In this series of posts, we’re looking at how early Christians interpreted the prologue of John’s gospel. Last time, we saw how the Odes of Solomon, a late 1st- or early 2nd-century text closely related to the gospel of John, understood the prologue. Based on what the author of this text says, he would have interpreted John 1 as saying something like the following:
In the beginning was the Word, and it was both with God and was God the Father. God made all things through his word, and nothing that exists was made without it. God’s word brings life and enlightens all people with knowledge. This word came into the world, to God’s own people, but was rejected; those who didn’t reject it were made children of God. The Word became like us by being perfectly embodied in the human Messiah. He was exalted to become just like God, perfectly revealing God to us.
This exaltational, Wisdom Christology interpretation of John’s prologue appears is the earliest surviving reading of this text. In this post, we’ll look at another interpretation, the Logos Christology reading of John 1, which dates to the mid-2nd century AD.
Interpretation #2: Logos Christology
The basis of Logos Christology was formed by Philo, a 1st-century Alexandrian Jew who was deeply influenced by Hellenism. Drawing on the Platonic concept of a world of Ideas beyond the physical world, and the Stoic concept of a logos, or rational power, that permeates all things, Philo believed that God’s logos was a bridge between the unknowable God and the physical creation. [1] Philo referred to the Logos as the power of God (Cher. 1.27-28), the first-begotten Son of God (Conf. 63, 146; Mos. 2.134), the mediator between God and the physical creation (Her. 205-206; Plant. 8-10, 18), the Wisdom and Image of God (Conf. 146; Fug. 137-138; LA 1.43), the Angel of the Lord (Fug. 5; Somn. 1.228-239), and even as a second god (QG 2.62; Somn. 1.229-230). According to Philo, the Logos is to be held in the second place after God himself (Fug. 50-52; LA 2.86).
Philo’s view on the creation or generation of the Logos was somewhat complex. Just as there is a distinction between a word in one’s mind and the same word after it is spoken, he held, there is a distinction between the internal (endiathetos) and uttered (prophorikos) Logos. The Logos first existed in God’s mind, but was uttered by him, after which the physical world was created (Abr. 83; Migr. 70-71; Mos. 2.127). In this way, the Logos is “neither created nor uncreated” (Her. 205-206); although the uttered Logos is the most ancient of God’s creations (LA 3.175), it also existed eternally in God’s mind before it was uttered. Whether or not Philo viewed the Logos as a personal being or a personification (James Dunn argues cogently for the latter view [1]), it came to be seen by later philosophers as a person.
One such philosopher, Justin Martyr, became a convert to Christianity and an apologist in the mid-2nd century. Justin made a connection between the Logos of Hellenism and the “Word” in John’s prologue. Prior to Justin, this passage (John 1:1-18) appears to have received very little attention — in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Jesus is only referred to as “Word” once, in one of Ignatius’ contested epistles (Magn. 8.2). Justin, on the other hand, refers to Jesus as “Word” no less than twenty times in his First Apology (5; 10; 12; 14; 21; 22; 23; 32; 33; 36; 46; 63; 64; 66) and six times in his Second Apology (6; 8; 10; 13), bringing this title from John’s prologue (and Revelation 19:13) back out of obscurity.
According to Justin, the Logos is a personal being who pre-existed Jesus’ birth, when he became man (e.g., 1 Apol. 5; 2 Apol. 6; 13). Justin Martyr refers to the Logos as “another god and lord, subject to the Maker of all things” (Dial. 56). However, Justin admitted that his belief in Jesus’ personal pre-existence was not held by most of his Christian contemporaries (Dial. 48.2-4). The Logos inspired not only the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, but also the Greek philosophers, including Plato (1 Apol. 46; 59-60; 2 Apol. 10; 13). Regarding the generation of the Logos, Justin states,
I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, “the Glory of the Lord,” “the Son,” “Wisdom,” “an angel,” “god,” and “lord” and “Logos”... for he can be called by all those names, since he ministers to the Father’s will, and was begotten by an act of the Father’s will.
This is just as we see happening among ourselves; for when we speak some word [logos], we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the rational power [logos] within us, when we speak the word. And we also see this happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it kindles another, but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. (Dial. 61.1-2)
Justin goes on to apply Proverbs 8:22 (“the Lord created me at the beginning of his way”) to the Logos (Dial. 61.3). Thus, like Philo, Justin had a two-stage theory of the Logos, in which it first existed in God’s mind and at some point (“the beginning”) was uttered to become a personal being. Justin uses the analogy of a fire lighting another fire to show that the Logos could be numerically distinct from God without lessening God’s own power (Dial. 128-129).
Following Justin’s example, two-stage Logos theory became the primary lens through which John 1 was interpreted by 2nd-century Christian apologists. Theophilus of Antioch argues that the first words of John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” refer to the internal (endiathetos) Logos in God’s own mind, whereas “and the Word was God” refers to the emission of the uttered (prophorikos) Logos to become a personal being (To Autolycus 2.10, 22). Athenagoras of Athens and Tatian of Adiabene also held that the Logos was brought forth from God’s mind in the beginning, making him “the first product of the Father” (Legatio 10) or “the first-begotten work of the Father” (Oratio 5; 7). Clement of Alexandria also clearly held to two-stage Logos theory, and thus interpreted John’s prologue:
Now an idea is a conception of God, and this the barbarians [non-Christians] have termed the Logos of God... Now the Logos, coming forth, was the cause of creation; then he also generated himself, when “the Word became flesh” [John 1:14] that he might be seen. (Stromata 7.3.15-16)
Now the Son is called the Logos, of the same name as the paternal Logos. But this [the paternal Logos] is not the Logos that became flesh, and not the Logos of the Father, but a certain power of God, as if it were an emanation of His Logos that has become mind and pervaded the hearts of men. (quoted in Photius, Bibliotheca 109)
Clement made a distinction between “the paternal Logos,” which is an impersonal power of God, and “the Logos” which is the Son; the latter came forth from the former to create the world, and eventually became flesh. Elsewhere, he refers to the Logos as “the first creation of God” (Strom. 5.14), “the first-created god” (Exc. ex Theo. 20), and together with the Spirit as “those primitive and first-created powers” (Comm. on 1 John 2.1).
Finally, another early adherent to Logos Christology was Tertullian of Carthage, a Christian apologist of the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. Like the other two-stage Logos theorists, Tertullian used the analogy of a human first considering a word in his mind, and then bringing it forth by speaking it. God existed alone before the beginning, but in the beginning, he brought the Logos forth, making it “second to Himself by agitating it within Himself” (Against Praxeas 5-6). Regarding the creation of the Son, he states,
[God] has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. (Against Hermogenes 3)
Thus, like other 2nd-century Christian philosophers, Tertullian believed that the Logos, a personal being, was brought into existence a finite time ago. This creation of the uttered Logos is “the beginning” spoken of in both Proverbs 8:22 and John 1:1 (Against Hermogenes 20).
In summary, the prologue of John fell into relative obscurity in the time of the Apostolic Fathers (apart from the Odes of Solomon, which we saw in the previous post). It was brought out of obscurity by Justin Martyr, who made a connection between the “Word” of John 1 and the Logos of Hellenistic philosophy. This interpretation quickly spread to other 2nd-century Christian apologists, who were likewise extremely influenced by Platonism and Greek philosophy. [2] They believed that the Logos, as a personal being, was brought into existence at “the beginning,” and later became human as Jesus. They interpreted John 1 as saying something like the following:
In the beginning was the internal Logos, and this was with God (in his mind). It was then uttered to become the Logos, a second god. God made all things through the Logos, and nothing that exists was made apart from him. In him is the light which brings knowledge and life to humanity. The Logos came into the world, to his own people, but was rejected; those who didn’t reject him were made children of God. The Logos was born as a human, Jesus, who, as the Logos, always perfectly reveals God.
In the next post, we’ll finish by examining how John 1 was interpreted into the 4th century AD, when there were major conflicts over Christology in the church.
______________________________
[1] James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2nd ed.; London: SCM Press, 1989), 220-230.
[2] Thomas E. Gaston, “The Influence of Platonism on the Early Apologists,” The Heythrop Journal 50, no. 4 (2009), 573-580.
No comments:
Post a Comment