The following has been excerpted from the original, which is
available at the link below
...John 1 and the word ‘logos’ has long been one of the most
hotly debated passages of the Bible, which also relates to the
currency most theologians grant it as a supposed proof text for
supposed essential doctrines like the deity of Christ,
trinitarianism, and related tenets. For this reason alone, the
passage is arguably of dubious value as a basic doctrinal proof
text, which is my first point. It simply doesn’t make sense to
feature such a controversial passage as a primary proof text for
fundamental tenets of doctrine. …There are plenty of Bible
passages regarding the nature, identity, and origins of Yahshua
the Messiah, and His relationship to God the Father that are
much more clear and concise than this. Nevertheless, reasonable
or not, since John’s Prologue is so commonly employed as a
litmus test for defining who is a true Christian, the need to
investigate its true meaning is far more than tangent
theological aerobics.
A reasonable approach to interpreting Scriptural precepts is
outlined in Isaiah 28 and echoed in many other passages
throughout Scripture:
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to
understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and
drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a
little, and there a little: (Is 28:9-10 KJV)
Like any branch of knowledge, the spiritual truths of Scripture
follow a natural order. For example, we wouldn’t attempt to
teach algebra to those who haven’t learned basic math, and,
likewise, if an algebra problem were to yield answers that
defied underlying precepts (like 2x3=5), then it would not be
accepted as true. Similarly, we shouldn’t attempt to interpret
the implication of the nature and identity of Christ in John’s
Prologue outside the numerous Scriptural precepts that naturally
precede it, and neither should we accept any interpretation that
contradicts the same. Otherwise, the product of our
interpretation ends up being is what theologians call eisegesis,
which is when someone reads their own bias into a passage rather
than drawing the true meaning out of the text itself, which is
called exegesis. As I will show, this is what is commonly done
with regard to the Prologue.
If there is any consensus amongst scholars regarding John 1, it
is that by and large the English translations simply don’t
convey the full implications of John’s original intent,
particularly with regard to the Greek word ‘logos’, which is
commonly translated ‘word’. Yet, many shamelessly assert major
doctrinal points from the English text as though it accurately
represents the original thought, even though it is well known
that it doesn’t. These seek to render the passage into a simple
unequivocal statement of the deity and incarnation of Christ,
typically arguing that since “the word was God” (v. 1) and “the
word became flesh” (v. 14), then God became the man Yahshua the
Messiah (Jesus Christ), who is, therefore, God. This bias has
been incorporated into most of the popular English translations
and paraphrases, some going so far as to misrepresent ‘logos’ as
‘Christ’ or ‘the Son’ even though the original Greek text says
nothing of the sort. Then, building on this shaky foundation,
generally follows many explanations of how this human being, the
Son of God, is also God. Because of these things, not the
original thought represented by John’s words, this verse has
become a virtual cornerstone of so-called ‘orthodox
Christology’. Having encountered many apologists for these
doctrines over the years, I have found no other passage more
highly regarded as a supposed proof text for these misguided
conclusions regarding the nature and identity of the one true
God and His Son, Yahshua. Obviously, my own bias is contrary to
‘orthodox Christology’, but the point here is neither my
opponents’ bias nor mine, but what John truly meant in the
prologue of his gospel.
Considerably elevating the importance of carefully scrutinizing
this passage is the accompanying belief that affirmation of the
deity of Christ is the primary defining element between true
Christianity and cults. In the past, dissenters have been
silenced by whatever force was necessary – seizure of property,
banishment, imprisonment, torture, and execution. In modern
times, they are held to be anti-Christ heretics who are
stigmatized, vilified, and ostracized by the most vocal
proponents of ‘orthodox Christianity’, while the overwhelming
majority of the two billion or so professing Christians of the
world quietly acquiesce to their teachings; same spirit,
different season.
While the Scriptures repeatedly uphold belief in the true
identity of Yahshua as the step one must take to truly enter the
ranks of Christianity, the one they were to confess allegiance
to was “the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16) – NOT
‘God the Son, the Second Person of the Triune God’ or any such
thing! The revelation of the Lord Yahshua’s true identity as
preached by the apostles was always straightforward, simple, and
comprehendible by even the most simple minded would-be disciple.
It was to be the foundation upon which Yahshua would build His
Church, opposition by the gates of hell notwithstanding. Yet,
the concept of Christ not only alleged to be set forth in the
prologue of John’s gospel, but also held to be essential
elements of the Christian faith are also held to be a great
mystery that transcends human comprehension. …True faith is
found in believing and holding fast to provable truths that are
learned precept upon precept, the most basic of which is that
Yahshua is “the Christ, the Son of God”. Neither Scripture nor
the apostles require any further confession.
Thus, we are left with a passage that has been grossly
misrepresented standing as a cornerstone of doctrines held so
important as to justify both dividing up the body of Christ and
doing violence against dissenters. The true identity of Christ
as preached by the apostles and revealed in Scripture is not so
mysterious or incomprehensible that new and would-be believers
can’t see it clearly for themselves. There is no need to rely
upon a controversial passage to establish who “the Christ, the
Son of the living God” is unless the aim is to otherwise
represent Him, which is exactly what orthodox theologians have
done with John 1. The Bible tells us to “prove all things; hold
fast that which is true” (1 Th 5:21 KJV), and the application of
that precept could be no more important than it is with regard
to who the Lord and Savior truly is. Again, John’s Prologue
raises so many issues that scholars can't agree upon, it is
hardly well suited for the purpose of proving any major
doctrinal point, much less such a supposedly basic and important
tenet of the Christian faith that must be understood and
affirmed by even new and non-believers as a condition of being
received by others in the family of God.
Nevertheless, the majority of Christians earnestly believe what
theologians and translators commonly contend John meant in his
prologue – that the logos or word literally represents the
person of God, and that He literally became flesh as the man
Yahshua. They accept this and all its difficult implications as
a great mystery that goes beyond human comprehension,
unwittingly parroting a circular argument based on text already
skewed with the bias of the point they argue. They rest easy in
the apparent security lent by the popularity and antiquity of
their doctrinal views, never realizing how the plethora of
evidence supporting their views all traces back to a common
root: The decrees of post-apostolic consortiums founded on the
absurd assumption that the Scriptures didn’t adequately answer
the question Yahshua posed to His disciples, “Who do you say I
am?” We wouldn’t consider the overwhelming display of support
for a political issue at a rally for the same cause to prove its
worthiness. Yet, that is essentially what the monopoly of power
established by the marriage between the ancient Catholic Church
and the Roman Empire in 325 A.D. has rendered Christianity to be
in the world for nearly 1700 years – a rally for doctrines
developed by men bearing no apostolic credentials. The reason
most Christians blindly agree that Yahshua is more than the Son
of God is because the voices of dissent have been squashed like
fans for the visiting team at a homecoming game.
…It is notable that the very same power and authority that
established ‘orthodox Christology’ also worked long, hard, and
violently to keep the Scriptures and all dissenting voices away
from the general population. Before the advent of the printing
press and the Protestant Reformation, an earnest seeker of the
truth would have been hard pressed to find a straight answer to
the question of who Yahshua was and is outside the papal system.
If that is hard to relate to, perhaps it would help to consider
that the theocratic Roman Catholic Empire was not that much
unlike Muslim regimes such as modern Saudi Arabia or the Taliban
in Afghanistan: Religious dissent was a serious crime, fully
enforced by the power of the government.
…Key to what follows is the word 'logos', both its generic
definition and the various concepts it represented as THE logos
in the minds of John's contemporaries. Of particular concern
will be whether or not the personification of the logos in John
1 was intended as an abstraction or to indicate a literal
distinct person. To this end, I will show that the concept
embodied in the logos was commonly personified in literature –
the Scriptures, Hebrew, and Philosophers – but not with the
thought of it being a literal person, much less the Messiah.
Either John was endeavoring to communicate in a rational,
coherent way that would be understood by those who spoke the
language he wrote in, or he was deliberately trying to be vague
and confusing by using a previously unknown definition of the
word ‘logos’. I believe he was trying to communicate high
spiritual concepts in ordinary, understandable language, but I
don't think he was trying to say what many think.
When we read, “the Word was God…and the Word became flesh,” we
naturally draw certain conclusions based upon what we already
believe and how this reads. IF the translators accurately
translated the text, and IF we understand their words as John's
contemporaries would have understood his words, we'd be fine in
this. However, being the imperfect tools for communicating
thoughts that words are, we must at least consider the
possibility that something may have gone amiss between John’s
pen, modern translations, and our minds. Even words passed
directly between the closest of people often require further
explanation, so this is quite reasonable. What IF the
translations are somewhat lacking? What IF there were some
implications related to cultural elements of that time that are
not evident in the text itself? Discerning what WE conclude
about English renderings of John 1 is easy, but discovering what
THEY were meant to understand from John's Greek text is quite
another, especially in the case of this passage. One thing is
for sure, the true meaning of what John wrote is not what we or
anyone else thinks, but what was actually intended at the time
it was written. On this point, Nelson’s Illustrated Bible
Dictionary comments:
[In order to interpret the Bible correctly] We must first
discover what the passage meant in the day and age of the
author. …[This is important because] the Bible was not actually
written directly to us, and it makes sense to put ourselves in
the shoes of the original audience if we are to understand its
message properly.1
My primary contention is that the Greek word ‘logos’ represented
a thing and not a person to John and the Greek-speaking
population of that day in general, much like the term ‘word’ is
to English speaking people of this day. For instance, we might
say ‘a man is his word’, but no one would take this as meaning
that a man’s word is literally that man, even though the
statement might literally mean that. Although I make no pretense
regarding my own bias, this contention is specifically against
the typical arguments raised from John 1 in support of the deity
of Christ doctrine, not the doctrine itself. Whether or not the
deity of Christ doctrine is true, John wrote ‘logos’, not
‘Christ’, and meant it according to the common usage of the word
in his time, not ours.
I will offer evidence by way of numerous points that will
follow, documented by sources that generally incorporate a bias
against my own conclusions. Several of these pertain to
translation ambiguities, others relate to the implications of
the word ‘logos’ with regard to religion and philosophy of
John's day, and then more show the precedent and likelihood that
the personification of the logos in John 1 was meant as a
poetical abstraction, not literally. In the end, if the word of
God – the logos – did not mean the literal person of God, then
reading “the word was God…and the word became flesh” as a
statement meaning that the unchangeable God (who is distinctly
not a man) actually became a man is untenable.
God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that
He should repent; (Nu 23:19)
For I, Yahweh, do not change; (Mal 3:6)
For full text
of article, notes, references, copyright info, and
downloadable/printable MS Word version, click De-Myst
ified Logos.
About the author:
Phil is VP/Gen Mgr and part owner of Metro Industries, a Marine
veteran, and founder of Simple Truth Ministries
and ScatteredSheep.com.
Phil and his beloved wife, Brenda, and their three children and
new grandson all live in KC, Missouri, area.
|