The arguments and issues surrounding this text are many and complicated. I will deal with them as best I can. This paper will be broken up into sections, which will be as follows:

Section I:
Arguments concerning "logos" from the New Testament only.

Section II:
Arguments from the Old Testament and John's Hebraic paradigm.

Section III:
Writings from disciples of the Apostle John.

Section IV:
Observations on the role of Greek philosophical thought in the history of Christian theology, especially as it pertains to John 1.

 

In addition to all this, the issue of John's intended audience becomes very important, as well as when it was written. "Logos" is not explained or defined; therefore, John assumes that his audience understands what he means. So if Gentiles were the intended audience, then "logos" would most likely be understood in Greek philosophical terms (see Section IV below). If Jews were the intended audience, then "logos" should be understood from the Old Testament matrix for the "word of the Lord." The former would support the Trinitarian position for the literal pre-existence of Jesus and the nature of God, the latter would not. For more on this issue, go to: JOHN'S INTENDED AUDIENCE
 

 

Section I:
 Arguments Concerning "logos" From the New Testament Only

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

 

The word translated, "Word" is the Greek word "logos". The word, "logos" can be difficult to render into English - both linguistically as well as conceptually. It is translated by at least 20 different English words. Some of these are: mind, intention, reason, will, purpose, a word, speech, a matter, - it's the root of the word, "logic". It is used for the utterances of men (e.g. John 17:20) as well as utterances of God (e.g. John 5:38). My Greek friend and I agree on this. He says, "I agree with you that besides "word," "logos" can mean all the things we alluded thus far (thought, plan, command, intent, reason, cause, estimation, etc.)."

 

The crux of the matter depends on how one understands, "...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."

 

Trinitarians, of course, see this as a statement of ontological identity between Jesus and the Word. They understand the Word to literally be the preexistent Jesus. They reason that Jesus is the Word made flesh - i.e. incarnated, literally - and the Word is explicitly said to be God. The question is, is this John's meaning? How would we know? The only way I can think of is to see how John used the word elsewhere.

 

I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the logos of God (Revelation 20: 4 -5).

 

His servant John, who gives witness to the logos of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:2).

 

Here John distinguishes between Jesus and the logos of God. The logos is not Jesus, but is related to God. This is the same as John 1, "the logos was with God and the logos was God."
 

"Beloved, I am writing no new commandment to you but an old commandment that you had from the beginning. The old commandment is the logos that you have heard." (1 John 2:7)
 

The logos is not Jesus but is the old commandment that was heard from the beginning.

 

"You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his logos dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent." (John 5: 37 - 38)
 

The logos relates to God, not Jesus.
 

John 16:20 - "Remember the logos I spoke to you."
 

John 17:8 - "Because the logos that you gave to me I have given to them, and they accepted them."
 

"Logos" here means a message - and that message is from God, given by and through Jesus.

The following is definition 1 for word/logos in Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:
 

&lt1,,3056,logos>denotes

 

(I) "the expression of thought," not the mere name of an object, (a) as embodying a conception or idea, e.g., Luke 7:7; 1 Cor. 14:9,19; (b) a saying or statement, (1) by God, e.g., John 15:25; Rom. 9:9; 9:28, RV, "word" (AV, "work"); Gal. 5:14; Heb. 4:12; (2) by Christ, e.g., Matt. 24:35 (plur.); John 2:22; 4:41; 14:23 (plur.); 15:20. In connection with (1) and (2) the phrase "the word of the Lord," i.e., the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT), is used of a direct revelation given by Christ, 1 Thess. 4:15; of the gospel, Acts 8:25; 13:49; 15:35,36; 16:32; 19:10; 1 Thess. 1:8; 2 Thess. 3:1; in this respect it is the message from the Lord, delivered with His authority and made effective by His power (cp. Acts 10:36); for other instances relating to the gospel see Acts 13:26; 14:3; 15:7; 1 Cor. 1:18, RV; 2 Cor. 2:17; 4:2; 5:19; 6:7; Gal. 6:6; Eph. 1:13; Phil. 2:16; Col. 1:5; Heb. 5:13; sometimes it is used as the sum of God's utterances, e.g., Mark 7:13; John 10:35; Rev. 1:2,9; (c) discourse, speech, of instruction, etc., e.g., Acts 2:40; 1 Cor. 2:13; 12:8; 2 Cor. 1:18; 1 Thess. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:15; Heb. 6:1, RV, marg.; doctrine, e.g., Matt. 13:20; Col. 3:16; 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 1:13; Titus 1:9; 1 John 2:7;

 

 

This gives the many different ways the word is used in the New Testament. Look at all those scriptures! None of these uses means, "Son" or, "Jesus" or any kind of person.

 

Here is definition 2:

 

(II) "The Personal Word," a title of the Son of God; this identification is substantiated by the statements of doctrine in John 1:1-18, declaring in verses John 1:1,2 (1) His distinct and superfinite Personality, (2) His relation in the Godhead (pros, "with," not mere company, but the most intimate communion), (3) His deity; in John 1:3 His creative power; in John 1:14 His incarnation ("became flesh," expressing His voluntary act; not as AV, "was made"), the reality and totality of His human nature, and His glory "as of the only begotten from the Father," RV (marg., "an only begotten from a father"), the absence of the article in each place lending stress to the nature and character of the relationship; His was the shekinah glory in open manifestation; John 1:18 consummates the identification: "the only-begotten Son (RV marg., many ancient authorities read "God only begotten,"), which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," thus fulfilling the significance of the title "Logos," the "Word," the personal manifestation, not of a part of the Divine nature, but of the whole Deity (see IMAGE).

 

Notice the lack of corroborating scriptures. There is not one single scripture given to support this understanding of John 1 other than John 1. There is a second paragraph under definition 2; it is but a single sentence:

 

The title is used also in 1 John 1:1, "the Word of life" combining the two declarations in John 1:1,4 and Rev. 19:13 (for 1 John 5:7 see THREE).

 

In 1 John, whether or not "the Word of life" is a title or not seems to be in some dispute. Some versions (e.g. RSV) render it, "the word of life". Either way, it does not refer to Christ.
 

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life [not the word] was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ...This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

 

The "word" is the message of eternal life. Message of eternal life = word of life. It was the eternal life that was manifested, seen, and touched by John. The "concerning the word of life" is, "...we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life..." This is consistent with definition 1 - "the expression of thought as embodying a conception or idea". In first John, even if "Word of life" IS a title, it's not a title for Christ; it's a title for the message of eternal life. The Father and the Son are explicitly distinguished here. It's odd that if John meant: Word = Jesus = God, that he would speak thusly: "our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ."

 

He is clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. (Rev 19:13)

 

This IS a title - a name. It means, according to definition 1, "the revealed will of God (very frequent in the OT)" Notice it says, "...the name by which he is called..." As I've already explained, just because someone is named something, doesn't mean that person is ontologically the same thing as the object the name refers to. Jesus is called the revealed will of God, or the Word of God. Jesus is not God. He is the fulfillment, the expression, the revelation, of God's logos - God's mind, plan, will, intention, etc. And so Jesus' name, "The Word of God" means that Jesus is "the revealed will of God." There's a big difference between, "Jesus is the revealed will of God" which is what Rev 19:13 would mean to a Jew and, "Jesus is a preexistent divine being called 'the Word' who was incarnated as a man" which is what it would mean to a Greek Stoic or a Gnostic (see section IV below). The Word of God = God's revealed will = Logos made flesh.

 

Secondly, the book of Revelation is a highly symbolic piece of work very much in the mold of Old Testament apocalyptic literature. Various interpretations abound as a result. A literal interpretation is therefore highly questionable.

 

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

 

Vine's says, "... 1 John 5:7 is ... a verse which forms no part of the original; no Greek ms. earlier than the 14th century contained it; no version earlier than the 5th cent. in any other language contains it, nor is it quoted by any of the Greek or Latin "Fathers" in their writings on the Trinity...It must be regarded as the interpolation of a copyist."

 

So of the 3 - actually 2 -  verses given by Vine's to support the Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:

 

1) I John 5:7  is an obvious interpolation. Even Vine's acknowledges this.
 

2) I John 1:1 does NOT support the Trinitarian understanding (as illustrated by definition 2) of John 1. It refers "logos" to the message of eternal life, not Christ.

3) Revelation 19:13 would be the ONLY other verse that might corroborate the Trinitarian understanding of John 1 but when you get into the Old Testament background of the phrase, "the Word of God" or "the Word of the Lord" you find that it means "the revealed will of God" - this according to Vine's, which is the work of Trinitarians.

 

So, there is NO support for the Trinitarian concept of the "logos" in John's prologue anywhere else in the writings of John. If the Trinitarian understanding is correct, John does not use the term in that way anywhere else. Are we to believe that John uses "logos"  in a technical, theological/philosophical sense, in and only in, John 1, and uses it everywhere else in a common manner commensurate with his Hebraic background - and with no word of explanation anywhere? The same can be said - no support of the Trinitarian concept of "logos" -  of the other New Testament writers, just look up all the scriptures given in Vine's definition 1 above. NONE of them even come close to referring to the person of Jesus. For example:
 

2 Peter 3:5: ...that long ago by God's logos the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water.

 

2 Timothy 2: 8 - 9: This is my gospel, for which I am suffering to the point of being chained like a criminal. But God's logos is not chained.

 

Hebrews 4: 12 -13: For the logos of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him, to whom we must give account.

 

Notice that logos is not capitalized, and the pronoun used is neuter - "it". Personally, I don't have a problem with capitalizing logos when it is GOD's logos that is being spoken of. The problem is that people tend to then see it as a proper name, implying that it's a person separate from God, thanks to centuries of Trinitarian dominance. That's the problem with translating the pronouns relating to the logos of John 1 as "he". I know that the Greek pronoun is masculine. That, however, does not automatically imply gender or personhood, as the verse in Hebrews demonstrates. No translator has rendered Hebrews 4:12 as, "For the logos of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, HE penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; HE judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

 

The author of Hebrews uses the word "logos" consistently as being a message from God. He also consistently distinguishes between Christ and God:

 

For if the message [logos] declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord [Jesus], and it was attested to us by those who heard him, while God [the Father of Jesus] also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his [God] own will. (Heb. 2:2-4)

 

For good news came to us just as to them; but the message [logos] which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. (Heb. 4:2)

 

Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word [logos] of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever. (Heb. 7:28)

 

...and a voice whose words [logos] made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken to them. (Heb. 12:19)

 

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word [logos] of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. (Heb. 13:7)

 

Historically, none of the English translations before the KJV (1611) used "he" in John 1 - they all used "it".

 

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. All things came into being through it, and without it nothing was made that was made.

 

The following translations rendered John 1:3, "By it all things were made. Without it nothing was made" -  Tyndale Bible (1535), Coverdale (1550; this version has "the same," rather than "it"), Matthew (1535), Taverner (1539), The Great (Cranmer's) Bible (1539), Whittingham (1557), Geneva (1560), Bishop's Bible (1568).

 

We should let the apostle John himself define what he meant by "logos" in John 1 - "In the beginning was the logos..."
 

This is the logos we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5)

The old commandment is the logos that you have heard. (1 John 2:7)
 

John thought of logos as a message, a plan, a revelation of the mind/will/intention of God. When he says, "the logos became flesh and dwelt among us" he means that God's plan/mind/will/intention was brought into existence. Jesus was the fulfillment, the expression of God's plan brought to fruition in the physical creation. Before the logos became flesh it existed in the plan/mind/will/intention of God only. God had an idea, a plan. That idea was Jesus. Notice how I said that. "That idea was Jesus." See what happens when language is taken literally when it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally? Do I mean that Jesus literally existed before he was born, because I said he was an idea? No, what is meant is that God had the idea of Jesus. I have an idea (logos). That idea (logos) is a new house. I speak (logos) about it. I plan (logos) it. I talk (logos) about it as if it already exists, but it doesn't. It exists only in my mind (logos) and on paper (scriptura). I then actually build (become flesh) the house. Now the house REALLY exists. It has PHYSICAL existence - it has become flesh. Trinitarians have taken the actual house and made it the same thing as the idea of the house. They have taken the flesh and made it become the logos instead of the logos becoming flesh.

 

If John was saying that Jesus was God incarnate, that he was actually God Himself in human form, why would he conclude the prologue by saying,

 

No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (John 1:18)

 

1 John 4:12: No one has ever seen God.

 

John 6:46: Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God.

 

1 John 4:20: For whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

 

No one has ever seen God. Thousands of people saw Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is NOT God. How could John say, "No one has ever seen God" if he believed that Jesus was God?

 

Lastly, as I've emphasized before, John tells us why he writes his gospel, and it's NOT to convince us that Jesus is God, but to convince us that Jesus is the Son of God, the Christ, which is the Greek word for "Messiah."

 

John 20: 30, 31: Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

 

This motivation can be seen throughout John's writings in general:

 

I John 5:1: Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God...

 

1 John 4:15: Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.

 

I John 5:10-12: He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself....and this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life.

 

These are very clear statements. None of this can be taken to mean, "Jesus is God." Jesus and God are clearly distinguished from each other. You must believe and confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Nothing about Jesus being God, or preexistent deity. Therefore, the logos of John 1 must be understood in a manner that is consistent with everything else John says about the logos, about Jesus, and about God. The Trinitarian understanding of John 1 is NOT consistent with what John says elsewhere, nor is it consistent with what the other New Testament writers say.

 

And as we shall see in the next section, the Trinitarian understanding of John 1 is not consistent with the Old Testament and the Hebraic paradigm of the word of the Lord, the Messiah, and God.