Word-Logos-Rhema3

This document consists of several sources concerning the word “Logos” – I’ve highlighted words, phases, and sentences to provide ‘an outline’ of the material if time doesn’t permit one to read the whole document.

Logos – The word Logos was used prior to John using it.   (From: Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

LOGOSJohn deliberately used logos (translated “Word”) to describe Jesus (John 1:1). Logoshad rich cultural meaning in the background of early Christians, both Jews and Greeks.

The Greek word logos (“word”) ordinarily refers to an explanation or reason for something otherwise meaningless. Logoshas a variety of uses depending on context. With regard to language or grammar, logos can mean “sentence” or “statement,” while regarding logic or knowledge it can mean “reason,” “explanation,” “science,” or “formula.” A form of logos is utilized in English words to describe a particular discipline or science, such as theology, anthropology, and so forth.

Logoswas given great significance by Greek philosophers, beginning with Heraclitus. The Stoics strongly emphasized the logos spermatikos (“seminal word”), the rational principle which pervades all reality, providing meaning and order to persons and the universe. The logos creates coherence and unity, provides an orderly pattern for existence, and holds everything together.

Foundational for biblical use of logos, however, is the OT concept of the “word” (dabar) of God. The Hebrews saw the word of God not as merely words but as a powerful and effectual means of accomplishing God’s purposes (Isa. 40:8; 55:11; Jer. 23:29). By His word God spoke the world into existence (Gen. 1:3–31; Ps. 33:6; 2 Pet. 3:5). God communicated His word directly to persons, especially in the Law (Exod. 20:1–17; 34:28; Deut. 5:4–5) and the Prophets (1 Sam. 15:10; 2 Sam. 7:4; 23:2; 2 Kings 7:1; Isa. 38:4; Jer. 1:4, 11; Ezek. 7:1; 11:14; Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Jon. 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Hag. 1:1; Mal. 1:1). The wise person is the one who lives in accordance with the word of God (Gen. 15:1; Exod. 9:20–25; Num. 3:16; 1 Kings 6:11–12; Pss. 106:24; 119).

As Greek and Hebrew cultures overlapped, these concepts of “word” interacted. When Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt, translated the Hebrew OT into Greek (the Septuagint, 275 b.c.), they utilized logos to translate dabar. An Alexandrian Jew, Philo (30 b.c.–a.d. 40), expressed Judaism in neo-Platonic terms, believing that Greek thinkers borrowed from Moses. Philo believed that Greek concepts such as logos were not contradictory to the OT view of the word and wisdom of God as personified in Prov. 8 and in the apocryphal books Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach. Just as the Stoic logos provided the rational order for creation, Philo reinterpreted the creation in Genesis to be through the Logos, the firstborn of creation.

In this cultural situation John described Jesus as the Logos (John 1:1–14). But John did not merely copy common cultural concepts. Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he poured new meaning into the concept of Logos. In relation to God, Jesus as the Logos was not merely an angel or created being who was the agent of creation, nor another word from God or wisdom from God, but He was God Himself (John 1:1–4). In relation to humanity, Jesus the Logos was not the impersonal principle of Stoicism, but He was a personal Savior who took on human flesh in the incarnation (John 1:4–14). The Word’s becoming flesh and living among us (John 1:14) was in sharp contrast to the Greek ideas. By depicting Jesus as the Logos, John portrays Him as the preexistent Creator of the universe, with God, and identical to God. From this perspective of Jesus’ divinity and eternity, any view of Jesus as a mere prophet or teacher is impossible (Phil. 2:5–11; Col. 1:13–20; 2:9–10; Heb. 1:1–4; 1 John 1:1–3; Rev. 19:13).

In other NT texts logos is used to refer to Scripture, particularly as proclaimed in gospel preaching(Luke 5:1; 8:11–15; Acts 4:31; 8:14; 12:24; Rom. 10:8; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:23–25; Heb. 4:12). The preaching of the gospel brings order and meaning to lives shattered by sin. Those who put faith in Jesus, the Logos, will be welcomed into the family of God (John 1:11–12).

Jesus as the Logos  From: (Zuck, R. B. (1994). A Biblical Theology of the New Testament)

The Greek term logos occurs many times in the gospel of John in several of its normal senses (e.g., “statement” or “saying” in John 4:39, 50; 6:60; 7:36; 15:20; 18:9; 19:8; God’s “word” as revelation in John 10:35; God’s “word” revealed through Christ, John 17:14). But the most significant use of logos in John’s gospel occurs in the prologue (1:1–18) in 1:1 (“In the beginning was the Word”) and 1:14 (“The Word became flesh”). Here the term is used as a technical designation for Jesus Himself, and much scholarly effort has been devoted to understanding the background and use of logos in these two verses.

It has not been proven beyond doubt whether the term logos, as John used it, derives from Jewish or Greek (Hellenistic) backgrounds or from some other source. Nor is it plain what associations John meant to convey by his use of it. Readers are left to work out the precise allusions and significance for themselves. John was working with allusions to the Old Testament, but he was also writing to an audience familiar with Hellenistic (Greek) thought, and certain aspects of his use of logos would occur to them. Both backgrounds are important for understanding this title as John used it in 1:1, 14.

The Greek background of the term. As a Greek philosophical term, logos referred to the “world-soul,” that is, the soul of the universe. This was an all-pervading principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense, all things came from it; in another sense, people derived their wisdom from it. These concepts are at least as old as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (6th century b.c.), who wrote that the logos is “always existent” and “all things happen through this logos.” In later Hellenistic thought these concepts persisted but were modified somewhat. Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher of the early first century, frequently mentioned the logos (it appears over 1,400 times in his writings), but he was concerned with his Platonic distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of ideas. The Stoics, another group of Hellenistic philosophers, developed the concept of logos. They abandoned Plato’s heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (closer to Heraclitus) that the universe is pervaded by logos, the eternal Reason. The Stoics, convinced of the ultimate rationality of the universe, used the term logos to express this conviction. For them it was the “force” that originated, permeated, and directed all things. It was the supreme governing principle of the universe. But the Stoics did not think of the logos as personal, nor did they understand it as one would understand God (i.e., as a person to be worshiped). In fact, they did not even think of a single logos, but of logoi spermati koi (“seminal Reasons”), the forces responsible for the creative cycles in nature. Later Stoics considered the logos to be the “world-soul” in a pantheistic sense.

Thus John was using a term that would be widely recognized in Hellenistic circles. But the average person would not know its precise significance, any more than most people today would precisely understand terms like “relativity” or “space-time continuum.” But it would clearly mean something very important.

The Jewish background of the term. Recently more attention has been given to Jewish sources as a background for John’s use of logos in his gospel prologue. First, there is the Old Testament to consider. The words of John 1:1 (“In the beginning”) inevitably recall Genesis 1:1. But the use of logos in John 1:1 also suggests Genesis 1:3 (“and God said”) as well as Psalm 33:6 (“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made”). There is also the near personalization of wisdom in Proverbs 8:22–31. In many places the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Old Testament, first oral and later written) substitute Memra (“word”) as an intermediary for God. For example, in Exodus 19:17, “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God” (nasb). The Palestinian Targum reads, “to meet the Word of God.” Targum Jonathan uses this expression some 320 times. Some say this is not significant because Memra does not refer to a being distinct from God. It is just a way of referring to God Himself. But this is the point; people familiar with the Targums were familiar with Memra as a designation for God. John did not use the term logos the way the Targums used Memra, but to those familiar with the Targums, logos would have aroused similar associations, with which John would be in agreement.

The use of the term in the prologue to John’s gospel. Why did John choose to call Jesus the Logos in the prologue to his gospel, and what did he mean by it? As to why the term was used, the answer probably lies with John’s audience. John gave no explanation of the Logos, apparently assuming his readers would understand the idea. Greek readers would probably think he was referring to the rational principle that guided the universe and would be shocked to find that this Logos had become not only personalized but incarnate (John 1:14). Jewish readers would be more prepared for some sort of personalized preexistent Wisdom, but they too would be amazed at the idea of incarnation. John presented Jesus as the true Logos as preparation for his own presentation of Jesus as the Son of God. After John 1:14, John never again used the absolute, specific, unrelated term logos. After this the Greek word is always modified or clarified by the context, and does not occur again in the gospel to refer to Jesus as the Logos. There is no need for this since in 1:14 the Word is now incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth, and from this point on He is called Jesus. In other words, Jesus and the Logos are identical; the Logos is the preexistent Christ.

John’s Logos-Christology has three main emphases. First, John 1:1 outlines the relationship of the Word to God. John 1:1a (“In the beginning was the Word”) forms a clear statement of preexistence. John 1:1b (“the Word was with God”) distinguishes God (the Father) from the Word, showing that the two are not interchangeable, and yet suggesting there is a personal relationship between the two. John 1:1c (“and the Word was God”) affirms the full deity of the Word, and yet implies that there is more to God than the Word alone.

Second, John 1:3 gives the relationship of the Word to Creation: “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” The Logos is clearly separate from Creation since He was the Agent who brought it about.

Third, John 1:14 shows the relationship of the Word to humanity: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” This simple statement sums up the Incarnation. The word “flesh” is not used here in the Pauline sense of “sinful flesh” because the notion of sinfulness is incompatible with John’s presentation of Jesus (John 10:30; 17:22; 1 John 2:1; 3:5). Rather, it refers to the humanity of Jesus in His humiliation. Thus the Logos terminology of John’s prologue affirms both the full essential deity of Jesus (1:1) and His full humanity (1:14).

Other Johannine references to the term. The title Logos also appears in 1 John 1:1 with similar meaning. In particular, Jesus is called the Logos of life, emphasizing His role as Giver of life similar to the statements in the prologue of the gospel (see John 1:4, 9). First John 1:1 also implies the Incarnation and places the Logos in a historical framework through its emphasis on eyewitnesses who have heard, seen, and handled the Word.

The term logos also appears once in Revelation in the same sense as in the prologue to the fourth gospel. In Revelation 19:13 Jesus Christ is called the Logos of God. This use of the Logos terminology shows a close link between the gospel of John and Revelation and is one of the indications of common authorship.

Logos(Gk. lógos)  (FoundIn: D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck (Eds., Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible)

A prominent concept in the NT, particularly the Fourth Gospel, where it is specifically identified with Jesus of Nazareth as the preexistent Christ and the incarnate savior (John 1:1–14). The word, however, has had a variety of usages from ancient times conveyed by such English terms as “word,” “speech,” “narration,” and “expression.” For Heraclitus lógos meant “explanation” and by extrapolation “transcendent meaning” and an underlying cosmic principle of order and proportion in the material universe. Plato and Aristotle employed the term to mean “discourse” or “rational explanation,” thus signifying the structural order in the mental and moral universe. Plato made much of the notion of a cosmic order emanating from the transcendent world or from the mind of God. The term had a central role in the worldview of the Stoic philosophers. For them God and the material world were one and lógos was the vital force and rational element which pervades the whole universe and controls its order, function, and life. Some identified it with fire and air, associating it with breath and spirit.

PhiloJudaeus made much of the concept. For him lógos was the rationality in the mind of God which gave God’s mind order and the potential for expression. It was the conceptual framework which arose in the mind of God for the formation of the universe(s) and the expression of that framework as the template for the creation. Lógos was the inner structure of natural and moral law which gives form and function to the material and moral universes, respectively. Moreover, it was the rational and epistemological structure of the human mind, as part of the created universe(s), which corresponded coherently with the structure of the creation and thus made knowledge and scientific investigation possible. It was the comprehensive system of understanding of the universe(s) that the human mind can achieve by philosophy, theology, science, and piety, thus thinking God’s thoughts after him. In the LXX lógos usually translates Heb. dāḇār, “word,” which Philo identified rather closely with the Hebrew word for wisdom (Prov. 1–9).

The NT uses lógos frequently, but not in the philosophical senses of rationality or the rational or ordering principle of the universe.It simply means “word,” “speech,” “report,” “assertion,” or a “matter” under discussion. Thus it often refers to the Christian gospel preached or written. Only in the prologue of the Gospel of John does lógos take on cosmic dimensions when used to name Jesus Christ as the transcendent, preexistent, and incarnate Word or self-expression of God. This has some similarities to Philo’s usage and that of the Stoics, except that in John lógos is personalized.

The term is common in the Greek Patristics and in gnostic tradition. Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus of Lyon, in the late 2nd century, employ lógos to describe the transcendent, preexistent, and incarnational role of Jesus Christ as the facilitator of God’s entire redemptive economy in creation, providence, and salvation. However, they seem more dependent upon the usages of Middle Platonism such as that of Philo, Stoicism, and the Hellenistic Jewish literature of Second Temple Judaism, than upon the prologue of the Fourth Gospel.

J. Harold Ellen

THE LOGOS (THE WORD) – (From: The Gospel according to John. The New International Commentary)

The term Logos was in frequent use among the Greeks.The word might be thought of as remaining within a person, when it denoted thought or reason. Or it might refer to the word going forth from the person, when it denotes the expression of the person’s thought, that is speech.¹³³ The Logos, as a philosophical term, depended on the former use. It denoted something like the world-soul, the soul of the universe. It was an all-pervading principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense all things came from it, in another people derived their wisdom from it. The concept is as old as Heraclitus (sixth century b.c.). This philosopher declared that the Logos “is always existent,” and again that “all things happen through this Logos.” He thought of the ultimate reality sometimes as Fire, sometimes as God, sometimes as Logos. “In Heraclitus the three conceptions, Logos, Fire, and God, are fundamentally the same. Regarded as the Logos, God is the omnipresent Wisdom by which all things are steered.” Heraclitusfound people conceiving of the universe in physical terms. He introduced the idea of the Logos to account for the order he saw in the kosmos. It was the stabilizing principle of the universe.

Later thinkers for the most part failed to follow this thought up. For example, though Plato occasionally mentions the Logos, he is more concerned with his distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world   p 103  of “ideas.” It was the Stoics who really developed the concept of the Logos. They abandoned Plato’s heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (more akin to Heraclitus) that the universe is pervaded by the Logos, the eternal Reason. The term Logos gave expression to their deep conviction of the rationality of the universe. They did not think of the Logos as personal, so they did not understand it as we would God. For them it was essentially a principle or force. But the important thing is that if it was a principle it was the supreme principle of the universe. It was the force that originated and permeated and directed all things.

When John used the term Logos, then, he used a term that would be widely recognized among the Greeks. The average person would not know its precise significance to the philosophers (any more than his modern counterpart knows what the scientist understands by, say, “nuclear fission”). But he would know that it meant something important. John could scarcely have used the Greek term without arousing in the minds of those who used the Greek language thoughts of something supremely great in the universe. But, though he would not have been unmindful of the associations aroused by the term, his essential thought does not derive from the Greek background.¹³⁹ His Gospel shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy and less of dependence on it. And the really important thing is that John in his use of Logos is cutting   p 104  clean across one of the fundamental Greek ideas. The Greeks thought of the gods as detached from the world, as regarding its struggles and heartaches and joys and fears with serene divine lack of feeling. John’s idea of the Logos conveys exactly the opposite idea. John’s Logos does not show us a God who is serenely detached, but a God who is passionately involved. The Logos speaks of God’s coming where we are, taking our nature upon himself, entering the world’s struggle, and out of this agony winning our salvation.

More important for our understanding of this Gospel in general and of its use of this term in particular is its Jewish background.The opening words, “In the beginning,” compel a comparison with Genesis 1:1, while “the Word” irresistibly turns our attention to the repeated “and God said” of the opening chapter of the Bible. The Word is God’s creative Word (v. 3). The atmosphere is unmistakably Hebraic.

A feature of Old Testament teaching that was receiving attention in the first century was its use of concepts like “the Word,” and “Wisdom.” While nothing was said to compromise the basic monotheism of Judaism, attention was increasingly directed to passages where such entities are given an almost independent existence. Thus throughout the Old Testament the Word of the Lord is thought of as an effective agent for accomplishing the divine will. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made” (Ps. 33:6). When God speaks he does something. His word is a divine action. God’s revelatory   p 105  act is often described by saying that the word of the Lord “came” to the prophet. In keeping with this a prophet may ascribe a more or less independent existence to the Word, as when he reports God as saying, “so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isa. 55:11). And in Psalm 29 “the voice” of the Lord is regarded in much the same way.

There are also semipersonalizations of Wisdom or the Law. Thus Wisdom can be spoken of very much like a divine person: “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.… I was there when he set the heavens in place.… Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind” (Prov. 8:22–31). Parallelism can show that “the law” and “the word” can mean very much the same thing (Isa. 2:3; Mic. 4:2). In such passages “Wisdom” or “the Law” or “the Word” is in some sense divine, yet not quite the same as God.

There is another use of some importance, namely that in the Targums. When Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language Scripture was still read in that language in the services in the synagogue. As a concession to the weakness of the flesh there arose the custom of giving a running translation, which was called a Targum. At first the Targums were oral only, but in later times they were written down. Those that have survived enable us to see that they were somewhat free paraphrases rather than exact translations. The Targumists tried to give the sense of the passage being read, and not simply to translate mechanically. These Targums were produced at a time when, from motives of reverence and from a fear of breaking the third commandment, Jews had ceased to pronounce the divine name. When they came to this name in the original the readers and translators substituted some other expression they thought more reverent, such as “the Holy One” or “the Name.” Sometimes they said, “the Word (Memra).” For example, where our Bible says, “Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God” (Exod. 19:17), the   p 106  Targum reads “to meet the Word of God.” This kind of thing is quite common. Barclay says that in the Targum of Jonathan¹⁴⁵ alone the expression is used in this way about 320 times. It is often said that this Jewish use is not relevant because it does not denote a being in any way distinct from God. It is just a reverent way of referring to God himself. But this is hardly the point. The point is that wherever people were familiar with the Targums they were familiar with “the Word” as a designation of the divine.¹⁴⁷ The Johannine use is not that of the Targums, but to those familiar with the Targums it must necessarily arouse these associations.

In the period between the two Testaments there was a marked extension of the usages we have been discussing. There are some striking statements about Wisdom. Thus Wisdom is reported as saying: “I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, and covered the earth like a mist. I dwelt in high places, and my throne was in a pillar of cloud. Alone I have made the circuit of the vault of heaven and have walked in the depths of the abyss” (Sir. 24:3–5). Clearly Wisdom stands in close relationship to God, though the writer is careful to speak of her as a created being: “From eternity, in the beginning, he created me” (Sir. 24:9). In the Wisdom of Solomon we find that Wisdom “glorifies her noble birth by living with God” (Wis. 8:3), and that she “is an initiate in the knowledge of God, and an associate in his works” (Wis. 8:4). The writer can pray, “O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things by thy word, and by thy wisdom hast formed man” (Wis. 9:1–2, a passage that incidentally shows that the author made little distinction between Wisdom and the Word). There is an even bolder personification of   p 107  the Word: “For while gentle silence enveloped all things, and night in its swift course was now half gone, thy all-powerful word leaped from heaven, from the royal throne … a stern warrior … and touched heaven while standing on the earth” (Wis. 18:14–16). While it would be too much to say that these writers thought of Wisdom or the Word as having any distinct existence of their own, yet their bold imagery was certainly preparing the way for John’s idea of the Logos.

It is difficult to know whether Philo should be thought of as a Jewish or Greek thinker. The great Alexandrian Jew really effected a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Old Testament thought. He spoke much about the Word, and his various sayings do not readily harmonize. Sometimes he speaks of the Logos as a “second God,” sometimes as the one God in action (is it too much to see in this his Greek philosophy and his Hebrew religion respectively?). If we might venture on a generalization, he saw the Logos as a philosophically respectable bridge between a transcendent God and this material universe. He had no intention of abandoning the Old Testament. But he accepted the philosophical ideas of the day, and interpreted the Old Testament in terms of those ideas. Thus his view of the Logos is rather that of current philosophy, somewhat modified, than the religious conception of the Old Testament.

C. H. Dodd takes very seriously the idea that the Philonic understanding of the Logos is part of the background of the Johannine Prologue. He   p 108  thinks that Philo helps us to understand expressions very difficult to explain in terms of a merely Jewish background, for example, “the Word was God.” His conclusion is that the opening words of the Prologue “are clearly intelligible only when we admit that λόγος, though it carries with it the associations of the Old Testament Word of the Lord, has also a meaning similar to that which it bears in Stoicism as modified by Philo, and parallel to the idea of Wisdom in other Jewish writers.” This, however, seems to assume that the whole of the Johannine concept of the Word must be explicable in terms of some part of its background, be it Jewish, Hellenistic, or whatever you will. This I would strongly contest. John’s thought is his own. He uses a term that would be full of meaning to his readers whatever their background. But whatever their background they would not find John’s thought identical with their own. His idea of the Logos is essentially new.

We may sum up this part of the discussion in the words of William Temple. The Logos, he says, “alike for Jew and Gentile represents the ruling fact of the universe, and represents that fact as the self-expression of God. The Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting-point of all things.” John was using a term that, with various shades of meaning, was in common use everywhere. He could count on all his readers catching his essential meaning.¹⁵⁷

  p 109  Such, then, is the background to John’s thought. But it is not his thought itself. He had a richer, deeper, fuller idea than that of any of his predecessors. For him the Word is not a principle but a living Being and the source of life; not a personification but a Person, and that Person divine. The Word is nothing less than God. John gave full expression to this, but it is important to notice that this was but the culmination of a tendency inherent in Christianity from the first.¹⁶¹ The “word” stands for the whole Christian gospel in such passages as Mark 2:2 (where it applies to the preaching of Jesus) and Mark 8:32 (where it has special reference to the death of the Son of man). Allan D. Galloway can regard Logos as referring to the work of Christ rather than to his Person. That is to say, it is a term that gathers up into itself the universal saving significance of Christ. He, the Word, is no tribal savior, but the one hope of all the human race. The Word and the gospel are intimately connected.   p 110  When Luke speaks of those who were “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:2), it is difficult to escape the impression that by “the word” he means more than teaching. He is thinking of the intimate relationship between Christ and the gospel, and is coming very close to calling Jesus “the Word.” Again, he does not seem to make much distinction between preaching the word (Acts 8:4) and preaching Jesus (Acts 11:20). A number of times Paul speaks of preaching Christ (1 Cor. 1:23; 2 Cor. 4:5; Gal. 3:1). He can explain “the word of God” as “the mystery,” and this in turn as “Christ in you” (Col. 1:25–27). Though the step of calling Christ “the Word” is not often taken (but cf. 1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13), it is clear that the way had been prepared.

There is a preparation also in the realm of ideas, for in some passages, though the terminology is different, Paul ascribes to Christ qualities and activities akin to those postulated of Wisdom in the Old Testament and elsewhere (see Phil. 2:5ff.; Col. 1:15ff.). The conclusion seems inescapable that, while John uses a term that was widely familiar and would convey a meaning to people of very diverse backgrounds, his thought is essentially Christian. When he speaks of Jesus as the Logos he does but put the coping stone on an edifice that was being erected throughout the New Testament.

  p 111  After the Prologue John does not apply the specific term Logos to Jesus, but it should not be overlooked that he puts a great deal of stress on “the word(s)” of Jesus or of God. He makes it clear that Jesus’ words are God’s words (3:34; 14:10, 24; 17:8, 14), which makes it very important to believe them (5:47). Indeed, to abide in Jesus’ “word” is the same as to be his disciple (8:31). Jesus’ words bring life (5:24; 6:68; 8:51), and in fact are life (6:63). They bring cleansing (15:3) and power in prayer (15:7). The reverse side of the coin is that the refusal to heed Jesus’ word or words brings judgment (12:47–48). Those who refuse to hear belong to the devil (8:47; cf. 44). It is important to “keep” Jesus’ word (14:23; 15:20; 17:6). There is a good deal more. It is quite plain that the use of Logos on the threshold of this Gospel is not a casual expression. It is meaningful, and leads us into an important concept for the understanding of the Gospel.