Devotional: John 1:1-18

I vaguely remember Sunday School teachers talking about the Greek concept of logos (λόγος) and trying to explain ideas of divine wisdom and the rational order of the universe to us bored children, who pretended to understand. We got the general idea that, rather than merely meaning “word,” logos meant something broader, but twenty-five years or so later, I’m not sure I understand it any better.

Christian tradition says that the apostle John traveled to Ephesus, a coastal city in Asia Minor, and there preached and wrote his gospel and three epistles. It’s no surprise then that he’d open his gospel (John 1:1-18) with a reference to the ideas of its ancient philosopher, Heraclitus “the obscure.” I thought it would be interesting to see what he said on the subject, so here’s a portion of the first passage provided in William Harris’ “Heraclitus: The Complete Fragments: Translation and Commentary and the Greek Text”:

Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it -- not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it.

A few parallels between the Greek philosopher and the disciple of Christ stood out to me. Heraclitus says that logos is eternal. John says that logos existed from the beginning (v. 1). Heraclitus says that through logos “all things come to pass.” (I’d interpret this as saying everything originates from logos.) John says that logos created all things (v. 3). Heraclitus says that people remain ignorant even after hearing logos. John essentially says that people were ignorant and rejected logos (vv. 10-11).

It does look like the two are saying the same things. Yet for all their similarities, John seems more optimistic, proclaiming that there are those who recognize what logos is and accept it (vv. 12-13). And through that recognition, those enlightened (v. 9) can thus receive the grace of God (vv. 14 & 16). It is not clear to me that Heraclitus saw the future with the same hope (although that might be blamed on his works being preserved in quotes and fragments). Perhaps we can say that John took Heraclitus’ concept of logos but added hope and salvation where there was previously just knowledge.

This devotional was written as an assignment for Robert T. Davis’ course on “Johannine Literature,” which I am currently auditing at the Southern California School of Evangelism at Buena Park Church of Christ.

More Thoughts on I Corinthians

Ever hear about unity on “matters of faith” and liberty on “matters of opinion”? It’s a principle followed by a decided majority of members of Restoration Movement churches. The intent is to encourage steadfastness on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity (e.g., Christ’s resurrection) while not getting caught up in the kinds of trivial arguments that have divided denominations over the centuries. “Matters of faith” are universal, and people must convert their beliefs and behavior to them. “Matters of opinion” are personal, to be believed or practiced in private and not forced on others.

Unfortunately, no one agrees what’s “essential” and what’s “non-essential.” The result has been a history of division among the Restoration Movement’s offspring (e.g., independent Christian Churches, the Churches of Christ) in the form of heated arguments, “defellowshipping” (i.e., excommunication), church splits, and the creation of sub-movements. In short, one man’s universal “matter of faith” is another man’s personal “matter of opinion.”

Nearly every day, I hear or read something related to this issue, and while ago I realized that something important is strangely absent from the discussion. Who says that Christians aren’t to express their opinions or seek to convert others to them? Revisiting 1 Corinthians 7 (ESV), we can see that Paul had no problem giving instruction to Christians that, by his own admission, wasn’t from the Holy Spirit:

“Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.” (v. 6)

“I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” (v. 7)

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.” (v. 8)

“To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband…” (v. 10)

“To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.” (v. 12)

“Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” (v. 17)

“Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.” (v. 25)

“I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is.” (v. 26)

“I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” (v. 32)

“I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” (v. 35)

“Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” (v. 40)

In other words, Paul gave orders on “non-essentials”! From a Stone-Campbellite perspective, this is enough to throw suspicion on the soundness of the entire passage (not to mention the entire book). If we obey what he says, then we are clearly following “man’s personal opinion.”

Now, let’s assume that Paul wasn’t sinning by giving these instructions to the Corinthians, and that his Corinthian readers weren’t sinning if they obeyed him. Why, then, should there be one rule for Paul and another for members of the contemporary Church when it comes to spreading personal views? This passage suggests that the New Testament Church might have thought it perfectly acceptable for one Christian to present to others well-thought out, well-reasoned arguments about issues of personal concern.

If Paul was allowed to express his own opinions, maybe we should rethink forcing others to be silent. Of course, their conclusions would be non-binding. But their godly reputations may warrant at least a fair hearing and thoughtful consideration.

Queen Esther’s Extreme Makeover

Esther (1878) by Edwin Long (Wikipedia)

Most little girls at some point in their lives want to be royalty. They love being called “princess,” dream about being rescued by “Prince Charming,” and look forward to living a life chore-free in a grand palace. It’s no wonder that the Book of Esther continues to be popular among the female sex. Hadassah the diasporic Jewish girl becomes Esther, Queen of the Medo-Persian Empire and heroine of her people. It’s a “beauty isn’t all bad after all” relief for Christians combined with the rags-to-riches and “do your own thing” type of stories Americans love.

Because of her popularity, there’s quite a bit on interest in what sort of beautifying treatments turned Esther into such a temptation for King Ahasuerus that he favored her over all the other beautiful virgins in the empire. We get a few clues from the Bible (Esther 2:12-13) and from recorded history.

For six months, she was treated with oil of myrrh to improve her skin. Then for another six months she was treated with spices, ointments, or perfumes (depending on which translation you use), such as rose and saffron.   It’s also likely that she used the hair removal techniques for which Persians, both ancient and modern, are so well-known. Threading, ripping out the hair follicle, gave her well-defined eyebrows and fuzz-less cheeks and chin. Sugaring, or Persian waxing, left her entire body hairless, dirt-free, and soft. There was probably a special diet and exercise program designed to keep her body healthy, strong, and curvy. I suppose some sort of ancient manicure and pedicure existed too. When the special day arrived, the hair on her head would’ve been styled into tight curls worn by the upper-classes and decorated with pins, gems, or whatever was the fashion at the time. Esther’s face would’ve been decked out in the finest cosmetics, making her eyes and lips irresistible. Then dressed in the beautiful robes and jewelry, she’d be prepared to appear before the king.

And don’t think it ended with her coronation. One thing definite about beauty: there must be upkeep. Unwanted hair grows back, itchy and clogging the pores with dirt, puss, and oil. A beautiful hairstyle becomes a flaky, tangled mess. Soft skin becomes callused, chapped, and rough. Luckily Queen Esther had her own personal staff in the harem to see that she stuck to the beauty regimen. Whether entirely by choice or not, she had to be dedicated to looking her best. No try-it-once fads from beauty magazines. No short-term skin care programs. No dieting or exercising “tomorrow.” No half-hearted attempts to look acceptable for a big event. She had to be physically gorgeous all the time, with the possible exceptions when sick or on her period. Talk about a fulltime job. And probably the strangest thing about it: She could look back and say it was well worth her time and effort.