What is "the Word" in John's Gospel?

[Difflugia]

Debate question: What does John mean by "the Word" in the Prologue of his Gospel (John 1:1-18)? What exactly is John claiming "became flesh and dwelt among us?"

[1213]

...If the Word just means “word” as we use the term today, what does it mean that the Word became flesh?

I think it would mean for example, God’s word is that sins are forgiven. That word came in flesh in Jesus, because it was declared though Jesus. So, the word, or the message came on earth in Jesus and through Jesus, in his flesh.

[woodtick]

https://simplebibletruths.net/70-John-1-1-Truths.htm

[harvey1]

It's closely related to the Wisdom genre that began to become popular before Jesus and after he died Christians needed to make sense of his senseless death. At first they saw him as unique, but scriptures like Isaiah 9 required to think of him in divine terms. Hence, the Wisdom tradition (e.g., Proverbs 8) was a non-polytheistic means to think of Jesus as divine without committing blasphemy. But, by the late first century Hellenistic Jews (e.g., Philo) had already associated this Wisdom literature with the Greek notion of Logos, and it was perhaps widespread that poems began to be circulated. Since the Logos theology appears no where else in John, it seems likely that John 1 was not written by him but the Gospel writer agreed with the theology and perhaps adapted it around Jesus.

For us today I think it gives us a glimpse how the universe itself works. What we call fine-tuning of the constants and the bringing forth of life and evolution leaves open the notion that there is some kind of background teleological agent directing the evolution of the universe and it is based on the nature of an unfathomable reality. The word of this reality is constantly in motion to bring about this teleology and it includes the incarnation itself where this Word took on the human nature of man in the form of a servant. That servant being Jesus. The Word, who was God, became flesh and dwelt among us.

[Overcomer]

In Greek culture and philosophy, the "Logos" (translated as Word) referred to the bridge between the transcendent and material universe. That bridge was divine. So when John uses this word of Jesus, he's saying that Jesus is divine.

His divinity is then explained in further ways in that first chapter of John.

The Word WAS God means that Jesus is God.

The Word was WITH God in the beginning means that he was eternal as only God is.

The Word was the Creator of all things as only God was.

The Word was the source of all life as only God is.

The Word became flesh means that Jesus came to earth as God Incarnate, both fully God AND fully human.

John's gospel differs from the others in that he wasn't giving a biography of Jesus. His purpose was to make people understand who Jesus was/is, what he did, why he did it, and what significance that has for humankind.

See here for more:

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Word-God.html

Remember that, according to the understanding of both the Greeks and Jews of John's day, the Word is the bridge between the transcendent and the material, between God and humanity. It has been said that a saviour who isn't God is a bridge broken at the far end. In other words, a human being who is just that -- nothing but a human being -- can't save us because the bridge he provides cannot reach heaven and cannot connect us with God. This is why Jesus is the one and only Logos, the one and only Saviour.

See here for more:

https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-2-j ... -john-11-5

[earl]

God the Father also known as Eternal Father when expressing himself to the human creatures God the Son or Eternal Son also known as Word-Son makes himself flesh (the Word was made flesh).
As the invisibility of God remains as such,
The Eternal Father expresses his thought through the Eternal Son who expresses the thoughts of God the Father by making himself- Word Son become flesh by a begotten son who is known as Jesus to our world.
Jesus ,begotten son was made flesh by the Word-God,visible to us .
If John would have stated more precisely his opening statement of In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God to
In the beginning was the Eternal Word and the Eternal Word was with God and the Eternal Word was God then it would have more clarification as to who is exactly Eternal-without beginning.
Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father a visible person begotten by the Eternal Father and made flesh by the Eternal Word.
For clarification ,if the Eternal God -Word makes something,somebody flesh then it is not eternal as is the Eternal God or the Eternal Son-Word only is.
Many think the Eternal Son withdrew himself from absolute indivisible invisibility and become flesh however that cannot be since the three are absolute indivisible and invisible therefore a begotten son ,the word of God appeared to mankind in oneness of God and oneness of the Son -Word.

[DavidLeon]

God the Father also known as Eternal Father when expressing himself to the human creatures God the Son or Eternal Son also known as Word-Son makes himself flesh (the Word was made flesh).
As the invisibility of God remains as such,
The Eternal Father expresses his thought through the Eternal Son who expresses the thoughts of God the Father by making himself- Word Son become flesh by a begotten son who is known as Jesus to our world.
Jesus ,begotten son was made flesh by the Word-God,visible to us .
If John would have stated more precisely his opening statement of In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God to
In the beginning was the Eternal Word and the Eternal Word was with God and the Eternal Word was God then it would have more clarification as to who is exactly Eternal-without beginning.
Jesus said if you have seen me you have seen the Father a visible person begotten by the Eternal Father and made flesh by the Eternal Word.
For clarification ,if the Eternal God -Word makes something,somebody flesh then it is not eternal as is the Eternal God or the Eternal Son-Word only is.
Many think the Eternal Son withdrew himself from absolute indivisible invisibility and become flesh however that cannot be since the three are absolute indivisible and invisible therefore a begotten son ,the word of God appeared to mankind in oneness of God and oneness of the Son -Word.

That is the most religiosity I've experienced in one written soundbite. What you are saying, in essence, if I'm not mistaken, is that Jesus was the God with whom he was. Invisible invisibility?

[Goat]

It's closely related to the Wisdom genre that began to become popular before Jesus and after he died Christians needed to make sense of his senseless death. At first they saw him as unique, but scriptures like Isaiah 9 required to think of him in divine terms. Hence, the Wisdom tradition (e.g., Proverbs 8) was a non-polytheistic means to think of Jesus as divine without committing blasphemy. But, by the late first century Hellenistic Jews (e.g., Philo) had already associated this Wisdom literature with the Greek notion of Logos, and it was perhaps widespread that poems began to be circulated. Since the Logos theology appears no where else in John, it seems likely that John 1 was not written by him but the Gospel writer agreed with the theology and perhaps adapted it around Jesus.

For us today I think it gives us a glimpse how the universe itself works. What we call fine-tuning of the constants and the bringing forth of life and evolution leaves open the notion that there is some kind of background teleological agent directing the evolution of the universe and it is based on the nature of an unfathomable reality. The word of this reality is constantly in motion to bring about this teleology and it includes the incarnation itself where this Word took on the human nature of man in the form of a servant. That servant being Jesus. The Word, who was God, became flesh and dwelt among us.

I think you will find if you read Philo's writings on Logos, you will even find a number of the phrases used in John similar. I am certain that the author of the GOJ had read Philo, and was using that as a jumping off point for his work. Philo had Logos as the the 'Wisdom of God' that acted as an intermediary sent to have God communicate with man, and the GOJ keeps on using the phrase 'The one who was sent' for Jesus, and the phrases used for Jesus would fit in with the concept of having an intermediary sent from god to man. Philo had it the concept spiritually, while John had it physically (made flesh), but other than that , many of the same themes run through John.

There is nothing in the GOJ that would violate that concept if you assume Jesus was the wisdom of god made flesh instead of God made flesh. In my opinion, some of the terminology fits a modified version of Philo better than Jesus being God.

[Avoice]

First I'd like to know the name of the person who wrote "the word"

Why should I give creedence to an unknown author.?

[bjs1]

First I'd like to know the name of the person who wrote "the word"

Why should I give creedence to an unknown author.?

Why? How does knowing a person’s name in this context change anything? If you didn’t know the name Plato, how would that change your understanding of his works?

If you want a name then, while we can’t be certain of much in the ancient world, the preponderance of evidence says that his name was John.

Again, we can’t be certain of that. But to put it in context, and to reuse a name from my first paragraph, we have considerably more evidence that John wrote the Gospel that bears his name then we have evidence that Plato wrote anything that has been attributed to him.

[brunumb]

Why? How does knowing a person’s name in this context change anything?

It's not the name, but the person that is of importance. Who they were, what their motivations were, their integrity as human beings. Establishing a provenance is crucial when it comes to accepting authorship of documents of such social significance.