The Logos and The Tao
Tuesday, October 9th, 2007John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word (ho logos)…
The first 18 verses of the gospel of John are fascinating. One thing that I, and many others, have often wondered about is, why “logos”? Why is the One who was with God in the beginning, who was God, through whom all things were made, in whom was life, who became flesh and made His dwelling among us, that is Jesus Christ, why is He called “the Word”?
Several times I’ve tried reading what the scholars have to say. Some of them are more helpful than others, but I still feel a bit fuzzy no matter whose commentary I read. In particular, some of them get into the history of the use of “logos” in Greek philosophy. It seems that some guy named Heraclitus was possibly the first to start giving the ordinary Greek word “logos” a technical philosophical slant. Then so-and-so said the logos was like this, and so-and-so said the logos was like that.
And then I get confused. I mean, I think philosophy is very interesting. I haven’t studied it much, but I know I would enjoy it if I got into it. But whenever I’ve tried to learn about Heraclitus and so-and-so, I haven’t gained any enlightenment towards a deeper understanding of John 1.
And then finally I realized, “Hey, that’s the point!” Heraclitus and his fellow Greek philosophers were also confused. They never knew the Logos. So they didn’t really know what they were talking about. John knew the Logos personally and intimately, so he knew what he was talking about.
One time in AP Biology in high school we were supposed to study some topic and give a short presentation. I didn’t really prepare my talk because I thought I understood the subject well enough. But then in the midst of my presentation I got mixed up and explained things incorrectly. The teacher saw through me. In front of the class, he said to me, “Before trying to teach a subject, it is important to understand it yourself.”
Listening to Heraclitus talk about the Logos is like listening to me talk about covalent bonds (I don’t even know what they are anymore). If your teacher doesn’t have a clear grasp of his subject, then he can’t pass it clearly on to you.
The best way to understand John 1:1-18 is to keep reading John 1, 2, 3, …, 20, 21. Although we can begin to describe the Logos in words, still a full description of Him can never be reduced to language. You must to behold Him to know Him. While reading John, unlike reading the Greek philosophers, the Logos will be clearly and majestically put on display before your eyes.
[T]hese have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. John 20:31
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. John 21:25
The Chinese Bible translates “logos” as “tao”. That’s the same “tao” as in the ancient Chinese religion/philosophy known as taoism. It can be literally translated as “the Way” (cf. John 14:6). Perhaps the concept is a bit different from “logos”, but then again the English word “Word” doesn’t carry the same meaning as “logos” either. Anyway, based on my limited understanding of the Chinese and the Greek contexts, I think that “tao” is a wonderful choice here. I don’t know for sure why the translators of the Chinese Bible chose this term, but I can tell you why I think it fits.
Just as the ancient Greeks had some vague sense of this thing they called “logos”, but they couldn’t really put their finger on it clearly, likewise the Chinese with the “tao”. The opening sentence of the Tao Te Ching (the main Taoist text, or “Scripture” if you will) says, “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao, the name that can be named is not the eternal name.” There’s a lot in there about how the Tao is unknowable, and if you think you know it then that proves you don’t.
Although it is true, in one sense, that the Lord is far beyond our ability to comprehend, and we will eternally be taking in more and more of Him, that’s not what Lao Tze (the founder of Taoism) meant. Rather, I think his words reveal the fact that he had not met the Tao of whom he was speaking. The Way who is unknowable through human discovery is knowable through His personal revelation.
When Paul saw the Athenians’ altar to the unknown God, he came in and said, “Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23). I think John is doing a similar thing in John 1. He is not building off of Heraclitus’ foundation. John is shining the Light into the darkness. To his contemporary Greeks, and effectively to all pagans throughout the world, John is saying, “You know that ‘logos’, that ‘tao’, that ’spiritual force’ that you sense is ‘out there’, but is somehow beyond you? That one that you’ve been told, or told yourself, is not really knowable anyway so just carry on with your life and don’t worry too much about it? Well actually He is my Master and my Friend, so here, let me tell you about Him.”