Some proponents
of Socinian Christology (e.g., Christadelphians) argue that the “word” in John 1
is not the person of Jesus but the creative force of the Father who becomes “embodied”
in the person of Jesus. While popular among apologists for such a theology, it
is problematic. The following comes from Harry Whittaker, himself a
Christadelphian, in his Studies in the
Gospels, no. 13: The Word (John 1:1-5):
1. This interpretation of the Word has to
fall back for support on such remote passages as Ps. 147:15, 18 and 107:20, Pr.
8:22, 23. These, and no others. John's own usage-and this should prevail-is
quite different. It should be very evident from this list that in the New
Testament the normal meaning of logos
is word. To insist on any other is
precarious. Yet the commonly-heard interpretation of John 1:1 calls for
confident dependence on a remote and very occasional meaning of logos: "reason, purpose, intent . .
.
2. "The Word was with God". The
vague (and pointless!) significance attached to this phrase gives no value
whatever, or else a wrong value, to the Greek preposition "with".
3. It is necessary to insist on the reading:
"all things were made by it (the
impersonal divine Purpose) . . . That which hath been made was life in it . .
.", and so on. Logically, until one comes to "the Word was made
flesh" in v. 14, there can be no allusion to the personal Jesus, and
"life in It (the Purpose)" is a poor insipid substitute for
"life in Christ", the normal New Testament expression everywhere
else.
4. The reference in v. 6, 7 to John the
Baptist require that v. 7 should also allude to Jesus the Man, not to Jesus the
Idea. Verses 11, 12 similarly require to be read with reference to Jesus the
Man. How then does verse 14 "the Word became flesh and dwelt among
us" come in as indicating the climax of Divine Revelation, when clear references
have already been made to Jesus to Man . . .
The Word is
Jesus
Thus, John refers to The Word in three other
places, and in each case his allusion is to Jesus the Man. “His name is called the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13). “That which
was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes,
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1
Jn. 1:1); that is, they heard his preaching, they saw his miracles, they looked
upon him crucified, and they handled him when risen from the dead (Lk. 24:39).
“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and
of all things that he saw” (Rev. 1:2). Even this passage, which at first sight
seems to require a different meaning for “the word of God” lines up with the
others when it is realised that this is the first of a series of triads which
meet the reader in Revelation 1 (compare verses 4b, 5a, 7). In fact, “the
testimony of Jesus and all things that he saw” is the exact equivalent of 1
John 1:2.
The tentative conclusion concerning “the
Word” in John 1:1 would therefore appear to be that it means Jesus the Man, and
not Jesus the Idea or Purpose.
Elsewhere,
in the notes for the chapter, Whittaker wrote:
|
The Word. The use of Logos as a title for Jesus is
not restricted to the writings of John. Besides Mk. 1:1,2; Lk. 1:1,2 there
are also:Heb.4:12;Rom. 10:8; 1 Pet. l:23;Jas. 1: 18; Acts 19: 20.
|
|
There is certainly no reference to Greek
philosophy or any form of Gnosticism, such is unthinkable in the writings of
a man like John. If there were, what connection would this prologue have with
the rest of the gospel? John’s gospel is Jewish through and through (see
Study 14).This fact is decisive.
|
|
John Lighfoot suggests a parallel with
Targum usage; e.g. “And Moses brought forth the people (at Sinai) to meet the
Word of the Lord” (Ex. 19:17). And in Gen. 26:3, for “I will be with thee”,
Targum has: “My Word shall be thy help”; and many such examples. Can it be
doubted that in such passages allusion is intended to the angel of the Lord?
In these places the rabbis had no use for a vague divine “Purpose”.
|
