This is the last post in the series;”The Prologue of John, The Logos, Creation, Philo and Wisdom.” In Part 1 we went over the text of the Prologue itself, showing that the Logos isn’t actually identified as God, but rather described as God, or Divine, also how all things came to be through the Word, not actually created by the Word. In Part 2 we discussed Philo and his Logos Theology, showing how it matches very well with John’s use of the term Logos, and how he pictures the Logos as a first-created Demiurge archangel through which all other creation was made. In Part 3 we looked as some ancient Jewish Wisdom literature pointing out parallels with both John’s and Philo’s Logos Theology.
So where does this leave us when looking at the prologue of John. Well let’s say we take the Trinitarian interpretation of the prologue, we would need to ignore the historical Jewish concepts of Wisdom and Logos, pretend that John came up with this completely out of the air and assumed his readers would read the prologue ignoring any context from Jewish history or culture. How likely is that? If we meet someone on the street, who starts talking about the Proletariat being in constant class struggle with the Bourgeoisie, in the Capitalist system which fetishizes commodity accumulation and dialectical materialism, is it not reasonable to assume this person knows at least something about Karl Marx? Is it not reasonable to assume that he would expect his listeners to understand the language he’s using in the context of the Marxian usage of those terms? I would think so. The same goes with John, when he uses Language of the Logos and describes it in an extremely similar way that Philo does, as well as in a way that parallels ancient Jewish personifications of Wisdom, isn’t it more likely than not that the reader and writer were aware of the context and expected it to be read within that context?
Another problem with the Trinitarian reading is, a need to arbitrarily read in ontological categories of Divine Nature as opposed to Divine Identity, and assume this Divine nature is only held by Yahweh himself. The problem is these categories are not biblical at all. Or the Trinitarian would need to change the meaning of Theos, the first instance of it would need to read God the father, and the second God the Son, and then back to God the Father again. The Trinitarian also would need to assume that monotheism means that no one at all may by rightly called God or Divine other than Yahweh, this is an assumption that is explicitly contradicted in scripture.
The Trinitarian reading of the prologue of John is A-Historical, Ad Hoc, Grammatically problematic, and complex in that it requires all sorts of biblically unsubstantiated assumptions. Isn’t it much better to read it how a first century Jew would read it? The Word was with God (Yahweh) and the word was Divine (or a God), everything was made through the Word (just like Jews in the past had said about the Word and Wisdom), that the Word was sent by God to the earth to reveal God to the world and reconcile the world to God and that the Word was God’s Son, Jesus Christ. It’s very simple, there is no need to add all the Trinitarian baggage as long as we let the text speak for itself in its own context.