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

Some have made the argument that the greek word λογος (logos, “word”) in the opening verses of John’s Gospel should be better translated as “logic.” Gordon H. Clark, Christian theologian and philosopher, once wrote “Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.”

However, this hardly follows. Why should we assume that a translation is faulty, or outright wrong, for using “word” over “logic?” Presuppositions notwithstanding, I see no reason why every English translation that has been used by the Church since TyndalWycliffe has been a wrong translation. In fact, I believe the context of 1)the prologue (verses 1-14) of John, and 2) the Gospel of John en toto suggests that our translations have it correct.

Foremost, for the sake of full-disclosure, the word itself does contain the idea of logic within its semantic range (at least, in the idea of reasoning). A semantic range is all the definitions or glosses1 a word contains. So, at the start at least, translating the word as “logic” is a possibility. As we look at a given word, however, we must remember that just because it has a definition within its semantic range that does not mean that it is a possible gloss for that word in a particular context. In other words, we don’t just get to plug-in any gloss we want, but one that fits the definition which is required by its context. If someone asserts that our translations have wrongly used “word” in place of “logic,” the burden of proof is on them to show us why. The problem is that nothing within the context of John’s prologue moves us to think that “logic” is the correct gloss here. John certainly does not include “wisdom language” in his Gospel, which is usually a reason some take it to be “logic” (i.e., Jesus as the personification of wisdom or logic). In fact, one must go to outside philosophers to find the word logos used in such this way- such as Philo and Heraclitus. Of course, John’s intent in writing the prologue is quite different than that of the Pagan Greeks such as Heraclitus, and the Egyptian gods written about in the anonymous Poimander. It seems to me that to understand the Johanine use of logos, we should seek to find what allusions John is actually making. I believe there are two.

The Creation Narrative. The first, and easiest, allusion to find is in the creation narrative of Genesis 1. The beginning words link the prologue directly to the narrative, especially in the Septuagint: Ἐν ἀρχῇ, “in the beginning.” The connection, I believe is clear. The author of Genesis, whom I take to be Moses, describes the events which led to the creation of the universe. All that was to be came about through the creative speech of God, being spoken into existence by God. Continuing in the Septuagint, we find the word εἶπεν (eipen, to speak), which is the 3rd person aorist form of lego the verbal cognate of logos used some nine times. John links Jesus to this creation narrative in two basic ways: first, he claims that Jesus was preexistent2 to the created order (“In the beginning was the Word”), and second, he speaks of Jesus being an agent of creation himself (falling well in line with Paul’s theology, cf. John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16). It seems most likely, in light of this allusion to creation, that the word logos is best taken as “word,” pointing to the divine, creative word which brought all things into existence.

The Word which does not return void. This allusion is harder to see at first glance, but when we survey the Gospel as a whole, I think it fits the context rather nicely. This allusion is made to Isaiah 55:11, which states:

“It is the same with my word.
I send it out, and it always produces fruit.
It will accomplish all I want it to,
and it will prosper everywhere I send it.”
(NLT)

“so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
(ESV)

Again, the full-disclaimer here is that the word used here is not logos, but rhēma. This word is basically synonymous with logos, when it is used in the sense of utterance or speech. So, if John was alluding to Isaiah 55:11, why didn’t he use rhēma? I believe that John chose to use logos in order to tie Christ directly to the creation narrative (cf verse 3), but brings the allusion to rhēma out through the use of context. Consider the Isaiah account of rhēma:

  1. It is sent from God.
  2. It does not return empty, but
  3. Accomplishes it’s divine purpose.

John portrays Jesus in just this way throughout his entire Gospel. We’ll take a very quick survey of John’s Gospel to see where these ideas are played out. First, the word is sent by God for a particular purpose in Isaiah. We see the same of Jesus in John 6:38-39- “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” Jesus is sent by the Father in order to rescue all of the ones given to him by the Father. The idea of Jesus as sent by the Father (much like the word in Isaiah), is prevalent throughout the Gospel. Second, Jesus, like the word of God in Isaiah, will fulfill his purpose. Again, look to John 6:38-39, particularly, “that I should lose nothing… but raise him up…” and in verse 40, “I will raise him up.” The divine purpose of the sending of Jesus will be accomplished. Third, after accomplishing his purpose, Jesus returns to the Father. Consider John 17:4- “I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do”- along with the resurrection narrative of John 20 and his later ascension.

Conclusion. It seems then, in light of these allusions, that we should think that the translators have made the right decision. This does not mean that “logic” as a consideration is absolutely removed, as if one should state that Jesus and the trinitarian God are illogical. Logic, such as the law of noncontradiction, stems from God himself. That is why there is order to the creation. However, the thrust of John’s intentions seems to be rather two-fold. First, in connecting his prologue to the creation narrative, John is also connecting Jesus as the divine, creative word from which all things were made. In this, he is making a case for both the preexistence of Jesus, as well as his divinity. It is, of course, also richly trinitarian. The Word which existed in the beginning, was with God, and is also God. Secondly, Jesus was sent for a divine purpose, namely the lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world, and accomplished said purpose. The death of Christ was vindicated, and shown to be accepted by God, through His resurrection, pointing us to its accomplishment. Furthermore, having accomplished this divine purpose, Jesus, like the word of God in Isaiah, returns to the Father, taking his rightful place of authority. In this way, John’s prologue has its roots running throughout the entire Gospel itself.
——————-
1 The difference between a gloss and a definition is important. For example, some glosses of the word logos are “word,” “reason,” and “message.” Examples of a definition of logos are “a communication whereby the mind finds expression.” When someone looks at a particular words glosses only, they may think that any of them fit a given context. However, it is the definitions which show when to apply which gloss.
2If the Word already was at the time of the beginning, then we should take this to mean that he existed prior to the beginning, and thus to the eternal order. This comes out more in verse 3, where John puts Jesus as the agent of creation- to create something he must, logically, exist prior to it.

If you like this article, please share:
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Netvibes
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • Print
  • StumbleUpon