Close

"But what about John 1:1?"(Endnotes)

1. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture (NIV) are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word, and words.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Arndt and Gingrich’s revision of Walter Bauer’s work, University of Chicago Press, second ed., 1979) lists the following as some of the definitions for logos (the words in italics are translated from logos):

• speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done”).
• a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - NASB, “they might catch him in some statement”).
• a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question”).
• preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching”).
• command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command”).
• proverb; saying, (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows and another reaps’ ”).
• message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority”).
• assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching”).
• the subject under discussion; matter, (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry” and Acts 15:6 - NASB, “And the apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter”).
• revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God ”).
• God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders spoke the Word of God ”).
• a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” at the day of judgment).
• an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, a king settled “accounts” with his servants, and Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving”).
• a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB, “And so I ask, for what reason you have sent for me”).
See Appendix A (John 1:1). Close

2. Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of The Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, (Atlanta Bible College and Restoration Fellowship, June, 1994). Close

3. The Gospel of John is now widely viewed as having been originally written in Aramaic, a Semitic language of even greater antiquity than Hebrew, and the language that Jesus himself spoke. It was the language of the Galileans, which included Jesus. One New Testament scholar writes:

We find then, that, broadly speaking, sayings and discourse material prove to be that which displays the most unambiguous signs of translation out of Aramaic…In the case of John, not all would be willing to find Aramaic sources even behind the discourses: rather the work of a bilingual author has been postulated, in which the more natural Aramaic has left its indelible imprint on the more mannered Greek…John’s Greek can be closely paralleled from Epictetus, but in the opinion of most scholars appears to be a koine [Greek] written by one whose native thought and speech were Aramaic; there may even be passages translated from that language…this too underlines the description of the Gospel as markedly Semitic.

New Bible Dictionary, “Language of the New Testament,” by J. N. Birdsall (W. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1975), p. 715. The significance of this fact is that if John’s Gospel is written from a Semitic perspective, then its references to concepts like logos should be understood at least in part from a Semitic perspective also. This puts the logos concept squarely in what is called “the wisdom literature” of Judaism, wherein personification of concepts is a common figure of speech. Spirit and Wisdom and Logos (Reason or Word) are all figuratively said to have facilitated and participated in the act of creation (cp. Gen. 1:2; Prov. 8:1 and 22ff). Close

4. Thorlief Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared With Greek (Norton, NY, 1960), p. 58. Close

5. Boman cites a number of other scholars who see the Semitic view of logos, specifically Lorenz Durr, W. F. Albright, Herder and Bultmann. Boman, op. cit., p. 61. Close

6. “Im Anfang war die Tat”—“In the beginning was the word, the action.” J.W von Goethe, Faust, line 1237. Quoted in Bruce, op. cit., p. 29. Close

7. Boman, op. cit., p. 66. Close

8. Bruce, op. cit., John, p. 29. Close

9. Broughton, James H. and Southgate, Peter J., The Trinity: True or False? (The Dawn Book Supply, Nottingham, 1995), p. 247. Broughton and Southgate note that the spirit of God is also personified. We would add the example of Genesis 1:2, where the spirit is described as a living thing, again in the context of God’s creative action: “Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering [AMP - “brooding”] over the waters.” Close

10. Barclay, New Testament Words, (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1974), p. 186. Close

11. These examples are from A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica by Dr. John Lightfoot (Hendrickson Pub., Peabody MA, 1989) Vol. 3, p. 238. Close

12. The NIV Study Bible note on logos (John 1:1) agrees that the “word” represents an intersection of Greek and Hebrew thought, but their Trinitarian bias is revealed in the fact that they say “Word” was a way that the Hebrews referred to God, when in fact it consistently refers to the creative activity, purpose and action of God. No Jew would have mistaken “the Word” of God for God Himself:

Greeks used this term not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the mind—the reason. When they applied it to the universe, they meant the rational principle that governs all things. Jews, on the other hand, used it as a way of referring to God. Thus, John used a term that was meaningful to both Jews and Gentiles. Close

13. Boman, op. cit., pp. 205 and 206. Close

14. A better translation of that phrase (“the Word was God”) would be “what God was, the word was” (NEB), or “the logos was divine,” (Moffatt). See Appendix A (John 1:1). Close

15. There are a number of passages in the Bible that have more than one meaning. In his magnificent work titled Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1968), E. W. Bullinger covers some of these under the figure amphibologia, or “Double Meaning.” The fact that God so intricately and carefully interweaves two meanings into one word and makes them both correct is more convincing proof that the Bible was not authored by men but by God, and that He has inspired it in such a way that only those who really look into the depth of Scripture will find its great buried treasure. Close

16. Bruce, op. cit., pp. 28 and 29. Close

17. The Racovian Catechism (Christian Educational Services, 2144 East 52nd St., Indianapolis, IN, 46205, 1994). The Racovian Catechism was first published in Polish in 1605, translated into Latin in 1609, into English in 1818, and recently reprinted by CES. Close

18. Although many theologians and even some translators treat the “word” of John 1:1 as if it were “the pre-incarnate Christ” that is an unwarranted assumption. Note the following from the Ryrie Study Bible:

Word (Gk., logos). Logos means “word, thought, concept and the expressions thereof.” In the Old Testament, the concept conveyed activity and revelation, and the word or wisdom of God is often personified (Ps. 33:6; Prov. 8). In the Targums (Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament), it was a designation of God. To the Greek mind, it expressed the ideas of reason and creative control. Revelation is the keynote idea in the logos concept. Here it is applied to Jesus, who is all that God is and the expression of Him (John 1:1 and 14). Note on John 1:1 in Ryrie Study Bible Expanded Edition (Moody Press, Chicago, 1995 update). Close

19. Bullinger, op. cit., Companion, p. 1512. Close

20. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the Greek New Testament (Samuel Bagster and Sons, Ltd., London, 1969) p. 888. Close

21. R. E. Brown, Community, p. 53. In another passage, Brown responds to A.C. Sundberg, who wrote two articles for Biblical Research Journal, “Isos To Theo: Christology in John 5:17-30” (15, 1970, p. 19-31) and “Christology in the Fourth Gospel” (21, 1976, pp. 29-37). Brown admits that later theological speculations about the equality of the Son with the Father go far beyond what can be substantiated by the Gospel of John:

A classic contrast is between John 10:30 (NRSV), “The Father and I are one,” and 14:28 (NRSV), “The Father is greater than I” [which] shows that the Christ of John still stands at quite a distance from the Christology of Nicaea where the Father is not greater than the Son. Close

22. The Greek and Hebrew languages assign genders to nouns, just as do Spanish, French, German and many other languages. Thus, every noun in Greek and Hebrew is assigned a gender. In Greek, there are masculine, feminine and neuter nouns, while in Hebrew there are only masculine and feminine. The origin of the gender is ancient, and does not seem to follow a specific pattern. In Hebrew, for example, altar (mizbeach) is masculine, while the menorah is feminine. An arrow (chets) and an ax (qardom) are masculine, while a sword (chereb) is feminine. A beetle (chargol) is masculine, while a bee (deborah) is feminine. In Greek, for example, logos is masculine, while rhema and euanggelion (gospel, good news) are neuter and biblos (book, scroll; from which we get “Bible”) and didache (doctrine or teaching) are feminine. “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter, while “comforter” (parakletos) is masculine. A chain (halusis) is feminine, a rope (schoinion) is neuter, while a leather strap (imas) and a nail (helos) are masculine. When these words are translated into English, we use “it” because they are things. If someone asks, “Where is the chain,” we say “It is in the garage,” not “She is in the garage.” Thus, the point should be made that just because logos is masculine does not mean that the English pronoun “he” is the proper pronoun to use when associated with it. We assert that “it” is the proper pronoun to use in verses like John 1:2 and 3, etc. Close

23. Dunn, op. cit., pp. 243, 256 and 259. Close

24. See Appendix A (John 3:13). Close

25. Bruce, op. cit., p. 313. Close

26. Robinson, Honest to God (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1963), pp. 70 and 71. Close

27. Dunn., op. cit., pp. 226 and 227. Close

28. C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, (Cambridge, 1953), p. 282. Close

29. See Appendix A (Col. 1:15-20). Close

30. The NIV correctly omits the words “by Jesus Christ” after the words [God] who created all things. These words were added to the text in an apparent attempt by an orthodox scribe to artificially insert Christ into the actual act of creation. Christ was not in on the action, but he was the reason for it. Close

31. Bruce, op. cit., p. 34. Close

32. Robinson, op. cit., Priority, pp. 379-380. Close

33. Dunn, op. cit., Christology, p. 241. Dunn writes (emphasis his): “…we must recognize that prior to v. 14 nothing has been said which would be strange to a Hellenistic Jew familiar with the Wisdom tradition or the sort of mystical philosophizing that we find in Philo.” Close

34. Robinson, op. cit., Priority, pp. 380 and 381. Close

35. E. Schillebeeckx, Christ: the Christian Experience in the Modern World (E. T., London, 1980), p. 431. Close

36. T. W. Manson, On Paul and John, ed. M. Black (SBT 38, London and Naperville, 1963), p. 156. Close

37. Ehrman argues against the translation of 1:18 as monogenes theos, “only begotten God,” although it is found in the vast majority of Alexandrian texts:

Outside of the New Testament, the term simply means “one of a kind” or “unique” and does so with reference to any range of animate or inanimate objects…There seems little reason any longer to dispute the reading found in virtually every witness outside the Alexandrian tradition. The prologue ends with the statement that “the unique Son who is in the bosom of the Father, that one has made him known” (op. cit., p. 81). Close

38. Robinson explains the origin of the translation:
Under the influence of the Arian controversy, Jerome [the medieval scholar responsible for the Latin translation of the Bible that became the standard text of Roman Catholicism] translated monogenes regarding Jesus as unigenitus (John 1:14 and 18; 3:16 and 18; 1 John 4:9; of all others, except Isaac in Heb. 11:17-all KJV). He preserves the unicus of the old Latin [which Luke perpetuated in the AV as “only begotten” yet the word does not derive from gennao [birth], but genos [genus, kind]; it means “one of a kind.”
Robinson, op. cit., Priority, p. 397, n.156. Close

39. Scripture delineates between the creation and the foundation of the creation. This is reflected in the usage of two different Greek prepositions used in relationship to the words katabole, meaning foundation, and kosmos, meaning “world.” Some things were prepared in secret from (apo) the foundation of the world, and some things before (pro) the foundation of the world. This is a matter for further study, but it is interesting that Ephesians 1:4 says that we in the Church were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. The Church was a part of “the unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph. 3:8), which was a part of “the secret” which “for ages past was kept hidden in God” (v. 9).
Arndt and Gingrich, Lexicon, op. cit., p. 409. Close

40. F. F. Bruce comments on the early Gnostic use of the Gospel of John:
In the earlier part of the second century, the Fourth Gospel was recognized and quoted by Gnostic writers at least as much as by those whose teaching came to be acknowledged as more in line with the apostolic tradition. There are affinities to its thought and language in the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. AD 110) and in the collection of hymns called the Odes of Solomon (from about the same period, which have a Gnostic flavor…Hippolytus states that the Gnostic Basilides (c. AD 130) quoted John 1:9 (about the true light coming into the world) as a gloss on the creative word “Let there be light” (Gen. 1:3); if he is right, then that is the earliest known explicit quotation from the Gospel of John.

The Gospel of Truth (c. AD 140), a Gnostic work coming either from Valentinus or from one of his disciples, has several echoes of [John], if not direct quotations…Later, he says, “those who were material were strangers and did not see his form or recognize him. For he came forth in flesh (sarx) of such a kind that nothing could block his progress” (31:1-7). Here “flesh” is conceded, but not in the sense of ordinary flesh: this flesh is not material or subject to physical limitations, but is rather as free from them as was Jesus’ resurrection body, to which closed doors presented no barrier (John 20:19).

A disciple of Valentinus named Heraclean, who died c. AD 180, is the first known commentator on the fourth Gospel (F. F. Bruce, op. cit., pp. 7 and 8). Close

41. This illustrates the wisdom of avoiding the trap of “guilt by association.” Because the Gnostics found John’s Gospel to their liking, this fact does not bear on the truth or falsehood of the Gospel itself. In fact, this reasoning is irrational to the core, and is a variation of the logical fallacy called Ad Hominem (to the man). Jesus was accused by the Pharisees of being a fraud because they did not like the people who he associated with. The canonicity of John is determined by careful analysis and comparison with the entire Bible to see if it harmonizes. On this basis, John passes with flying colors. See Appendix K for more about logical fallacies. Close

42. Robinson observes that John and Paul have distinct approaches to combat Gnostic thinking. This is logical because of the developing Gnostic beliefs of the latter half of the first century. Paul employed many of their own terms and used them against the Gnostic teachers, especially in 1 Corinthians and Colossians. In these epistles, he emphasized that Christianity is the true gnosis and Christ is the true wisdom. Throughout his epistles he uses many of the same Greek words the Gnostics used: pistis (faith), sophia (wisdom), gnosis (knowledge), pneumatikos (spiritual matters), musterion (secret), apokalupsis (appearing), pleroma (fullness) and eikon (image). John’s Gospel, however is conspicuous in the way it avoids these terms, even pistis (faith). It uses pleroma only once, and in a different sense than the Gnostics used it. Robinson opines: “[John] seems to wish to give his opponents no handle by using the nouns [he used the verb forms instead].” One scholar suggests that in light of the conspicuous absence of all key Gnostic terms, John must have employed the term logos in the belief that it was not tainted by Gnostic overtones. Robinson, op. cit., pp. 105ff. Close

43. S. C. Neill, The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861-1961 (Oxford Press, NY, 1964), p. 210. Close

44. Hanson, op. cit., Prophetic, p. 369. Close

45. The early spread of Docetism among the believers explains the use of the phrase, “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” in 1 John 4:2 and 3, to combat a false spirit that was introducing error among the believers. Those who were teaching that Jesus Christ was a heavenly messenger and not a true man were in some cases using John’s Gospel as a springboard for their theological speculations, even as others cloaked in orthodoxy have used it to propound Trinitarian dogma. Close

46. Brown, a Trinitarian who himself believes in the pre-existence of Christ, recognizes that “pre-existence” was a favorite subject of the Gnostics: “A common thesis in the Gnostic systems involves the pre-existence of human beings in the divine sphere before their life on earth. In the Fourth Gospel, only the Son of God pre-exists; others become children of God through faith, water, and Spirit during their earthly lives. According to Irenaeus, the Gnostic initiate connected his own status with a theology of pre-existence: ‘I derive being from Him who is pre-existent and return to my own place from which I came forth’” (R. E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple, p. 151).

Regarding the concept of pre-existence in the Fourth Gospel, Robinson and Dunn have opposing points of view. We side with Robinson, but believe that Dunn’s comments are important because they show the common language used by both John and the Gnostic literature. We understand the correspondence between John and the Gnostics because John was inspired to subtly address many of their erroneous beliefs, among which was pre-existence.

Dunn believes that John was “taken for something of a ride” by the “cultural evolution” of the late first century, and was influenced by the Gnostics, accounting for their early and enthusiastic acceptance of his Gospel:

It could be said that the Fourth Evangelist was as much a prisoner of his language as its creator…That is to say, perhaps we see in the Fourth Gospel what started as an elaboration of the logos-Son imagery applied to Jesus inevitably in the transition of conceptualizations coming to express a conception of Christ’s personal pre-existence , which early Gnosticism found more congenial than early orthodoxy (Dunn, op. cit., Christology, 264).

Robinson rebuts Dunn, as follows:
I agree that this happened, but I believe it happened to John rather than in John, and that he was “taken over” by the gnosticizers. In evidence, I would cite again the Johannine Epistles, which are saying in effect: “If that’s what you think I meant, that I was teaching a docetic-type Christology—denying Christ come in the flesh and trying to have the Father without the Son—then this is the very opposite: it is Antichrist.”
Robinson, op. cit., Priority, pp. 381 and 382. Close

47. This deliberate usage of opponent’s language, mythology and metaphor is evident elsewhere in Scripture. In particular, Jesus employed the image of the afterlife adopted by the Pharisees in contradiction to the Hebrew Scriptures. In Luke 16:19ff (KJV), Jesus spoke a parable to the Pharisees revolving around their conception of “Abraham’s bosom,” a mythical and unbiblical “place” where the Jewish dead were said to dwell. Since Jesus nowhere else in the Gospels spoke of any other hope for the future except a bodily resurrection and his personal return in glory, it is clear that he did not intend to validate their error. His purpose was to teach that if someone does not believe Moses and the Prophets, even if one returned from the dead, they would still not believe. See the final chapter of Is There Death After Life?, published by CES. Close

48. John Dart, The Jesus of Heresy and History (Harper and Row, San Francisco, 1988), p. 40. Close

49. Phillip Lee wrote an interesting indictment of contemporary Christianity, identifying aspects of Gnostic thought that have re-emerged in the Church today. One is the emphasis on personal religious experiences (at conversion, in worship, etc.) more than doctrine and discipline. Another is subjective knowledge over a knowledge of nature and history. Another is a shift from man’s need for deliverance from sin, which requires repentance and atonement, to his need for deliverance from ignorance, which requires special knowledge and enlightenment. The latter accounts for the name Gnostic, from the Greek word gnosis, meaning “knowledge” (Against the Protestant Gnostics, Oxford Press, N.Y., 1973), pp. 102-113. Close