Why is Jesus called the Word?

[Radagast]

I'll quickly chime in to the discussion:
Contrary to popular belief, John's use of "logos" in his gospel prologue is not borrowing from (or at least not solely or even primarily) Greek ideas of Logos.

Yes, he is. Specifically from the work of Philo (a Jewish-Greek philosopher).

 

[Radagast]

Maybe he is also metaphorically God's message to the world.

"Word" isn't actually a particularly great translation of "Logos."

You could instead translate "Reason." That would be unsatisfactory too, but it might give a better idea.

Personally, I think a lot of confusion would be avoided by leaving "Logos" in John 1 untranslated.

 

[Radagast]

Logos means word spoken as a statement.

No, it doesn't actually.

Jesus is God's spoken word.

I hear this kind of statement a lot. Saying things like that is at best confusing, and at worst anti-Trinitarian heresy.

Jesus, is in fact, the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate as a human. That is, Jesus is God (and also human).

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Thank you.

I cannot of course definitively answer why, but we see that as Jesus is our guide and caretaker so is His Word...He is the Word. Just before Jesus left this world physically He told His disciples that He would not leave them as orphans but would send another Comforter...the Holy Spirit...who would guide them/us to all Truth. The Holy Spirit works through the Word to do His work...God's work in us. So then to trust Jesus is to trust His Word and God saves us. (Romans 10:17: Faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the Word about God.)
One does well to trust in the Word of God/Jesus and the solutions offered therein over and above any worldly solution offered which is contradictory to that Word.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, it doesn't actually.



I hear this kind of statement a lot. Saying things like that is at best confusing, and at worst anti-Trinitarian heresy.

Jesus, is in fact, the Second Person of the Trinity incarnate as a human. That is, Jesus is God (and also human).

Since I am not at all anti-Trnitarian, I don't see my point as at all anti-Trinitarian. Jesus was God in human form, God incarnate. John was explaining that in the opening verses of the Gospel According to John.

 

[Radagast]

Since I am not at all anti-Trnitarian

I didn't say you were.

Jesus was God in human form, God incarnate.

Exactly. Jesus was not "God's spoken word."

 

[HTacianas]

Thank you.

One of the earliest references to the "Word of God" comes from Philo of Alexandria, a Jew of the first century. Philo had it that God the Father is flanked by His two powers, one the Creative Power, the Word, who Philo referred to as "the first-born son of God". Through that Creative Power God created and sustains all things. The second Power, His Regent Power, is the power that God the Father rules His creation through. Philo said that to the uninitiated mind, God appears as a triad, but to the initiated mind, God is one. Philo offers as an example of the Divine Triad the image of the Ark of the Covenant, with the Mercy Seat flanked by two Cherubim.

Both John and Paul use the same language as Philo in discussing the creation, i.e., God created all things through His first-born Son, the Word, His Creative Power. It is the Christian belief that the creative power of God, the Word, became flesh and lived as a man, Jesus.

 

[Radagast]

One of the earliest references to the "Word of God" comes from Philo of Alexandria, a Jew of the first century. Philo had it that God the Father is flanked by His two powers, one the Creative Power, the Word, who Philo referred to as "the first-born son of God". Through that Creative Power God created and sustains all things.

And John is thinking of that use of "Word" (actually Philo says "Logos") and in John 1 he says that the Second Person of the Trinity is like that except in being fully God and in becoming incarnate.

I imagine a follower of Philo reading John 1: In the beginning was the Logos (yes), and the Logos was with God (yes, of course) and the Logos was God (hey, wait, a minute)...

 

[Ken Rank]

Thank you.

There are some really good answers in this thread. But I want to share a slightly different view that combines certain things said here. Before Messiah came, a man by the name of Jonathan Ben Uzziel who is credited with writing what is known to us as "Targum Jonathan." This work was written, it is believed, about 30BC, which means there is absolutely no Christian influence on this writing, it is purely how Jonathan Ben Uzziel (and most devout Jews) saw what we call the OT in that day.

Targum Jonathan is basically a verse by verse translation with liberties... meaning, Uzziel might seemingly have copied a verse out of Scripture, and the next one is seemingly nothing but pure paraphrase based on his own bias.

Now, many might wonder, "why would this matter, it isn't scripture?" And the answer is... it gives us insight into how THEY viewed the bible in that day. Remember, God might have inspired Mathew, Mark, Luke and John to write the gospels, but the differences in presentation and writing style reveal that while inspired, they retained their own views and styles of writing. For example... when John said, "In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, the Word was God," while inspired to write that, what did John believe it meant?

A work like the Targums (there are more than 1) reveal what they would have thought, perhaps ESPECIALLY when it comes to "Word." You see, in the Targum, which was written in Aramaic, the word for "word" is memra. And that word gets paraphrased into some very interesting places... from when God speaks and a creative force takes place to a few places where God's NAME is removed (or better said, not translated) and instead, Memra is placed there. The memra was viewed as the aspect or side or element of God that was what dealt with and manipulated the physical realm. He is a Spirit, and His work is accomplished when His memra came forth and did what was proclaimed. God said, "Let there be light" and His memra/word came forth and there was light. The memra IS GOD, it is that part of God that stands as the evidence of His existence. Just like faith in that we hear and then do and what we do becomes the physical manifestation of what we heard, the memra is that part of God that comes forth from Him and manifests Him and His purpose throughout creation.

 

[Ken Rank]

One of the earliest references to the "Word of God" comes from Philo of Alexandria, a Jew of the first century. Philo had it that God the Father is flanked by His two powers, one the Creative Power, the Word, who Philo referred to as "the first-born son of God". Through that Creative Power God created and sustains all things. The second Power, His Regent Power, is the power that God the Father rules His creation through. Philo said that to the uninitiated mind, God appears as a triad, but to the initiated mind, God is one. Philo offers as an example of the Divine Triad the image of the Ark of the Covenant, with the Mercy Seat flanked by two Cherubim.

Both John and Paul use the same language as Philo in discussing the creation, i.e., God created all things through His first-born Son, the Word, His Creative Power. It is the Christian belief that the creative power of God, the Word, became flesh and lived as a man, Jesus.

I like the Philo reference, but if you have a couple of minutes, read my post right above this one. It takes the first reference or "word" to 30BC. You might find it interesting.

 

[W2L]

Lots to think about. I actually need to go back and read this thread again. Thanks for the replies everyone.

 

[Ing Bee]

Yes, he is. Specifically from the work of Philo (a Jewish-Greek philosopher).

Hi Radagast-
Thanks for posting.

I am familiar with that argument and I'm open to the possibility that John was interacting with Philo, who, as you pointed out, was a Jewish-Greek philosopher. That wasn't really my point in posting: to put it another way, John (and Philo's) TaNaKh-founded world-view was richly supplied with "Divine Word" theology. Plainly, hellenism had influenced 2nd Temple jewish thought. That is clear from Paul's poetic quotations in Acts and Titus. I couldn't tell by your short response if you thought:

1) Philo is the prime and sole source of John's use of "logos" or
2) Philo is part of John's intellectual framework or
3) The "memra" in the O.T. is filtered through Philo's "logos" to John or
4) something else.

If it's #1, I'd be interested to see how you establish that from historical prime source material. It is as a corrective against this point of view, (recently popularized again in Dr. Jordan Petersen's Bible lecture series) that I wrote my initial post and for the following reasons:

• The foundational references to the TaNaKh in Philo's writing in regard to his conception of the Logos demonstrates pretty solidly that he is trying to voice his understanding of the God revealed in Jewish scripture through the linguistic framework of Greek thinkers and not the other way round. In that case, more attention should be given to his Jewish source material that is given.
• By ignoring the Jewish scriptural/historical basis of the person and claims of Jesus by the early church, we aid and abet both Jewish critics and radical skeptics who want to discredit Jesus' Messiah-ship and divine nature.
• Philo's "logos" does not correlate to John's "Logos" in key respects, undermining the significance of Philo's thought to John:

"The Logos of John the Evangelist stands in stark contrast to the Philonic Logos. The Johannine Logos is identified as God Himself who took on human flesh (John 1:1-3, 14). This is what Christians refer to as the doctrine of the Incarnation. Codified at Chalcedon in 451 A.D., this doctrine maintains that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man. He is one Person with two distinct natures. Thus, the Johannine Logos is the divine substance. In contradistinction, the Philonic Logos is not of the same substance as God." (Adam Davis, The Logos of Philo and John: A Comparitive Sketch, Blogos)​

If it's #2 or #3, I have no beef. I think the scholarship against undo influence from Philo is stronger, but you may disagree.

If it's #4 (i.e. an option I haven't considered) please share and provide me with passage references from Philo and any scholarly analysis that might help the Forum readers to follow along with your thoughts.

By the way, did you enjoy your cinematic portrayal in the "Hobbit" movies, or do you prefer Tolkein's literary portrait more?

-Ing Bee

 

[YeshuaFan]

Hi Radagast-
Thanks for posting.

I am familiar with that argument and I'm open to the possibility that John was interacting with Philo, who, as you pointed out, was a Jewish-Greek philosopher. That wasn't really my point in posting: to put it another way, John (and Philo's) TaNaKh-founded world-view was richly supplied with "Divine Word" theology. Plainly, hellenism had influenced 2nd Temple jewish thought. That is clear from Paul's poetic quotations in Acts and Titus. I couldn't tell by your short response if you thought:

1) Philo is the prime and sole source of John's use of "logos" or
2) Philo is part of John's intellectual framework or
3) The "memra" in the O.T. is filtered through Philo's "logos" to John or
4) something else.

If it's #1, I'd be interested to see how you establish that from historical prime source material. It is as a corrective against this point of view, (recently popularized again in Dr. Jordan Petersen's Bible lecture series) that I wrote my initial post and for the following reasons:

• The foundational references to the TaNaKh in Philo's writing in regard to his conception of the Logos demonstrates pretty solidly that he is trying to voice his understanding of the God revealed in Jewish scripture through the linguistic framework of Greek thinkers and not the other way round. In that case, more attention should be given to his Jewish source material that is given.
• By ignoring the Jewish scriptural/historical basis of the person and claims of Jesus by the early church, we aid and abet both Jewish critics and radical skeptics who want to discredit Jesus' Messiah-ship and divine nature.
• Philo's "logos" does not correlate to John's "Logos" in key respects, undermining the significance of Philo's thought to John:

"The Logos of John the Evangelist stands in stark contrast to the Philonic Logos. The Johannine Logos is identified as God Himself who took on human flesh (John 1:1-3, 14). This is what Christians refer to as the doctrine of the Incarnation. Codified at Chalcedon in 451 A.D., this doctrine maintains that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man. He is one Person with two distinct natures. Thus, the Johannine Logos is the divine substance. In contradistinction, the Philonic Logos is not of the same substance as God." (Adam Davis, The Logos of Philo and John: A Comparitive Sketch, Blogos)​

If it's #2 or #3, I have no beef. I think the scholarship against undo influence from Philo is stronger, but you may disagree.

If it's #4 (i.e. an option I haven't considered) please share and provide me with passage references from Philo and any scholarly analysis that might help the Forum readers to follow along with your thoughts.

By the way, did you enjoy your cinematic portrayal in the "Hobbit" movies, or do you prefer Tolkein's literary portrait more?

-Ing Bee

John would have been addressing Jesusas the Logos from a Hebrew mindset, and he would have no doubt see glimspes of Him in the wisdom personified as a real person speaking to us in Proverbs, but he would also have enlarged that to seeing Jesus as being fully God as the Logos, not just abstract thought, bodily wisdom etc!

 

[paul becke]

Here is an article explaining the meaning of the Word and his relationship to the Holy Trinity : the most abstruse of subjects, and yet Stephen Beale seems to explain it as clearly as one could.

https://catholicexchange.com/how-jesus-the-mystical-word-brings-us-to-the-father

 

[Resha Caner]

The post modern American world has lost much of the sense of mystery with which people used to approach life. People tend to think along the lines of, "Meh, science can explain it. No big deal." But there was a time when the ability to capture thought by scratching lines on paper was viewed as surprising. The same was true of many steps along the way - Newton's leap from qualified explanations of natural law to quantified; long distance communication (telegraph, radio, etc.); the Internet.

The fact that the infinite mystery of God can be made sensible enough to our tiny minds that it can be written in a book should never cease to amaze us. So, wrapped up in the concept of the Word (the Logos) is that Christ is God's way of reaching us just as we use words to reach other people. Words are spoken using breath (the Biblical symbol of the Spirit), and incarnated by writing (the Biblical symbol of Christ's incarnation). Christ IS God's message to the world, and that is what makes Christianity unique among religions - not our morality, not our social systems, not our successes in this life.

 

[Ing Bee]

The post modern American world has lost much of the sense of mystery with which people used to approach life. People tend to think along the lines of, "Meh, science can explain it. No big deal." But there was a time when the ability to capture thought by scratching lines on paper was viewed as surprising. The same was true of many steps along the way - Newton's leap from qualified explanations of natural law to quantified; long distance communication (telegraph, radio, etc.); the Internet.

The fact that the infinite mystery of God can be made sensible enough to our tiny minds that it can be written in a book should never cease to amaze us. So, wrapped up in the concept of the Word (the Logos) is that Christ is God's way of reaching us just as we use words to reach other people. Words are spoken using breath (the Biblical symbol of the Spirit), and incarnated by writing (the Biblical symbol of Christ's incarnation). Christ IS God's message to the world, and that is what makes Christianity unique among religions - not our morality, not our social systems, not our successes in this life.

Well said. Hebrews 1:1-2 concisely express this wonder - full reality.

 

[Radagast]

Philo's "logos" does not correlate to John's "Logos" in key respects, undermining the significance of Philo's thought to John:

"The Logos of John the Evangelist stands in stark contrast to the Philonic Logos. The Johannine Logos is identified as God Himself who took on human flesh (John 1:1-3, 14). This is what Christians refer to as the doctrine of the Incarnation. Codified at Chalcedon in 451 A.D., this doctrine maintains that Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man. He is one Person with two distinct natures. Thus, the Johannine Logos is the divine substance. In contradistinction, the Philonic Logos is not of the same substance as God." (Adam Davis, The Logos of Philo and John: A Comparitive Sketch, Blogos)​

That's not inconsistent with what I said: that John takes Philo's Logos as a starting point for describing Jesus, and then outlines key differences.

 

[Radagast]

credited with writing what is known to us as "Targum Jonathan." This work was written, it is believed, about 30BC

The Targum Jonathan is believed, according to your link, to be written after 100 AD, thus after John.

 

[W2L]

That's not inconsistent with what I said: that John takes Philo's Logos as a starting point for describing Jesus, and then outlines key differences.

I wonder why John 1 sounds like the beginning of Genesis, and if that might tell us if the Word began with Philo or the Old testament.

 

[YeshuaFan]

I wonder why John 1 sounds like the beginning of Genesis, and if that might tell us if the Word began with Philo or the Old testament.

John would have been intermeshed into Hebrew viewpoint and mind set...