A Prologue to Studies in the Fourth Gospel

Its Independency, Issues, and Interpretations

Riku P. Tuppurainen

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2021
• Print ISBN: 9781725273092, 9781725273108
• eBook ISBN: 9781725273115
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

The Fourth Gospel both blesses and betrays. It blesses readers who engage with its message, but it may betray those who read it nonchalantly. The notion that the Fourth Gospel is easy to understand is an enduring myth. This volume takes readers on a heuristic journey to discover the Fourth Gospel's unique theological aspects, problematic historical matters, inimitable literary features, and various interpretive approaches using an accessible format and easy-to-read language. The purpose of this publication is to enable readers to appreciate the Fourth Gospel's wide horizon, so necessary to understand its narratives in their historical and narrative contexts. Like the prologue of the Fourth Gospel that introduces and gives perspective on how readers should approach the rest of the Gospel, similarly, this volume introduces and gives perspective to studies in the Fourth Gospel. The text is divided into three parts, which examine its independent theology and argumentation, various outstanding issues, and its interpretation respectively. This volume is suitable for a wide readership, from Bible study groups to pastors and from undergraduate to graduate students.

part one

Independency of the Fourth Gospel

chapter 1

Logos and Divine Identity of Jesus

“In the beginning was the Word”1 is the surprising opening of the Fourth Gospel (FG). On the one hand, Jewish readers would have expected to read, “In the beginning was God,” but instead of ho theos (God), the evangelist writes ho logos (the Word). On the other hand, Greco-Roman readers (Jews and Gentiles) who were familiar with Hellenistic philosophy and the writings of Philo may have also been surprised by the FG’s opening statement. Logos for them was not the first cause but rather something that flows out from it.2 Thus, the Fourth Evangelist’s opening might have had a “shock” effect on the first readers, especially for those outside of Johannine community.

Today’s readers may also marvel at the FG’s opening. Several questions could be asked such as: To what end does the author use ho logos? Why does the author not use, for example, the title Christ or the name Jesus to refer the one who became flesh? What is the significance of ho logos? Does the author try to clarify something previously said in other Gospels, or is he aiming to give new information about God to his readers that is more appealing to his Hellenistic readers? Or, was this word simply the best available term to describe Jesus of Nazareth in his pre-existent state?3 And if yes, why?

Preliminary Observations

Although many NT authors use the ho logos phrase, they use it mainly in its customary meaning of communication, referring to something that is said or written.4 Its Christological usage is found only a few times in Johannine literature. It is employed in that special sense at the beginning of the Gospel in John 1:1 and 1:14, and in 1 John 1:1.5 In a few other cases in Johannine literature, namely, in Revelation 19:13 and John 17:17, ho logos might also be understood Christologically, but this interpretation is a matter of dispute.

Ho logos in John 1:1 is translated into English by using its lexical meaning “word” with a capital “W” to convey its special reference to a divine being. Attempts to define its Christological meaning with another single English word is impossible. If one replaces it with “Jesus,” it is not accurate since the name “Jesus” was given to the incarnated ho logos. Nor can one use the title “Christ” (Messiah) for the same reason. If we say that it refers to the second person of the Godhead, we are reading post-Johannine theology into Johannine text, a theology that was unknown to both the author and his readers. Thus, to grasp its meaning in the Prologue, we need to listen carefully to the Gospel itself and examine the contemporary philosophical-theological notion of ho logos.

In this chapter, we examine the backdrop for the Johannine technical use of ho logos in order to understand the Fourth Evangelist’s conceptualization of ho logos and why he possibly employed this phrase. We conclude the chapter by looking at the relation of ho logos to the Gospel’s presentation of Jesus’s identity.

Stoics and Philo of Alexandria: Logos as Hellenistic and Philosophical Concept

Pre-Johannine, first-century CE Hellenistic philosophy used the term logos as one of the many expressions to explain the beginning and existence of the universe. As early as sixth-century BCE, pre-Socratic Heraclitus, who had an influence in Ephesus, assigned the force behind the universe’s order and course to “thought.” His “thought” (i.e., logos) was not, however, a person or a divine being,6 yet he referred to logos as an “eternal, omnipresent, and divine cause.”7

Stoics, over two hundred years before Christ, took these ideas of Heraclitus and developed them further. For them logos was “the common law”—the law according to which every person should live in harmony with nature. Yet, logos was not passive but an active principle (guiding, controlling, directing) in the universe, which acts upon the passive principle, namely, the matter in the universe.8 This kind of universalism took the Stoic notion of ...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Part One: Independency of the Fourth Gospel
• Part Two: Issues in the Fourth Gospel
• Part Three: Interpretations of the Fourth Gospel
• Bibliography