| John 1:1-5: First five versus of the Prologue to John.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word
Was God. He was in the beginning with God. all things came into
being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.
What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of
all people. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness did not
Understand it."
I accept the NRSV translation of this passage except for Using the verb
"understand" rather than "overcome" in verse 5. The usage of the verb
overcome in that passage would imply a universalism that is not
consistent with the rest of the prologue or with the Gospel as a whole.
If some persons did not accept the light that was Jesus Christ, then
for those persons the Darkness has in fact overcome the Light. In all
cases in the Gospel, the Darkness does not understand the light that is
Jesus Christ.
The translations offered by the NSRV, NJB, and NAB and by the
commentaries by Barrett, Bultmann, Schackenburg, and Brown are
essentially the same for these five versus, although Barrett does
provide "understand" as an alternative verb in v 1:5 and suggests that
the author may be playing on the double meaning of the verb. An
important note on using the NSRV translation is that it is the only
translation evaluated that uses the world "all" in verse 4 stating
that "the light was the light of all people." The inclusion or
omission of the word "all" from a Universalist perspective, is
significant. Emphasis on the word 'all' here along with the verb
overcome in verse 5, would imply a universalalist emphasis in the hymn
which as stated above was not consistent with the rest of the Gospel.
It is however, not the only place in the Gospel where a hint of
universalism shines through.
The major exegetical issues, which I will address in this paper
include, 1. The original of the Prologue and its redaction by the
author of the Gospel identified in this paper as "John", 2. the source
of "John's" theology of the "Word", 3. The relationship among the
first five lines of the prologue, the prologue, and the Gospel as a
whole, 4. The literary and theological function of the passage, and 5.
the Christological claim of the passage that the "Word" was God. After
reviewing these major exegetical issues, I will then proceed to a
line by line discussion of the passage itself and Finally in my
conclusion, I will raise some Theological and related Social
Historical issues from my perspective as a Unitarian Universalist,
feminist, mystic and religious humanist.
Form and Redaction of the Passage
An important literary issue involving forms criticism and redaction
criticism is paramount to understanding the opening versus and their
significance for the rest of the Gospel of John. Most critics believe
that the Prologue is taken from an early Christian hymn and edited by
the author of John. There is a wide diversity of belief regarding how
much of the hymn is the original and what is the editing by John. Two
convincing alternatives are one by Ray Brown , that the Hymn was an
early hymn produced within the Johannine community, and the conclusion
by Snackenburg that "John" used "a primitive Christian hymn which
celebrated the preexistence and incarnation of Christ, added his own
comments and forged links between it and the Gospel narrative". Both
of these conclusions account for the obvious Johannine style of the
hymn. There is widespread agreement that the statements specifically
relating to John the Baptist are additions, but differing
interpretation of how much of the poetic material which specifically
links the poetry to the insertions may also be insertions. I support
the minority view favored by Schnackenburg , that versus 1, 3, & 4 are
original and 2 and 5 may be "John's" insertions to the original hymn.
I reject Bultmann's assertion that was popular for a long time, that
the hymn was an early Baptist- Gnostic hymn because I believe the
timing of full blown Gnosticism was after the writing of John and not
before.
Origin of "John's" Theology of Logos It is obvious that versus 1-5
draws a immediate and dramatic allusion to Gen 1:1-4 In the beginning
when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless
void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God
swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be
light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the
light from the darkness. Now John 1: 1-5 In the beginning was the word,
and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the
beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and
without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being
in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light
shines in the darkness and the darkness did not overcome it. John has
personified the "Word" that God spoke in the beginning to bring
creation, light, and life into the world. When these two passages are
viewed together it is easy to see that the "Word" is the creative
power of God and that John has personified this creative power of God.
Viewing these passages together also raises the question, what is
darkness particularly as we understand that later in John, darkness
becomes personified as the Devil. Is this Darkness/Devil a pre
existent void/person or is it created and included within the All
things created by the "Word?"
Another passage from the Hebrew Scripture that most probably influenced
the Prologue is Proverbs 8:22- 36. Again we have a personification of
God's Creative Power in the figure of Wisdom 8:22-25 NSRV. I have
used an alternative translation proposed by Carol Fontaine as the
opening verse.
" 'Yahweh acquired me at the beginning of his way', the first of his
acts of long ago. Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the
beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains
had been shaped before the hills, I was brought forth". and finally in
proverbs 8:30-36 "Then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I
was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his
inhabited world and delighting in the human race. And now, my children,
listen to me: happy are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be
wise, and do not neglect it. Happy is the one who listens to me,
watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For whoever finds
me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord. But those who miss me
injure themselves; all who hate me love death. According to Carole
Fontaine, "God used Wisdom to create the World and Placed Wisdom within
creation, amazingly personified as a woman. " I agree with Fontaine's
conclusion that "Wisdom creation theology becomes an important source
for the Theology of the Word" but I do not think it amazing that
Wisdom is personified in the Hebrew Scriptures as a woman. Women are
not recognized in Hebrew Scripture as full participants in the
Covenant with Yahweh and in the ten commandments both women and
slaves are viewed not as subjects of the commandments but as property
along with oxen, donkeys and anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Wisdom personified as a women addresses an implicit problem of Jewish
Monotheism. In the evolution from Polytheism to Monotheism, the
function of the goddesses needed to be transformed to other religious
symbols. The figure of Divine Wisdom partially accomplishes this
function in a way that both preserves Jewish monotheism and counters
the influence of the Goddesses. As a women in a tradition that
identifies women as "other" and not invested with the full personhood
of a man, the personification of Wisdom does not yet challenge the
position of Yahweh as the only God.
Influenced by Hellenistic Philosophy and its dualism and negative
imagery of women, neither Philo nor "John" could embrace a symbolic
universe which displayed the creative power of God as Female. Thus
borrowing from Stoic philosophy, both "John" and Philo, perhaps even
unconsciously, transformed the Female Wisdom into the Male Logos who
was given full personhood in the Gospel of John. The Stoic "Logos"
influenced John's theology borrowing the term from the God principle
within Stoicism. In Stoicism, Logos was "The rational principle in
accordance with which the universe existed and men were bound to frame
their lives " Philo wrote at the same time as "John" and used many of
the same sources as "John". "John" and Philo also shared similar
Worldview Both have a strong orientation of Greek Dualism putting
Heaven, Spirit, Light, Male at one pole and Earth, Flesh, Darkness,
and Female at the opposite pole. Educated in these Greek concepts as
well as in Hebrew Scriptures, both Philo and "John" simultaneous
transformed the Female Wisdom into the Male Logos. With John we have
the culmination of the merging of Hebrew Monotheism with Hellenistic
Dualism into a uniquely Christian Gospel.
Unity of Versus 1-5 with the Prologue and with the Gospel I believe
that the ideas presented in versus 1-5 introduce all the ideas from the
prologue and are tightly related to the theology of the Gospel of
John. "John" must have done some extensive editing to create a work
that so brilliantly introduces and summarizes the rest of the Gospel
Every motif of the prologue is introduced in those five versus. The
setting of these first five versus is outside of time, outside of
history, and outside of this world. The major motifs The Word,
Creation, life, light/acceptance, darkness/rejection all continue as
"The Word" moves into the World beginning with verse 6. These themes
are then elaborated throughout the Gospel. "The Word" itself is not
used outside of the prologue, but the identity of Jesus as the
preexistent heavenly being who descended from heaven is the major
Christological theme throughout. These following four themes
introduced in the first five versus are woven into the entire Gospel.
The themes are: Jesus originated in heaven with God and descended to
earth Jesus having come from God is the unique revealer Children of
Light Respond positively to Jesus. Children of Darkness deny and reject
Jesus
Theological and Literary Function of the Passage The first five versus
as part of the prologue is a beautiful poetic introduction to the rest
of the Gospel. These five versus 'transport' the reader into a
mystical, heavenly world. These versus appeal directly to the area of
the human psyche that is spiritual, emotional, and impacted greatly by
symbols. I agree with Warren Carter's thesis that the purpose of the
prologue is to poetically establish the theological symbols used
through the Gospel narrative. The use of this poetic form, so
beautiful, so mystical, and so different than the form of the rest of
narrative, heightens the interest and attention to the symbols
presented.
|
|
Christological Assertion that the Logos was God
On May 5, 1819, William Ellery Channing delivered the groundbreaking
Sermon on "Unitarian Christianity" which began the process of
establishing the American Unitarian Church as separate from the
Trinitarian churches. In that Sermon, Channing states, "We challenge
our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where the
word God means three persons, where it is not limited to one person "
There are three instances in the Gospel of John which appear to
identify the Logos as God. Two of those instance frame the prologue
with John 1:1C at the beginning stating "..and the Word was with God
and the Word was God". The prologue ends in verse 18 with "It is God
the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart," The beginning and
ending of the prologue is thereby framed by this Christological
assertion. Then at the very end of the Gospel in chapter 21, Thomas
proclaims in 20:28. "my Lord and My God". This Christology surrounds
the whole Gospel! Without fully understanding all the translation
issues, the way this Christology frames the Gospel is significant. Ray
Brown offers an excellent exposition of the debate which I will
include here. "The NT does not predicate "God" of Jesus with any
frequency. V. Taylor has asked whether it ever calls Jesus God, since
almost every text proposed has its difficulties. ... Most of the
passages suggested (John i 1, 18, xx 28, Rom ix 5, Heb i 8, II Pet i
1) are in hymns or doxologies-an indication that the title "God" was
applied to Jesus more quickly in liturgical formulae than in narrative
or epistolary literature. .... The way that the NT approached the
question of the divinity of Jesus was not through the title "God" but
by describing his activities in the same way as it described the
father's activities. In i 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the
usage of "God" for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any
suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father.
And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the
"Word" was a second God in any Hellenistic sense. While there is much
evidence in the New Testament as a whole and in John that God and Jesus
are separate (i.e. And the Word was with God), the evidence that Jesus
is identical to God is scant and never conclusive. In my opinion,
William Ellery Channing's challenge of 1813 has not been sufficiently
met even with the verse John 1:1c and its associated verses.
|
|
The Passage Itself
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.
A powerful opening sentence that immediately brings us back to the
beginning. Both to the beginning of the Bible with God creating the
Universe and to the beginning of time and history itself. In the
beginning refers to that time outside of time and history. This
statement clearly states the main theme that The Word was not created
but was with God from the beginning. It is unclear exactly how to
interpret "And the Word was God" it could mean, as Trinitarians
thought has evolved that the Word was a separate person in the
Godhead. There is an article missing in the Greek, that prevents the
statement from definitively equating the Word with God. There is
also the ambiguity of what does it mean to be with God and to be
God at the same time. I interpret the two statements, And the Word
was with God and the Word was God, to mean that there was a special
unity between God and The Word based on their being together in the
beginning of time and based on Jesus' complete understanding and
obedience to the will of God. In fact, what Jesus offers each of us is
to become part of that special unity through participation in his body
and blood: To partake of the bread from heaven and drink the living
water.
2. He was in the beginning with God.
This verse repeats and adds emphasis to the idea stated in verse 1.
The addition of the word "He" is significant in that it makes explicit
that the Word is a person. 3-4. One of the most debated translation
issues with this passage involving the translation of the third and
fourth verse. The most widely accepted translation is
3. All things came into being through him, and without him not one
thing came into being.
4. What has come into being in him was life,
and the life was the light of all people.
4. Slight variation What has come into being was life in him, and the
life was the light of all people.
An alternative reading is 3. All
things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came
into being that has come into being. 4. In him was life, and the
life was the light of all people. Verse three has essentially the same
meaning with both translations although the alternative reading is a
bit redundant. The Word was God's Agent in Creation. All of Creation
came to being through the Word and not one thing came into being
without him. The "all" and its opposite "not one thing" are the key
concepts. There is a strong parallel to the Genesis where God creates
the world and all that is in it. Again, the question needs to
surface, is the darkness a part of the "all" or is it merely the
absence of light. Was the Devil too created through him.
4. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light
of all people. (0r In him was life and the life was the light of all
people)
Verse four has very different meanings with and without the
clause in front. I Accept the first Reading. The two variations
listed are relatively minor. These reading are supported by most
commentaries. It was translated that way in Latin by Eusebius, Cyril
of Alexandria, Augustine and most of the Latin fathers (What had come
to be was life in him) and by Origen, Hilary, Ambrose, and the older
Greek Fathers (What had come to be in him was life). Both of these
alternatives support the step parallelism that is dominant through
versus 1-5, where the ending of one statement is used as the beginning
of the next statement. To include that verse at the end of verse
three also makes verse three very awkward. I agree that word life
means eternal life and not ordinary life that came into being in "the
Word". The Word is identified as important for the salvation of
humankind because eternal life came into being in "the Word". That
Eternal Life came to be in the Word implies the eternal life was not
always in "the Word" but it came into being from God, the Father. The
intermediary role of "The Word" as a creative and redeeming agent of
God is illustrated. It is easy to understand why after the Arian
controversy, the alternative translation(In him was life) was proposed.
Given that the pre Arian translation of the Latin Fathers included the
clause in front of verse 4, I believe it is the original. What came
into being in the Word was life which was the light of all people.
Again all is important. The light is available to all people. All
creations was created through the Word and eternal life is available
to all people through the Word.
5. The light shines in the darkness and
the darkness did not understand it. Here we have the first mention of
darkness. The symbols of light and darkness are employed throughout
the Gospel. Those who accept Jesus are children of the Light
(11:9,12:36). Those who do not accept Jesus are children of the
darkness. Since all created things were made through the Word, then
through the Word was created children of light and children of
Darkness. Therefore for all the children of Darkness, Darkness did in
fact overcome the light that was the light of all humanity. If
darkness did not overcome light, then all would have eternal life. Of
course we must also ask about the origin of Darkness. Was Darkness
also created through the Word or is Darkness another preexistent
condition or even when personified another preexistent being. The
Gospel of John, does not address this issue. It states that some who
came into being through the Word, became children of Darkness because
they did not accept Jesus as the true light. In them, darkness did
overcome the light because they could not understand the light.
|
|
Conclusions
The Prologue is one of the most powerful passages in the Bible. It is
seductive in its use of religious symbols. It is beautiful and
mystical and alluring. It invites you in. It allures with its charm.
The opening five versus, the prologue and the rest of the Gospel are
all consistent. Like the rest of the Gospel of John, however, the
prologue is intolerant of any set of religious symbols or expression
other than those it offers. As a Feminist, I have learned to read the
Bible with a hermeneutic of suspicion. Any religious expression that
does not affirm the Logos as the preexistent Son of God, the unique
revelation of God, and perhaps even God himself, is condemned as being
from the Devil. Any person who does not affirm these beliefs about the
Logos will be subject to eternal condemnation. The major principles
set forth in the Gospel are all introduced in this beautiful, mystical
Prologue. These principles however are in direct contradiction to my
beliefs in the Unity of one Divine reality that is available to all
people in a variety of expression, with Christianity being one among
many expressions. It also contradicts my beliefs in the Universal
nature of God's Love which is available to all people. In the Gospel
of John, only some people are children of Light and thereby able to
comprehend Jesus as the revealer of God. Those without this special
gift of understanding are condemned.
The prologue and the narrative together seeks to destroy all other
symbolic systems. Any one who maintains allegiances to any other
symbolic system is identified as evil. Those not children of light are
children of darkness, children of the Devil.
It is this exclusive claim of the Johannine tradition that caused
conflict between the Johannine community and the synagogue.
Johannine Christianity revaluated and recast the important heroes of
Judaism and then branded "the Jews" as children of the devil for not
accepting the Johannine redefinition of their heroes. The Gospel
reinterpreted the stories of Moses, Abraham, and Isaiah and could not
tolerate the "Jews" not accepting the rewriting of their history. In
addition, the Gospel of John, came close to identifying Jesus as both
God and son of God. This was seen by the some members of the Jewish
Community as a betrayal of Hebrew Monotheism and therfore blasphemous .
Perhaps in its infancy, the Christian Church needed to challenge its
parent Faith Community, the synagogue to ensure its own survival.
However, the Johannine tradition remains extremely popular among
Fundamentalist Christian Groups today, who still are ever ready to
brand anyone who does not accept their symbols, as a children of
darkness. This is an unfortunate use of the Christian message.
Bibliography
Brown, Ray. The Gospel According to John. Vol. 1 Garden City:
Doubleday Company, 1966.
Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John. 2nd edition,
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Carter, Warren. "The Prologue and John's Gospel: Function,
Symbol and The Definitive Word," Journal for the Study of the
New Testament vol. 39, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990
Channing, William Ellery. "Unitarian Christianity" in Three
Prophets of Religious Liberalism 2nd Ed, Ed Conrad Wright.
Boston, Unitarian Universalist Association, 1986
Fontaine, Carol. "Proverbs" in Women's Bible Commentary. Ed.
Carol Newsom and Sharon Ringe, Westminster: John Knox Press,
1992.
Frymer-Kensky, Tikva In the Wake of the Goddesses;Women,Culture,
and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth. New York: The Free
Press. 1992
Plaskow, Judith. Standing Again at Sinai; Judaism from a
Feminist Perspective. San Francisco, Harper Collins
Publishers, 1990.
Scott, Martin. Sophia and the Johannine Jesus. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1992.
Schnackenburg, Rudolph. The Gospel according to St. John. Vol. 1.
New York: Crossroad, 1982.
C.K Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John. 2nd ed.,
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) p. 158
Ray Brown, The Gospel Accourding to John. vol 1 (Garden City:
Doubleday Company, 1966) p. 20
Rudolph Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John. vol 1. (New
York: Crossroad, 1982) p. 223.
op. cit. Snackenberg, p. 26. Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A
Commentary. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) p. 20
Carole Fontaine, "Proverbs" in Women's Bible Commentary. ed. Carol
Newsom and Sharon Ringe, (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1992) p. 148
(NSRV Translation "The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.)
ibid. p. 148 Judith Plaskow, Standing Again at Sinai; Judaism from f
Feminist Perspective, (San Francisco, Harper Collins Publishers, 1990)
p. 25 Ex 20:17. NSRV For a complete discussion of this transformation
see Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture,
and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth(New York, The Free Press)
op cit. Barrett, p. 152 Warren Carter, "The Prologue and John's
Gospel: Function, Symbol and The Definitive Word," Journal for the
Study of the New Testament vol 39 p. 35-52, (Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1990)p. 50
William Ellery Channing, "Unitarian Christianity" in Three Prophets of
Religious Liberalsism 2nd Ed, Ed Conrad Wright. (Boston, Unitarian
Universalist Association, 1986) P.59 Op Cit. Brown P. 24-25.
op cit brown p. 8 Interestingly, the Jehovah's Witness Bible translate
Jn 1:3 as the word was "a god". 8
|