What is the logos (Word)?

The Greek words logos (λόγος) and cosmos (κόσμος) lie at the heart of both Christian theology and of universities. Both words have a long history of being associated with a diverse range of meanings, concepts, and entities.

I am particularly interested in these because I am involved in the Logos and Cosmos Initiative of IFES. In a series of three blog posts I will discuss separately what logos and cosmos each represent and then how they might interact with one another, and how this may be helpful in considering how theology and the sciences might interact with one another.

Logos can also be translated as “subject matter’’ and is related to the Latin word logia which is the basis of the English suffix -logy that is part of the names of many academic disciplines: sociology, anthropology, geology, ecology, biology, theology, and cosmology.

Logos in the New Testament

Logos is central to the Gospel of John, which clearly identifies Jesus Christ with it. In English logos is translated as "The Word”. 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (1:1)

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (1:14)

Amongst other passages, logos also appears in the following verses.

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. (17:17)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. (1 John 1:1)

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. (Revelation 19:13)

Translators of the Greek New Testament, from Jerome to Luther, have struggled to find a single appropriate word that captures the richness of the association between logos and Christ.

John’s choice to equate logos with Christ in John 1 was creative and profound as he achieved two things. First, he brought the Gospel into dialogue with Greek culture and intellectual life. Second, he made the point that the truth, wisdom, and meaning associated with the incarnation of God in Christ, was the ultimate knowledge and far surpassed the greatest human knowledge and wisdom of his time. To appreciate this it is helpful to survey how logos was used prior to John.

Logos in Greek and Jewish culture before Christ

The New Bible Dictionary has an entry LOGOS, written by J.N. Birdsall. He states that the Greek word, logos

carries a large number of different meanings: its basic translation is ‘word ', i.e., meaningful utterance, whence develop its many senses 'statement, declaration, discourse, subject-matter, doctrine, affair' and, by another development, 'reason, cause, sake, respect'. As a grammatical term it means a finite sentence, in logic a factual statement, definition, or judgment, in rhetoric a correctly constructed piece of oratory. 

Birdsall, says that the Greek Philosopher Heraclitus (c. 535 - c.475 B.C.) used logos

to signify the divine power or function by which the universe is given unity, coherence, and meaning (Logos Spermatikos, 'seminal Word', which , like seed , gives form to  unformed matter): man is made in accordance with the same principle, and is himself said to possess Logos, both inwardly (Logos Endiathetos, reason) and expressed in speech (Logos Prophorikos). 

These ideas were then used by Stoic philosophers. 

The Septuagint (LXX) was the first Greek translation of the complete Hebrew text of the Old Testament, completed in the second century B.C. Many Old Testament quotations used by the authors of the New Testament are directly taken from the Septuagint. According to Birdsall,

In the LXX Logos is used to translate the Hebrew word dabar ( דָּבָר‎). The root of this signifies 'that which lies behind ', and so when translated as 'word' it, too means meaningful sound; it may also mean thing '. In accordance with a common feature of Hebrew psychology a man's dābār is regarded as in some sense an extension of his personality and further as possessing a substantive existence of its own. The Word of God, then, is His self-revelation through Moses and the prophets; it may be used to designate both single visions and oracles and the whole content of the total revelation and thus especially the Pentateuch. The Word possesses a like power to the God who speaks it (cf. Isaiah 55:11) and effects His will without hindrance. Hence the term may refer to the creative word of God. In the Wisdom literature the creative power of God is referred to as His wisdom, …

Isaiah 55:11 states, 

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.

Philo (20 B.C.–50 A.D.) was a Hellenistic Jew who brought together Stoic philosophy and exegesis of the Old Testament. Birdsall states that

Philo made frequent use of the term Logos, to which he gave a highly developed significance and a central place in his theological scheme. He derived the term from Stoic sources and, in accordance with his discovery of Greek thought in the Hebrew Scriptures, made use of it on the basis of such passages as Psalm 33:6 to express the means whereby the transcendent God may be the Creator of the universe and the Revealer of Himself to Moses and the Patriarchs.

Psalm 33:6 states, “By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” Birdsall comments:

On the Greek, side Philo equates the Logos with the Platonic concept of the World of Ideas so that it becomes both God's plan and God's power of creation. On the side of biblical exegesis the Logos is identified with the Angel of the Lord and the Name of God, and is described by a variety of terms as High Priest, Captain and Steersman, Advocate (Paraclete), and Son of God. It is termed a second God and, on the other hand, described as the Ideal Man, the Pattern of God's earthly creation of man. In spite of all this terminology of personification however, the term remains inevitably, in view of Philo's staunch Judaism (at least, in intention) a philosophical and theological term and tool.

That is, Philo does not go as far as the Apostle John who identifies the logos with a specific person in history, Jesus. Reflecting on the use of logos in John 1:1, Birdsall considers that identifications of logos with dabar or with Wisdom in the Old Testament are not adequate.

Only the Philonic Logos-teaching provides a clear theological scheme in which the Word possesses a like unity with God and a like distinction from Him, and in which both creative and sustaining activity in the universe and revelatory activity towards man is ascribed to it. Further, the necessarily unique concept of incarnation is nevertheless a proper development of the identification of Philo's Logos with the Ideal Man. Either a direct use of Philo or a similar background in intellectual circles of Hellenistic Jewry may lie behind this.

Reflecting also on 1 John 1:1 and Revelation 19:13, Birdsall concludes that the three texts

illustrate how the fulness of Christ consistently exhausts all preparatory imagery and thought; and how many places need an exegesis which draws on many sources for full exposition. Jesus gives fresh meaning to terminology which prior to Him was expressive of lesser mysteries.

In conclusion, John’s use of logos provides a significant example of doing theology in cultural and intellectual context. Jesus Christ is the logos, the Word, the embodiment of all knowledge and wisdom.

Next post will be about cosmos.

Reviewing models of contextual theology

Here is a brief synopsis of three of the distinct models of contextual theology discussed by Stephen B. Bevans, in An Introduction to Theology in Global Perspective.

Bevans proposes six distinct models of contextual theology. They put different relative emphasis on the past and the present, represented by their different locations on the diagram above. Those on the left emphasise the goodness of creation (including culture created by humans) and place a higher value on general revelation than on special revelation. Those on the right emphasise the fallen nature of the creation (including culture created by humans) and the need to redeem it, and put a low value on general revelation, particularly that God can be seen to be present and working in human cultures.

In discussing each model Bevans describes the following

1. alternative names of the model

2. the basis that the model has in Scripture and in Tradition

3. presuppositions that the model has about revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and context

4. methods that practitioners of the model use

5. a horticultural analogy 

6. a "bumper sticker" catchphrase that may summarise the model

7. a positive and negative critique of the model.

Tradition may be Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Calvinist, ...

Translation model

There is a message that is independent of any context and the primary task of theology is to translate that message into specific contexts.

1. the translation is not one of "formal correspondence" but rather "functional" or "dynamical equivalence." Translation involves "adaptation" and "accommodation."

2. Pauls speech in Athens (Acts 17) is an example.

3. there is a content to Christianity that is independent of context and must, by all means, be preserved. Revelation is understood as propositional, containing a concrete message. Both the essence of the message and the Tradition of the proponent are considered to be supracontextual and complete.

4. one first finds the "essence" of the Gospel and then "clothes" it with the trappings of the local culture.

5. a grain of wheat. the husk is removed in order to find the kernel, which is then enclosed in a new husk.

6. "essence of Christianity" and "put the gospel into [new contexts]"

7. Positive: places a high value on Scripture, Tradition, and can be very respectful of different cultures. Negative: may have a naive understanding of the gospel and of the context. may be overly confident about the ability of a person from a particular culture and Tradition to understand the "essence" of the gospel and contexts and to be able to perform a faithful/accurate translation of the gospel from one context to another.

Proponents include Charles Kraft, David Hesselgrave, Tite Tienou, and Hwa Yung.

Anthropological model

This is the most "radical" model. Local cultures can reflect the goodness of God and theology needs to affirm them and be adapted to them. The primary concern is to preserve the cultural identity of a person of Christian faith.

1. "indigenisation" or "ethnographic" model. It is anthropological because the center of the theology is the human person and it makes use of anthropological methods, such as ethnography.

2. the stories of the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28) and the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30) showed "how even Jesus in his full humanity needs to have his horizon expanded beyond Jewish prejudices to the realization of the full implication of his gospel message."

3. tends to approach revelation as not a set of propositions to be preserved but rather an account of God's presence in past contexts.

4.  starts where people are at.

5.  a gardener waters a dry and barren area of soil and from it come flowers and vegetables, the seeds of which were already in the soil.

6. negative: naive about the goodness of human contexts. needs to recognise the sinfulness and fallibility of humanity. does not address issues of injustice and immorality that may be endemic to a society. positive: honours people and their communities, emphasis on humility.

7. "pull the gospel out of" contexts

Examples are Leonardo Mercado, Laurenti Magesa, and Diego Irarrazava.

Praxis model

Practice and theological reflection cannot be separated. Praxis is a combination of practice, or action, and reflection on that action in a continuing spiral.

1. "liberation"model, "situational" model, or "theology of the signs of the times."

2. old Testament prophets (e.g. Isaiah 1:15-16 and Micah 6:7-8)

3. "Not only are women and men of God called to be friends of God; they are called to be partners as well." Revelation is a concrete model, that invites relationship and action, particularly to join God in his liberating and saving activity within history.

4. Action, reflection, action, reflection, .... Reflection involves an analysis of the context using social sciences and a rereading of the Tradition in light of the action. The entire process is the doing of theology.

5. Tending a garden involves an ongoing process of hoeing, sowing, weeding, and watering.

6. Positive: the fullest knowledge is not just intellectual but also through experience and reflection on that experience. Negative: liberation theology is sometimes too influenced by Marxist ideology. 

7. "To know Christ is to follow him." (Jon Sobrino)

Gustavo Guitterez (Peru), Jean-Marc Ela (Cameroon), and Aloysius Pieris (Sri Lanka) are examples.

In a later post, I will discuss the other three models.

Synthetic model

There are strengths and weaknesses of all these models and so one tries to take the good things from all the models.

Countercultural model

Without Christ, cultures are fallen and stand against Christ. They need to be changed.

Transcendental model

The focus in on the subject, the person. Revelation must be experienced. In ones context, one experiences God.

The complete redemption of creation

 I earlier posted about how much I benefited from reading A New Heaven and A New Earth: Reclaiming a Biblical Eschatology by Richard Middleton, in our theology reading group. The book centres around elucidating the creation-fall-redemption-renewal narrative of the Bible.

This month we are reading and discussing the second half of the book.

The book can be viewed as an introductory text on biblical theology, as it attempts to provide a model for the narrative of the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation.

It is helpful for me to consider what the essential message of the book is. In some ways, Middleton is elucidating what the Bible really does say about the theological concepts of creation, fall, redemption, and renewal. He considers that he is correcting common misunderstandings about these concepts.

What is creation?

Sometimes Genesis 1-2 is read solely as a description of material origins. Where did humans come from? When did it all begin? Where did the earth, animals, and plants come from?

According to modernism, humans and nature are distinct (but connected) entities [e.g., they have the same DNA], and both are just material. Consequently, creation is equated with nature, particularly what humans have not touched or used. "Creation care" is concerned with being good stewards of the natural environment and its resources. However, Middleton considers that a more Biblical perspective is that creation (and the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28) is broader. Creation is not just objects (humans and "nature") but much more. Creation is also what humans create by their interactions with one another and with the non-human world: agriculture and art, institutions and ideas,... Creation is the entire human socio-cultural order. The doctrine of creation is not only concerned with some single event in the past, but also the  present and future: how God sustains the world, works in the world, and what God wishes the world would be.

What is the fall?

This has affected everything: humans, the earth, animals, plants,... Sin (the rebellion of humans) has not just broken the relationship of humans with God, but also humans with one another, humans with nature, and humans with themselves. The creation is no longer what God intended it to be, both what God created and the culture that humans now create.

What is redemption?

In Scripture, redemption is conceived most fundamentally as the reversal of the fall and the restoration of God’s good purposes from the beginning. By way of contrast, in our dualistic philosophical inheritance from Plato, redemption is conceived as transferal from a lower, inferior realm (variously understood as body, earth, matter, nature or the secular) to a higher, more valued or esteemed realm (understood as soul, heaven, spirit, the realm of grace or the sacred). This dualistic assumption is often simply superimposed over biblical texts that address redemption and so leads to a distortion of the Bible’s message. Whereas a dualistic understanding of redemption typically devalues the good world God created and encourages an aspiration to transcend finitude, the biblical worldview leads to an affirmation of the goodness of creation, along with a desire to pray and work for the redemption of precisely this world (including human, socio‐cultural institutions) that earthly life might be restored to what it was meant to be. Being aware of the distinction between these two conceptions of redemption helps clarify the significance of the creation‐fall‐redemption paradigm that is utilized by many who are interested in developing a Christian worldview.

This summary is taken from the paper by Middleton, that he developed into the book. 

The human calling is not just to create culture but also to redeem culture, by participating in its transformation. I find it interesting that this redemptive view drove many of the founders of modern science, as chronicled by Peter Harrison in The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science.

What is the final renewal?

What is the end of it all, the eschaton? Sometimes words such as consummation or re-creation, are used instead of renewal. How does this relate to the idea that "when Christians die they go to heaven"? There will be a new heaven and new earth (Revelation 21) that will be free of sin, suffering, and death. Middleton gives particular attention to critiquing interpretations of 2 Peter 3, that claim that all of the existing creation is going to be destroyed/burned up/consumed and God will create something new from scratch, and the disembodied "souls" of Christians will live in a new place, "heaven". Rather, at the eschaton, God will complete the work of redeeming the fallen world that began with Abraham.

A Scientist Looks at Genesis 1-3

This evening I am giving a talk on the first three chapters of Genesis to Village FOCUS at QUT Kelvin Grove, a Christian group for international students. Here are the slides. 

For background, I recommend comparing and contrasting Genesis with the Babylonian creation myth the Enuma Elish, which is nicely summarised in this short video.

Another helpful short video is Science and Genesis, featuring John Polkinghorne, Alister McGrath, N.T. Wright, and others.

I have found helpful the book How to Read Genesis by Tremper Longman.

An excellent introductory book that puts my talk in context is Let there be Science: Why God loves Science, and Science needs God, by David Hutchings and Tom McLeish

John Stott on true evangelicalism

The kind of evangelicalism which concentrates exclusively on saving individual souls is not true evangelicalism. It is not evangelical because it is not biblical. It forgets that God did not create souls but body-souls called human beings, who are also social beings, and that He cares about their bodies and their society as well as about their relationship with Himself and their eternal destiny. 

So true Christian love will care for people as people, and will seek to serve them, neglecting neither the soul for the body nor the body for the soul. As a matter of fact, it has not been characteristic of evangelicals in the past to be shy of social action, or even, when necessary, of political action. Perhaps the two most notable examples in England, both of which belong to the last century, are William Wilberforce, whose indefatigable campaign led to the abolition of the slave trade and later of slavery itself; and Anthony Ashley Cooper, the seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, who introduced legislation to improve the working conditions in factories and mines, of colliers and chimney sweeps. 

[He was also a strong advocate for the care of the mentally ill]. 

We saw earlier how brightly Christ's compassion for outcasts shone against the dark background of the Pharisees' indifference. Still today there are neglected groups of our human society? for example drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally sick, and the elderly ? who need what might be termed 'total care'. They challenge evangelicals to bold experiments which would combine gospel truth and practical service in a balanced expression of love. 

The kind of ecumenism which concentrates exclusively on questions of social justice, however, on eliminating racial discrimination, hunger, poverty and war, forgets the Christian saying which is 'sure and worthy of fall acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners', and forgets also His plain commission to the church to proclaim repentance and forgiveness to all nations.

This was written by John Stott, way back in 1970 in his book, Christ the Controversialist. 

I became aware of this when it was quoted by Steve Bradbury in a recent Theology on Tap talk, "John Stott: Teacher and Model of a Radical Biblical Faith".

Alternative models of contextual theology

Christian theology is a discussion that aims to apprehend and understand the triune God; the God that is claimed to be revealed by the Bible and the accounts therein of God's action in history.

But this discussion of God always occurs in a particular context: social, economic, political, cultural, linguistic, historical, and intellectual. Furthermore, the discussion is always conducted by groups of individuals who all have their own personalities and life experiences. Yet, the God of the Bible is so much greater than these contexts and individuals. 

Hence, I agree with the claim that "all theology is contextual". To me, this is almost stating the obvious. Contexts matter. However, to some, this claim is contentious and they may see it as a slippery slope towards relativism (all views are equally valid) and/or towards syncretism where the radical counter-cultural message of the Gospel is compromised and absorbed into a local culture. But, to me, this claim is more a position of humility and a desire to understand others and their context, and be willing to learn from them. It can help me explore how my own theology (both implicit and explicit) and the theology of those that I interact with, has been influenced, for better or worse, by our contexts.

Key questions I would like to explore include the following.

How does one define a context? 

What elements of a context are key to understanding how they influence the development of a particular theology?

How does one discern what should be normative in any contextual theology?

Behind the last question is a general philosophical problem that reflects the is-ought problem, the fact-value distinction, and the relationship between descriptive and prescriptive statements. Just because we observe something is, does not mean that is the way it should be. For example, someone observes that "teenagers are disrepectful," or "boys will be boys," or "there will always be poor people." That does not mean that the behaviour is morally correct, that one should not seek to change it, or that it is impossible to change.

There are many contextual theologies: liberation theology, Dalit theology, Catholic theology, Reformed theology, ... The fact that we observe them, describe them, and try to understand their relationship with the context from which they emerged does not mean that they are "true", appropriate, useful, or should not be changed.

A widely used text is by Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology. Laurie Green has a helpful dot-point summary of the book.  Bevans's more recent book, An Introduction to Theology in Global Perspective  has a nice summary including the figures below.

This frames how contextual theology can be viewed as critical dialogue between the experience of the past (embodied in Scripture and Tradition) and the experience of the present. There are several reading and interpretation exercises (hermeneutics) going on. The Bible must be read and interpreted. A specific context must be read and interpreted. There is a hermeneutical circle for the Bible and for the context. The parts must be interpreted in light of the whole and the whole must be interpreted in light of the parts. Contextual theology will also involve a hermeneutical circle. The context is interpreted in light of the Bible and the Bible is interpreted in light of the context.

Bevans proposes six distinct models of contextual theology. They put different relative emphasis on the past and the present, leading to their different locations on the diagram above. Those on the left emphasise the goodness of creation and have a higher value of general revelation than special revelation. Those on the right emphasise the fallen nature of the creation and the need to redeem it, and put a low value on general revelation.

The names of the six models are given below.

Anthropological model

Local cultures can reflect the goodness of God and theology needs to affirm them and be adapted to them.

Praxis model

Practice and theological reflection cannot be separated.

Synthetic model

There are strengths and weaknesses of all these models and so one tries to take the good things from all the models.

Translation model

There is a message that is independent of any context and the primary task of theology is to translate that message into that context.

Countercultural model

Without Christ, cultures are fallen and stand against Christ. They need to be changed.

Transcendental model

The focus in on the subject, the person. Revelation must be experienced. In ones context, one experiences God.

In another post, I will discuss these models in more detail. Before, doing so I would state again that "all models are wrong, but some are useful." Bevans makes several pertinent observations about models. 

Models are a kind of pattern or template that offers a way of performing a task... Models... are streamlined, artificially constructed ways of thinking... like symbols... they should be taken "seriously, but not literally."...

Models may be either exclusive or complementary.

Models of something [that people have done] might also be models for something [that people might do].

Later I will also explore how some of these ideas may be relevant (or not) to considering science-theology interactions in different contexts.