The meaning of "logos" (word) in John 1:1: Is it a person?

RickeyD

In John 1, the Word is Jesus Christ-Yeshua - the Living Word who is God who became flesh as noted in v. 14 of John 1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not [a]comprehend it.

John’s Witness: The True Light

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That[b] was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His [c]own, and His [d]own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [e]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  John 1:1-13 (NKJV)

In Colossians 1 it is written of Jesus Christ...

15 He is the *image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.   (* emphasis mine)

*image = εἰκὼν eikōn  =

1504 eikṓn (from 1503 /eíkō, "be like") – properly, "mirror-like representation," referring to what is very close in resemblance (like a "high-definition" projection, as defined by the context). Image (1504 /eikṓn) then exactly reflects its source (what it directly corresponds to). For example, Christ is the very image (1504 /eikṓn, supreme expression) of the Godhead (see 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15).

"1504 (eikṓn) assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn" (R. Trench). 1504 (eikṓn) then is more than a "shadow"; rather it is a replication (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 226; see also Lightfoot at Col 3:10 and 2:21).

Yahisgood

1In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.
 2This word was in the beginning with God.
 3All things came into being through it, and apart from it nothing came into being that has come into being.
 4In it was life, and the life was the light of humankind.
 5And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

First of all, the topic of debate here is John 1:1 not John 1:14. Second, there is a Chronological sequence within John 1. John 1:14 speaks of the Birth of Christ which is His beginning. Birth always speaks of a person's beginning. No historical precedent exists for anything otherwise. The birth of Christ in John 1:14 is thousands of years distant chronologically from the beginning spoken of in verse 1. To argue regarding John 1:1 from the stance of John 1:14, is to read ideas backwards into the text from the future. This is equally true of the only other verse that speaks of Jesus as the "Word of God," Revelation 19:13:

And he is clothed in a robe sprinkled with blood, and his name is called The Word of God.

Revelation, is an apocalyptic book.  Apocalyptic writings are marked by distinctive literary features, particularly prediction of future events and accounts of visionary experiences or journeys to heaven, often involving vivid symbolism. Revelation 19:13  is part of a vision and is written in symbols. Jesus being given the title "word of God" is a symbolic picture of His role as God's representative on the earth. Rev. 19:13 had not yet been written at the time of the writing of John's gospel account and incidentally, it is the belief of most scholars that the Gospel of John, as well as the epistles attributed to him, were written by a different person than the author of Revelation, but whether or not Revelation was written by John the Apostle of Christ does not change the fact that this verse did not exist at the Time that John wrote his Gospel account. The Gospel of John was written anywhere from shortly after 70 AD to around 90 AD, but the Revelation was not written until around 96 AD. A person reading John's Gospel in the time before the Revelation was written would do so knowing nothing about Jesus being referred to as the Word of God, and so reading the words "In the beginning was the Word" would not cause them to think of Jesus or think that these words were referring to Him.

It is important to note that Jesus is what the logos "became" in verse 14. Verse 1 does not identify logos as Jesus or as God. I have no problem with you believing whatever you choose to believe, but in a debate, you need to answer in regards to the topic at hand. I don't disagree that V. 14 is speaking of Jesus, but that is not what we are talking about here! In verse 1 "logos" or "word" is Gods creative self-expression, not a pre-incarnate Christ. The verse says alludes to no such thing. In order to come to this conclusion you must drag in pre-conceived notions that the text never suggests in any way! In verse 1, the circumstances described in v. 14 have not yet occurred, and Jesus is not yet associated with the logos or "word" because He does not yet exist. Revelation has not Yet been written, so what is written there is irrelevant. Logos in verse 1 of John 1 must be taken as it is written without drawing in any pre-conceived notions that can only be inferred from texts that do not yet exist at the time of the writing of John's prologue of John 1:1. There is a huge difference between being called logos or "word" as a descriptive title that designates being God's representative who speaks the "word" or commands of God to the people, and actually being God's word (logos) which is the word that describes the various aspects of the mind and creative force of God. Jesus reflected God's characteristics of holiness and morality which is why He was called the "image of God," but an image, no matter how perfect, is still only a representation of something. It cannot be that something! This is a logical impossibility, so your definition for eikon is irrelevant and does not alter the meaning of "image" in any significant way!

The question which this topic revolves around is the true meaning of John1:1c

In 1933, E.C. Colwell tried to establish a Greek rule of grammar. He claimed that “a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” He was attempting to support the traditional translation of John 1.1c, and traditionalists ever since have cited this “Colwell Rule.” Yet Colwell admitted that the exception to his rule was that the context could demand otherwise.

In 1973, Philip Harner wrote, “Colwell was almost entirely concerned with the question whether anarthrous predicate nouns were definite or indefinite, and he did not discuss at any length the problem of their qualitative significance.” Harner shows that when an anarthrous predicate noun precedes the verb, as in John 1.1c, it has a distinctly qualitative force that is more prominent than its definiteness or indefiniteness. Harner concludes, “In John 1.1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.” Thus, he renders theos qualitative in 1.1c.

So, according to Harner’s analysis the traditional translation of John 1.1c (“and the Word was God”) is incorrect. To date, Harner’s determinations have not been thwarted. Rather, an increasing number of scholars have endorsed his compelling argument and therefore have abandoned the traditional translation of John 1.1c.

Harner ends his article by endorsing the New English Bible (NEB) translation of John 1.1c. It reads, “and what God was, the Word was.” This means that the Word, which later became Jesus of Nazareth, was exactly like God without being God. This translation treats the anarthrous theos as adjectival, thus qualitative, without translating it “divine.” This rendering corresponds well with the last clause in Hebrews 1.3. It reads, “He [Jesus] is the radiance of His [God’s] glory and the exact representation of His [God’s] nature.”

Finally, this NEB translation of Jn 1.1c—“and what God was, the Word was”—links with the following sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John:

•   “the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” (John 10.38, cf. 30).
•   “And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me” (John 12.45).
•   “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14.9).
•   “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” (John 14.11, cf. v. 20).
•   “Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God’” (John 20.28).
  Jesus’ words in John 14.9, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father,” explain John 1.1c.
  What say the scholars? Marinus de Jonge says, “The author of this Prologue clearly wants to identify ‘the Word’ and God as closely as possible without infringing the belief in the One God.” William Barclay states, “When John said the word was God he was not saying that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in him we perfectly see what God is like.”
  In my book, The Restitution of Jesus Christ (2008), I devote 12 pages to a thorough examination of John 1.1c. In doing so, I cite 26 distinguished scholars and their works.
  http://servetustheevangelical.com/doc/Is_Jesus_God_in_John_1.1c.pdf
  

A very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article can be found in Jesus As They Knew Him, by William Barclay, a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.

An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.

[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.”

https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/but-what-about-john-1-1

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was.

All of this strongly ways in favor of the unitarian position, but even more important is that the lack of any indication in John 1:1 that logos refers to Jesus. That evidence simply does not exist!