John, Logos is a person, not a principle (Jn. 1.14); He is personal, not a philosophical abstraction. The idea that the logos is personal also is at odds with the Docetic Gnostics, who held that the Christ never took on flesh, and the Cerinthian Gnostics, who separated the aeon Christ from the physical Jesus. Instead, John uses logos as a way to express both divinity and humanity (deity incarnated), the agent of creation but also one who entered creation, a person not a principle, and someone who was simultaneously eternally existent beside God in relationship while also being God in essence.

So there is no evidence that John derived his concept of logos from any of these sources. We cannot be sure that he was even aware of them. His use of logos is contrary to any Greek belief, and is unique. Since his prologue begins with "in the beginning," an evident allusion to Genesis 1.1, John is speaking of the Word (llogos) as the Creator and also the basic cause who is eternal; there is never a time when the logos did not exist. Jesus is the divine First Cause—the root and source of all things living and non-living. In the beginning was Jesus. Jesus is the reason and the source. He was distinct from God the Father, but distinctly God at the same time. That's what John means by logos.

[Pariah]

Genesis 1 makes no mention of "logos."

[jimwalton]

It actually does.

"And God said" shows up six times in Genesis 1. "Said" in the Greek Septuagint is εἶπεν, the aorist active indicative of λέγω, which is the verb form of the noun logos. In other words, logos is a significant part of the creation story. John is telling a story of a new creation. He is linking the eternal God who spoke and the worlds were created with the Eternal Word who is with God, is God, and by whom all things were made. The power of God in Genesis is expressed in the spoken word. The Word of God in John is the power and presence of God. They are both logos.