![]() |
||||||||||
In my last sermon, we began with a word game wherein I asked you to define certain words. We started off with a simple word, "hat," the definition of which we all knew. Perhaps we had different ideas in our minds of what this hat would look like, but the definition was relatively simple. Next, we were asked to define the word, "board," which has a number of homophones; and they, too, all have different meanings. Then we saw that the word "foundation" has a few different meanings as well, some of which are rather obscure. For instance, foundation can refer to a woman's undergarment. And, finally, almost none of us had ever heard of the word, "aufrichtig," which is the German word for "sincere." My point in conducting this particular exercise was to help us realize that our understanding of words, along with their definitions and uses, depends upon our perceptions, backgrounds, level of education, language skills, experiences, and dozens of other factors. We may not have even heard of some of the words or definitions that I had used as examples in our game. Our experiences with them may have been so narrow that, while we may have known some of their definitions, we probably did not know them all. But we do know that words can, and often do, have multiple meanings. To confuse matters still further, the meanings of words may change over the course of time and come to develop completely different meanings. A familiar example of this is the word, "conversation." It used to mean "conduct," but during the course of approximately four hundred years, it has come to mean "what we say to one another; dialogue." And we must remember, too, that some words mean different things to different people. An example of this is the word, "read." If I were to tell you that it is spelled "r-e-a-d," you would probably think of the past tense of "read." But, if we were from western Pennsylvania, we would think it to mean "to clear, or to ready up." We would say, in our home, to "read off the table." This meant that we were to clear off the table or clean it up. It is a meaning unique to the region where our family lived and, in the context in which it was used, we knew that it meant to clear off the table rather than, "I had read a book." The southerners know of similar language idiosyncrasies unique to their region. What comes to mind when I say the word, "fix?" What if I say that I am "fixing" my car? We all know what that means. But if I were to say, "I am fixin' to fix my car," you would have to be a southerner to understand what I mean. It just depends on our experiences. Someone from the northwest or the northeast would never think of "fix" in terms of "getting ready to, or preparing to" do something. But in the south it is a viable definition of the word. It may be substandard, but it is still used in that manner. Remember the German word that I purposely slipped into the game? I did that because words in another language mean absolutely nothing to us unless we are told what they mean or we research their meanings. Otherwise, they are merely nonsense syllables to us and have no meaning whatsoever. They could be the words of eternal life, but still be absolutely useless to us because we do not know what they mean! This becomes important to us because the Bible is written in the Hebrew and Greek languageswhich few of us can pronounce much less understand. It is important, however, to have a curiosity or desire to understand some of these words in order to better understand what God is trying to teach us. We do not have to learn Hebrew or Greek, but we can take the initiative and simply look up the meanings of some of the words. This will lead us, then, to better understand how the writer and the readers of the time would have understood them. This will aid us in understanding what God is trying to get across to us. The last sermon was about "logos," a Greek word having little meaning to us unless, of course, we are told what it means. We must look up the definition and see it in its usages or have someone explain it to us. Another problem with the word is that it has been invested with philosophical, religious, and even pagan meanings resulting in terrible confusion. We went through a lot of this the last time. The bulk of that sermon was spent defining "logos" in context. We went through example after example to show how the New Testament writers used it. There had to be a baseline for the true understanding of the word. And by the end of the sermon, once the inane speculations of "men cut off from God" had been removed, "logos" became an understandable concept and really rather simple in its meaning. "Logos," we found, is "a thoughtful and reasoned word, saying, speech, account, report, narrative, message, communication, or expression." It could mean all of these things. It depends upon how the writer wants it to be understood. When it is attached to God, or the Lord, logos is heightened to the concept of "truth" or "inspired preaching." We even saw that it could be used to refer to the message of the gospelthe whole "ball of wax" one might say. Finally, we saw that when "logos" is personalized, it means "a speaker or spokesman." If you recall, we saw in the book of Acts that Paul, himself, was called the "logos." Of course the people of Lystra were confused thinking that he was the god, Hermes, but it was evident that a speaker can be a logos. The most familiar Logos is, of course, Jesus Christ. Today, I want to pick up where I left off last timein the Old Testament. In order to get a running start, we will turn to the book of Genesis. My purpose is to show that, when the apostle John used the term "logos" in John 1:1, both his Jewish and Greek audiences, having knowledge of the Old Testament, were familiar with it. And more than just familiar, they had a firm and clear understanding of its meaning. This is why there is no explanation in John 1:1. He does not take the time to write, "Logos means...this." He simply uses the term and continues his gospel account. He does, however, add a few wrinkles in order to magnify the meaning, but it is done without actually having to stop and define it. His audience was well aware of what "logos" meant! And now, after we go through these Old Testament examples, along with John 1:1 and a few subsequent verses, we will see that John's deliberate choice of words will help define for us too what he meant. We will see how his description of Jesus' glorious words and works supports this magnified understanding of "logos." Genesis 1:1-3 is where the Israelites first became acquainted with the idea of logos, but it was not a Greek word with which they were familiarit was a Hebrew word!
As we saw last time, the idea of the Logos does appear within the first three verses of Genesis 1, although it is not explicitly stated. The word "word" is not even in here. We read of God speaking, but that is about all there is to support the basic meaning of logos. However as we had previously learned, there are five different revelations of God given hereall having to do with the idea of logos. These are the same five revelations to which John points in John 1:1. The five revelations are:
Hold on to these five revelations of God because they will come up again. I find these three verses to be amazing in this regard! Moses packs so much in here. We read through three verses and we have five stupendous characteristics of God that jump out and hit us right between the eyes! And this is just as we are beginning in the book! Then, if you remember, we looked at Genesis 15. I do not think I went through this section of scripture thoroughly enough, so we will go through it again.
This was a very important revelation to Abraham (or Abram, as he was called at the time). This is the promise of the son to Abraham. We have to understand who Abraham typified and who, also, Isaac pictured in this typology. Abraham was a type of God, the Father and Isaac was a type of Jesus Christ the Son. It is remarkable in this occurrence that God chose to reveal Himself for the first time in the book as the Word of the Lord. This is the first time in the entire Bible that this phrase is used. To an astute observer we now have a connection between the Word of the Lord and the promised Son. That is the theme of this particular promise. It may seem a bit obscure, but it is there nonetheless. When the promise of a Son is given, we have the Word of the Lord making it known. We see in verse one that the Word of the Lord comes to Abraham in a vision. How many of us have had dreams where we see words? Most of us do not see words in a dream, but we do hear words in our dreams. We may hear someone say something to us. But here we see that Abraham saw something. It may be wrong to assume that he did not see actual words in Hebrew, but it is highly unlikely. What do we think he did see? It seems to me that he must have seen a persona being who identified himself as the Word of the Lord! We see that the first time this phrase is used we have a clear perception, almost blatant, that the Word of the Lord is a person and not just some disembodied speech or some words or letters written in the air. The Word of the Lord is a person! And even if it were words that were, somehow, made visible here, they still would have had to be put there by some one. So even if there were no person that he actually saw, there was still someone behind them. Speech does not simply happen; someone has to say it. Someone has to speak the words. The words are not an end to themselves; there is something beyond the wordsa being! Notice, also, in verse two, that when Abraham replies to this person he sees in the vision he identifies him as "Lord God." He knows exactly who this is. This is the one who had been speaking to him all along. He recognized Him in the vision. This is, at least to me, a clearly irrefutable exposition that the Word of the Lord equals the Lord God. They are the same Being with one being the title of the other. The Hebrew word for "word," as in the phrase, "the Word of the Lord," is "dabar." This is the Hebrew counterpart for the Greek "logos." I am going to read the definition from The Complete Word Study DictionaryOld Testament. I want you to see how closely "dabar" and "logos" resemble each other in meaning. It is almost an exact match.
From our definition of "logos" we find that it had similar meanings. And the most important of the meanings, we found, was "divine communication." We see that these two words, then, are very close in association.
This is a parallel phrase, which is a literary tool the Hebrews frequently used. First, they say that "the word of the Lord was rare" and then, it is explained as, "there was no widespread revelation." What we have here is a correlation between "the Word of the Lord" and "revelation." The Word of the Lord's primary purpose was to reveal the things of God. This is a good and basic definition of "dabar" in a spiritual senseit is the revelation of God.
We see here that the primary function of the Word of the Lord was to reveal Himself! This revelation could come through commandments, statutes, judgments, the whole way of the Lord, the will of the Lord, or a prophecy of something that was to occur. If we were to go through the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, we would find in almost every chapter the phrase "the word of the Lord came unto me saying..." And then there is a revelation of a prophecy or of some spiritual concept that He wanted His people to understand. The same thing happens again when we go into the Minor Prophets. They may say it in a slightly different manner, but in almost every case it says, "the word of the Lord came to me," or it says it in the third person, "the word of the Lord came unto Zechariah (or Haggai, etc.)." The purpose, then, of the Word of the Lord, in all of these cases, whether it was personalized or not, was to reveal something about GodHis plan, His goals, His aimsomething about His will. We will now go forward in history (and in the Bible) to the life of Elijah. He is fleeing from Jezebel into the wilderness and comes to Horeb, the mountain of God.
Notice that this is very clear. The Word of the Lord came and it was a he! It was a being, a person who spoke to him just as this same Word spoke to other prophets. In this case, the personification of the Word of the Lord is blatant: the Word of the Lord came and He said... An astute reader of the Old Testament would quickly figure out that there is a being who is "the Word of the Lord." It would not take much because the phrase is all the way through here; it appears 307 times in the Old Testament! Here is an example that we can easily understand.
Was this the word of some scripture that tested Joseph, or was it some Person who tested him? This was a divine Being who wanted to see what Joseph would do! God gave him an extremely long trial. I am not certain how long he remained in prison, but it was a test for Joseph. That is the sort of thing that God does in order to prepare His servants for the jobs that need to be done! So we see here that the Word of the Lord (it is not capitalized in this verse, except for the "L" in Lord) conducting this test is a person. And when we have a trial (perhaps we are driving down the road and we blow out our right-rear tire and we need to get somewhere really fast, but we now have this trial, a test) do we conclude that it is the Bible which is testing us, testing our attitude? Are we not more likely to say something to the effect of, "God is testing me and I am going to keep my chin up, go ahead and change this flat tire, and head off to keep my appointment." We do not say, "It is Psalm 105:19 that is testing me!" We do not think of the words; we think of the Person. There is a Being who is testing us! Throughout the Old Testament there is the idea that the Word of the Lord is an actual Person. And even when it is not personified it remains clear that there is a Person behind the words. We are going to hop, skip, and jump through some scriptures and we will see various ways in which the Word of the Lord is used to reveal the attributes of God.
The Word of the Lord is right, it is truth, and it is righteousness and justice. Plus goodness is added, as well. These are all connected with the idea of the Word of the Lord. We might quickly and whole-heartedly agree with these statements, but who spoke them to begin with? This is what I mean by saying that even if the scriptures do not personify the Word of the Lord, one still gets the unmistakable impression that there is a Person behind the spoken word.
There is a personification in this versethe Word of the Lord has breath. The Word of the Lord is Creator!
The Word that is sent is able to heal and deliver; the Word is able to save people! Psalm 119 has several verses describing attributes of God.
There is life in God's Word!
This is similar to verse 50 in describing God's Word as being full of life.
The Word is a lamp and a light. It is a guide and revealer of the way
We have salvation by God's Word. His Word brings salvation!
The Word of the Lord sustains the earth and the weather cycles. The Word is Sustainer!
The Word is a Lawgiver! I randomly selected these examples. There were so many from which to choose that I could have gone practically anywhere, but I wanted us to have a wide sampling of scripture.
It is eternal! God's Word never goes out of style. It never dies. It never ceases to be what it is.
The Word is a fulfiller of prophecy; or it can be a giver of prophecy! Had we been thinking (as we were going through these scriptures) of what Mr. Armstrong had been inspired to identify as the seven proofs of God's existence, we would have remembered that these very proofs are the same as many of the attributes through which we have just read: designer, lawgiver, life-giver, sustainer, fulfiller of prophecy, creator, etc. I did not do prayer in these examples, but I could have easily gone to a place where God's Word answers prayer. The Word of the Lord has all the same attributes as The Word. The Old Testament is full of statements describing the power and efficacy of God's Word. Sometimes it is personified and sometimes it is not, but the idea is that when God speaks, when His Word goes out, things happen because of His power, His intellect, and His purpose behind them. When He speaks things happen. And one of the things which happens is that something becomes known about Him. This is why I said that the basic understanding of the Word of the Lord, or of Logos, is as revealer. Another evident proof is that one cannot separate God from His Word. The writers of the Old Testament did not even try to do this. The Word of the Lord says things. The Word of the Lord does things. The Word of the Lord appears. The Word of the Lord, the Word of God, and God, Himself, share so many attributes that they are considered as the same thing. It is this understanding that devout Jews (who had a good understanding of the Old Testament) had when the apostles used the term "logos." They had equated the Word (dabar) of the Lord with logos. The Word of the Lord in the Old Testament is the same as the Word of the Lord in the New Testament! Only the languages were different! It is interesting to note that, in the New Testament, when the phrase "Word of the Lord" is used, the Greek word for "word" is "logos" 11 out of 13 times. That is 85%. There is another Greek word, "rhema," which is also used. I will not take the time here to explain the difference between "rhema" and "logos," but it amounts to the splitting of hairs. When "the Word of God" is used in the New Testament, the word, "logos," appears 38 out of 44 times. That is 86%. It is clear to me that the apostles understood the Old Testament concept of the Word of the Lord in the same vein as they understood "logos." And so when John opened his gospel account with the words, "In the beginning was the Word..." of what did they think? They thought of the God of the Old Testament, the Word of the Lord, and the One who had appeared to Abraham in Genesis 15. They recalled the One who had appeared to Samuel and given him a prophecy, the One who had appeared to Elijah and offered encouragement when it was needed most by using a still, small voice. They thought of the One who spoke to David, the One who spoke to Isaiah, the One who spoke to Jeremiah, the One who spoke to Ezekiel, the One who spoke to all the minor prophets, and all the others to whom He came and spoke in the Old Testament. This is the same One to whom John was referring. This was no big stretch for them. They were used to the concept. We will now read straight through the first eighteen verses of the first chapter of John keeping in mind what we now know about "logos." Let us see now how easily and clearly understandable this is.
Does this not make a whole lot of sense when we understand that this is referring to the Word of the Lordthe God of the Old Testament; the One who had already done so much in the way of revealing the true God? And now He has come to do it in another way, a better way, and for an even greater purpose! John's gospel was the last to be written. And it seems likely that he wrote it to fill in the gaps, to round out the picture of Jesus which was presented by the other gospel accounts. He was inspired and probably felt that it was necessary to make clear, beyond all doubt, who Jesus was, and is, and what His relationship to the Father wasand is! Thus we have this magisterial opening, "In the beginning was the Word!" This was purposeful, the phraseology intentional! He wants us to think of Genesis 1:1 and immediately take the idea of "In the beginning God..." and equate it with "In the beginning was the Word!" It is fundamental that we understand this relationship. These accounts begin, basically, at the same point. The same One who created all things is also this Word "who became flesh and dwelt among us." He wants us to understand right away, before we go any further into the book, the One with Whom we are dealinghow important He is to us and how truly wonderful He is! And he wants us to understand, too, and make perfectly clear to us, as we get toward the end of this section, exactly just how much He had given up and how far He was willing to go for us! John sets all this up with this great introduction wherein he lays everything out. "The subject of my book is God, the Creator, in the fleshand this is what He came to do!" We are supposed to be astounded right away! "Wow, our God came down and lived in human flesh and revealed all of these truths to us!" And then He did what He did! John really does not mention that here except to say that "His own did not receive Him." But he opens the book in a way that can only be compared to Hebrews 1:1-4. Both books are intent on grabbing our attention and showing us how great this One is before going on to explain the details of this greatness. This is an important concept we have to have in order to understand the rest of the story. This was no normal man who did these things. He is saying that the One who revealed Himself to the patriarchs and the prophets as the Word of the Lord became a manand they knew Him as Jesus Christ of Nazareth! Let us go back in our memory to just a few minutes agoto those five relations of God we examined in Genesis 1. All five of them appear again here. They are described in a different form and with different emphasis, but they are all present. This provides evidence that the same Being who worked and created at the beginning (in Genesis 1:1) is now among us doing the same thingworking and creating. I will not go fully into them, but I just want to point them out.
In this eighteen-verse introduction it appears in the last sentence:
This is the Logos in action! And it says here, because John is writing later in the first century, that it has been declaredin the past tenseit has already been done! This is a victorious statement and I truly feel that there should be an exclamation point after it! (This is just my personal feeling.) In contrast to Genesis 1:1-3, the Word is no longer speaking with the intent of creating a material universe. But it is interesting to note (in verse 3) that the first thing said is, "Let there be light!" And when Jesus came to this earth, John described Him as the light! What does light do? Light exposes and reveals. It opens up our sight to new things. It makes all things plain and obvious. Jesus came as the Light to reveal things. And we find (in verse 18) that what He came to be the light ofwhat He came to reveal and to make knownis the reality, existence, sovereignty, holiness, and good will of an even greater Being than He! That was Jesus' life's work! And when He spoke, when He communicated throughout His life, it was with one major goal in mindto reveal God the Father. The word "declared" in verse 18 is interesting, "...He has declared Him." It is exegeomai and means "to unfold in teaching; to reveal; to make known or explain." Various translations will use any one of these definitions. John is saying that the Word has "unfolded" God the Father to us; He has revealed Him and made Him known; He has explained Him to us. This word has the sense of, not simply "to make known," but to make "fully and clearly known; to provide detailed information in a systematic manner." This is not something that was just quickly once and done. This is something that He unfolded over the course of His lifetime in the sermons and situations described in the New Testament. The implication is that He tells everything and leaves nothing of importance out! Jesus' job during His human life was to communicate everything He could about the Fathereverything!
John is saying that Jesus did such a good job of revealing the Father that His entire life would have had to be written down. And more than that, all of the books in the world could not have contained that revelation! But what we have been given in the four gospel accounts and the rest of the New Testament is enough. This begs the question, "How did He do this? What did He do?" The simplest explanation appears in John 14. This is a familiar and simple explanation. We hear it every year at the Passover service.
So what did He do? His entire life was a revelation of the Father. We could say that the Father and the Son are like twins in their perfect and righteous and holy character. That which the Son did, the Father would have doneand in the exact, same manner. Jesus was the perfect expression (Logos) of the Father. He was the perfect communication of the Father. When Jesus did one thing, it was exactly what the Father would have done. And that is why the surprise at Philip's question: "Do you not know, Philip? You have seen the Father in Me this whole time!" I think it is interesting in verse 10 where Jesus says:
It was not just the words that He spoke, but the works that were done in Him which revealed the Father. It was everything that He did and not only what He said. Every gesture, every work, every miracle (healing or casting out of demons or walking on water), everything was an expression of God the Father through the Son! Remember that He had revealed Himself pretty well in the Old Testament. And then He came, in what we refer to as "New Testament times," to reveal another Being just like Himexcept even greater! And He is the One to whom we ultimately have our loyaltythis great Being whom we call the Father. But we would have had no idea of what the Father was like because He was beyond human sight, beyond what we could grasp! And so the Son came down to express to humankind just what the Father is like! Let us go to that great introduction in Hebrews 1:1 and just listen to the wording here.
That is beautiful prosealmost poetic! This idea that Jesus is the express image of His person is an incredible thought! We can picture a stamp with an image on it being impressed into something that will hold the shape. You then take it away and look at the two of them side-by-side and see that they are exactly the same. He is the express image of God the Father. We do not necessarily need to see the Father because we see the Son. And so we can understand Jesus' somewhat exasperated response to Philip, "Oh Philip, you have seen Me all this time! I have been doing this My entire life! If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father! And that is sufficient!" This is more difficult for us because we must see Him in faith. However, we do have enough in this Word to know what both Jesus and the Father are like. If we were to go through the whole of John's gospel account, we would clearly see this. In chapter two, when Jesus, in anger, drove out the money changers from the temple, this is exactly what the Father would have done. The Father gets angry! When Jesus patiently explained true worship to the woman at the well in chapter four, that is what the Father would have done. He would have taken the time to patiently explain. When Jesus did not condemn the women in adultery in chapter eight, the Father would not have done that either. He would have said, just like Jesus, "Go and sin no more!" When Jesus called the Pharisees (later in chapter eight) "sons of the devil," the Father thought the exact same thing of them. When Jesus healed the blind man at the Pool of Siloam, the Father, had He been there (and He was there through Jesus) would have done the exact same thing. When Jesus wept at the sight of human bondage and hopelessness (in chapter eleven, just before He resurrected Lazarus) so, too, the Father would have wept. As Jesus washed His disciples' feet, so, too, the Father works in the same way to bring us into His Kingdom. As Jesus, on the stake, arranged for Mary's care with the apostle John, in the same way the Father cares for His own. The things we see Jesus do are the express image of the things the Father does. They are perfectly united in character, will, purposein everything! Jesus' prayer in John 17 may mean much more to us now. This is just prior to His arrest. This is personal with regard to us.
Do you see what He is saying here? Jesus is saying that He was the first to be "at one" with the Father and to have the love of the Father in Him. He was the first to express who the Father is. And then He prays that we can do the exact same thing and, more than that, to reap the same rewards: the glory and love of the Father! God wants multiple, exact copies of Himself; He wants express images of Himself all over the universe! This is what being one with God is. In other words, to be in the image of the Son is to be in the image of the Father and, so, united in mind, in will, in purposein everything!
RTR/tcc/jjm
|
You Will Only See This Once | ||
|
The Bereans "received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11). This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 40,000 subscribers are already receiving each day. |
|
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time. |
||