λόγος VII: Damnable Heresies

Having explained all that I have in the previous six posts of this series there is still a piece missing to this puzzle of the λόγος. There is obviously something else going on here in these opening verses of John’s Gospel. These verses are some of the most profound theology in the Bible about Jesus and the Scripture. They are strongly stated “high prose”, and they are addressing an issue. It is here that we really begin to see the enemy (Satan) behind John’s strategically worded introduction. In contrast to Jesus being "life”, a life that was the light of men, John was combating a heresy deeply entrenched in peoples thinking and it stemmed from the darkness or ignorance of the world mentioned in John 1:5 which had not understood the light (Evans 41-42). It required me six posts of explaining the culture of John’s time so I could build my case here about these two malignant and infectious heresies. When we add all the aforementioned philosophies together we see that we have a culture (Hellenistic) and a parent religion (Judaism) that produced two potent and closely linked heresies: Gnosticism and Docetism.

Gnosticism

The first issue John deals with is Gnosticism which was really beginning to gain traction in the 1st century. The early church father Irenaeus, records that John most likely wrote his Gospel to deal with the heresies of the Gnostic heretic, Cerinthus and forms of Gnosticism called incipient Gnosticism that surfaced in the late 1st century (Petko 11, 21). Some of these concerns are also corroborated and paralleled in 1 John. Gnosticism believed that the λογος temporarily became man, but only in a mythical and docetic (phantom) sense but never in the historical sense of a real incarnation (Cullman 252). To the adherents of Gnostic though matter was evil and thought that knowledge or wisdom like the Word was to be distinguished from things of the material world which they believed was perishable and corrupted and therefore incapable of salvation (Bercot 305, Brand 657). Because of this premise Gnosticism claimed or advanced with the thought that a Son of God could not become man. A more nuanced form of Gnosticism called Docetism claimed that Jesus was only the illusion of flesh but not the real thing.

FAIL!...F minus...these dunderheads should've been dumped from their theology classes.

Docetism

The idea of God in the flesh was so overwhelming for some in this historical milieu that they just couldn’t accommodate and accept it so they embraced a form of Docetism that said Jesus was only a phantom or apparition. They believed His body was not real so He couldn’t really have felt sorrow or pain- contrary to Scripture (Barclay 65, Morris 102). It’s easy to see how a heresy like this could take off simply by misunderstanding God’s purpose for coming into the world. This heresy pretty much was created by having misplaced adoration and not realizing that Jesus needed to come into the world as human. Instead Docetists retreated from it in horror because of a flawed presupposition that God would never truly become human because...it would be too degrading for God to do so. To deny Christ’s full humanity and full divinity is to deny Christ completely. By John stating the Word became flesh he soundly puts this to rest.

These guys don't even warrant getting graded. They are so far beyond FAIL that they should be checked for a pulse and any sign of brainwaves. Good grief man! They believe that Jesus felt no pain? For goodness sakes! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! These folks should've never been let in the building. Did I say FAIL?!?!

Sadly, both of these heresies seemed to have gained a foothold as the result of an attempt by Christians to make Christianity understandable to a world that had been infused by Hellenized beliefs or philosophical assumptions about reality (Brand et al 658). Again, with John giving Jesus the Christological title “the Word” and then tying it to the flesh in John 1:14, he attempts to shoot Gnosticism’s flawed premise down in a flaming heap. In the end there were more things than just Gnosticism and its derivatives playing into the watering-down and corruption of the Faith. Satan realized he had been defeated at the Cross so he attacked the flegling Christianity at ever conceivable weak point, in this case, peoples weak minds. To this day this attack continues. As a matter of fact we can still see strains of what are essentially modern equivilents of these old heresies rearing their heads on a regular basis. The same old heresies in new clothing or new book covers. This is one of the reasons it is important that all beleivers learn their church history and correct theology and doctrine. Learn history so that it doesn't repeat and we can recognize the wolves among the sheep. We need to understand or theology and doctrine to educate a new generation from repeating the errors of the old.

Of course we have plenty of these type of heresies floating all around us nowadays and they are being perpetuated by so-called scholars and academics that are educated but have apparently learned nothing from history or their education.

^"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction." 2 Peter 2:1

λόγος VI: Hellenization and Greek Thought

We must remember that Greek culture or Hellenization had pretty much pervaded the area that the Gospel had been spread by the time of Johns writing. This had merged into the thinking of society that John was either writing to or for. Like today there would’ve probably been and unhealthy combination of religion and culture. In Johns time would’ve been Jewish religious thought and Greek culture mixed together forming a bastardized from of syncretism or an understanding of God that was half Jewish/half Greek. This is what I have been referring to as Hellenistic Judaism. Those that had this understanding of God, the Word, and/or philosophy had a corrupted understanding and it is here that John enters the fray to explain exactly who and what Jesus is in relation to the Word. Up to this point when discussing the idea of the Word being God, we are treading on somewhat safe ground when dealing with Hellenized culture. Had it stayed this way things would be fine but Jesus didn’t come as a Spirit or an apparition. He came for real and in bodily form. Jesus was real man that came in real time to do real works. If we move ahead in the prologue to verse 14-18 and we see the Word became flesh - Jesus comes into the world. It is at this very point hellenized philosophical thought gets knocked off-kilter. It is the same reason Jews would stumble and Gentiles scoff and consider it foolish that Paul and other Christians would preach Christ crucified in 1 Corinthians 1:23.

Herein lies the crux of the problem for John’s jewish and Hellenized readers. John’s description of Jesus’ is a physical manifestation of “the Word”. Jesus came as flesh and Hellenized beliefs equated flesh or matter with corruption…not perfection. This idea becomes reprehensible to Hellenized or Greek people. In the Greek mind the separation of the divine spirit and the flesh (Gk: sarx) was imperative. In Greek thought, the divine was not to come in contact directly with matter. What would’ve been even more repulsive to the Greeks is the thought that being in the flesh was to God’s glory (Gk: doxa) (Evans 42). If we take this idea all the way to the crucifixion and the idea that glory for God came though the crucifixion and suffering of God’s Son through a physical body…it is no wonder that the Greeks and people that thought like them viewed it as absolutely absurd. They were probably laughing was they walked away shaking their heads in disbelief. Hellenized philosophy could never have bridged the connection of how Jesus could be glorified in this manner; it was too far outside the realm of their thought processes. They were too much of the world system (in this way it is strangely akin to modern thought). As we also know from Paul, it is this exact reason that those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For Christians Jesus needed to come in the flesh to be subject to the same weakness and frailties of all humans and thereby fulfill the law and obey it perfectly to be a suitable sacrifice for our sin (Wiersbe 285). Jesus was not merely some idealized abstraction but reality. John tells his Jewish and Gentile readers that the “reason” of the Greek philosophy and the creating “Word” of Judaism came and “dwelt among us” or tabernacled with man (Gk: εσκηνωσεν) which is another reference and interplay with the Old Testament or Torah (Barclay 64). Jesus fulfilled the Law because, although the Law could show you your sin, only Jesus was capable of removing it if one just believed in the work He did on the cross.

λόγος V:A Muddled Cultural Melting Pot

I imagine many things played into John’s usage of the term λογος and the decision to create relational likeness between “the Word” and Jesus. I will list a few of them as I found them in my sources. In Palestinian Judaism rabbis often used the Aramaic word “memra” that meant “word” as a periphrasis which was a roundabout way to express God’s name. At every turn Jews avoided anthropomorphizing God by abstaining from writing or pronouncing God’s name in any form, including the form of the Word. They considered God’s name too sacred to utter or write. To avoid mistakenly doing either they would exclude His name completely or substitute it. The usage of memra occurred frequently in the Jewish Targums (Elwell 645). This would’ve been ubiquitous in the Jewish subculture leading up to the time of John’s writing therefore heavily influencing their thought processes. What would’ve also been common in the Jewish religious culture would be the Greek Septuagint’s LXX usage of λογος translated from the Hebrew word dabar. As mentioned before in the Hellenized philosophy the λογος was considered reason and of a divine source. In Greek or Hellenized thought the λογος is described as a divine attribute and other times it is described as the go between for man and the divine or it. To the Greek mind the λογος was essentially the mind of God that was at work in the world and in man. Those that practiced stoicism (a form of school of Hellenistic philosophy) actually said that the λογος pervade all things. This sounds strangely akin to Pantheism and could be construed as such (Barrett 127). The bottom line is that the Greeks were also aware of the λογος and viewed as the active and administrative power of God in the world. The Jewish and Greek philosophes were not the far apart.

The melding of these two produced what amounted to an indistinct philosophy of Hellenistic Judaism which believed in a hybrid of the two. The 1st Century philosopher Philo used this idea profusely as it shows up 1300 times in his writing. Unfortunately, he never uses it in an unambiguous fashion so it is hard to tell exactly what Philo meant with his usage. This nebulous viewpoint permeated Hellenized Judaism. On the other hand, John’s usage of λογος was not reason but rather word/Word and his usage was clear - in the speculative Greek or Hellenized philosophy of Philo, λογος was an “it”, John’s λογος was a “He”. If the λογος is a “He” it had to be more than just reason since it had been identified with a person/personality (McDonald 1186). John is clearly making a disambiguation here so that readers could easily identify “the Word” as Jesus. Instead of Philo’s allegorical abstractions we see John’s concrete God man. These philosophies couldn’t be farther apart. John not only clearly states that the Word is a real-life extant being in Jesus…what we see unfolded in the Gospel of John is that the Word is also a creative force not just of the past but also an active creative force in the present being used by God. Christ is God’s active Word. Christ is God’s active self-revelation (Elwell 646).

Hard Sayings V: Who Called Who?

Mark 2:15-17 "While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

The first thought whenever many hear that certain word is "somebody else" or "not me". The word is sinner. To get people to realize they need help you need to convince them they are in need of it. Most do not go there. I even hear it often from church leadership. "Teaching the Bible is a great idea, its just hard to get people to come and sit and listen." It is because, most often, many feel they do not need to be taught because they do not need to learn because deep down inside...they really don't think they are that much of a sinner. They do not believe they are really that wretched. The infamous Pharisaic attitude. Not me! Him!

Yes! You are that bad and so am I! Any discussion of the Bible or Christ that does not confront people with the reality of their sin is not the Gospel. Jesus' rigorous demands when He says stuff like, "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." are to call us to faith. They are meant to be impossible to meet in many cases. They are meant to be impossible because your salvation is not something you do through your actions. It is something completed through faith in His actions! Until people have been brought to see that they are sinners (in the worst sense of the word) and until they feel the onus of their sin, the Lord will not give them salvation. How do I know that? It is only through the weight and guilt of that sin that pushes you to a repentant heart that you can have that salvation in faith.Again, I'll say it (someone has to)...you are that bad. People that do not understand the Gospel correctly and suffer under the weight of guilt of their sin cannot possibly understand the need for Christ. They cannot understand the need, nea, the requirement to read the Bible so they can get their heads right with God. They are incapable. That is why when people are in their most sinful reprobate condition they are incapable of searching or seeking God. They have no reason to because feel they don't NEED to. That is why God needs to call or draw sinners to Himself. Otherwise they will just continue to spiral around in an endless cycle of sinful madness oblivious of their need to seek Jesus Christ. There are probably people who will read this post who will deny this need even after they have read it. "Repent? Nah, not me, I'm good. My relationship with Jesus is strong. Sin...I don't need to worry about it, my sin was never that bad to begin with." These people? Some of them are sitting right next to you in church and even your Bible Study.

It is actually quite simple: People that do not or cannot understand the seriousness of their sin cannot respond to the Gospel, the Bible or Jesus Christ. The grace filled call of salvation is not extended to those who already believe they are righteous, before or after they have accepted Him. If you are acting self-righteous and pious after you accepted Him...I'm betting you didn't. [now go back and read those last three sentences again to make sure you fully grasped it]. Jesus refuses the righteous if that is the attitude they approached Him with!!! Read it people! That is exactly what Jesus said! No you say? Reality check time. How close were people to Jesus when they called Him Messiah, King and shouted Hosanna! yet when questioned by Pilate they called for Christ's Crucifixion over Barabbas a murdering zealot?

Hard saying indeed! Paul knew his sin, "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the worst." Yeah, Paul knew the truth.

Jesus who was a teacher/Rabbi held in high regard by many, held low regard of the opinion of other teachers when they criticized Him for associating with these "low lifes" like sinners like tax collectors. They firmly resented this breach of protocol and resented even more Jesus' disregard of them when He said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Jesus, "friend of sinners" was initially a criticism of Him. To us today it is a welcome description and reassurance to us all, not a mockery of Him and we are lucky He is our friend. Therein lies the key to understanding this passage. Friend of sinners, our friend...ours...we are all sinners. These teachers of the law who were Pharisees thought otherwise just like most of us do now. It is our nature as humans. To think we are better than we really are, when we're really not. None of us is capable of a righteous work that is fitting in the eyes of God. We are only capable of consistently failing to achieve anything of value without the imputed righteousness of Christ or through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In this time and place to accept an invitation to eat with these people and partake of their hospitality was the equivalent in the eyes of the society as declaring unity with them and becoming one with them. We must remember this is a culture of reciprocity and care of strangers. As a teacher or "peer" of the Pharisees it is no wonder they took such offense (wrongfully I might add). Their perception of Jesus was wrong. Their opinion of themselves was way to high and they esteemed themselves and their position way too much.Conversely, they should've been helping the tax collectors and "sinners" having been so-called shepherds of God's flock. Instead the sinners are viewed as leprous or diseased sheep and avoided totally.

Instead of asking Jesus directly, they ask the disciples who, if we are honest about it, really didn't truly understand Jesus' motives either so we have a case of the blind-leading-the-blind. Jesus will have none of this because Jesus knows the hearts of men even though the Pharisees are poor judges of their own motives, Jesus is not. Jesus realizes that they are attempting to undermine the authority and purposes of God. He intercedes with our answer above.

So let us look really close at Jesus' statement to determine why He accepted their invite to dinner. We do not need to look far either because it is even recognizable at face value. Jesus ends His statement with, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Who called? To call someone meant to invite them.

"I have not come to call..."...."I"

The tax collectors and sinners didn't call Jesus to dinner. Jesus called them. He invited them. This was His invite. God's sovereign grace is in full effect here. These men and women were called here at this time for God's purposes to possibly save some, plant a seed for others and clearly to bring glory to God in the face of Pharisaic criticism. The Pharisees were religious leaders that wouldn't have known a righteous man if he came up and smacked them upside the head.

This is not human reciprocity or hospitality on display so much as it is divine mercy and grace abounding in the setting.

The next time you go to a soup kitchen, NA or AA meeting or inner-city mission and think to yourself, "Oh, I'm just here helping the downtrodden, those messed up drug-addicts or disenfranchised of society", check your motives. If you're doing it because you feel you are better off or just plain better and think they are blessed to have your help...it may be the opposite way around. God may be calling you out in a sovereign work of mercy and grace. We are told this story of the tax collectors, sinners, disciples and Pharisees not because one half of the people in the story are good and the other half bad but because they are all bad and all sinners. Many of them just don't realize it. Why do we suppose the disciples and Pharisees are here at this dinner too? You don't think accidents this convenient in Scripture are accidents, do you? Jesus had previously also called the disciples to Him. And the Pharisees? Well, what do you think they were doing there...? You don't suppose all of them went to Hell without repenting do you? We know for a fact them some of them believed in Jesus and followed Him. Nicodemus ring anyone's bells?

Who does Jesus come to call? The sick, the unrighteous, the sinners. Who does Scripture say is righteous? Well, lets look at Scripture.

Romans 3:10-12  “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

Romans 3:21-24 "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

A righteousness given though faith in Jesus Christ. Implication being Jesus Christ is the only acceptable source of righteousness in God's eyes. Luke's version of this story is even more specific and clues us in to the "heart" of the matter.

Luke 5:31-32 "Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is for sinners foremost. Those people God had called to this dinner were there not just because God wanted them there, He wanted them there so they would either repent there or come away with something that would lead them to repentence. This had to include the likes of the Pharisees also since they too were in need of it.

If we understand repentence properly as taught by Jesus we realize that it is a change of not just heart and mind but actual character. We are going way past just thinking good thoughts to the point that our attitude has already determined our actions and those actions are already discernible in the fruits of who we are not just outward behavior. Please note I said fruits. The actions are not outward piousness like the Pharisees but actual by-products of who the new creation/person has become. If Luke is right with his two word addition (which he was) then Jesus is doing the calling and it is being done to fix the very core of the problem - the heart. This stands directly opposed to the judgmental nature of the Pharisees judging outward behavior or symptoms of the sin. Jesus' analogy of the physician is then even more apropos. In dealing with the very core nature of the issue, Jesus is attempting to cut past the symptoms that the Pharisees are addressing and attempting to fix the very thing that has cause the sin...a failure to repent or an inability to recognize one's falleness and need as a sinner to seek forgiveness and mean it. Jesus is trying to heal hearts. This couldn't be farther from the minds of the religious leaders as they feel they do not need to. Thereby this statement from Jesus is most poignently directed at the Pharisees not tax collecters and "sinners". Sadly, the Pharisees are so blind they totally miss Jesus' point. Totally blind. Often times I think we reading this are also blind. Are you? He couldn't possibly be referring to us in this could He? YES! YES!! Of course Jesus is. Who else do you think He was referring to????

I told you that many would not like these posts for the "Hard Sayings" series. Now you know why. If I am not convicting you of your sin with these posts I am either not typing them right, your not reading them right or you have way too high and opinion of yourself and your standing in God's eyes. The true mind of a Christian is humble and this is why.

Hard Sayings IV: Yet Not What I Will, But What You Will

"They went to a place called Gethsemane, and Jesus said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.” Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. “Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” Mark 14:32-42

It is the week of Jesus' arrest and Crucifixion. Jesus and the Disciples arrive on the western slopes of the Olivet at the Garden of Gethsemane (oil press). It is a venue that overlooks the Kidron valley and the Temple in Jerusalem. We see a gut-wrenching and heart-bleeding prayer and plea from Jesus...and we see it followed by absolute (active) obedience. Active obedience which will lead Jesus to passive obedience on the Cross allowing Himself to be made prisoner to the cross by the sins of man and three nails. It is through Jesus' obedience imputed to us that we are saved as Christians since we are not able of producing it perfectly as sinful humans.

"Abba, Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”

Nevermind those knucklehead disciples that couldn't seem to keep it together long enough to say, "Dear Lord, I, I ,I ...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz" before falling asleep. We need to look real close at Jesus here. Something simple but profound can be seen here and it really requires the sinless One to do it to add even more significance and impact to the event. We see the Innocent One just about ready to take on the abuses of His death that He has been predestined and preordained to. But he stops to pray and to seek asylum if it is possible...yet remains perfectly obedient in the face of the coming terror about to be inflicted on Him. Most humans will not be able to understand this nor are they capable and that is exactly why it is included here in the Gospel of Mark. Otherwise no man could truly comprehend it. We see Jesus' intimacy with the Father. We see perfect obedience and therefore perfect humility considering what Jesus was entitled to as the Son of God. No sane human being should've wanted to endure what Jesus was about to. So those that said He doubted God....well, they're foolishness shows and they completely fail to see the overarching theme of servant leadership and the suffering servant. They need to read and understand their Bible better. Jesus pleas...but agrees to the torment if there can be no other way. It is here we see Jesus at His most human (fear, dread) and most divine and holy (sacrificial love, mercy, grace).

What is even more remarkable in this story is the example of a prayer not answered. A great example for all those who have complained that God didn't answer their most heartfelt and meaningful prayers. If God had actually answered Jesus' prayer here as we think He should have by sparing Jesus torture and death...we would all be condemned to seperation from His presence in Hell. Ready for the shocker? The truth is, God did answer this prayer, only he did it after Jesus was resurrected.

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Hebrews 5:7

God the Father chose to honor the request but not in the manner preferred by the One praying. Yet He was still heard and God the Father honored it...eventually...in Resurrection. The truth is the observers of the spectacle of the Crucifixion mock Christ...

^"In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. Matthew 27:41-42

The truth is...had Jesus done what these pious arrogant men had mocked Him for not doing, they themselves would've been condemned. Instead Jesus submitted to the will of the Father. The will of the Father was to put Him to death and then answer Jesus' prayer in the form of Resurrection from the dead. We see the power of the Spirit raise Christ from the grave...forever. Glory is what we see here...GLORY to GOD!According to Scripture a Savior that doesn't die wouldn't have been the Savior outlined and prophesied in the Old Testament. Therefore He would not have been able to save anyone...not even these ignorant hypocritical fools...even if they had repented and asked forgiveness. The evidence that these cranks were clueless is shown by Jesus' grace even in suffering.

"Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”And they divided up his clothes by casting lots." Luke 23:34 

So what does this tell us if we share in Christ's life and His death? It tells us we may need to endure the suffering we pray and seek to avoid for the exact reasons we seek to avoid it. The end result or bigger picture may be more important then our current circumstances and we just can't know that from our vantage point. Thereby to not suffer puts our gain or God's glory at stake. We assume we know what is good for us but many times we are not seeing everything we need to see to be able to come to a correct conclusion. God on the other hand does. We should be thankful He doesn't always give us what we want.

Most likely, you will get through the trial or tribulation you are enduring and you will be much better of for it. If you don't, you'll die. Either way this too for a Christian is gain. God has created a win-win for a believer as Paul stated it.

Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and God’s provision of the
Spirit of Jesus Christ what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance. I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Philippians 1:18-23

We are called to endure and be prepared for persecution. No one promised a perfect passage, only a perfect destination. We have a Savior to show us the way, both through the persecution and to the paradise and eternal life that lies beyond the suffering.

Pain is temporary but paradise is eternal for those who believe in Jesus Christ, the One that blazed that trail for us.

λόγος IV: The Revealer of Truth

Whatever the Word is, Jesus is also…divine, perfect, etc. John was trying to reach back into philosophical Jewish thought processes and reveal to those who had been raised as Jews Christ’s true identity in terms of purpose. He is God, yet distinct from God (the Father) in personality (Sproul 4). Jesus as the Word would’ve been the closest analogy in Jewish thinking to latch onto and explain to them in “their own words”. Jesus was to be God’s Word revealed to man in the flesh or incarnate for the purpose of giving life…eternal life. Jesus was also a revealing of the Father Himself and the revealing of the heart of God.

“Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? ~John 14:9

John is also making other theological statements in John 1:1 and subsequently connected verses such as John 1:14. Having established that the Word was God, we can then go back to the very opening clause of verse 1: “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…” John is making a significant chronological statement. Here John goes way beyond the Jewish thought-process that the Word existed before the Creation but it was itself actually created. By saying that the Word (Jesus) was from “the beginning” and was “with God” he is categorically stating that the Word was not created, he is saying it preexisted (Cullmann 250). There was never a time when the Word was not (Morris 73-74). The word “beginning” is arch/ἀρχή in this verse and is referring to a period before the Creation (Cullmann 250, Rienecker et al 217). It is just another way of stating that “the Word”/Jesus has existed from all eternity and all things were created through Him /the Word (Hendriksen 69). How do we know for sure that’s what he meant by this statement? We need only read ahead to verse 3 and we see an uncompromising statement about the creation, “All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” If Jesus (Him) is interchangeable with the Word than the Word was preexistent because the Creation came into being through (Gk: dia) the Word/Him (Elwell 645, Evans 41-42, Wiersbe 284).

At the same time that John is making statements about “the Word’s” existence before Creation he is also linking the new beginning that is inaugurated with Christ’s entrance into the world as flesh with that of the Creation of the Universe in Genesis 1. Thus John draws tight the 1st century Jewish thought processes rooted in the Old Testament with the new Christ/Christian reality. This is some seriously profound theology.

Hard Sayings III: Your Cheatin' Heart

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:28

Jesus is raising the standard and raising the stakes with this statement. Jesus is making the law more demanding and exacting. Before, in the Law, God's people were told they were not to commit adultery (Exodus 20:14). The commandment clearly tells humans they are forbidden to have sexual relationships with someone else's spouse. It was a severe offense and warranted death by stoning (it still is in parts of the Middle East). What we often glance over and should not is the other of the ten commandments that deals with the precursor to adultery...the coveting of somebody else's wife. Either for furtherance of a sexual relation or a relationship that was financially beneficial or marriages of convenience i.e.: marrying into power.

Jesus pushes us farther and rightfully so. He takes that sinful act back to its inception. He goes back to the very thought that would solicit the sin itself. The commandments were not so much to control one's actions as they were to control ones thoughts. Squelch the thought and you kill the action. Jesus wanted heart change not action change. You could nip the act itself by pushing out the thought. The action wouldn't even have come to light if the mind and heart were in the right place. This means that 2 of 10 commandments deal specifically with either thoughts our actions that lead to a possessive relationship of another's relation or possession. Both forbid it. One at the actual level of committing the action or sin itself and the other dealing with it at the level wanting it or desiring it...in your mind. Coveting something that is not yours. Whether it be material or sexual.

Do I believe it is possible to commit adultery with one's spouse just by fantasizing about an act in one's head? Yes, I believe so. I believe that is exactly what Jesus is saying here. There are no subtle nuances in the Greek, no idioms, just straightforward statement that pushes the envelope of righteousness higher for a believer or follower of Jesus. We even have the second commandment of covetousness to address the preliminary thoughts. Hard as it is, we are called to crush these thoughts. They may have not originated with us. The powers and principalities of this world may indeed have the ability to plant seeds in one's mind but what you do with this seeds is your call as a believer. You can either allow them to remain and sprout or you can spit them out.

Paul was succinct and clear on this one in 2 Corinthians:

^"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

You've been told. You have read this and you can no longer claim ignorance. You must now step up to Jesus' challenge, you no longer have an excuse. Yes, its a hard saying. Being a Christian wasn't necessarily suppose to be easy though was it?

As an additional note I should also state this. It is directed at both men and woman believers that are allowing the culture and society to dictate how they dress rather than their Christian sensibilities. Stop dressing provocatively for the opposite sex. Its fine to want to have good self-esteem and look handsome or pretty but not to the extent that you begin dressing immodestly to attract the wrong kind of attention. You are causing your brothers and sisters to stumble. To deny this fact is to completely overlook what I have been seeing in churches and public alike when it comes to my brethren. Yes, I will be critical (as in a critique of it) and be a judge (discerner) of it. Here is the criteria: If it causes the weakest of the brethren, male or female to stumble, more than likely you have played it too "fast and loose" and are not thinking of the best for unity in the body of the Church.

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. 1 Corinthians 8:13
 
Whether it be food or attire the principle within this verse remains. If you are doing something that causes your brother/sister to falter or sin you shouldn't do it. If you did, you should be ashamed, repent and change the condition of your heart. We are to aid and lift up our brethren, not lay landmines in their path.

λόγος III: Jewish Roots

John’s Audience

It is probable that John’s primary audience was both Jews and Gentiles. This fact likely dictated the writing style of Johns Gospel. It is clear he would need to streamline and combine two disparate tracks of philosophical and theological thought. This would obviously not be an easy feat. What would help aid John was the surrounding society and culture itself. Much of Jewish society had absorbed Hellenization into their everyday lives along with traditional Jewish religiosity (Wiersbe 284). I suppose it is not that odd then that God would pick this point in time (the fullness of time) to enter creation as a man to save both Jew and Gentile since the secular world has already merged them into the Hellenized mindset as is evident from the near ubiquitous use of Greek language in the Roman controlled areas.

Logos/ λογος : Jewish Roots

There appears to be a direct link back to Genesis and the Creation where God speaks Creation into existence ex-nihilo (Evans 41, Morris 73, Petko 21). When John introduces Jesus here as λογος there is a distinct flavor of Jewish/Hebrew thought that believed the word/Word of God performed creative actions.

The Jews in John’s time had taken on Greek or Hellenistic culture but they were still firmly rooted in Jewish religious thought and the idea of personified wisdom that I will dwell on more in the “Philosophical Thought” section (Elwell 645, Evans 41). The Old Testament had seen God’s revelation come as the Word (or other ways) in the New Testament we would see it come in the form of His Son.

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. Hebrews 1:1-2

There are other theological ideas that can be added into this thinking that of God/Jesus being “the Word” and the Word being a creative force. Other than creation or creative force we can see life-giving ability both immediate and eternal is another purpose and this is later seen in other passages of John. Jesus is the life, (v.1:4) “In Him was life, and that life was the light of men…” (v14:6) “…the way and the truth and the life”, etc. Ironically, when John says in verse 4 that, “in Him was life” and this is supported elsewhere in Scripture but nowhere more clearly than in Hebrews.

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” Hebrews 1:3

When we begin to view things along these parallels we begin to see things more clearly. If Jesus was the Word and He (Him) gives life, then the Word itself is capable of imparting life and sustaining it…if it is obeyed. Furthermore there is an interesting and eloquent quote from W. Wiersbe in his commentary that hints at this impartation of life through God’s self-revelation when he states the following:
By Christ revealing Himself in the flesh He is imparting life to those that believe. The Scripture itself had the ability to impart life but its ability to do so is because it all points to the centrality of Jesus being crucified and resurrected from the grave.

“...our words reveal to others our hearts and minds, so Jesus Christ is God's "Word" to reveal His heart and mind to us. "He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). A word is composed of letters, and Jesus Christ is "Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 1:11), the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet According to Hebrews 1:1-3, Jesus Christ is God's last Word to mankind, for He is the climax of divine revelation. Jesus Christ is the eternal Word " (Wiersbe 284)

Looking More Closely at Jewish Philosophical / Theological Thought

As stated before the term used in Greek for word/Word was “λογος” and it was also used by many philosophers in John’s time. It was synonymous with reason or the “force” which structured the universe. Philo the 1st century philosopher had combined this idea with Jewish ideas of “word” into the immanent power of God at work in the world (Evans 41, Keener 264). Both had personified word in some form and Judaism had combined them to essentially be the same: personified wisdom, the Word and the Law or the Torah (Elwell 645). To the Jew a word was not just an abstract word symbol but a dynamic entity with an independent existence that did things (Barclay 27).

So…John called Jesus “the Word”. What is he saying about Jesus that corresponds to these Judaic and Hellenized views? John clear is trying to differentiate something here for reasons of clarity. What John is saying is that Jesus is the exact embodiment of the all of God’s revelation or exposure to man through the Bible or Scripture. They are the same. If you accept the Old Testament Scripture you need to accept Jesus and if you accept Jesus you have accepted the Scriptures (Law and all) (Wiersbe 264). This thereby draws in the theology of the Jews from the Old Testament. It then is not surprising to hear Jesus say, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them…” in Matthew 5:17 since Jesus does indeed fulfill Scripture both through prophecy and literal embodiment of it. In other words: To accept Jesus is to fulfill or meet the Law head-on. On the other hand, although John is not saying that all possible revelation from God would have to come exclusively from Jesus the Son, it is clear that Jesus is being identified directly with the Scripture or Word of God in this portion of Scripture. This is rooted in Jewish thought that wisdom from God itself is divine but distinct from God the Father (Keener 264).

λόγος II: A Brief Greek Primer

To start off I should show from the Scripture itself or by internal evidence how we know that “the Word” is Jesus Christ. I will show that it is Jesus/God Himself that is the referent to “the Word” or the Person/Thing to which this linguistic expression refers. There is a lot going on in the first verse of John solely from a syntactic view point and I will try to explain it as clearly as possible. The nominative article “the” or “ο” is attached to the subject or nominative noun “λογος / logos” or “Word”. In the same clause the referent is also a nominative in the form of “θεος” or “God” without a definite article. It is clear what John is attempting to illustrate using these nominative cases in John 1:1. (See example below)

Greek: “...και θεος ην ο λογο” or literally “and God was the Word” (Aland et al, 312)
English: “…and the Word was God” ~John 1:1c (NIV)

It should also be noted that in this clause the emphasis is on Christ’s deity since the predicate theos / θεος precedes the subject “λογος / logos” giving it paramount importance in the clause…purposely placing the emphasis on God, who is the Word, who is Christ (Hendriksen 71, Rienecker et al 217). In Greek writing syntax, if a writer wanted to bring focus/importance on an idea it was placed at the start of a sentence or clause.

As aforementioned the word theos/ θεος also appears in the clause but it appears without a direct article which has the effect of emphasizing its quality. Not having an article it is to be viewed in conjunction with the other nominative in the clause. To view them this way is effectively see them as either the same, or they are identical in nature or type/quality (Barrett 129). “The Word” is of the same type or same nature as God. But…and this is a big but, in verse 1 although we can see that the Word was divine and had enjoyed a relationship or extreme closeness with the Father…it was not the Father per se. The “Word” in verse 1 is delineated from the Father by the word “πρός” (Barrett 129, Hendriksen 71, Morris 78). John leaves open the possibility that there is more to God than the Word (i.e.: The Spirit) as we will see next. Interestingly, if we then look at the second clause in John 1:1b where it says, “and the Word was with God” we can also deduce that whatever the Word is…it is with God in a close proximal relationship or as the Greek plainly states “ο λογος ην προς τον θεον” or literally “the Word was toward (face-to-face) the God” (Hendriksen 70). This is a description in Greek that amounts to saying the Word/Jesus was in the closest possible relationship to God (the Father). This is powerful wordage to illustrate Jesus’ relationship with the Father.

If we look ahead thirteen verses to John 1:14 we see an even specific reference to the Word that is used with tactical precision and this verse helps us narrow down to a person in the Trinity and it is again delineated from the Father. It shows that whatever the Word is, He became flesh and was begotten of the Father. After seeing all of these theological clues it is obvious when John says flesh he is referring to God the Son or the Incarnate Jesus Christ. Nothing else properly meets the description. It couldn’t even be the Holy Spirit because the Spirit is not flesh.

“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us...” ~John 1:14

If this is not Jesus, who else could it possibly be that fits these set of criterion? My conclusion: No one but Jesus Christ! As we can see directly from the Bible, John uses the Word to refer to Jesus as these verses show the Son of God in an enigmatic but identifiable form. John is not plainspoken but for a reader to see anything else here other than Jesus is a misinterpretation of the Greek or willful denial (Blomberg 210). The Word is also clarified in verse 14 as being a Christological title (Barrett 126, Cullmann 249)

So now that we know the “who” the real question becomes – Why? Why did John write in this manner? This will require us to unpack some of the culture and history of John’s time. What was John was trying to say when he portrayed Jesus as the Word? It appears that this passage penned by John is partial fallout from Christianity having come from or having been birthed from Judaism (Barclay 26). Since Christianity had Jewish roots it is not surprising that we would see Jewish ideas bleed over into this new belief system. It was not just Jewish ideas either but ideas from the Hellenized (Greek) culture that surrounded the start-up of 1st century Christianity. I will list the most prominent ideas that were being imposed on Christ and subsequent Christianity that would’ve had enough effect on John to warrant having Him refer to Jesus in this manner.

Okay, everyone can breathe now. The densest part of the Greek explanation is now over. This had to be done so that the readers understood that John was using certain syntactical devices (combinations and orders of words) to communicate an idea deliberately. I need to explain it thoroughly enough so that those reading realized I was not trying to purposely confuse them by making it too hard to understand. It will suffice to say that John uses every tool available to him to assure his idea(s) gets across. Hopefully I will not need to bludgeon you over the head with anything this jam-packed again. Hopefully you haven't blown a fuse reading it like I did writing it. :) If you think it was hard reading it, imagine how hard it was for me to write it and still have it make sense.

BTW, you can go show this series on John 1:1 (particularly this post) to your Jehovah's Witnesses friends (if you have any) or you can show it to the next group of them the show up hammering on your door to "evangelize" you. Or you could go to all their houses and tell them one of the places their Bible is wrong (lol, just kidding). You will then have a perfectly good explanation to refute their purposely mistranslated New World Translation where it reads "and the word was a god" in John 1:1c. Please note the Proper noun is removed and that there was no article "a" in the Greek but it was added errantly here. By doing this they have effectively removed the deity from Christ in a single addition of a letter and removal of a capitalized letter. They added it to make their bible conform to their errant theology and doctrine that Jesus was a created being. Tsk-tsk tut-tut JW's! To take anything away from or add to Scripture is a no-no (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; Galatians 1:6-12; Revelation 22:18-19).

λόγος I: A Prologue of The Prologue

I guess I should start from the beginning...(pun intended). I will be launching a short but succinct study of the logos/λόγος in John 1:1 as part of my Christology class for Summer I semester. The fringe benefit of having done this research paper that this writing comes from is that you the reader will also benefit from my work. I view this as all part of God's plan.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1

The first thing that becomes immediately apparent when doing research on this topic is that there are a few different theories on why John uses the designation of “the Word” in the John 1:1-18 prologue, but the “who” or “what” the Word is has never been in question (except by liberal scholars). The “who” or “what” is clearly Jesus Christ in his Incarnate form. The real question is why John chose to launch his Gospel with the peculiar terminology and why he chose to call Jesus or God “the Word”. My intent in this series is to clarify the thought processes behind this peculiarity and illustrate that John’s primary motive was to show Jesus’ true identity and thereby mute potential misidentification of the Son of God. I have tried to explain the synonymous nature of the Word and Jesus as early as possible because I will be using the terms “the Word” and Jesus interchangeably throughout this series in a manner that is often times juxtaposing wordplay for effect.

Since the remainder of the posts for this study are either lengthy or very techincal I have chosen to just use this first post as a form of introduction. This is my way to explain my premise before launching into it. It is one of the more heady topics I have attempted to explain and make understandable to my readership. I am doing it because it is critical that a believing Christian understand it. I will also repeat myself a few times on the more complex areas to assure I have clearly conveyed the idea(s) I am explaining. What I am figuring is this...if I can coherently explain this topic to my readership then I may just consider becoming a Pastor/Teacher as my calling since people I respect have been trying to steer me down that path anyway. I will consider any postive repsonse to this next series of posts as a sign from God to broaden my approach to teaching also. Please give feedback with this in mind.

May God bless you and aid you in absorbing what you read in this short series.

Andy