From: Revcraigh@aol.com
Date: Sat Jan 31 1998 - 16:30:28 EST
In a message dated 1/31/98 7:38:34 PM, Ron wrote:
<<B-Greek,
I found this list in mid December of last year. I have had a great time
trying to keep up with all that there is to read and comprehend. I have
dug through many (by no means all, yet) of the archives just to see what
has been discussed over the years. It is amazing to me what is still
being questioned that I thought had been written in stone years ago. I
think it is great that people are still asking the tough questions about
what the Bible means. I think it is important for each generation to ask
the questions all over again and go through the thought processes in
order to make the faith truly our own.
I would like to go back to a question that came to my mind while reading
the discussions about John 1:1. Of course if this has already been
answered in the archives, please, just point me in the right direction
and I can dig it out on my own.
Many of you were writting from the perspective that Logos was a person in
verse 1. My question is: Is this determined linguistically or
theologically?
I can understand that verse 14 speaks of Logos being made flesh and
dwelling among us refers to Jesus. Part of the question, then is, is
there some linguistic situation that requires Logos in verse 1 to be
Jesus as well? If so, what? If not, could (would, should) Logos in verse
1 be something more encompasing than Jesus, based on the linguistics?
Thanks for your insights,
Ron Macy
Bible Student
Aurora, IL 60506
ronmacy@juno.com
>>
to which Clayton responded:
<<The question cannot be an either/or it must involve a both.
All linguists have metaphysical commitments that color their reading of any
text, even the NY Times.>>
To this I agree, however, I believe that there are certain assumptions that
readers of any communication, whether sacred or profane, and regarless of
theology, can probably agree upon.
For example, the assumption, in any intelligable communication, not just
biblical (communications theory rather than theology), is that a single author
will use the same word with the same identification within the same context or
he will give some clear indication to the contrary (i.e., it will be clear
that they cannot be being used in the same way or with the same referent or
that there is some play on words etc.). When John uses LOGOS in v.1 and then
again in v.14, we can assume, unless there is some compelling reason to the
contrary, that both occasions have the same identity.
Since Jesus is the name given to the first boy child of Mary, LOGOS cannot =
Jesus (which name was given to the LOGOS after He became flesh). Rather, LOGOS
= that one which (a) was existing in the beginning, (b) was with God, (c) was
God (or a god, or divine, or ...(see the Archives)), (d) was that one through
which all things were created, (e) in whom was life, (f) whose life was the
light of men, (g) whose light the darkness did not understand, (h) of whom
John testified, (i) who gave to all who believe in Him the right (or
authority) to become children of God, (j) who became flesh and dwelt among us,
(k) whose glory, the glory of the One and Only (or Only begotten or Unique
One), we have seen, (l) who came from the Father, full of grace and truth, and
so forth. Orthodox Christianity has identified that one, on the basis of (a) -
(l) above and from various other Scriptures, as the preexistant Son of God,
begotten of the Father from all eternity, but there have been other
identifications (or at least, other understandings of who and what that LOGOS
is/was).
But the identification and particularly the nature of the LOGOS is a matter
for theological discussion best carried on elsewhere than on this list.
God bless,
Rev. Craig R. Harmon, pastor
Lutheran Church of the Apostles
5100 W. 115th Street
Alsip, IL 60803
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT