The Word of God

Thus wrote the beloved apostle after he was convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Messiah promised by the ancient prophets in the Holy Scriptures.

For many years it has been commonly considered that John obtained this concept of the Word (Gr. Logos) from Philo Judaeus. This has been the teaching in universities and seminaries and has been accepted, almost without question, around the world.

In this presentation we shall consider the following queries:

1. Did the apostle obtain this conviction from the prominent Jewish writer, Philo?

2. Do we have any reliable data as to whether Philo even knew anything about Jesus and His apostles?

3. Did John really need the teaching of Philo, or was there something in his Hebrew back ground that was far more reliable?

First, let us observe what the Scriptures tell us about the expression "the word of God."

In our general understanding of the term we think of it as applying to the Holy Scriptures. This is true, but the term "word of God" is very rarely applied to the Sacred Record in its written form. The fact is that it has several slants of meaning that can be seen in several scriptural passages.

It was applied to the divine message God gave to His servants the prophets: "The word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . ." (Jer. 1:4; see also Eze. 1:3, et cetera).

It was applied to the gospel message of Jesus and the resurrection, which the early apostles preached.

It was only rarely applied to the written Scriptures: "They preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews" (Acts 13: 5). "They came to Antioch . . . and went into the synagogue. . . . And after the reading of the law and the prophets . . ." (verses 14, 15).

From these Scripture references we could conclude, and rightly so, that the messages that came to the ancient prophets in vision were later incorporated into the canon of Sacred Scripture. Hence this written record does constitute the word of God.

We must bear in mind, how ever, that what the apostles preached about Jesus the Messiah was definitely based upon this written record. Consequently, we could understand that both the Old and the New Testament, with the written record of the mes sages of Jesus and His apostles, constitute the word of God.

But there is still another vital and important aspect of this unique expression. As mentioned above, the Holy Spirit presents the truth that the "word of God" centers also in a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ. John expresses this not only in his Gospel but also in his Epistle, "the Word of life" (1 John 1:1), and in the Apocalypse (Rev. 19:13). This being true, we have the twofold application of the term "word of God."

This must have been a thrilling revelation to the early band of men Jesus called to be His coworkers. It took them some time to realize that Jesus of Nazareth was actually the promised Messiah. And it took the revelation of His resurrection to convince them that He was the Word of God.

Yet, they were "slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25). It took yet another revelation from heaven—the baptism of the Holy Spirit—more fully to convince them, and then we see them filled with a holy zeal, and they "went every where preaching the word" (Acts 8:4). We now come to the three queries.

1. Did the apostle obtain this conviction from the prominent Jewish writer, Philo?

Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and the apostles. This Jewish philosopher was born about 20-10 B.C. and died around A.D. 50, and so his life span covered more than that of Jesus, and even of some of the apostles. However, there is a factor of much importance that must be kept in mind: the communication facilities—traveling, and other means of publicity. Jerusalem was not far from Alexandria, where Philo lived, but then the common way of travel was perhaps by camel, mule, oxen, or sailboat. This factor could raise our second query:

2. Do we have any reliable data as to whether Philo even knew anything about Jesus and His apostles?

Let us look at what Philo taught. He was a Jew, but largely influenced by Greek gnosticism. He believed in the Logos, the "Word," but those who have care fully studied his works tell us that to him:

True reason was Logos. This he did not personify, but he apparently recognized it as the Spirit which, immanent in the Messiah, would make Him the divine messenger of God. Philo never linked the ideas of Logos and Messiah into one divine Person, as John did so boldly (John 1: 1-3, 14).¹

While the Platonian doctrine of the supreme value of the spiritual had been already anticipated in Asia, and had been promulgated in Greece, it fell short of the full truth as enshrined in the sayings of Jesus. ²

Philo had a peculiar method of interpreting the Old Testament— and is also noted for his philosophical speculations on the Old Testament. ³

Obviously Philo did write concerning the "Word" and also the "Messiah"; in fact, in places he seems to equate the Logos with the Messiah. But there is an uncertainty in what he writes. Some times he speaks of the Logos as reason, and at times he very definitely refers to the Logos as though it were a person.

Although this is so, there is a great question whether he ever heard of Jesus or His disciples even though he lived at the same time. The translator of his works into English writes in his introduction in volume one:

His lifetime covers the lifetimes of Jesus Christ and John Baptist, and much of that of St. Paul. There is no intimation that he knew anything of their life or work. ⁴ Another prominent writer remarks:

Nevertheless Philo stands out as one of the landmarks in the history of religion. His career lies on the boundaries between the old world and the new. Born not later, in all probability, than 20 B.C., and dying some time after A.D. 41, possibly not until the fifth decade of our era, he was a contemporary both of Jesus and of Paul. These facts alone mark his significance for students of early Christianity. On the nature of that significance we must briefly dwell.

Needless to say, there is no trace of acquaintance on his part with Jesus or His foremost apostle. We cannot tell whether he ever came into contact with the Christian faith. ⁵

This would indicate that what ever he wrote about the "Word"— the Logos being the Messiah— probably had no reference to Jesus of Nazareth. It would follow that if he knew nothing about Jesus and His apostolic group, they probably knew nothing about Philo.

3. Did John really need the teaching of Philo, or did he have something in his Hebrew heritage that was far more valuable?

The Hebrews were not ignorant of their ancient literature. They had the Targums dating orally from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. These Targums are in Aramaic, a language akin to Hebrew, and are somewhat of a paraphrase. Although not a translation, they do tell us that the Jewish people understood what the prophets and others had in mind in their understanding of the ancient Scriptures. The chart on page 18 illustrates this.

Do we not see these concepts reflected in the New Testament in such statements as John 1:1, 3; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; and Ephesians 3:9?

Both creation and the work of sustenance are involved. Being created, if they are to serve the divine purpose, they must be sustained, held together. So we read:

"And in him [Christ] all things hold together" (Col. 1:17, R.S.V.). It is no wonder that J. W. Etheridge ⁶ in the introduction to his work wrote concerning the Memra Word:

The phrase in question is only used to express the presence and agency of a real Person. ⁷

This appellation is employed in the Targums with such an intimacy of relation to the Almighty as to render it in many cases a synonym for the Divine Name itself. ⁸

The visible manifestation of the Divine presence, known in Hebrew by the name of the Shekinah, is not infrequently identified in the Targums with the Memra. ⁹

In the New Testament, where, along with nearly thirty aspects of meaning, there is one in which the Aoyog Toν Θεoú shines resplendent as a title of Him who was in the beginning, who was with God, who was God, and by whom all things were made; so in the Targums. ¹⁰

So, we repeat, the early disciples, when they were satisfied that Jesus was the Messiah, had no difficulty in applying what was taught years before their time, that the Messiah Jesus was indeed and in truth the Word of God, by whom all things were created, and it is He who is our Saviour. What a thrilling message to proclaim to the world.

In the light of these records from the days long ago, we can perhaps better appreciate the following counsel from the Spirit of Prophecy:

Christ the Word, the Only Begotten of God, was one with the eternal Father,— one in nature, in character, and in purpose, —the only being in all the universe that could enter into all the counsels and purposes of God. ... To Christ, equally with the Father, all heaven gave allegiance. ¹¹ Through Christ the Word, a personal God created man. ¹²

He took humanity upon Himself. To the astonishment of the heavenly host, the eternal Word came to this world as a help less babe. . . . "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). ¹³

The Word existed as a divine being, even as the eternal Son of God, in union and oneness with His Father. From everlasting He was the Mediator of the covenant. . . . Before men or angels were created, the Word was with God, and was God. . . . Christ was God essentially and in the high est sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore. ¹⁴