I.

Introduction

In this article, the problems revolving around the Prologue

and its relationship with the rest of the Gospel are investigated

from a theological perspective. The research has tended to focus

on such issues as the views of revelation and salvation found in

the Prologue and the subsequent narrative and on their respective

use of symbolism. So, is paid less attention to the level of

literary structure1, to the composition2 or religious background

sources3.

II. The Relationship of the Prologue

to the Gospel

Standing at the beginning of the Gospel, the prologue serves

“as a guide for the readers by offering a succinct formulation of1 See David Deeks’s thesis that the “four subsections into which the prologuenaturally falls (1:1-5, 6-8, 9-13, 14-18) provide summaries of the contents ofthe four main sections of the gospel”. His argument is failed. -“The Structureof the Forth Gospel”, NTS, no. 15/ 1968-1969, p.110. See also Jeff Staley’sargument that the symmetrical structures of the prologue determines Gospel’sfive sections narrative, each one opens and closes with a journey of Jesus. Histhesis has almo st no theological importance for understanding the Prologueor the Gospel. – “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implication for theGospel’s narrative Structure”, CBQ, vol.48, no. 2/ April, 1986.2 For a classic poetical approach to the Prologue see Raymond E. Brown The Gospel According to John, Doubleday & Company, 1966, pp.1-4, 21-363 Rudolf Bultmann found that the Prologue “builds upon an earlier writtensource (Vorlage)” and verses 1-5 and 9-13 speaks of a pre-existence divine beingthat is a Logos speculation of Alexandrian Judaism drawn from Egypt’scosmology. His thesis is pure speculation. – “The History of ReligionsBackground of the Gospel of John”, John Aston ed. The Interpretation of John, T&TClark, 1997, pp.29, 30-37, 42. For other background parallels (Gnostic, Jewishand Biblical) see Craig A. Evans Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and TheologicalBackground of John’s Prologue, Sheffield Academic, 1993

1

the interpretation of what follows as envisioned by the

evangelist”4. The principal themes are sounded here and will be

more fully developed in the Gospel itself. The author introduces

terms and concepts used in the whole Gospel: light, life, witness,

truth, glory, and world. For him, Logos incarnated is in the

centre of all around earlier key words and the Gospel as a whole

is nothing other than the narrative of the history of Logos who

was in the beginning with God. As Beasley Murray puts, the

prologue is “a directive to the reader how the entire Gospel

should be read and understood”5.

III. Logos in relation with God

and Creation (1:1-5)

In the first part of the Prologue, the evangelist describes

the Logos in his preexistence form (1:1-2), from preexistence to

his role in creation (1:3) and then the time subsequent to

creation but before the incarnation (1:4-5).

John begins not like the Synoptics, with birth narrative of

Jesus, but with the eternity past, prior to creation. The first

words of the Prologue establish a parallel with the biblical

account of the beginnings of universe and human story in Genesis

1:1. The Evangelist says that the Logos was even before the

beginning of Genesis 1:1 when there was only God. The verb is used

in its imperfect tense (ἦν), means that the evangelist places

4 Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John, Fortress, Minneapolis, 1992, p.2265 George, R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Books, Texas, 1991, p.5

2

Logos “outside the limits of time and place”6, beyond and above

time.

John affirms that the Word was God and the Word was with God.

The first statement indicates not simple co-existence, but also

the idea of distinct form and active relationship between Logos

and God. In the second statement, John shows what they have in

common: they are God. In this construction there is no article in

the front of God (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). But this doesn’t mean that

Logos is only a divine being, but he shares the nature of God and

possesses the fullness of God’s being: “the absence of the article

indicates that the Word is God7”. These thoughts of verse 1 are

repeated and emphasized in verse 2. The pronoun οὗτος translated

“he”, is more precisely, points that the Word and no other was

with God in the beginning.

From his statement about the relation between Logos and God,

John goes now to the creation and its relation with Logos. The two

parts of this verse express the same truth, first positively and

then negatively, the change seems to indicate a transition from

the act of creation to the state of creation. The words “all

things was made” stress out the multiplicity of created things,

where πάντα is used in its exact form to express “all thinks taken

severally and not all things regarded as a defined whole”8.

Describing the relation between Logos and God, John uses the verb

(ειμί) in verse 1, but now he chooses another verb (γίνομαι) to

6 Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John, Liturgical, 1998, p.35 7 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes onthe Greek Text, Westminster John Knox Press, 1978, p.156- He affirms that thewhole gospel of John was intended to be read in the light of this verse.8 Brooke F. Westcott, The Gospel According to John, James Clarke & Co, 1958, p.4

3

present the relation between Logos and creation. So, creation is

presented as a “becoming” in contrast with the “being” stressed

before. Logos is presented as the agent of God’s creation activity

trough the expression- δι᾽ αὐτοῦ, an expression that is in

accordance with Colossians 1:16, where the idea is expressed more

explicitly, the creation being in the same time brought into

existence “by him”, “for him” and “in him all things hold

together”. Thus, as Carson puts “the preexistence Christ created

everything is a common in the New Testament”9, although the title

Logos is mentioned only here. The second part of the verse, with

an emphatic purpose reaffirms negatively what was said in the

first clauses, intended to declare expressly, that there is no

exception whatever.

In the first part of verse 4, Logos is sought as the source

of life: “in him was life (ζωή,)”. By this affirmation, the

evangelist now attributes to him, the preservation of whose things

which had been created10. Life is one of the John’s key concepts:

he uses the term more than other New Testament writings (36 time,

next come Revelation- 17 times) and characteristically refers to

eternal life (3:15, 8:12). But the Logos is presented here also as

the source of light (φως) in creation. So the attention is shifted

to the “light” of the world, which implies further involvement in

creation. John’s construction here is rooted in Genesis’ record of

9 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Inter-Varsity, 1991, p.118 – Otherpassages who speak of Christ as the agent of God’s creative activity are: Col.1:16-17, Heb. 1:2, Rev. 3:14.10 John Calvin, Commentary on John, volume 1, Grand Rapids: Christian ClassicsEthereal Library, - PDF. format http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.html,Public Domain, p.16

4

creation. Light was God’s first creative act, but then the light

makes possible for life to exist.

What is then the meaning of “that life was the light of men?”

In the gospel of John, Christ is himself the life and also the

light of the world. These two terms may be taken synonymously.

Does the life refer to physical or to spiritual sense? or both?

The answer depends of how we see the Logos in verse 4 and 5: λόγος

ασαρκός or λόγος ενσαρκός. Jan van der Watt discuses and analyzes

this issue concluding that “focus falls on the λόγος ασαρκός in vv. 1–5, although there

are incarnational hints in these verses, for instance, to therevelatory work or salvific qualities of Jesus, while there is ashift in focus in 1:6–18, to the λόγος ενσαρκός, where thepreexistent qualities of the λόγος are not absent either”11.

So, seems that verse 4 express the activity of the Logos in a

cosmological sense and especially in a spiritual sense in

accordance with next verses and with other texts in the Gospel

(“light”- 8:12, 9:5, 12:46; “life”- 5:24, 6:35, 6:51).

Taken in view the development of the conflict and duality

between light and dark, a theme that dominate in the rest of the

gospel (3:19, 8:12, 12:35,46), verse 5 has not only a creation

link, but more profound, a moral and salvific sense. The Greek

word καταλαμβάνω can denote either grasping with the mind, or

grasping by force and overwhelming12. The tense of the verb

(aorist) implies that there never existed an instance of such a

defeat. In spite of this conflictive interpretation, there is no

11 Jan G. van der Watt, “The Composition of the Prologue of John’s Gospel: TheHistorical Jesus Introducing Divine Grace”, WTJ- vol. 57#2, 1995, pp. 317-31812 R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to ST. John: An Introduction and Commentary, Inter-Varsity, 1989, p.45

5

idea of an eternal conflict between light and darkness as in the

ancient religions, built on cosmic dualistic forces. The conflict

is related to the coming of the Logos to earth (1:10-13).

IV. Logos and John the

Baptist (1:6-8)

Now we read of an historical figure, his divine commission

and the purpose of his mission. He is seen in relation to the

Logos and in his role as an anticipatory to Christ. Lightfoot see

that the Baptist’s purpose work is expressed in positive form in

1:7 and in negative form in 1:8, as in the two parts of 1:313.

The evangelist describes John as a man “who was sent from

God”. In contrast with verse 1 and 2 where the Logos is described

using the verb (ειμί,), now the evangelist uses the verb γίνομαι

as in verse 3, when he described the relation between Logos and

creation. So, John is a creature and like creation is presented as

a “becoming” in contrast with the “being” of Logos. The authority

of John the Baptist derives from his divine commissioning. John

was subordinate, but his mission was an important one.

A strong emphasis is laid on his function as witness to the

Lord, and there is no reference here to the Baptist’s work of

baptism, but solely to his commission to bear testimony (1:7).

Witness is one of the key concepts of John’s gospel14. Morris notes

13 R. H. Lightfoot, St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary, Oxford University, 1957, p.8014 It is significant that there is no mention of John’s baptizing Jesus nor ofhis preaching of repentance, but a repeated reference to his witness- 1:19-34,5:33, 10:42-44; in accordance with witness/testify Johannine theme: 4:39; 5:36;5:32, 37, 39-40; 12:17; 15:26-27; 18:37; 19:35; 21:24.

6

that in the gospel of John there are seven who bear witness to

Jesus: The Father (5:31-32), Christ himself (8:14, 18), the Spirit

(15:26) - each of the three Persons of Trinity-, the work of Jesus

(5:36, 10:25), the sacred Scriptures (5:39), John the Baptist and

seventh is the variety of human witness consequent on the ministry

of Jesus (the disciple- 15:27, the Samaritan women- 4:39 and the

multitude- 12:17)15. The goal of John’s witness is that “all man

might believe”, another theme introduced here, that is without

doubt one of the most central concerns in John’s gospel as it’s

said in his final statement regarding the purpose for writing the

Gospel (20:31).

John “was not the light”, but only a “witness to the light”

(1:8). Christ calls John the Baptist a “lamp” (λύχνος) in 5:35,

but Christ himself is the light of the world (1:9, 8:12). If

someone did not understand this verse, were misinterpreting the

whole mission of John the Baptist. Some commentators see this

emphasis as a polemic against groups that considered John the

Messiah (3:22-28, Acts 19:1-4)16. Although the phrase expressed

that John was not the light, this verse does not diminish him, but

rather mark his unique place in salvation history as a one who

pointed to the coming of the light.

V. The Incarnation of the

Logos (1:9-14)

15 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Eerdmans, Michigan, 1995, p.8016 See Barrett (p. 160); Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, EerdmansPublishing Company, 1997, p.42; Colin G. Kruse, John, Inter-Varsity, 2004, pp.64-65. Kruse sees a link between this verse and the disciples group fromEphesus (Acts 19:1-4).

7

With the opening of the third section of the Prologue, John’s

attention gravitated on the incarnation of the Logos. The eternal

Word took upon him human nature, but humanity rejected his coming

into the world. It’s clear that in this section of the prologue,

John’s thought moves, in a gradual stage from the eternal Logos to

temporal and particular reality of his incarnated state17.

The negative tone of verse 8, prepare the way for positive

assertions in verse 9. In contrast to the witness’ function of

John the Baptist, the evangelist asserts that the Logos was “the

true (to. avlhqino,n) light”. John uses the word “true” in many

others place to express what is true or veracious/genuine (4:23,

6:32, 15:1, 17:3). In the Old Testament, the coming of the Messiah

is depicted in terms of light (Num. 24:17, Isa. 9:2, Mal. 4:5)18.

So, it seems that the term means also that Christ is the

fulfillment of Old Testament hopes and expectations.

But, what is the exact meaning of the light’s activity:

enlightens every man? In the light of the next verses (1:11-12),

John’s idea is not the general revelation in sense of an internal

illumination or an intellectual sense, but rather the objective

revelation of an external illumination that requires a response.

So the meaning is judgment, when men are exposed on the “true

light”. Incarnation divides the race, making a distinction: some

hate the light and response as the world does (1:10) and others

receive this revelation and witness that their deeds had been done

17 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p.16018Andreas J. Köstenberger John, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, 2004, p.35

8

through God19. Following this interpretation, we conclude that the

subject of the verb “coming” (evrco,menon) is “light” and not

“every man”. The whole section (1:9-14) is dealing with the

incarnation and the next verses (10-13) speak about the reception

accorded to the light when it comes into the world. This final

word (to.n ko,smon) is an important key term used in the Johannine

gospel20.

As in verse 5, verse 10 speaks again of the negative reaction

of the world to the coming of the Logos into the world. The word

ko,smoj has here, as mentioned above, more than one single sense:

the world inhabited by humanity (“he was in the world”), physical

world created by him including the whole human race (“the world

has made through him”) and humanity in its sinful state (the world

did not recognize him”). The final part of the verse announces the

tragedy of the human situation: did not recognize –ouvk e;gnwÅ–

him. The verb implies knowledge, but Ridderbos rightly asserts

that its critical object is not only the intellect, and not only

the heart, but also the human will21. So, the verb describes a

personal knowledge based on a relationship, a connection between

“believe” (pisteu,w) and “know” (ginw,skwÅ) being present in the

gospel (6:69)22.

19 This position is advocated by Köstenberger (pp. 35-36) and Carson (p. 122)against the position sustained by Morris (a general illumination of the wholerace- p.84).20 The term occurs 75 times in the gospel and has several meanings: a multitude(12:19); physical universe (1:9-10); sinful humanity (3:16), or to refer to therealm of evil (7:7, 8:23, 12:31)- See Köstenberger John, p.35 and WilliamHendriksen, The Gospel of John, Baker Books House, Michigan, 1954, p.7921 Hermann Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, p.4422 Brown says that in John’s gospel the basic sin is “the failure to know andbelieve in Jesus- The Gospel According to John, p.10

9

Verse 11 expresses more precisely the point of verse 10. The

Logos came “to that which was his own, but his own did not receive

him”. The possession construction - ta. i;dia is a neutral and

should be interpreted as in 16:32 and 19:27 referring to his home.

He came in his own creation, John stressing the idea of the right

of property, that is, his own historical land. John changes the

neutral with the masculine form –oi` i;dioi– to refer now to the

human persons, especially to the Jewish nation. Contrary to verse

10, John does not say that Jewish people did not know (ginw,skw)

him, but they did not receive (ouv pare,labon) him, means unbelief

and the decisive action of rejection23.

But the attention of the evangelist is moved from those who

did not receive the Word, to those who did (1:12). In a repeated

way John speaks in the Gospel about those who receive or refuse to

receive Christ’s testimony (3:11, 5:34, 12:48, 17:8). To receive

him means, as the following words indicate, to believe in his

name. In fact, as Moloney sees, there is in this Gospel a close

relationship between “receiving” the Word and “believing”, in

John’s understanding of the Christian response24. In this verse,

“to believe in his name” is not different from belief in him.

There is in this assertion more than a simple intellectual assent

and even more than a sheer credence, but is about trusting him as

a person25. For those who believe, God gave them “the right

23 Gerald L. Borchert points that the unbelief of the Jews is repeated by Johnin detail: 5:46-47; 6:64-65; 7:47-52; 9:30-34, 40-41- John 1-11: An Exegetical andTheological Exposition of the Holy Scriptures, Broadman & Holman, 1996, p.11424 Francis Moloney, The Gospel of John, p.4425 The idea of faith has in this Gospel all three means: intellectual idea(8:24, 20:31); simple credence (4:21, 5:46, 10:38) and trusting/commitment(1:12, 2:11, 3:16). The idea of faith is then one of the most central concerns

10

(evxousi,a) to become children of God”. The word evxousi,a, has

here the meaning of “right” rather than “power” because the new

birth does not lie within human power or will, as the next verse

says in an emphatic way (cf. 3:3-6, 13-15). In his writings the

evangelist does not use the word ui`o,j (son) to describe

believers, but exclusively te,knon (child- 1:13; 11:52; 1 John

3:1-2; 5:2), the first term being used only of Christ26. The new

birth theme is introduced in verse 13 and is developed further in

3:1-15. John uses three opposite phrases to birth from God in this

verse. The use of “blood” in its plural form (ai`ma,twn) is hard

to explain. The precise meaning of the phrase seems to be the

procreation understood as in ancient world, taking place through

the mixing bloods of the father and the mother27. The next two

phrases use the expression “of the will of” (evk qelh,matoj) and

both are references to the natural process of procreation: first

to “human decision” and the second to “husband’s will”. The

repeated of negatives stresses the entry into human family, but

the spiritual birth entry into the family whose Father is God

depends not on natural procreation or factors, but on belief in

the Word and what has done for them.

The high point of the prologue for the evangelist is the

statement of incarnation in verse 14. There are some aspects who

testify the central importance of this verse: kai, as mark of a

in John’s gospel (99 times occurrence). 26 Ridderbos mentions that in all the New Testament, this is an uniquesituation- The Gospel of John, p.46. But even the vocabulary is unique, the idea isin itself similar to Paul who uses “son” for Christ (Rom. 5:10) and “sons” forbelievers, but only in adoption sense (8:15; Gal. 3:26). 27 Francis Moloney, The Gospel of John, p.44

11

new beginning, the reintroduction of o` lo,goj, the soteriological

concepts of do,xa, ca,rij, and avlh,qeia and the ‘we’ of the

confessing community28. So, verse 14 gives a clear indication of a

change in the Logos: its incarnation. The evangelist stresses now

so much the humanity of the Logos, in such a way that seems to

give a response to the heresies of Docetism29. The logos, which is

equally to God and was with the Father from the beginning was a

real human being, who really come into a visible and tangible

‘flesh’- a word that indicates for John the complete manhood of

the Logos. He was an objective reality which had been heard, seen

and touched (1 John 1:1). The verb used to describe the

incarnation is in the aorist tense, means that there was a point

in time when the logos became flash and he continued to be the

logos.

John uses an interesting verb to describe the activity of

logos incarnated in his earthly mission: evskh,nwsen. Morris

points out that the verb signifies to “pitch one’s tent” and for

the Jewish, the term arouses an association with the Tabernacle,

the place of worship during the wanderings of Israel in the

wilderness30. The LXX uses the noun form skhnh, in Exod 33:7-11 for

“tent of meeting” and in Exod 25:8-9 for “tabernacle”. In “the

tent of meeting”, Moses met God and heard his voice (Exod 33:9)

but now, seems that people may meet and hear God in the flesh of

Logos.

28 Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John, pp.226-22729 See Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, Inter-Varsity, 1981, p.32930 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, p.91

12

In this part of the prologue the giving of the law at Sinai

clearly lies behind it31. Appearing for the first time the terms

ca,rij and avlh,qeia, the evangelist direct his readers to Exod

34:6 (LXX- polue,leoj kai. avlhqino.j “mercy and grace”). Used for

the first time here, the term do,xa means God’s glory and was used

in Old Testament32, so Christ in his incarnated state and his

entirely ministry brings glory to God the Father. His glory was

displayed in the miracles (“he thus revealed his glory”- 2:11;

11:4, 40). The expression “the One and Only (w`j monogenou/j) who

came from Father” contents the idea of uniqueness, not birth. In

LXX, is used for hd"êyxiy> and has the meaning of “only child”(Jdg. 11:34)33. So, monogenh.j implies “unique” and “only” as it

appears in John 3:16.

VI. Logos- Climax of God’s

revelation (1:15-18)

In verse 15 John the Baptist is reintroduced in his role as

witness. Although John himself was long dead by the time of the

Gospel was written, the Evangelist use the present tense

(marturei/ peri. auvtou/), indicating that his witness remained

and is still alive34. It’s interesting that John dos not simply say

31 Craig Evans says that “there are five important points of convergence”between John 1:14-18 and Exod 33-34. - Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and TheologicalBackground of John’s Prologue, pp.79-81.32 Moses’ request “Show me your glory (Exod 33:18) is presupposed by thePrologue’s declaration: “we have seen his glory (1:14).33 See Friedrich Büchsel, “monogenh.j”, Gerhard Kittle ed. TDNT- TheologicalDictionary of the New Tetament, vol. IV.34 F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, Eerdmans, Michigan, 1983, p.41

13

pro mou h=n, but prw/to,j mou h=n a form who emphasizes more the

idea of primacy and of pre-existence. Barclay notes that Jesus was

actually six months younger in age than John (Luke 1:24, 26), but

the Evangelist consider that John is thinking in terms much more

deep than age35. He was thinking not only in terms of time, but of

eternity. Is clear that the pre-existent light to which John is

said to have borne witness in verses 1:6-8 is identical with the

incarnate Word in a concrete individual (v.14). He, the enflashed

Word, was before him, in the same sense that He was before Abraham

(8:58): both in pre-existence and in primacy of authority. Is

considering also that this parenthetical remark (v.15), planned to

prepare the way for the narration of the detailed Baptist’s

witness which is recorded immediately after the Prologue36. There,

the pre-existent light identical with the incarnate Word in a

concrete individual, is identified with the historic person of

Jesus (1:30).

Verse 16 is closely tied with verse 14, picking up the theme

of fullness. The word plh,rwma occurring only here in the

Johannine literature, is an important theological term and seems

to suggest that the “full resources of God stand behind the

incarnate one”37. This term appears in Colossians 1:19 with the

sense of fulfilling, Christ being God’s fullness.

The Evangelist use the plural form (h`mei/j pa,ntej

evla,bomen) meaning that he and all other believers with him, the

entire believing community had experienced the blessed favors of

35 William Barclay, The Gospel of John - vol. 1, The Westminster Press, 1975, pp.70-7136 See Carson, The Gospel According to John, p.130 37 Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11, pp.122-123

14

this fullness: they received ‘grace upon grace’. The exact

translation of ca,rin avnti. ca,ritoj is problematic among the

commentators38. In his study, regarding the meaning of the

proposition avnti. in the New Testament, Hendriksen proposed

‘grace upon grace’ as the translation for Johannine expression39.

But Köstenberger is against this translation and affirms that

there is no parallel to ‘grace upon grace’ in all of ancient Greek

literature. Rather, where the ‘grace upon grace’ is the intended

meaning the preposition used is epi not avnti.. So, the Evangelist

affirms that the grace given through Moses was replaced by the

grace bestowed through Christ40. In this sense the grace and true

that came trough Christ is what replaces the law- an earlier

manifest of grace.

John stresses the superiority of what come through Jesus. But

the evangelist did not see a radical antithesis between God’s

giving of the law through Moses and the incarnation of Christ.

Morris assert that “Moses as subordinate to and pointing forward

to the Christ is a recurring theme in this Gospel”41. So, texts

such 5:39, 6:32, 8:32, and 9:28 see law not as an antithesis per

se, but as a point forward Jesus. Christ himself said that Moses

wrote of him (5:46), anticipate him. The law itself is understood

to be an earlier display of grace, an interpretation in accord38 Brown gives three main positions: a- the idea of replacement, “the jesed of NewCovenant in place of the jesed of Sinai”; b- an idea of accumulations, ‘grace aftergrace’; c- the idea of correspondence, “the grace that constitutes our sharecorresponds to the grace of the Word”. - The Gospel According to John (i-xii), p.1639 See William Hendriksen, The Gospel of John, pp.88-8940 Andreas J. Köstenberger, John, pp.46-47. This position is adopted also byCarson who translate the expression “one grace replacing another”- The GospelAccording to John, p.13241 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, p.100

15

with final words from verse 16. The event of giving the law through

Moses was a revelation of God, but the grace and true (divine

attributes) coming through Jesus is a more superior, the

fulfillment of Moses’ anticipatory. The law was given by grace and

anticipated the incarnate Word, its fulfillment.

At the conclusion of his prologue to the gospel, the

evangelist emphasizes that ‘No one has ever seen God’. The

expression means the invisible character of God and the unsafely

to see Him, a clearly idea emphasizes in the Old Testament. Even

to Moses, who witnessed the theophany at Sinai was denied the

request to look directly on the glory of God: “no-one may see me

and live” (Exod. 33:20). Only Jesus made him known.

There are two important textual variants here: monogenh.j

qeo.j or monogenh.j ui`o,j. So, the decision of the original

reading is difficult. Beasley-Murray consider that ui`o,j seems

more natural in view of the following phrase (‘who is at the

Father’s side’), but weight of textual Mss suggests ‘God’42. But we

can see ‘God’ here as in verse 1 and be understood as ‘God by

nature’. So, even if in the text is ‘God’ we see the term as a

reference to ui`o,j, ‘God’ here having the same meaning as ‘the

Word was God’ (v.1).

The expression eivj to.n ko,lpon tou/ patro.j (‘in the bosom

of the Father’) suggests unity and unmatched intimacy of Jesus

relationship with the Father43. In LXX the term is mostly used for

42 George, R. Beasley-Murray, John, p.243 For Tenney, the expression means “perfect understanding and love”, butintimacy is more appropriate- Merrill C. Tenney John: The Gospel of Belief, Eerdman,Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, p.72

16

qyj and express marital fellowship (Deut. 13:17, 28:54), of thefact that the wife belongs and gives herself to her husband (Gen.

16:5) and vice-versa (Deut. 28:56)44. ko,lpoj is also used in LXX to

denote the relationship between a mother and her baby (Jud. 4:16,

1 Kgs. 3:20, Is. 49:22) and between God and Israel (Num. 11:12).

But the Son in his life of flesh and blood evxhgh,sato45 the

invisible God, an assertion who is extended also to his pre-

existence state. So, the Logos-Son in his incarnation (enfleshed

Word) is the climax of God’s revelation, the finality of his self

disclosure-an idea in accord with John’s fundamental theme of

revelation.

VII.

Conclusions

Unlike the others Gospel, which opens their story either with

the Baptist’s ministry or narratives about the birth of Christ,

John begins with the pre-existent Logos and his relationship with

God before creation in past eternity; moves on to his activity in

the time subsequent to creation but before incarnation; and then

to the incarnated Word, the climax of God’s self disclosure.

Much has been written about the background of Logos’ idea in

John 1:1-18. There are in general three main sources: Greek44 For more occurrences of ko,lpoj in LXX see Rudolf Mayer, “ko,lpoj” in GerhardKittle ed. TDNT- Theological Dictionary of the New Tetament, vol. IV.45 This rare expression is found only here in John’s gospel and it regularlymeans (in its Lukan occurrences- Luke 24:35, Acts 10:8, 15:12, 14) “to give afull account”- Andreas J. Köstenberger John, p.50. So the verb is used in senseof plenitude, Jesus (the enfleshed Word) telling (exegesis) the whole story ofFather.

17

sources, Gnostic sources and Jewish sources (Old Testament

background, other wisdom literature, or the rabbinic idea of the

Torah). The Greek philosophers like Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, and

even the Alexandrian Jew Philo used and developed a logos

doctrine, but is difficult to decide how far John is indebted to

any of these ideas. Guthrie mentions that in such sources the

logos has no distinct personality, is not linked with light and

life as it is in John and there is no suggestion that the logos

could become incarnate46. Bultmann saw a profound Gnostic influence

in the gospel of John, but his thesis is out of date47. Dead Sea’s

scrolls showed that the John’s dualism is not Gnostic, but come

rather from Judaism sources. Oscar Culmann demonstrated also that

there is no sufficient evidence for a debt to Gnosticism, but

contrary is possible that the Gnosticism took its thought sources

form the New Testament48. Regarding the Jewish sources, the

Proverbs (8) provides some remarkable parallels with the prologue

of John and is one of the closest Old Testament’s parallel. There

are some parallels between the rabbinic idea of the Torah and

divine Logos of John’s prologue, but John goes beyond the

assertions of the rabbis and mentions the distinguishing marks of

the new law -“grace and truth”- Christ fulfilled the function of

the pre-existent Torah49.46 This situation is valid also for Philo who speaks of the logos as God’s firstborn son- Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology, pp.322-323. 47 Rudolf Bultmann „The History of Religions Background of the Prologue to the Gospel of John”, pp.30-3748 Stanley Grenz & L. Miller, Introduction to Contemporary Theologies, Fortress,Minneapolis, 1998, pp. 48-4949 Guthrie sees five parallels between the rabbinic idea of Torah and JohannineLogos: 1) Torah has been created before the foundation of the world; 2) Torahlay on God’s bosom; 3) Torah is God’s “daughter”; 4) through the first-born

18

John presents Jesus as the true Logos in order to prepare the

way for the presentation of Christ as the son of God. The Logos is

described in relation to the Father. Like the Father, he is God

and pre-existent, but distinguished from the Father. In relation

with the created world, Logos is clearly distinguished from

creation, but there is no distinction between the creative power

of the Logos and the creative power of God. The relation of the

Logos to humanity is summed up in his enfleshed state. He became

flash, the same nature as man, a reality diametrically opposed to

docetism. He is not a simple personification, but personified and

personalized.

The Prologue presents not only the Logos, but also points out

some of the great thoughts key terms and main themes that will be

developed in the rest of the gospel. The ideas and themes

presented in the prologue and then mentioned or developed in the

gospel could be summed up in the following table:

Keywords/Themes

Place in thePrologue

Developed in theGospel

Christ pre-existence 1:1 8:58; 17:5belief theme 1:7; 1:12 2:11; 3:16, 18; 5:24;

6:69; 11:25; 14:1; 16:27;17:21; 20:25; 20:31

the rejection ofChrist

1:10 4:44; 7:1; 8:59; 10:31;12:37-40; 15:18

light 1:4; 1:9 3:19; 8:12; 9:5; 12:35,46

light and darkness 1:5 3:19-20; 8:12; 12:35, 46

(Torah) God created the heaven and earth and 5) the words of the Torah are lifefor the world. – New Testament Theology, p.325

19

conflictlife 1:4 3:15; 4:24; 6:35; 51witness 1:8 4:39; 5:36; 5:32, 37, 39-

40; 12:17; 15:26-27;18:37; 19:35; 21:24

world 1:10 7:7; 8:23; 12:9; 12:31unbelief of the Jews 1:11 5:46-47; 6:64-65; 7:41-

52; 9;30-34, 40-41the new birth theme 1:13 3:1-7, 13-15the grace and truth 1:14, 17 4:24; 8:32; 14:6; 17:17;

18:38the glory of Christ 1:14 2:11; 12:41; 17:5, 22, 24Christ and Moses/the

law

1:17 1:45; 3:14; 5:46; 6:32;

7:19; 9:29Christ and John the

Baptist

1:6-8, 15 1:19-39; 3;22-28; 5:35

Christ- revelation of

the Father

1:18 3:34; 8:19. 38; 12:49-50;14:6-11; 17:8

The unique occurrence of the expression ca,rin avnti.

ca,ritoj and of plh,rwma in Johannine literature and the parallels

with some Old Testament texts like Genesis 1:1, Exod 33-34 and

Proverbs 8 demonstrate also the great importance and significance

of the prologue for the Johannine gospel. Anyone who misinterprets

and neglects the prologue will misunderstand the whole gospel.

Bibliography:

Commentaries

20

Barclay, William The Gospel of John - vol. 1, The Westminster Press, 1975

Barrett, K. C. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentaryand Notes on the Greek Text, Westminster John Knox Press, 1978

Borchert, L. Gerald John 1-11 –An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of HolyScripture NIV Text, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996

Brown, E. Raymond The Gospel According to John (I-XII) -The Anchor Bible,Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York, 1966

Bruce, F. F. The Gospel of John, Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1983

Calvin, John Commentary on John, volume 1, Grand Rapids: ChristianClassics Ethereal Library, - PDF. format,http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.html

Carson, A. D. The Gospel According to John, Inter-Varsity Press,Leicester, England, 1991

Hendriksen, William The Gospel of John, vol.I, Baker Book House, GrandRapids, Michigan, 1988

Köstenberger, J. Andreas, John-BECNT, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 2004

Kruse, G. Colin John, Inter-Varsity Press, Leicester, 2004

Lightfoot, H. R. St. John’s Gospel-A Commentary, Oxford UniversityPress, 1957

Moloney, J. Francis The Gospel of John, Liturgical Press, 1998

Morris, Leon The Gospel According to John-NICNT, Eerdamans, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1995

Murray-Beasley, R. George John-Word Biblical Commentary, vol.32, WordIncorporated, Dallas, Texas, 1987

21

Ridderbos, N. Herman The Gospel of John, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1997

Tasker, G. V. R John-Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Inter-Varsity,Leicester, 1960

Tenny, C. Merrill John-The Gospel of Belief, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,Michigan, 1989

Westcott, F. Brooke The Gospel According to John, James Clarke & Co,1958

Books:

Evans, A. Craig Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background ofJohn’s Prologue, Sheffield Academic, 1993

Guthrie, Donald New Testament Theology, Inter-Varsity, Leicester,1981

Schnelle, Udo Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John, Fortress,Minneapolis, 1992

Articles:

Büchsel, Friedrich “monogen”, TDNT- Theological Dictionary of the NewTetament,, vol. IV

Bultmann, Rudolf „The History of Religion Background of thePrologue to the Gospel of John”, in Asthon, John ed. TheInterpretation of John, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1997

Deeks, David “The Structure of the Forth Gospel”, NTS- New TestamentStudies, no. 15/ 1968-1969

Mayer, Rudolf “ko,lpoj” in Gerhard Kittle ed. TDNT- TheologicalDictionary of the New Tetament, vol. IV

22

Staley, Jeff “The Structure of John’s Prologue: Its Implicationfor the Gospel’s narrative Structure”, CBQ- Catholic Bible Quarterly ,vol.48, no. 2/ April, 1986

Watt der van, G. Jan “The Composition of the Prologue of John’sGospel: The Historical Jesus Introducing Divine Grace”, WTJ-Westminster Theological Journal, vol. 57#2, 1995

23