How do later Gentile views of "the Word" in John 1 differ from the original Jewish-Christian understanding, and what are the theological implications?

Theology
1
-The interpretation of 'The Word' in John 1-

This discussion explores the meaning of “the Word” in John 1, focusing on whether John intended to depict a multi-personal God or convey a single divine self-revelation through Jesus. Participants are invited to reflect on how early Jewish monotheism may have shaped John’s message and how later Gentile interpretations might have influenced Christian theology.

#TheWordInJohn #ChristianTheology #BiblicalInterpretation #LogosInChristianity #UnderstandingGod

pixlr-image-generator-82912501-ff91-4773-9c54-3640481280c0
pixlr-image-generator-82912501-ff91-4773-9c54-3640481280c01344×768 45.7 KB

The interpretation of “the Word” in John 1 holds significant theological implications, especially when examined through the lens of first-century Jewish-Christian understanding versus later Gentile interpretations. In John’s Gospel, the Logos or “Word” is presented as both with God and as God, culminating in its embodiment in Jesus. However, early Jewish monotheism, which deeply shaped John’s perspective, would not have implied a separate, divine person within God but rather God’s own self-revelation made accessible in human form. This raises a critical question: Did John intend to introduce a complex, multi-personal deity, or was he conveying the profound mystery of one God expressing His presence and purpose through Jesus? If the latter, then how might later Gentile theological frameworks have shifted or even misunderstood John’s original meaning? Engaging with these questions opens up a vital discussion about the foundations of Christian theology and the development of our understanding of God.

1 Like
2

I don’t think the Word in the Gospel of John (which was surely not written by a Galilean fisherman) has any Trinitarian connotations. It appears that John was heavily influenced by the contemporary Greek-Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, for whom God’s Logos was a major theme. God’s Word and Wisdom are also personified in the OT without any suggestion they were part of some Trinity. I have read that this OT personfication is one of the reasons some monotheistic Jews weren’t horrified by the notion of Jesus being divine. Many of the early “heresies,” such as Gnosticism and Valentinianism, were based on an unknowable God who is revealed in emanations. I believe all of these are what the very Hellenistic John was getting at with his reference to the Word becoming flesh - Jesus as an emanation or personification of the one and only God. (His work was also clearly aimed at Docetism, which claimed that Jesus was purely divine and his fleshly body was an illusion; hence John’s emphasis on the flesh.)

3

Some Trinitarians would say “You’re completely ignoring the fact that John spent about three years with Jesus and then wrote his gospel around 90 A.D., giving him around 55-60 years to think about everything Jesus did and said. Do you really think his views couldn’t have changed, especially when they clearly changed regarding what the Messiah came to accomplish on his first visit? The grammar of John 1:1 is such that the Word wasn’t merely “with” the Father, but in an intimate, interpersonal relationship with the Father. How could that be if the Word wasn’t a “person” distinct from the Father?”

To which I would respond:

This idea—that John’s perspective might have changed over time—is an interesting one, but it’s not one that would support the idea of a preexistent Son in John’s writings. In fact, if we accept that John had decades to reflect on his experience with Jesus, it would make his words in the Gospel even more deliberate and purposeful. John, guided by the Spirit, used careful language to convey profound truths about Jesus’ identity as God manifest in flesh (John 1:1,14). His choice to open with “In the beginning was the Word” rather than “In the beginning was the Son” points to a clear emphasis: God’s eternal self-expression, His divine plan, was fully embodied in Jesus Christ. John’s careful language doesn’t support a preexistent, separate “Son,” but rather reveals that Jesus was the fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose—the Word made flesh. The depth of his understanding, matured by years of reflection, reinforces rather than reinterprets his unwavering belief in the oneness of God, revealed through Christ.

4

Regardless of the passage of time, it would be very difficult to believe a Galilean fisherman ever wrote in the level of Greek or theological concepts found in the Gospel of John. A theory I love is that the original Gospel was the EARLIEST one, in fact attributable to the apostle John. This explains why it seemingly has no awareness of the Synoptics and has an extremely different chronology (e.g., Jesus cleanses the Temple right at the start of his ministry, not the end). As the theory goes, this basic factual Gospel was then reworked in the timeframe to which it is now attributed (ca. 90-110 AD) to address theological controversies that were then raging, which is precisely what the Gospel does. The Word becoming flesh directly addresses Docetism, as do 1 John and 2 John. Once one frees oneself of the need to preserve the biblical accounts as literally true and starts focusing on history and context, a lot of pieces of the puzzle click into place (IMHO).

5

It’s a common question to wonder whether a Galilean fisherman like John could have written theologically complex and sophisticated Greek found in the Gospel of John. However, several factors support the possibility, even likelihood, of John the Apostle as the author despite his humble background.

First, education in Galilee, especially in religious contexts, wasn’t as limited as we might assume. Jewish boys, particularly those who were devout, often received training in the Scriptures. John, as a fisherman and follower of Jesus, would have had substantial exposure to Jewish teachings and interpretations of Scripture, as demonstrated by his use of rich Jewish themes and Old Testament references in the Gospel. It’s important to remember that even though John may not have had formal education, he likely absorbed theological concepts deeply during his years of close association with Jesus and in the years afterward.

Secondly, the passage of time allowed John to grow in his theological depth and understanding. Most scholars believe John wrote his Gospel later in life (around 90 A.D.), giving him decades to reflect on Jesus’ teachings and to clarify his understanding. This timeframe would have given him ample opportunity to adapt and refine his understanding of both theological ideas and the Greek language, especially given the multicultural environment of the early church.

Additionally, it’s possible John used a scribe, which was common in the ancient world for those dictating their recollections or ideas. A scribe, possibly well-versed in Greek, could assist with the finer points of the language while faithfully capturing John’s firsthand experiences and theology. This could explain the eloquence of the Greek, while still preserving the authenticity of John’s voice.

Therefore, while the Gospel of John contains advanced theological concepts, this doesn’t necessarily discount John the Apostle as the author. His years of personal growth, cultural exposure, and possibly scribal assistance all make it plausible that he wrote this Gospel, even with its profound theological insight.

1 Like
6

Well, of course, we can’t prove a negative. If we start with a heavy presumption or axiom that the attribution to the disciple John is true, no one can prove it isn’t. If I want to insist is was written by Oofus the Doofus, no one can prove it wasn’t. The fact is, few if any NT scholars believe the Greek and theology are compatible with the disciple John being the author or even the source except in some very remote sense. The probabllity of the disciple as the author is characterized as “extremely low,” not zero. Because the authorship is inconsequential to me, and the scholarly arguments are compelling, I go with the scholarly consensus. The probabilityy that a Galilean fisherman in, say, 30 AD was even still alive when the Gospel was written is, in itself, “extremely low.”

7

I suppose that its is a probability that we will never know. The original writings from the actual 1st century are completely lost to time and decay except in very small fragments.