The Logos
By
Theodore Three Bears
The Logos has been commonly used in Christianity to mean Jesus. John used the word logos seventeen times in the gospel that bears his name. But is he referring to Yeshua who is called Jesus in the common tongue with every utterance of the word?
Reading through the gospel it becomes obvious that he is not using this word as a replacement. Thirteen times it simply means to speak. It is only in the first chapter in two verses that John appears to indicate that the word logos means Jesus. Still in reading the Greek manuscripts I am in doubt that John is using this in a special way. One reason I have is the ordinary way in which John uses the word logos in verse 1 and 14 of the first chapter. In Greek it is customary to capitalize the word to give it an important meaning, as he done with the word destroyer in Revelation which he capitalizes. In both verses logos is lower case. If one reads the Greek manuscript logos is spelled with the letter l and not with the capitalized letter L. If John did intend for this to have special significance his intentions are missing. Therefore, I have difficulty in accepting the Christological interpretation, that John is referring to the Logos of Heraclitus. For whom the Logos was a controlling force of the universe. Heraclitus uses Logos in a philosophical sense, not in a religious one. For John who wrote Revelation, it is a difficult to imagine that he seen Yeshua outside of the Hebrew interpretation. When I research the word in Strong’s concordance, it is evident that it is Christians who are giving special meaning to the word that is outside of the normal usage of the period.
lovgoß Logos (log'-os);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3056
A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.
In researching the word logos in the New Testament I find it is used in all four gospels. Yet, strangely Matthew, Mark and Luke all use the word logoi (logoi) as the plural, yet in John he uses both lovgoß logos interchangeably as singular and plural noun. What makes this even more uncertain is John also uses logos as a verb. Is there another way of looking at logos that would be appropriate? What does today’s word logo mean, for logo is a derivative of logos. In the first definition presented in Strong’s Concordance for logos is the embodiment of an idea, or the act of conceiving and idea. In this thought, is not a modern logo anything more than the conception of an idea? When a company designs a logo, they are trying to convey in a single image a more complex but simplified message. Would message be the more appropriate rendering of logos?
The traditional rendering of John 1:1 and 1:14 is,
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Could the correct interpretation of John 1:1 and 1:14 be read as,
In the beginning was the message, and the message was with God, and the message was God.
And the message became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Would changing this diminish Yeshua’s importance to a Christian? When I compare this to the traditional rendering of John as found in Young’s Literal Translation. I start to see how this fits more coherently with what Jesus has always said his purpose was. Staying with John so as not to pollute the pure essence of a singular source we find that Jesus has said what his purpose was.
John 8:28 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things.”
John 14:10 "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.”
Surprisingly I found this same “thought” in Deuteronomy, when GOD is speaking about the future when GOD would send HIS promised Messiah. This is of great importance because in the context of continuity it makes the use logos less likely that John is intending the use of logos to indicate that he intended logos to support Heraclitus’ concept of logos.
Deuteronomy 18:18 “I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.”
You may ask why I find that the concept of continuity important. It is important because if we see Moses as the first messenger of GOD who introduces Judaism to the world, then we see Yeshua as the final messenger of GOD who perfects Judaism. It is the continuity across the millenniums that prove GOD’s direct involvement in shaping how HE desires us to perceive HIM. In the following verse, we see clearly that this continuity ends with Yeshua, as he speaks of his disciples.
John 17:7-8 "I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You."
It is interesting that Yeshua chooses to use the word manifested. Besides the past tense of the verb, which proves that Yeshua accomplished what his Father wanted him to accomplish, manifest has a special significance to the modern concept of logo. The logo is the visual manifestation of the idea that one is trying to convey with a logo.
In chapter seventeen, we see Yeshua divorcing himself from the idea that he is the logos of Heraclitus and in doing so, it is possible to step beyond the typical Christological rendering of logos to something more profound.
John 17:14 "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.”
John 17:17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”
It is also here in the seventeenth verse of the seventeenth chapter that Yeshua uses the word logos for the last time, and he chooses to do so as a noun. It is also the last time that John uses it as a noun. Afterwards John uses the logos three more times as a verb.
Why has no one seen this interpretation of logos before? The answer is something many of us have known, that the bible is full of mistranslations. Some were intentionally mistranslated to give credence to traditions started after the death of Yeshua’s disciple, and others accidentally.
Returning to the first chapter of John we find the second verse that reads,
John 1:2 this one was in the beginning with God;
Yet, in the King James Version it changes slightly but profoundly to,
The same was in the beginning with God. John 1:2 KJV
In looking at the KJV, it is obvious that the words “The same,” is confusing. Darby and English preacher of the 19th century was heavily influenced by the King James Bible change this to read
*He* was in the beginning with God. John 1:2 Darby
Darby’s translation also made its way into New King James version. The word in question is ou|toß Houtos that means “this.” The translators of the King James Version must have mistakenly used the word aujtovß Autos, which has both meanings of “the same” and “he.” The two words are very similar, and this can be easily attributed to the fact that the ink used on the papyrus would have bleed over time from moisture distorting the letters ever so slightly, so over time as the original would be used for copying a mistake was made. Let us also consider that in the seventeenth century light was either sunlight or candlelight and there were no eyeglasses at that time. Darby on the other hand merely chooses an alternate meaning of the same word the translators of the King James used. In the Greek manuscripts that survive, we can see that the second verse is written using houtos and not autos.
ouJ'toß h\n ejn ajrch'/ pro;ß to;n qeovn.
Next to the Greek manuscripts the next oldest is the early Latin manuscripts, and what is found here confirms that John used houtos and not autos.
hoc erat in principio apud Deum.
In Latin the hoc is translated as “this”. Still Young also makes a critical mistake for he for no apparent reason inserts the word “one” into this translation. Word for word John 1:2 reads
ouJ'toß h\n ejn ajrch'/ pro;ß to;n qeovn.
Houtos en en arche pros ton Theon.
This was in beginning with the God.
In looking at it from this perspective using “message” as John’s intended meaning of logos is the more appropriate rendering of logos. John was not saying that Yeshua, the man, existed since the foundations of time, but the message of GOD that was embodied in Yeshua always existed. Yet this slight mistake has profoundly altered the course of Christianity. In saying that Yeshua the man of flesh existed since the beginning of time, we are naturally confronted with many issues that as human beings we have difficulty in understanding. In light of this, explanations as to the nature of Yeshua have been offered that have no biblical foundation. When the gospels are earnestly studied these explanations fall apart. I believe this is what happens when we try to make a mistake fit the truth.
This one mistake is basis for the concept of the Trinity. With the mistake between houtos and autos we are forced to explain this in light of the Shema. The Shema is the foundation of Jewish monotheism, and was what Yeshua said. The Shema is found in two places in scripture.
Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God is one YHWH.”
Mark 12:29 “and Jesus answered him -- `The first of all the commands is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one. `”
Logically if Yeshua existed since the foundation of creation, and GOD is one, therefore Yeshua must be GOD. If logic is to be true, it requires truthful premises. If Yeshua is the embodiment of the message, and the message existed since the beginning of time, this does not mean Yeshua existed since the beginning of time. Nor by itself does it mean that Yeshua is GOD. A further complication to the concept of the trinity is the explanation of the Holy Spirit. Here there is a mistranslation, but not one of intention, rather one of limitation. In Hebrew, the Holy Spirit is called Ruach HaKodesh and has always been a feminine noun. However, in Greek the noun for spirit is pneu'ma Pneuma that a neuter noun meaning by itself it is with out gender. Using John 14:26 as an example we can see that making the Holy Spirit into a masculine noun is not correct.
John 14:26 “and the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and remind you of all things that I said to you.”
ο δε Παρακλητος, το Πνευμα το Αγιον, το οποιον θελει πεμψει ο Πατηρ εν τω ονοματι μου, εκεινος θελει σας διδαξει παντα και θελει σας υπενθυμισει παντα οσα ειπον προς εσας.
In the original Greek, it does not read like this. In Greek the word translated as he is ejkei'noß Ekeinos and according to Strong this word can mean he, she or it.
Latin also bears this out. The word for spirit in Latin is spiritus and is a neutral noun with out gender. Moreover, like Greek the word ille can be interchanged between he and she. This should not surprise anyone since the Latin vocabulary borrowed heavily from the Greek.
paracletus autem Spiritus Sanctus quem mittet Pater in nomine meo ille vos docebit omnia et suggeret vobis omnia quaecumque dixero vobis.
Again using logic of if Yeshua and GOD are one, they must be the same, if the Holy Spirit is also GOD therefore the Holy Spirit must be a “he,” in the mind of the time two different genders could not exist together in one person and be perfect. Again, logical procedures do not necessarily produce truthful results unless the input to the premise is truthful. Since the Holy Spirit has always been considered feminine in Hebrew, the premise of the Holy Spirit being masculine is false. Especially when in both Greek and Latin the noun and pronoun used are neutral in gender and can be read either way. When conflict arises in scripture, are we not supposed to use what came before? The evidence is more than circumstantial that the Holy Spirit was, is and will be feminine until creation disappears.
From a mistranslation of logos, we have also erroneously invited the worshipping of Yeshua. It appears logical that Yeshua is GOD, from the first chapter of John, but what about other evidence that seems to support this. In all four gospels, we read people that people worshipped Yeshua. Staying with John for an example, we can read in the King James Version in chapter nine,
John 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. KJV
While in Young’s Literal translation does not say he worshipped him in the conceptual idea of worshipping a god.
John 9:38 And he said, I believe, Lord: and he did him homage. YLT
As I stated all four gospels have people worshipping Yeshua, and they all have the same word in common. The word they all use in Greek is proskunevw Proskuneo. Looking at Strong’s definition it is difficult to see how this word can mean to worship as in to worship a god. Even in the third definition, which is solely a definition of Christology leaves a great deal of doubt to mean that this indicates worship.
proskunevw Proskuneo (pros-koo-neh'-o);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb, Strong #: 4352
It is very likely that these people were making a deep plea for Yeshua’s help or expressing their thanks for his help in the most profound way they had that was acceptable to their custom at the time.
Lastly is Thomas’ declaration of Yeshua’s divinity in the twentieth chapter of John. Here plainly stated is Thomas declaring Yeshua to be his God.
John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, My Lord and my God.
There are several reasons to be careful of over-extending a definition to fit ones beliefs. It was a common practice of Semitic people to refer to angels as a God, as can be seen in fourth definition of Strong’s Concordance for the definition of Theos. It was their belief that in honoring GOD’s messenger they would be showing their respect to GOD.
qeovß Theos (theh'-os);
Word Origin: Greek, Noun Masculine, Strong #: 2316
We must also remember that Thomas said this after the resurrection of Yeshua. Still in the common practices of the time, the fourth definition actually lends more credence to the idea that Yeshua was GOD’s messenger and not GOD. If we actually think about it is not GOD’s messenger actually GOD’s representative?
While I have no doubt that Yeshua is both the promised Messiah and GOD’s only begotten son, I have doubts that it was Yeshua’s intention that we worship him. John epistles predate the gospel with his name, and what I find striking is that when defining the antichrist, John states two conditions that we are to test for. We are to consider a person antichrist if they deny that Yeshua came in the flesh and that he is not the son of GOD. Strangely missing is a requirement that we declare Yeshua GOD. This is not so strange because in the sixth chapter of the gospel of Luke we find Yeshua saying,
Luke 6:46 “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things that I say?” YLT
Here we find Yeshua placing greater importance on his message that GOD gave him than he is in being called Lord, which is a term used to denote GOD. Is it that Yeshua felt that the message GOD gave him was more important than he is? If his existence is dependent upon the message as John says it is in the first chapter, and if Yeshua is the faithful son of GOD, then the yes, Yeshua placed his purpose above himself.
John also shows the same thing, but in a positive light. In chapter nine, we see Yeshua saying the following,
John 13:13 “ye call me, The Teacher and The Lord, and ye say well, for I am.” YLT
Notice that Yeshua says that he is the teacher, as this indicates that he came with the purpose of delivering a message that the people needed to learn. Without using circumstantial evidence, and only using direct evidence that is found in the original scripture it becomes more difficult to accept that the logos of John is the man Yeshua. Instead, I find more reason to reject the common Christological explanation of Yeshua as the Logos, and more reason to find that it was the message that was with GOD since the foundation of time. Believing that Yeshua is the message of GOD and not GOD does not diminish the glory that is Yeshua’s. GOD could only have trusted HIS own son for this purpose. He gave glimmers of this message to HIS prophets but they were rejected. By sending HIS son and having Yeshua declare that he was, the son of GOD gave every one the chance to believe in him, and in believing in him they could believe in his message.
I would like to leave the idea of a Trinity for a while, as it is not the exact message that Yeshua was created to deliver. Although the unification of the Father, Holy Spirit and son are perhaps, the greatest message humanity could ever hope to receive. The message that Yeshua delivered in truth has always been with GOD, but humanity was not ready for it in the beginning.
We know that one part of the message Yeshua delivered to us was the forgiveness of sins. In the Torah, which is the Law comprise the first five books of what is called the Old Testament. In the Torah and more specifically in Leviticus there are two types of sin, intentional and unintentional. Yet, only unintentional sin is permitted to be atoned for. Why is this? The answer is found in Exodus at the foot of Mount Sinai. When Moses was on top of the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments from GOD, the Israelites were below creating a golden calf to sacrifice to. They were too long in Egypt and became polluted by Egyptian gods. GOD needed to become very strict in HIS laws or they would revert to following strange gods. GOD needed to make an example out of them, or else they would never be the people HE planned for them to be. Yes, some can see GOD as cruel and without mercy, but they see only what they want. If GOD was to have forgiven them at the foot of Sinai would they have learned a lesson, or would they have despised GOD as being weak? I think we all can realize that people, being they way we are would have despised GOD and thought that HE was a soft GOD. In this, they would never have had the motivation to learn GOD’s laws.
Laws that are just are not singular in nature, they are dualistic. There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. When we look at what GOD seen at the foot of Sinai we can see that the Israelites needed to learn the letter of the law before they could ever hope to understand the spirit of the law. The letter of the law tells one not to do something. The letter of the law does not say why. This is the realm of the spirit of the law. The letter of the law is hard, it cannot be broken. And if broken it must be addressed and atoned for. If during the early times of Israel’s existence as a nation, GOD was to allow the Israelites to atone for intentional sins, would they have ever been ready to be the priests GOD said they were to become. Think of children; if they know that they can go out and do what they want and they could make some sort of apology to their parents and be forgiven, what is there to stop them from destructive behavior? For a long while GOD would make them live under the letter of the law. But GOD is merciful, HE allowed them to make innocent mistakes, but forced them to realize their mistake through ritual atonement. Over time a legal profession arose that twisted the truth, and turned intentional sin into unintentional sin. As legal professions go that are administered by men, corruption is an inevitable result. The rich were able to buy the best lawyers and bribe the judge. The innocent were found guilty and guilty innocent. The letter of the law could appear to be intact while in truth it became twisted in legalism. This was a part of the message Yeshua came to deliver. This is what he condemned the Pharisees’ for doing.
Yeshua showed that even though the letter of the law could appear to be intact the spirit of the law was broken. Yeshua introduced the spirit of the law as an integral and equal part of the whole law. He did this through the Sabbath laws, showing that a man could keep the letter of the law on the Sabbath and break the spirit of the Law, by using the reverse. He showed that man could break the letter of the Law and not sin by keeping the spirit of the Law.
However, perhaps the most import message Yeshua brought to the world about the Law was that now GOD was ready to allow us to atone for intentional sins. Not through ritual, but through the living formula that Yeshua laid out. Repentance, cessation of evil, asking for GOD’s mercy for the sins we committed by being merciful to those who wrong us, and through an abiding faith in him that he is speaking for his Father. There was one ritual that Yeshua would allow; it was the baptism that John the Baptist preached, the baptism of repentance. A baptism is nothing more than a mikva, a ritual washing to symbolize purification. Baptism was not intended as an initiation into a new religion, but as cleansing to purify one so they could enter into the new covenant. Yeshua took this from John, who did not say be baptized and repent, but said to repent and then be baptized. Yeshua offered humanity a way to approach GOD even though in their past they have sinned.
While all of this is important, I do not believe that this was the essence of the message that Yeshua was sent to deliver. I said what Yeshua came to tell us was like the Trinity, but as I hope you can now see that there is absolutely no scriptural proof to the Trinity, as most Christians understand the concept of the Trinity to be. There is good reason to doubt that Yeshua existed at the creation of time, there is absolutely no proof that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is masculine, and there is ample proof that the Holy Spirit was always considered feminine at the time that Yeshua walked the earth. So what can be like a Trinity, but not a Trinity, and have both masculine and feminine elements in it?
The answer may surprise you, as the answer is that in all aspects, GOD is a Unity. In Hebrew scripture, GOD has appeared to humanity in two forms. He has appeared to us publicly as power, and in this form HE has always been associated with a masculine noun, and GOD has appeared to us privately as a spirit, and this SHE has always been a feminine noun. Luke describes in the first chapter of his gospel that Yeshua was conceived by both the Holy Spirit of GOD coming over Miriam and the Power of GOD overshadowing her.
Luke 1:35 “And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God. “
What we see here is first time since the Universe was created that the two aspects of GOD reunited to create a human life. In the Genesis account of the creation of humankind we find the Power of GOD forming us from the dust of the earth, and after we were formed the Spirit of GOD breathing life into us. At this moment, I will need to digress a little, because I can understand the question you are now asking yourself. If I am unequivocally advocating that GOD is one, then how can GOD have two natures? Here I need to use physics to show how this happened. Of all the scientific explanations for the creation of the Universe, it is the Big Bang theory, which has stood firmly as the best possible explanation. Even though we do not have all the answers, most rational minds would agree that it is the most probable explanation, and if these minds are unbiased towards or against religion, they can admit that the creation story of Genesis paraphrases the Big Bang.
Before the bang, there existed a singularity, infinitesimally small, but holding infinite potential. This singularity is GOD complete and whole. The bang is fission, the splitting of the singularity. The singularity inside the universe became a duality. It is this duality we find GOD speaking to in the plural pronouns we and us, in Genesis. During the fission process of fission, particles are thrown off as a result of the process. These particles over time coalesced into matter, which in turn coalesced into the stars and the planets. Considering that when a single atom splits it generates 10 million times more energy than the matter that it split from, it would have been quite a spectacle to see. Yet, even though the energy released is enormous, the two halves of the atom remain as now different substances. Fusion is the process that can reunite these two dissimilar halves into one whole that is not equal to the original. This is what we are seeing in Luke, the fusion of the two halves of the same GOD. This has never happened since the Big Bang, and will never happen again. Therefore, to see GOD as whole, but in two different natures does not invalidate the oneness of GOD. Seeing GOD in two forms is simply the result of living in the physical universe.
Returning to the message that GOD gave Yeshua to give us is one message that only the son of GOD could give us. The message so profound, that when taken into your being will transform you, is that GOD in both aspects has always considered us THEIR children. Look at how Yeshua taught us to pray. He taught us to make our prayers to “Our Father,” not his. The parable of the youngest son, where Yeshua takes the role of the eldest son, tells us that GOD wants us simply to come home. He also tells us that if we do the will of the Father, we are his brothers and sisters. This is the Unity and the message GOD always wanted us to have since the foundation of time. For the Universe was created just for us.
Before I finish I will attempt to preempt your final question. If the Holy Spirit is really Yeshua’s mother, than why does he acknowledge Miriam as his mother? It is a good question. Yeshua had only one Father, YHWH, but he had two mothers, a physical mother, Miriam and a spiritual Mother, the Holy Spirit. In Yeshua’s warning not to blaspheme the Holy Spirit or we will face the unpardonable sin, I am reminded of something so profound it need not be explained in scripture for we all know this instinctively, and that is the mother is sacred. All mothers are sacred to their children, and the worst crime imaginable is matricide, the killing of ones own mother. Is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit equal to matricide?
May GOD give you peace so that in peace you may reflect upon these words that the Lord has given me to give to you. For HE has told me that the time is now we must stop following the traditions of men and take the message that HE gave HIS only begotten son to give us into our hearts. If we reject art that masquerades as science and superstition that has replaced faith, then we can be free to search for the truth that is GOD.