Toronto Baptist Seminary

& Bible College

THE DIVINE LOGOS:

A Paper
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Course
Gospel of John

By
J. Luis Dizon

April 2011

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. ORIGINS OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 5

3. THE ETERNALITY OF THE LOGOS 8

4. THE LOGOS AS CREATOR, REVELATOR AND SAVIOUR 11

5. THE INCARNATE LOGOS 14

6. CONCLUSION 17

BIBLIOGRAPHY 18

2
 INTRODUCTION

One of the main themes in the Gospel of John is its Christology. Of the four Gospels, it is John

who speaks with the greatest amount of clarity on the nature of the person of Jesus Christ. For

example, the most explicit statements on the incarnation and the divinity of Christ come from

John. This is especially true of the prologue of John. The significance of this prologue is that it

shows that John does not wait until the end to reveal the identity of this Person of Whom he is

writing. In Kruse’s terms: “The Prologue introduces this one to the readers before the story

proper begins so that they will know the true identity of the central character.” 1 This eighteen

verse introduction to the Gospel provides the window through which the rest of the Gospel is to

be interpreted. Central to this prologue is the concept of the “Word” (λογος), which is the term

by which John describes the eternally begotten son of God. The prologue sets forth the nature,

identity and activities of this λογος, which then provides the background for the Christology of

the rest of the Gospel of John. As D. A. Carson puts it in his commentary on John:

[T]he prologue summarizes how the ‘Word’ which was with God in the very
beginning came into the sphere of time, history, tangibility – in other words, how the
Son of God was sent into the world to become the Jesus of history, so that the glory
and grace of God might be uniquely and perfectly disclosed. The rest of the book is
nothing other than an expansion of this theme.2

The purpose of this essay is to expound upon the “Logos Christology” that is presented in the

prologue of John, to show how this prologue reveals the character of the divine Word. It is this

author’s contention that a proper understanding of what John intends to communicate through

these eighteen verses is crucial to our understanding of who Jesus is. Without this understanding,

our Christology will turn out to be woefully inadequate. It is also necessary to properly expound

1
Colin G. Kruse, John, TNTC (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2003), 59.
2
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 111.

3
on this prologue in order to correct misconceptions and distortions of what John is attempting to

teach, as many heretics have attempted to support their aberrant Christologies through distortions

of what this text really means.

4
 ORIGINS OF THE LOGOS DOCTRINE

To begin, it is first necessary to provide some information on the historical background behind

the concept of the λογος, in order to demonstrate the richness of meaning that is contained in this

term, how this teaching is found in embryonic form in the Old Testament, and how it is totally

unique when compared against notions of the λογος that have prevailed in Hellenistic

philosophy.

The term λογος did not originate with John. The word λογος has had a rich usage in

Hellenistic literature. Its use in Philosophy goes as far back as Heraclitus (circa 500 B. C.). 3 This

term was later picked up by the Stoics, who used it to refer to the cosmic Reason that is

immanent throughout all of reality, and of which human reason is a divine spark of. Although

this cosmic Reason was divine, it was also impersonal. 4 This term was later picked up from the

Stoics by the Jewish philosopher Philo. In terms that are highly reminiscent of the New

Testament, Philo referred to the λογος as “Mediator” (μεσιτης) and “Image” (εικων) of God. The

λογος was described as “neither unbegotten (like God) nor begotten (like a human),” making it

somewhere in between. It is also called the First-Born Son, the Chief born, and is both the Light

and the very shadow of God.5

Because of Philo’s usage of the term λογος in this manner, it had become very popular

amongst philosophical and liberal theological circles during the early twentieth century to

suppose that John’s usage of λογος was borrowed from Philo. Although this theory has lost

ground during the latter half of the century, it still comes up every now and then, especially

amongst critics of Christianity who seek to undermine the uniqueness of the biblical testimony
3
Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? 2nd Ed.
(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003), 70.
4
Ibid., 59.
5
Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man: The Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary
Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 64.

5
regarding the person of Christ. However, this accusation is ill-founded since the occurrence of

the same words does not mean that the same ideas were attached to these words. This is best

explained by philosopher and theologian Gordon H. Clark, who wrote that “since the New

Testament was written in Greek, it uses words found in pagan writings. ... But the point in

question is not the use of words but the occurrence of ideas. ... One cannot forbid Christian

writers to use common words on pain of becoming pagans.”6

In addition, those who attempt to find parallels between John’s usage and Philo’s miss the

fact that there are irreconcilable differences between the two. One of the most significant of these

differences is the fact that Philo’s view of the λογος was that of an abstract cosmic principle that

was postulated to solve various metaphysical and epistemological problems. For Philo, the λογος

was not personal, let alone a Messiah or saviour figure. 7 Not only that, but Philo believed in the

Platonic view which elevated the immaterial soul as way above the material body, and

disparaged the body is the prison house of the soul. 8 Hence, the idea of the λογος becoming

incarnate would have been anathema to Philo.

Thus, if John did not derive his λογος doctrine from Philo, the origins of this doctrine must

be derived from the Old Testament, which is the source out of which both John and Philo drew

from. It is in from the Old Testament that we originally find the idea of God creating all things

through His word. This is found at the very beginning of the Bible, in the oft-repeated phrase,

“and God said, ‘Let there be ...’ and there was ...”, and is picked up in the Psalms where it says:

“By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth all their host ...

For He spoke, and it came to be; He commanded, and it stood firm” (Psa. 33:6, 9). Furthermore,

we find this same concept presented in the form of divine wisdom in prov. 8:22-31. In this
6
Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, 3rd Ed. (Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 1997), 195.
7
Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 64-65.
8
Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks, 91.

6
passage, wisdom is presented as being “possessed” (not “created,” as some older versions

mistakenly translate it) by the Father before the foundation of the world. Note that wisdom here

is presented in personal terms. Regarding this passage, Grudem notes: “This is a legitimate sense

and, if wisdom is understood as a real person, would mean only that god the father began to

direct and make use of the powerful creative work of God the Son at the time creation began.” 9

That wisdom is presented as female in Proverbs is not a problem, given that the Word does not

take on a gender until the incarnation. It is significant that in verses 29-30, it states that “when

He marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside Him, like a master workman.”

This passage is echoed in the first three verses of the prologue of John, which states the precise

same truths in only slightly different terms. Having presented the Old Testament origins of the

Logos doctrine, the following sections of this essay will be an exposition of how this doctrine is

developed by John in the prologue to his Gospel. There are various facets to John’s view of the

λογος, each of which will be presented in detail.

9
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1994), 230.

7
 THE ETERNALITY OF THE LOGOS

Almost everybody knows the beginning verse of the fourth Gospel: “In the beginning was the

Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The verse is meant to

parallel the beginning of the Old Testament: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the

earth” (Gen. 1:1). It is significant that according to this verse, in the beginning, the Word “was”

(ην). While this does not seem like much, there is a deliberate and careful choice of wording

here. The little word ην (the perfect tense form of ειμι) is used throughout the prologue

exclusively of the Word, and is contrasted with the word εγενετο, which is used of everything

else (cf. verses 3, 6, 10, 14 and 17) to indicate that they have a point of origin. White notes the

significance of this:

The Word does not come into existence at the ‘beginning,’ but is already in existence
when the ‘beginning’ takes place. If we take the beginning of John 1:1, the Word is
already there. If we push it back further (if one can even do so!), say, a year, the
Word is already there. A thousand years, the Word is there. A billion years, the Word
is there. What is John’s point? The Word is eternal. The Word is not a creation.10

The whole point of this first clause is to indicate the eternality of the Word. Thus, the best

interpretation of this verse is that which is captured by the NEB when it renders the verse this

way: “When all things began, the Word already was.”

After this, the next clause states “that the Word was with God.” The preposition “with”

(προς) is literally translated as “towards,” and indicates a face-to-face relationship. This is

similar to how it is used in 1 Cor. 13:12, where it is written that “for now we see only a

reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to [προς] face.” To again quote White: “The

term has a wide range of meanings, depending on the context in which it is found. In this

James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany
10

House, 1998), 51.

8
particular instance, the term speaks to a personal relationship, in fact, to intimacy.”11 This is

meant to highlight the eternal unity between the Father and the Word; a unity that nonetheless

admits of a distinction of persons, since the Word cannot be “with” God unless some kind of

personal distinction existed within the Godhead.

Finally, the third clause states that “the Word was God.” While this ought to be enough to

seal the deal when it comes to the deity of Christ, heretical groups have attempted to wrest this

scripture and distort the plain meaning of the text. Nobody does this better than the Jehovah’s

Witnesses, who translate this clause as “the Word was a god” in the NWT. In their field manual,

Reasoning from the Scriptures, the following explanation is given as to why this clause cannot be

referring to the deity of Christ:

The definite article (the) appears before the first occurrence of the·os’ (God) but not
before the second. The articular (when the article) appears construction of the noun
points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous (without the article)
predicate noun before the verb (as the sentence is constructed in Greek) points to a
quality about someone. So the text is not saying that the Word (Jesus) was the same
as the God with whom he was but, rather, that the Word was godlike, divine, a god.12

The problem with this argument is that it misses the point as to why John does not place a

definite article before θεος in the third clause. The reason for this is that he is seeking to avoid

the idea that all of the “Word” equals all of “God.” This equation would make the “Word” and

“God” interchangeable, which would then eradicate the distinction of persons in the Godhead

(thus leading to the error of Modalism), and would contradict the previous clause which states

that the Word was “with” God (which is only possible if there are personal distinctions).13

Aside from this, the Jehovah’s Witnesses commit two other errors in their reasoning.

First is the fact that established for certain that θεος is being used as a predicate in this clause,

11
Ibid., 52.
12
Reasoning from the Scriptures (Watch Tower Bible and tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1989), 212.
13
James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, 52.

9
since both θεος and λογος are in the nominative case (hence establishing a predicate nominative).

More striking, however, is the fact that θεος actually comes first before λογος; the clause literally

reads “and God was the Word.” This would make it more likely that θεος is, in fact, the subject

rather than the predicate. Second is the fact that the argument based on θεος being anarthrous

here is inconsistent; the word θεος also appears without the article in verses 6, 12, and 13. Yet

nobody would suggest that John was sent from “a god,” or that those who received Christ were

become children of “a god,” or that they are born of the will of “a god.”

Having established that, the only way to properly understand this passage is to view it as

saying that the Word is qualitatively divine. To use the language of Paul, the Word has “all the

fullness of Deity [θεοτητος; or literally, that which makes God Who He is]” (Col. 2:9). This is

the only understanding that preserves the integrity of the text by maintaining that there is only

one God, but at the same time affirming that the Word is coeternal whilst remaining personally

distinct from God the Father.

One of the great ironies in the Gospel of John, however, is that although there are abundant

proofs for the divinity of Jesus all throughout the narrative, those around Him constantly either

fail to properly understand or refuse to understand Who He is. As Culpepper notes: “Although

[Jesus’ identity] lies at the core of most of the ironic passages in the gospel, the identity of Jesus

and the various ways it is manifested and announced are frequently the specific object of

irony.”14 It is as is written in John 1:10: “He was in the world, and though the world was made

through Him, the world did not recognize Him” (NIV). However, this identification is absolutely

essential, since it was Jesus Himself who stated that “unless you believe that I am [εγω ειμι] you

will die in your sins” (John 8:24, cf. Exo. 3:14).

14
Alan R. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press, 1983), 171.

10
 THE LOGOS AS CREATOR, REVELATOR AND SAVIOUR

Aside from the identity of the Word, the prologue of John also delves into the roles or functions

that are played by the Word. Nash describes these three roles as “the cosmological Logos, the

epistemological Logos, and the soteriological Logos.”15 For the sake of convenience, these roles

will be spoken of in terms of Creator, Revelator and Saviour.

The Logos as Creator

In John 1:3, it states that “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing

made that was made.” As already seen earlier, this echoes Old Testament teaching where God

creates all things through His creative Word (cf. Gen. 1, Psa. 33:9 and Prov. 8:22-31). This verse

establishes two basic truths: First, that the Word is “over all creation” (Col. 1:16, NIV). By

being the Creator of all things, He is being set above the created order. Second is the fact that all

of creation is contingent upon the Word. This does not simply that He brought them into

existence, but that their continued existence is also dependent upon His sustaining power. This

especially applies to life (particularly human life), since the fourth verse goes on to state that life

is found exclusively in the Word. The apostle Paul said it best when he wrote: “He Himself

existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).” (Col. 1:17,

AMP). As Nash puts it: “The cosmological Logos continues to act as the intermediary in God’s

sustaining relationship to the world.”16

15
Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 66.
16
Ibid.

11
 The Logos as Revelator

Moving on to the ninth verse, it is written that “the true light, which enlightens everyone, was

coming into the world.” This light comes by virtue of the fact that (at least in some sense) the

Logos indwells every man, believer and non-believer alike.17 Also, this light refers to the light of

revelation, since it is in Christ that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden (cf.

Col. 2:2-3). To again quote Nash, “all human knowledge is possible because of the unique

human participation in the eternal Logos of God, Jesus Christ.”18

While these statements are true of all areas of knowledge, it is especially true in the moral

realm. Although not all people in the world have access to special revelation (i.e. the Holy

Scriptures), all people do have access to general revelation. This includes both the external

created order and the internal moral compass that God has placed within every individual. These

sources of general revelation point to the law of God, which convicts everyone of their sin. These

truths are taught in the following passages from Romans:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to
them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have
been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have
been made. So they are without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20).

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law
requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They
show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also
bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day
when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Rom.
2:14-16).

Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof said it best when he wrote that “Divine thoughts are

embodied in the phenomena of nature, in the human consciousness, and in the facts of

17
Donald MacLeod, The Person of Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 249.
18
Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 9.

12
experience or history.”19 To this, H. Chadwick states: “The Word and Wisdom of God, who is

Christ, is also the Reason inherent in all things and especially in rational creation. All who have

thought and acted rationally and rightly have participated in Christ the Universal Logos.” 20 Thus,

the Word not only creates and sustains, but also brings about knowledge (especially moral

knowledge) in every human being. It is this moral knowledge that convicts men of their sin, and

point to the need for a Redeemer. Thus, the role of the Word as revelatory is connected to His

final role as Saviour, which is what will be expounded next.

The Logos as Saviour

In verses 12-13 of the prologue, it is written that “to all who did receive Him, who believed in

His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the

will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The significance of these verses is that the

Word, Jesus, is the one who provides eternal life, as unpacked throughout the Gospel of John (cf.

John 3:16-18 and 11:25-26) as well as in his epistles (cf. 1 John 2:1-2, 4:10 and 5:11-12). He

claims exclusivity in being the only way to life (John 14:6) and states that all who are outside of

Him are lost and without life (John 3:36 and 8:24). This is connected to His work of propitiation

(cf. 1 John 4:10) as well as to the fact that He is our great high priest and our sole mediator with

God the Father (1 Tim. 2:5). Of course, not everybody comes to the Word for life.

But most important to this soteriological work is the fact that the Word took on a human

form to suffer and die for the sins of sinful humanity. It is this final aspect of the Word (His

incarnate humanity) that will be examine last.

19
Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, New Combined Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), I:128.
20
Ronald H. Nash, The Word of God and the Mind of Man, 68.

13
 THE INCARNATE LOGOS

The word λογος is mentioned only four times in the prologue of John. Three of those four

instances are in the first verse. The fourth and final instance is found in verse 14: “And the Word

became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the

Father, full of grace and truth.” Arguably, this is the second most important verse in the

prologue after verse one. What sets Christianity apart from the other Abrahamic religions

(Judaism and Islam) is the fact that it affirms that God in the person of the Son took on a human

body and walked upon the very earth which He created. When it is said that among “dwelt”

(εσκηνωσεν) among us, it literally means “tabernacled,” which is an allusion to the Old

Testament tabernacle where Israel would meet with God. MacLeod describes the profound

significance of the incarnation thusly:

[H]e came into, and shared, our environment. ... He dwelt among us. This involved
the most complete sharing of our experiences on the part of the Son of God,
accentuated by the fact that he chose not simply to be born, but to be born in a low
condition. Hence the ‘low estate’ of his mother (Lk. 1:48, KJV). Hence the manger.
Hence the flight into Egypt. Hence Nazareth. Hence the homelessness (Mt. 8:20).
Hence the penury which has no money to pay the temple tax (Mt. 17:24ff.) and no
place to celebrate the Passover. Hence the reputed lack of learning and the scorn of
the rulers (Jn. 7:48f.) Hence the notoriety gained through friendship with publicans
and sinners.21

This is reminiscent of the Carmen Christi, where it is written that

“Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing
the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with
God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, But stripped Himself [of all
privileges and rightful dignity], so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that
He became like men and was born a human being” (Phil. 2:6-7, AMP).

21
Donald MacLeod, The Person of Christ, 180.

14
Thus, His glory was temporarily veiled until after His death and resurrection, and it is only then

that John and the other disciples are able to behold of His glory. Even then, it is only a partial

glimpse, since no sinful human being can withstand the fullness of God’s glory (cf. Exo. 33:20, 1

Tim. 6:16, etc.). Thus, Carson writes, “There is a hiddenness to the display of glory in the

incarnate Word, a hiddennness penetrated by the Evangelist and the early witnesses who could

say, We have seen his glory.”22 For this reason, verse 18 of the prologue states that “No one has

seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has

explained Him” (NASB).

This is another verse that is often wrested out of its context by non-Trinitarians in their

attempts to undermine the deity of Christ. The Jehovah’s Witnesses field manual provides a very

crude attempt at argument against this truth on the basis of this verse: “Had any human seen

Jesus Christ, the Son? Of course! So, then, was John saying that Jesus was God? Obviously

not.”23 And yet, we find that there are points in the Old Testament where the patriarchs and

prophets did in fact see Jehovah God. Abraham saw God in the oaks of Mamre (Gen. 18:1ff);

Moses saw God’s back (Exo. 33:23); Isaiah saw God sitting on His throne (Isa. 6:1-3). Is this a

contradiction? Not at all, once it is established that “God” is often used as shorthand for the

person of the Father (which is how it is used in the first clause of verse 18). On this basis, White

argues that what the Old Testament saints saw was in fact the pre-Incarnate Christ. This is

certainly a valid conclusion, as it makes sense of all the data. Furthermore, this explanation fits

in quite nicely with the second clause of verse 18, which states that “the only begotten God who

is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [εξηγησατο, literally “exegeted”] Him” (NASB).

22
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC, 111.
23
Reasoning from the Scriptures, 2130

15
 The significance of the incarnation is as far as the epistemological aspect of the Word goes

is that the incarnation becomes the decisive revelation of God. More important is the impact of

the incarnation on Soteriology: The Word took on the likeness of sinful humanity (Rom 3:8) in

order to bear the curse that is due upon us because of sin (Gal. 3:13). It is necessary that Christ

be in human form in order to act as the last Adam; our federal head (cf. Rom. 5:12-19), since the

one who can bear the sins of humanity is another human, and the only One who can satisfy sin is

God. Hence the Word taking on flesh to become both God and man at the same time, thereby

becoming the mediator between both.

16
 CONCLUSION

It is no exaggeration to say that the prologue of John “is a literary masterpiece. Its balance is

almost unparalleled. It is a carefully crafted work of art, a revelation that has inspired believers

for almost two thousand years. The brightest minds have been fascinated by it and have always

marvelled at its beauty.”24 This eighteen verse passage contains what are undoubtedly the

profoundest statements in the whole Bible on the person of Christ. And as has just been shown,

the “Logos doctrine” that is presented therein beautifully weaves together the various biblical

truths concerning who Jesus is, and provides the framework by which the rest of the Gospel of

John’s (indeed, the whole New Testament’s) witness concerning the person of Christ should be

interpreted. For any student of scripture, it is worth further reading and studying this passage in

order to be able to fully appreciate the breadth and depth of Christological truth that is contained

therein.

24
James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, 48.

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. New Combined Ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. PNTC. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991.

Clark, Gordon H. Thales to Dewey. 3rd Ed. Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 1997.

Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia, PA:
Fortress Press, 1983.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1994.

Colin G. Kruse. John. TNTC. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2003.

MacLeod, Donald. The Person of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

Nash, Ronald H. The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament Borrow from Pagan Thought? 2nd
Ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2003.

__________. The Word of God and the Mind of Man: The Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary
Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982.

Reasoning from the Scriptures. Watch Tower Bible and tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1989.

White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Minneapolis, MN:
Bethany House, 1998.

18