Article “The Word” in John 1:1 Is Not Christ

​

“The Word” in John 1:1 Is Not Christ​

For most Trinitarians the “Word” (Gk logos) in John 1:1 is viewed as being Jesus in a pre-existent form, because at the end of the verse, we read that “the Word was God.” So, for proponents of the Trinitarian view of Jesus this must surely mean that Jesus is God Almighty. However, in this verse there is nothing to tell us that the “Word” is Jesus because “word” in many other places just means “word.” Therefore, to say it refers to Jesus is only an assumption. Clearly, we must examine the grammar here along with the entire prologue of John and bring to bear on the subject the many factors from the rest of the Bible.

Logos Theology​

The ancient Greek Stoic philosophers described the Logos as the rational principle of the universe. They did not describe it as a person. However, Platonic philosophy did describe the Logos as a person—an intermediary between the remote supreme God and His creation. This idea became part of Christian theology when Justin Martyr of the mid-second century A.D. and his disciples, who were trained in and promoted Greek philosophy, became Christians and interpreted John 1:1 in neo-Platonic terms so that “the logos” or “word” was interpreted as a person—as Jesus. It has since been called Logos theology. However, the logos issue today concerns our understanding of the background and meaning of the Greek word logos as John used it and the translation of the Greek words houtos and autos. Firstly, we will look at the background and interpretation of logos.

​

John Did Not Get His Concept of “the Logos”​

from Greek Sources​

Based on the assumption that John wrote his book for Gentile Christians, and so with Greek concepts, Trinitarians of the past have made several claims concerning where John got his concept of “the logos.” So, the possible choices are:

From Greek Platonic philosophy.

From Philo (in Egypt) who applied Greek philosophy to explain the Hebrew Scriptures.

That John originated the concept himself.

However, firstly, it is now recognized by most scholars that the people John wrote for were primarily Jewish non-Christians although he may also have been writing in such a way as to counter pagan Greek concepts. The Gospel of John shows that his words, “have been recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah” (John 20:31 ISV)—not God. Secondly, although at first glance it may appear that Philo’s understanding of the logos was of a person separate from God, yet deeper investigation reveals that:

The Logos for Philo is ‘God’ not as a being independent of ‘the God’ but as ‘the God’ in his knowability—the Logos standing for that limited apprehension of the one God...

Christology in the Making, p. 241.​

Although the Gospel of John was written in Greek, it was written with a thoroughly Jewish mindset; and most scholarly Trinitarians have dropped the claim that Greek platonic philosophy was John’s source or that Philo was John’s source with respect to the logos. Yet, some Trinitarians have moved to the position that John originated the concept himself i.e. he made it up. However, under the article ‘Logos’ The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states that:

It would be inconceivable that the apostle [John] lighted upon the word [Logos] by chance or that he selected it without any previous knowledge of its history or value. It may be assumed that when he speaks of the ‘Word’ in relation to God and the world, he employs a mode of speech which was already familiar to those for whom he wrote...

Indeed, some of the leading theologians today have largely demonstrated that “the word” is to be interpreted in biblical Hebrew terms which were also expressed in the Aramaic targums i.e. in the Aramaic word memra = the Hebrew word dabar = logos in Greek. And so, the Hebrew word dabar was translated as logos in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, namely, the Septuagint.

DABAR, AND THEREFORE LOGOS NEVER REFERS TO A PERSON ​

The Hebrew word dabar occurs 1,440 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and the phrase “the word of Yahweh” occurs 242 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. So how was this term used in the Hebrew Scriptures? Examples from the New Jerusalem Bible are: “By the word (Heb. dabar) of Yahweh the heavens were made” (Ps. 33:6). Therefore, this was God’s creative decree which brought forth the original creation. Also, “Hear the word of Yahweh, you dictators of Sodom. Listen to the law (Heb. dabar) of our God, you people of Gomorrah” (Isa. 1:10). So, by Hebrew parallelism “the word of God” = “the law of God” (the Torah—instruction). Also “word” can be personified as in: “There was a word (Heb. dabar) that Yahweh sent against Jacob, and it fell upon Israel” (Isa. 9:8). Here we see the word used in reference to judgment as well as seeing the idea of God’s word personified. In fact, in all of the 1,440 occurrences of dabar in the Hebrew Scriptures there is no instance where it refers to a person. This is also true of all the same instances where dabar was translated as logos in the Septuagint Old Testament and so never used of a literal person.

The Aramaic Targums Were Largely the Bible Books​

of First Century Palestine​

Because Aramaic had become the language of the common people in Palestine after the Babylonian Exile the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Aramaic in the form of the Aramaic Targums. These were the scrolls that were read in the synagogues so that the people could understand. By contrast, the Septuagint was mainly the Bible of the Greek world outside of Palestine. The Encyclopedia Britannica 2003, art. “Targum” informs us that:

The earliest Targums date from the time after the Babylonian Exile when Aramaic had superseded Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews in Palestine. It is impossible to give more than a rough estimate as to the period in which Hebrew was displaced by Aramaic as a spoken language. It is certain, however, that Aramaic was firmly established in Palestine by the 1st century AD, although Hebrew still remained the learned and sacred language. Thus the Targums were designed to meet the needs of unlearned Jews [i.e. the great majority] to whom the Hebrew of the Old Testament was unintelligible.

ARAMAIC IN THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES​

WORDS: Talitha qoum, ephatha, abba, raca, mammon, rabboni, maranatha, eli eli sabachthani, korbanas, sikera, hosanna.

PERSONAL NAMES: Bartholomew, Simon-bar-Jona, Barabbas, Bartimaeus, Barsabbas, Barnabas, Bar-Jesus, Boanerges, Cephas, Thomas, Tabitha.

PLACE NAMES: Gethsemane, Golgotha, Gabbatha.

The Aramaic Targums Were John’s Primary Source​

for the Concept of “The Word”​

The Aramaic Targums were produced at a time when God was thought of in His transcendence so that people were afraid to attribute any human thoughts and actions to God or direct references to Him. So, in the Aramaic Targums the word memra was used as a periphrasis or circumlocution (a substitute word) for God. Instances of periphrasis are: Matthew’s use of “heaven” instead of writing “God” or “Yahweh,” and Jesus’ use of the word “Power” (Matt. 26:64) also as a periphrasis for “God” or “Yahweh.” In no instance of its use in the Aramaic Targums did it carry the thought of a person separate from God who is the Father.

EXAMPLES OF USAGE OF THE WORD “MEMRA”​

HS = Hebrew Scriptures. AT = Aramaic Targum

Genesis 3:8:

HS: “They heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden...”

AT: “They heard the voice of the word [memra] of the Lord God walking in the garden...”

Exodus 19:17:

HS: “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God.”

AT: “And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet the word of God.”

So, John and his readers were very familiar with the term memra and its Greek equivalent logos.

Dabar/Memra/Logos Mean More than Simply “Word”​

However, memra was not a simple substitute for “Yahweh” but denoted a special characteristic of “Yahweh” in reference to His speaking i.e. His activity of commanding in wisdom and power. Therefore, because memra = logos then logos also refers to God’s activity of commanding.

Throughout the New Testament, with One Exception,​

Logos Never Refers to a Person​

The Greek word logos appears over 300 times in the New Testament. Again, it is never used of a literal person, except legitimately concerning the future in Revelation 19:13 which we will examine later.

EXAMPLES OF THE USAGE OF ‘LOGOS’ IN THE NEW TESTAMENT​

“But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news (Gk logon)” (Mark 1:45 ESV).

“You have no part or share in this ministry (Gk logo), because your heart is not right before God” (Acts 8:21 NAB).

“No foul language (Gk logos) is to come from your mouth…” (Eph.4:29 CSB).

“when Jesus finished these sayings (Gk logoi)” (Matt.7:28 ESV).

“But I tell you that every careless word (Gk rema) that people speak, they shall give an accounting (Gk logon), for it in the day of judgment” (Matt.12:36 NASB).

“These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance (Gk logon) of wisdom in self-made religion” (Col.2:23 NASB).

“And Jesus answered and said to them, “I also will ask you one question (Gk logon). If you tell the answer to me, I also will tell you by what authority I am doing these things” (Matt.21:24 LEB).

What about the Fact That “The Word of God”​

in Revelation 19:13 Is Jesus?​

This passage describes Jesus as, “dressed in an outer garment dipped in blood, and his name is called the Word of God” (LEB). So, doesn’t this really prove that we must view the pre-existing logos/word in John 1:1 as Jesus? For the following reason the answer is “no”!

A NAME NOTABLY TO APPLY IN THE FUTURE​

“The Word of God” of Revelation 19:11-16 is a name applied to Jesus only in this one future scenario. Therefore, it cannot be stated for certain as having been applied to him prior to these future events. Speculatively: most, likely, Jesus could be called “the Word of God” only after his resurrection when he had fulfilled all (for his first advent) that was prophesied about him in the Hebrew Scriptures. This was completed with his death and resurrection. Similarly, in this passage of 19:11-16 he is called “Faithful and True,” but such was not fully applicable until his “becoming obedient to the point of death—even to death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). So, because the prologue of John speaks of God’s impersonal word it is incorrect to read back the future scenario of Jesus into the pre-creation scenario of God’s logos or purpose in John 1:1.

It Is Illogical for “Logos” in John 1:1 to Refer to Jesus​

Because God is the Father, it makes no sense for Trinitarians to interpret the “logos” as Jesus. This would make John 1:1 become contradictory as in the following experimental statement: If we replace the terms “God” with “Father” and “word” with “Jesus” it reads as: ‘In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with the Father and Jesus was the Father.’ However, it is not part of Trinitarian belief that Jesus is “the Father.”

​

A PERSON’S WORD HAS NO PERSONALITY OF ITS OWN​

We all recognize that the word or expressions of a person have no personality of their own separate from the person whose word it is. One parallel is that the spirit of a person is not a separate person from him/her. Regarding this C. J. Wright states that: “When John presents the eternal Word he was not thinking of a Being.” Also, Dr. Colin Brown of Fuller Seminary comments that: “To read John 1:1 as if it means ‘In the beginning was the Son’ is patently wrong.” So, from the above information, it is clear that in John Chapter one Jesus is not mentioned until verse 14 when “the word became flesh” i.e. the word became a human. So, because the word is not a person in John 1:1, but is something belonging to God, exactly what then is “the word”? However, we must first examine some language issues also involving important translation factors.

​

Translation of John 1:1-4 and ​

Understanding its Poetic Language​

Much of the problem that has caused misunderstanding of what “the word” is in John 1:1 has been three translation factors and a failure to recognize the poetic nature of the prologue. The translation factors are:

1. Capitalization of the first letter of “word” in most translations since the production of the King James Bible.
2. The use of the word “he” or “this one” rather than “this” when translating the Greek word outos in John 1:2
3. The use of the word “him” rather than “it” when translating the Greek word autos in John 1:3, 4.

However, unlike English which does not give gender to nouns, the Greek language does so as is the case with most other languages such as French, German, Spanish, and Russian. To illustrate this fact, the French speak of la table as a feminine item, but in conversation, they would mean that “it” should, for example, be laid or be moved etc.

“THE WORD” IS NOT MASCULINE IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE BIBLES​

The Elberfelder and Luther Bibles have Das Wort (Das being neuter and a capital letter being standard for all nouns in German). The French Segond version has La parole (feminine). In Spanish it is palabra (feminine) and in Russian it is slovo…en bylo (neuter). In fact, Tertullian (155-230 A.D.) translated logos as speech and states: “It is the simple use of our people to say [of John 1] that the word of revelation was with God.” This view survived in Spain and southern Gaul until at least the seventh century.

Why the Words “He” and “Him” Are Incorrect in​

Verses 2-4 of the Standard Translations​

Although the word logos is grammatically masculine, it was never used in the Scriptures to refer to a person as shown above and is therefore a reference to something sexually neuter. Nevertheless, the popular versions of the New Testament render verse 2 to say: “He was in the beginning with God.” The Greek word here is houtos which means “this” or “this one” according to the context. Yet the context of the impersonal “word,” as throughout all of the Scriptures, excludes a rendering of “this one” in the sense of reference to a person. So houtos in the context of John 1:2 simply means “the same” as in most early translations right up to the 1890s, or “this” as is the case with all other references to impersonal things in the Scriptures. Also, the three occurrences of the Greek word autos in verses 3 and 4, usually rendered “him,” should be rendered impersonally as “it”—again because of the context. In particular John’s commentary on his Gospel prologue in 1 John 1 shows that the rendering “it” is correct.

Issues in the Earliest English Translations​

In translating from the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate of the day, John Wycliffe gave us the first translation of the Bible into English. It was called Wycliffe’s Bible and was completed in 1384. However, it didn’t remove the errors of the original Latin Vulgate completed in A.D. 384 by Jerome or the many errors that had accumulated in it over time. These errors included the use of the word “he” rather than “it” in John 1:3, 4. Then in 1534William Tyndale translated the Bible into English from the original languages, rather than from the corrupted Latin Vulgate. He had studied at Oxford University and later at Cambridge. He was fluent in seven foreign languages including Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, and so was very well qualified for this task. In John 1:1 he used a small ‘w’ for “the word” and used the pronoun “it” for the Greek word auto.

The Impersonal “Word” in Translations​

Prior to the KJV​

Prior to the 1611 KJV, eight major translations and one lesser translation used either a small ‘w’ for “word” or the pronoun “it” with reference to “the word” or both. These are: Tyndale (1534), Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), Taverner’s NT (1540), Whittingham (1557), The Geneva Bible (1560), Bishop’s Bible (1568), and the Thomson NT (1607). Also, the note on John 1:3: “all things were made by IT” in the Campbell New Testament by Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge (1826) states that:

Every English version before that of King James [some 13 versions], preferred IT to HE because of the laws of concord: WORD being in English NEUTER, the pronoun referring to it should be in the same gender. The Vulgate also uses HOC, the neuter gender, to agree with VERBUM, neuter. Luther, in like manner, prefers the neuter pronoun. In Italian, PAROLA (the word) is feminine, and so is the pronoun agreeing with it; so, too, in the French versions! Dr. Campbell justifies IT in a long note on this passage, and shows that the authors of the common version departed from their own rule in the fourth verse of the same chapter, where the term LIGHT is as clearly applied to the same person as the term WORD, and yet, in the fifth verse, they translate the pronoun agreeing with it, by the same pronoun IT,—‘and the darkness comprehendeth IT not.’ … The best reason, as it appears to us, for this preference, is that the antecedent to the word IT can only be the term WORD; but the antecedent to the term HIM may be more naturally concluded to be GOD, the nearest noun—which would materially change the sense of the passage.



NOTE: The first time the rendering ‘him’ in English was used came in 1582 with the Rheims version of the NT by Roman Catholic priest Gregory Martin.

The Impersonal “Word” in Translations​

Since the KJV​

There are numerous translations since 1611 that reflect the fact that a second person is not being spoken about in John 1:1-3 e.g. LeClerc (1701), Wakefield (1791), Campbell (1826), B. Wilson’s Diaglott (1864), Concordant (1926), William Temple (1939), the 1985 translation by the Jewish historian Hugh J Schonfield, The Unvarnished New Testament (1991), and the 1993 translation by Robert W. Funk. Examples of Modern English renderings are:

“In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God’s own being” G. B. Caird, New Testament Theology.

“In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom were there with God. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it” Robert Funk.

“In the beginning was the Plan, God’s Plan, divine!! Everything took shape through it, nothing without it!! It brought life and light for all, shining in the dark, never overcome!! It entered the world it had planned, yet the world refused to know!! God’s own people refused!! But all who accepted, who trusted, could become God’s children, not born in a woman’s blood, not conceived by any man, but born of God!! ... And the Plan became flesh...” David L. Edwards (a Trinitarian).

The Prologue in John Is Primarily Poetic ​

For many decades now it has been recognized by most scholars that the prologue of John’s Gospel was a hymn in praise of God, the Father. For instance, the New American Bible displays the poetry and prose layout which makes up the prologue. A slightly different poetic form of the prologue is set out by Catholic theologian Raymond Brown as:

1st Strophe ..... verses 1 and 2 3rd Strophe ..... verses 10 to 12b

2nd Strophe ..... verses 3 to 5 4th Strophe ..... verses 14 and 16



Noteworthy, is the fact that the poem is arranged in what is called staircase parallelism form in which the last word of one phrase becomes the first word of the next and then finally rising to the climax in verse 14.

Personification Rather than Hypostatization​

Because the poetic factor in John’s prologue was not recognized in earlier times, it was taken literally. This resulted in hypostatization of (to ascribe substance to) “the word” in verses 1-5 and so caused misunderstanding of John’s intent. When a literary piece is poetic it is generally given to metaphorical interpretation, which in this case is the figurative language of personification. So, Roger Haight a Jesuit scholar explains that:

Hypostatization means making an idea or a concept into a real thing...the symbols Wisdom, Word, and Spirit, which are found in the Jewish Scriptures and refer to God, are not hypostatizations but personifications...A major development occurred when a personification became transformed into hypostatization. Jesus Symbol of God, p. 257

The personification in John’s prologue is appropriate because his sources were Hebrew and Aramaic literature where personification was freely used. For instance, the Hebrew term dabar translated ‘word’ is often personified in the Hebrew Scriptures e.g. “With speed his word runs” (Psalm 147:15). Interestingly the prologue shows striking parallels with Proverbs 8:22-30 where Lady Wisdom is personified, but never hypostatized. So, a personified impersonal logos was not a new idea to John or his readers. Also, to repeat the earlier point that logos, although grammatically of masculine gender in Greek, does not mean that it is actually sexually masculine when translated into English. This is just the same as when a French masculine or feminine noun is logically neuter when translated into English. From the above it is evident that God’s logos has been personified and therefore does not refer to any literal person. Furthermore, Professor James Dunn says concerning the prologue of John: “In the earlier stages of the poem we are still dealing with the Wisdom...not as a personal being, but as the wise utterance of God personified.” (Christology in the Making, p. 242). Furthermore, Roger Haight writes:

“One thing is certain, the Prologue of John does not represent direct descriptive knowledge of a divine entity or being called Word, who descended and became a human being. To read a metaphor as literal speech is misinterpretation...” Jesus Symbol of God, p. 210.

The Broad Range of Meanings of Logos ​

According to the Lexicons​

It is often stated by Greek linguists that “word” is really a rather inadequate translation of logos in John’s prologue. So as shown above some translators have rendered logos as “the purpose in the mind of God,” or “the divine word and wisdom” and many other impersonal renderings. This is because the term has a quite wide range of meanings so that Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon states that logos variously refers to: A communication whereby the mind finds expression—of utterance, statement, question, proclamation, prophecy, command, instruction, message, revelation, the gospel, and declaration. Added to this list are definitions from other lexicons. These are: Decree, plan, expression of mind, creative thought, purpose, promise, wisdom, or reason.

The rather wieldy phrases ‘God’s creative thoughts expressed into activity,’ ‘God’s expressed/declared/decreed/commanded purpose or plan or project’ or similar phrases more adequately reflect the full meaning of logos. Somewhat more encapsulated phrases might be: ‘God’s declared or decreed purpose’ or ‘the message of God’s purpose’ or ‘God’s self-revelation’ or ‘the expression of the creative project,’ so, in the book Did the First Christians Worship Jesus, p. 83, 4m James Dunn comments that: “The Logos is God in his self-manifestation in creation, in inspiration and in salvation… The Logos was the one God in his self-revelation.” So, the thought given by the term ‘logos’ is of ‘the message/revelation of God’s purpose,’ ‘the decreed divine project’ i.e. ‘the good news of the Kingdom.’ Indeed, from research, in recent decades a significant number of theologians have concluded and demonstrated that “the word” is, in fact, not a person—not Jesus Christ; but is to be interpreted in biblical Hebrew/Aramaic terms because the Gospel of John, although written in Greek, is a thoroughly Jewish book. These theologians also have demonstrated that John 1:1 speaks of only one person, namely, God who is the Father. From all of this information and following the recommended syntax of the NEB/REB I have rendered John 1:1-4 and 14 as:

“In the beginning was the logos—the self-revelation of God. This self-revelation was integral to God, and what God was, the self-revelation was. 2This was integral to God in the beginning. 3Everything came into existence through it; not one created thing came into existence without it. 4By means of it was the real life, and the real life was the light of mankind. ... 14And the logos—the self-revelation of God became a human and made God’s presence at home among us. We gazed upon his glory—the glory as of a unique one from the Father, one full of divine favour and truth.”

§​

​

​

​