Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to

Philo of Alexandria’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2)

Robert Peltier and Dan Lioy Keywords

Christology, Gospel of John,
Hellenism, Logos, Philo of
Alexandria, Philosophy, Prologue,
Exegesis
Abstract
This journal article is the second in a two-part series that About the Authors1
Robert Peltier
examines the Prologue to the Gospel of John (1:1–18) as a Mr Peltier received his Bachelor of
Christological statement for the purpose of repudiating Philo of Theology from Northpoint Bible
College (formerly Zion Bible
Alexandria’s philosophical logos. In Part Two, we exegete Philo of
College), M.A. Old Testament from
Alexandria’s writings for the purpose of determining his logos Gordon-Conwell Theological
philosophy, which is then compared and contrasted with John’s Seminary, and an M.A. Biblical
Languages from Gordon-Conwell
Christological Logos. Philo’s logos is shown to be a metaphysical Theological Seminary.
construct built upon the syncretization of the philosophical Greek
Dan Lioy
logos with an allegorical interpretation of the Pentateuch. John’s PhD, North-West University
Christological Logos theology is shown to have no commonality The Senior Research Manager at
the South African Theological
with the Philonic logos. Further, the Logos described in the Seminary, Dan has a particular
Prologue cannot be viewed, as some scholars have suggested, as research interest in intertextuality,
Biblical ethics and spiritual care in
merely the next logical step in the development of Philo’s
professional settings.
mythological logos writings. Thus, John’s description of the
Christological Logos may be viewed as a carefully constructed 1 The views expressed herein are
those of the authors and do not
polemical statement opposing the Philonic logos.
necessarily represent the beliefs of
the South African Theological
Seminary.

Conspectus—The Journal of the South African Theological Seminary

ISSN 1996-8167
https://www.sats.edu.za/conspectus/
This article: https://www.sats.edu.za/peltier-lioy-is-johns-christology-a-polemic-
response-2

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 91

1. Introduction
In Part One of this article, an exegesis of the Prologue to the
Gospel of John (1:1–18) was used to prepare ten important
statements about John’s Logos Christology. In Part Two, we will
explore Philo of Alexandria’s use of a logos motif within Hellenistic
Judaistic thought. A comparison of these two belief systems will
reveal whether John’s description of the Logos is merely an
extension of the Greek logos or if the Prologue is a polemical
statement against Philo’s philosophical logos.

1.1 Did John’s Logos Evolve from Greek Thought?

A portion of scholarly literature views the Logos, in a philosophical
sense, as the next logical step in its development from the
paganism of eclectic Jewish Hellenism that ultimately found its
way into the fourth Gospel (Thyssen 2006:133). More specifically,
Thyssen views Philo’s mystical philosophy as merely an
evolutionary step in what was to become John’s Christological view
of the Logos. Danielou (2014:169) views the Prologue of John’s
gospel as originating with the Philo of Alexandria’s Judeo-
Hellenistic view of the Word of God presented in abbreviated form.
Perhaps a more extreme view is that John’s Logos and the Philonic
logos were birthed from quasi- or incipient-Gnostic Jewish thought
(Goodenough 1945:145), although the external evidence for this
view is scant. Another interesting hypothesis is that the Gospel of
John was of Alexandrian origin thereby strongly linking John’s
Logos with Philo’s mystical logos (Gunther 1979:582). Other
scholars take Gunther’s view one step further when describing
John’s writing as virtually embracing Philo’s understanding of
Hellenistic Judaism (Schnackenburg 1968:125). In sum, the
scholarly view of the impact of Hellenism on the writing of John’s
Prologue is a spectrum, ranging from a strong literary dependence,
to a general influence, and merely implicit influences that arise
from living within a Hellenistic Judaism culture (Gunther
1979:584).

1.2 The Origin of the Greek Logos

At the time of John’s writing, the term Logos was infused with
abundant philosophical meaning that had evolved over centuries.
The philosophical or mystical logos did not originate with Philo but
reflected Platonic beginnings, perhaps as early as the late 6th
century BCE with Ephesian philosopher Heraclitus (Nash
2003:70). This philosophy was subsequently more fully developed
by Plato and later adopted by the Stoics, who added further
details.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 92
 Although there is a dearth of surviving writings by Heraclitus on
the topic of the logos, the logos does seem to play a fundamental
role in his philosophy. Heraclitus writes about the importance of
living in accordance with the logos, which he describes as the unity
of all things or the wisdom that directs all things. There is a cause
behind every effect seen in nature and the logos is responsible.

Plato’s view of the logos seems to advance Heraclitus in many

ways. The Platonic logos is described as the rational intelligence
that unifies all creation. But how does the logos interreact with
creation? Apparently, not all of humanity is equally imbued with
wisdom, and the degree of wisdom acquired is for each person self-
determined. In Plato’s Republic, for example, Plato explores the
difference between a common person who seeks beautiful things
and the philosopher who desires to know beauty itself. In other
words, a common person recognizes that there is greater than
human wisdom that was the proximate cause of creation. The
philosopher wants to personally know and attain that wisdom.
Plato also views this cognitive disparity as the difference between
opinion and knowledge of absolute truth (Book V, 476d–480a).
Philo’s identification with philosophers of all stripe explains the
conclusions he reached in his exegesis. Inclusiveness was required
in order to gain acceptance of his view of the preeminence of the
Pentateuch above all other philosophies, particularly Greek
philosophy.

The logos played an important role in Hellenistic philosophical

thought in the first century. Kleinknecht (1964:77) describes the
logos as representing the ‘Greek understanding of the world’ and
the nature of all creation. In Greek philosophy and largely
reflected in Platonic thought, the logos refers to the rational,
underlying intelligence of the universe. The logos is the creative
and governing mind of God that is in control of the universe or the
‘rational power set in man’ (Kleinknecht (1964:82). However, the
logos was divine but not a god. Greek philosophers developed this
understanding through observation of the world around them.
Philo, on the other hand, appears to inherit his view of logos
largely from the Stoics, the first to systemize logos thought as the
primary source of reality (Beasley-Murray 2002:liv), the cosmic or
divine reason that is found throughout all creation, and the
rationale for ‘the ordering of physical reality’ (Runia 2001:142). In
ancient thought, every phenomenon had an underlying cause or
agent.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 93

For example, Plato speaks of the divine craftsman with respect to
the creation of the world’s soul (reminiscent of Proverbs 8). The
Stoics believed the universe was a living reality much like a living
creature and logically a superior being is in control of reality.

The Stoic’s quest for the single, underlying principle or elementary

particles of the universe are much like modern physicists
searching for the elusive Grand Unified Theory of the universe.
Philo’s writings record his attempt to advance his philosophical
understanding of the logos rationalized through ancient Jewish
beliefs as reflected in the Mosaic Law (which Philo reveals as the
logos). Philo’s primary means for rationalizing Platonic thought
with the Pentateuch was by defining the forms and function of the
logos.

1.3 John’s Purpose for Using the Term ‘Logos’

There are scholars who theorize that John selected the logos
literary motif because the Greek logos, reflected by Philo, was a
widely-known and accepted philosophical concept in the Roman
world (Bernard 1948:xciv, Dodd:1968:54–55). The term logos plays
a fundamental role in Hellenistic, particularly Philonic, thought
although its usage is profoundly different from John (Dodd
1968:73). For the Greeks, the logos was a conceptual cosmic
principle, a cosmic soul, that helped the early Greek philosophers
solve metaphysical and epistemological difficulties (Boice 1999:35).
John’s Logos was immanent and eternal, existent before creation
and the agent of creation (Dodd 1968:263). Redefining the logos
well-known by the first-century Roman world was an excellent
means to encapsulate a description of the divine origin and
purpose of the God-man Jesus Christ (Du Toit 1968:11). The logos
motif is a common word familiar to those acquainted with Greek
philosophy and Johannine Christology, such as the early Christian
apologist Justin Martyr’s defence of the Logos (Rokeah 2001:22).
John’s use of the Greek logos motif was a ‘stroke of genius’ because
of its Platonic roots and therefore held ‘currency’ for his readers
(Boice 1986:300). Recognizing this, John leveraged the word’s wide
semantic range in the first century for Hellenist and Hebrew
cultures to his advantage (Parker 1988:31).

2. Philo of Alexandria
In this section, a short biography of Philo of Alexandria is
presented so that the Alexandrian version of Hellenistic Judaism
may be appreciated before his writings are investigated,
particularly his hermeneutical approach to scripture
interpretation.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 94
 This section also examines Philo’s eclectic beliefs about the nature
and character of the Greek logos through the lens of a thoroughly
Hellenized Jew.

2.1 A Short Biography of Philo of Alexandria

Philo of Alexandria was an enigmatic first-century Jewish
intellectual whose work is generally characterized as a
rationalization of diaspora Judaism within the dominant
Hellenistic culture that existed in Alexandria, Egypt in the first
century. Philo lived and wrote at a pivotal time in history as a
contemporary of Jesus (although separated geographically) and as
the Gospel was taking root in Palestine and other parts of the
Roman Empire. His writings are the exemplar when the Hellenist
view of the Jewish Bible, particularly the Pentateuch, is desired.
The Septuagint, the Bible of the Seventy, and the Wisdom of
Solomon (part of the Alexandrian Bible tradition) are additional
examples of Alexandrian Jewish thought. A survey of recent
Philonic scholarship reveals the disparate views of Philo as a
mystic removed from the world, politician and envoy to Caesar,
and as ‘philosopher preacher’ (Danielou (2014:xv). Philo was a man
of his time, wrestling with the tension of a transcendent creator,
self-sufficient, and abstract ruler of the created order with an
immanent God who reveals himself and draws humanity close.
Philo attempts to unite these disparate views of God in his
conception of the divine logos (Lewy 2004:11), although from
within his Hellenistic Greek milieu. Regardless of which view is
taken of Philo the man, there is no doubt that Philo was an
important first-century figure standing at the crossroads of Jewish
faith intersecting Greek culture.

Philo’s works are best read in the context of a people seeking to

live within the Greek culture while retaining their traditional
religious beliefs. He was a contemporary of the rise of Synagogue
Judaism coupled with Hellenistic ‘biblical embellishment’ that
reflect this era (Sandmel 1979:131). In other words, Philo’s work
interprets Alexandrian Judaism in light of Hellenism in contrast
with the writers of the New Testament who interpreted the Old
Testament in light of Palestinian Judaism. Philo’s works record his
struggle to construct this framework thus making his writings
emblematic of Alexandrian Jewish thought during the first
century. Philo was a spokesman for like-minded members of the
Jewish diaspora who wished to spread to the world a new religion
best described as Jewish religious thought syncretized with
Hellenistic philosophy (Beasley-Murray 2002:lv).

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 95

Little is known about the life of Philo, and what is known is widely
published. In sum, Philo was born into a wealthy family that
allowed him time to pursue his philosophical interests.

He was stirred from his contemplative life and authorial interests

with his election as head of a delegation that travelled to Rome to
plead for the plight of Alexandrian Jews before emperor Gaius
Caligula (39–40 CE) in response to the pogrom Prefect Flaccus
instituted in 38 CE (Spec. Leg. 3:1–6, also see Flacc. and Leg.).2 2 The complete titles of each of
these standard abbreviated refer-
Alexander, Philo’s brother, was a wealthy customs agent for Rome ences are included as Appendix 1
who once loaned money to Herod Agrippa I. Marcus Julius
Alexander, the younger of Alexander’s two sons, married Bernice,
the daughter of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 25:13, 23; 26:30). Philo’s
other nephew was Tiberius Julius Alexander who rejected his
Jewish heritage and entered the Roman civil service. Tiberius
would later become procurator of the province of Judea (46–48 CE)
and prefect of Egypt (66–70 CE), during which time he brutally
put down a Jewish rebellion in Alexandria. Tiberius was politically
astute, supporting Vespasian in his quest for power. Tiberius
Julius Alexander’s reward was the position of second in command
of the Roman army during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Philo
of Alexandria, unlike the remainder of his dysfunctional family,
continued to embrace and serve as an apologist for his Jewish
beliefs, but from a thoroughly Hellenized point of view.

2.2 Philo’s Interpretive Construct

Philo may be commended for his desire to interpret scripture yet
his interpretive framework (generally, allegory) and his
hermeneutic presupposition (Neoplatonic thought syncretized with
the Pentateuch’s statements about God and his actions) are unique
in the first century. Philo leans heavily on an allegorical
hermeneutic of Jewish Scripture popular with first-century
writers. When his allegorical interpretation of Jewish Scripture
contradicts Greek thought, Philo usually allows his Greek
presuppositions to trump Jewish dogma.

An examination of his writings yields several important

observations. First, Philo employs an allegorical hermeneutic to
interpret Scripture in light of his Hellenistic culture (Danielou
2014:90). Philo’s exegetical method applied to the Old Testament
mirrors the philosophical approach of the early Greek
philosophers, particularly Plato. An allegorical hermeneutic is
used to search for messages hidden within the text that must first
be uncovered, and then a spiritual meaning is applied to arrive at
the final interpretation and application.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 96
 For Philo, virtually all animate and inanimate objects have a
unique spiritual meaning that the reader must discern in order to
achieve spiritual enlightenment.

Yet, Philo abandons allegory and leans strongly to a literal

interpretation when Hebrew symbolic rituals are being
interpreted, such as circumcision or the Sabbath (Mig. 89–93,
Spec. Leg 1.1–11). Philo’s allegorical hermeneutic permeates his
writings, particularly when he describes the nature and work of
the logos.

Philo’s writings defy a narrow classification, but can be generally

separated into three groups; writings on the Pentateuch,
philosophical treatises, and historical-apologetic writings. Each of
these writings reveals different perspectives of Philo’s logos.
Philo’s view of the transcendence of God, particularly with
personified divine wisdom (Job 28:12; Prov 8, 9) and the role of the
‘utterance’ of God in creation, are common themes. Another
important theme is Philo’s explanation or description of how a
transcendent God is able to have a relationship with humanity.
Philo’s system of beliefs reflects the Platonic view of a separation
between imperfect humanity and the perfect God, thus an
immanent yet eternal, divine intermediary is required. The logos,
the highest of the intermediary creations of God, often called the
‘first-born’ (Agr. 51; Conf. 146), and his allegorizing of the Hebrew
Bible are perhaps the two most prominent themes found in his
writings. Philo’s allegorical interpretive approach does have its
limits. When Greek philosophy and Old Testament writings
contradict, Philo inevitably chooses the former while always
strongly supporting the Jewish One True God. The most important
intersection of thought between the Prologue and Philo is his
understanding of the logos (Beasley-Murray (2002:iiv), the subject
of this work.

2.3 Finding Logos in Philo’s Writings

Searching Philo’s writings for clues to his views of the logos was
performed in a two-step process. First, a morphological search of
Borgen (2005) using the noun λόγος including cognates quickly
identified each occurrence of this word within Philo’s original
Greek writings. The search results were manually filtered for
specific instances in which λόγος or cognates were found that
describe attributes of God related to Philo’s philosophical logos.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 97

Those instances were then cross-referenced to the English
translation of Yonge (2006) to determine context. Next, further
semantic searches were conducted on Yonge’s (2006) English
translation of Philo’s writings using search terms suggested by the
Liddell and Scott (1995) lexicon and others gleaned from a close
examination of Philo’s writings for important statements about the
logos that do not include the word logos.

This two-step search approach does not guarantee every reference

or allusion to Philo’s philosophical logos was identified, but the
results of the searches are extensive and certainly satisfactory for
identifying important characteristics of Philo’s philosophical logos.

3. Similarities and Differences: John’s Logos Christology

compared to Philo of Alexandria’s Logos Philosophy
In this section, we compare and contrast the results of the
investigation into Philo of Alexandria’s philosophical logos with
the outcomes of the exegetical study conducted in Part One that
characterized the apostle John’s Christological Logos. The
standard for this comparison is the ten- point description of John’s
Christological Logos developed in Part One, summarized by the
section heading, followed by Philo’s description of what he
describes as like or dissimilar characteristics. A conclusion is
reached with each of the ten points of comparison with respect to
Philo’s philosophical logos.

3.1 The Logos is Preexistent and Eternal

Philo of Alexandria describes the logos as having a close
relationship with God (positioned above the Mercy Seat and
between the Cherubim in heaven) although contextually the
reference describes physical proximity rather than being due to
relationship or composition (essence). The Philonic logos does not
enjoy the intimate relationship shared by the members of the
Godhead. For Philo, the logos is looking onto the throne of God as
one would attend an event honouring others. Philo’s logos is
watching and observing, not contributing to God’s actions in the
throne room. Philo’s logos is a heavenly observer, not a participant.

Philo describes God as the supreme being who stamped his wisdom
onto the logos, making the logos second in the heavenly line of
authority (Op. 24). Philo defines wisdom in his writings as ‘the
knowledge of all divine and human things, and of the respective
cause of them’ (Congr. 79).

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 98
 Since the wisdom of the logos is a copy of God’s wisdom and the
logos is a created being, according to Philo, we are obliged to
conclude that the logos occupies this exalted position not by divine
right but by the sovereign selection of God. The logos, according to
Philo, occupies an exalted position in relation to God but does not
have the same familial position, relational, or share the divine
nature as God as does the Logos.

Philo often depicts the logos as having divine characteristics, such

as ‘firstborn’, ‘archetype of God’, or ‘chief deputy’. On the surface,
each of these titles appears to describe divine characteristics.
However, on closer observation, we find that Philo is describing
functions of the logos, not divine characteristics. For example,
Philo’s ‘firstborn’ description in context describes the logos as an
‘imitator’ or ‘image’ of the Father in a Greek dualistic sense.
Instead, from Philo’s view, this and like terminology explicitly
describe the logos as God’s first creation imbued with certain
divine attributes by God, ‘For that [logos] must be God to us
imperfect beings, but the first mentioned, or true God, is so only to
wise and perfect men’ (Leg. All. 3.207). In other words, the work of
the created logos, from the view of humanity, appears to be the
divine in action although those actions are based on God’s creative
power hidden from humanity.

Philo’s logos has many other forms and purposes, such as an angel
of the Lord that appeared in order to reveal God’s will to particular
people (Som. 1.228–239; Cher. 1–3). God remains transcendent yet
the immanent logos appears visibly to humanity, presenting
certain characteristics of God that Philo describes as divine
characteristics.

The ‘image of God’ (Leg. All. 1.43) is particularly crucial to Philo’s

Greek dualistic logos philosophy, such as the logos is God’s
messenger and supplier (not originator) of wisdom to humanity.
Philo’s dualistic philosophy requires the separation of divine God
from immanent humanity, thus the created logos is the
intermediary. The ‘image of God’ motif is used by Philo to justify a
divine logos because it is described as an exact copy of the wisdom
of God. The ‘image of God’ from which the logos is formed is not an
exact duplication but rather the image is limited to the ‘wisdom’ of
God that is shared. The logos is viewed as the ‘stamp’ of wisdom
that is then imprinted onto humanity via the logos thereby
maintaining God’s distance from humanity. Philo also calls the
logos the ‘high priest’ and the ‘chief of angels’ (Conf. 146), further
functional descriptions rather than a description of divine
characteristics.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 99

Philo does call the logos the ‘paraclete’ that bestows God’s
blessings on humanity (Mos. 2:134) and as God’s ‘reason’, which
are, again, are functional descriptions of how wisdom and virtue
flow from a transcendent God, through the logos, to immanent
humanity. These, and many other descriptive terms are used
synonymously and contextually wherever in scripture Philo found
reference to transcendent God directly interacting with immanent
humanity (e.g. angels in the Old Testament, Moses speaking to the
burning bush, the angel with the flaming sword guarding the Tree
of Life [Gen 3:24], etc.). In each of those episodes, Philo substitutes
a contextually appropriate appearance of the logos as the revealer
of God found in scripture, but not God.

Philo’s view of God is not of prime importance within the scope of

this work although a short discussion is appropriate in light of
Genesis 1. Philo certainly views God as One God, transcendent and
uncreated, although he does embrace Greek dualistic thought with
respect to God’s functions displayed in scripture, especially when it
relates to God’s relationship with his created. Philo recognized the
seeming two ‘faces’ of God described in scripture (love and
judgment) and he puts a name to these two functions. First, the
Beneficent Power is closely related to the creative and judgmental
characteristics of God. Second, the Creative Power reflects God as
truth and his love for humanity. Philo views the logos as the
intermediary between these two ‘faces’ of God and humanity thus
providing humanity a glimpse of God through the work of the
logos.

Humanity exists as an image of God to the degree or amount of

wisdom provided to humanity by the logos. In fact, each person
receives a small yet specific portion of the wisdom of the logos, and
it is through that act we each have some likeness of God.

Humanity is an image of the logos, which is an image of God—thus

we possess a copy of a copy of God’s wisdom. The philonic logos
stands between humanity and transcendent God.

It is through this clever act of interpretation that Philo is able to

reconcile his monotheistic beliefs with Greek dualism. In contrast,
John describes an immanent, divine, and eternal Logos, who
humbly and voluntarily became human as the supreme act of love.

3.2 The Logos (Jesus Christ) is Divine

The fully divine Jesus Christ exists as a separate person within
the Godhead in an intimate and perfect relationship with the
Father. The eternal Logos exhibits the same divine nature and
attributes of God.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 100
 The Logos is uncreated because he shares the same divine, eternal
nature as uncreated God. Implicit in this description of the Logos
is recognition that he shares God’s holiness and separateness. God
must also be separate and distinct, holy in all his ways (Lev 11:44)
and never mistaken for the profane (Lev 10:9–11). Thus, these
same attributes of holiness must apply equally to the Logos. The
Logos also displays other incommunicable attributes or perfections
that are implicit in God. For example, the three ‘omnis’ describe
important incommunicable divine traits. First, the divine Logos is
omnipresent. The totality of God is present everywhere in creation.
The Logos is present in heaven with God at creation, but is also
present in equal measure on earth or anywhere in the universe.

When the Bible speaks of God in heaven it is picturing God as

being in control of all things and being exalted by all the heavenly
hosts, not as God limited to a single physical space. Second, God is
omniscient. Logos has perfect knowledge of himself and all other
things, from eternity past to eternity future. Finally, God is
omnipotent. God is all-powerful and may do whatever he wishes to
do with his created. Philo does not ascribe these characteristics to
his logos, likely because it would violate his monotheistic
sensibilities.

Philo consistently interprets scripture using Hellenistic

presuppositions, such as there can be no direct relationship
between humankind’s rational soul and the transcendent God
(Quaest in Gn 2.62), and therefore a mediator is required. The role
of the mediator found in scripture is, in the mind of Philo, the
logos. As stated in the previous section, Philo’s logos is a created
being that does not share all the divine, eternal attributes of an
uncreated God and none of the ‘omnis’. The incommunicable traits
found in the Logos are not present in Philo’s conception of the
logos. The logos is described as creator, but with a caveat: all the
power found in the logos was imbued by creative power by God.

If the logos was God’s first act of creation prior to the creation of
the universe and humanity then by definition the logos was not
present at time of creation, that is, it is God’s creation. The co-
eternal Logos was personally responsible for the creation of all
things and his own creative power is not derived from that of God
but is a feature of his eternal divine essence. This is an essential
difference between Philo’s philosophical logos and John’s
Christological Logos.

Philo also credits the logos with the role of binding together the
polar Beneficent and Creative powers of God.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 101

Regardless of Philo’s view of which of these two ‘sides’ of God have
precedence in power, the fact remains that Philo states that
Creative power is the older of the two. Philo describes a bifurcated
God that is no longer uncreated or eternal in his quest to
syncretize basic Hebrew theology with Greek dualistic beliefs.
Equally confusing is Philo’s attempt to equate the created logos to
Creative power in Quaest in Ex. 2.62. In essence, Philo describes
the created logos as superior to God as Beneficent power. This
logical inconsistency is not addressed by Philo. Philo also describes
the logos as having the mind of God. Certainly, John’s
Christological Logos has the mind of God but for different reasons.
The eternal uncreated Logos and eternal uncreated God share the
same essence, exist in a perfect relationship, and therefore, have
the same mind.

What one knows, the other knows. What one desires, the other
desires. Philo’s created logos does not share any of these divine
characteristics.

3.3 The Logos is the Creator of All Things

Every single thing that has ever been created was created by the
Logos, including physical life and all non-physical objects,
including the basic elements from which all creation originates.
The Logos created all things ex nihilo (out of nothing) and
therefore humanity creates from the things God has provided. The
Logos is what holds together and sustains creation. Logos is
sovereign over all of creation with no limitations, from the smallest
detail, which means that he does what he wants, when he wants,
and to whom he wishes (Ps 93:1)—also perfect. The corollary to
this observation is, if Logos commands something to be done, then
it will be done immediately and perfectly (Ps 33:6–9).

Philo describes the logos as preexistent but only because his

creation preceded the creation of the heavens, the earth, and
humanity. For Philo, the creation of the logos appears to be
primarily one of timing, not eternality. This is a necessary
conclusion because Philo states that the logos is a created image of
God that was used as a template for the creation of all things (Leg.
All. 1.43).

Philo also calls the logos the ‘soul of the world’ (Aet. 84), among
other titles, although, to the Greek mind, the soul is the life-force
that animates life and leaves the body at death for life eternal. The
soul takes up residence on the moon according to Plutarch (c. 40–
120 CE) while Greek philosophers have suggested many other
destinations.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 102
 Philo sheds some light on his view of the soul more clearly in Leg.
All. 91 where we learn that the immortal part of the soul is given
to humanity from the Father through the logos, a view clearly
informed by Greek dualism. The Prologue does not directly address
a theology of the soul although John clearly states that the Logos
was the creator of all things and thus whatever the Logos created
was by his hand without the need for an intermediary being,
particularly the eternal soul that inhabits every person.

Philo views important functions of the logos as the creation of the

universe, which includes the perfect man (Som. 8), and holding
together the physical world including the soul within the physical
bodies of humanity. The apostle Paul describes Jesus Christ as
holding ‘all things’ together (Col 1:17), although there are
significant differences between the two views to be explored.

First, Philo states that the acts of creation were performed by God
using the logos as his ‘instrument’ (De Cherubin 127). In contrast,
the Logos was the proximate cause of creation, not through an
intermediary. The divine Logos is quite capable of creation ex
nihilo, including humanity with an eternal soul. Philo, on the
other hand, describes the creative work of the logos based on the
prior presence of the ‘four elements’ (earth, air, water, and fire). In
other words, the creatives acts of the logos are derived works from
God having been provided the four elements as the building blocks
of creation. In the Stoic mind, the act of holding together creation
is described by Philo as ‘bringing disorder and irregularity into
order and regularity’ (Som. 1.241), thus creative acts by the logos
appear to be more ‘housekeeping’ than original works of creation.
Also, Philo describes the immanent logos as the only means for
humanity to understand the created world. It is through the
wisdom of the created logos that formed and controls the universe.
The logos is created by transcendent God as the means to interact
with the immanent universe. Hence, the philosophical creative and
sustaining acts attributed to the logos are derived works and
inconsistent with John’s statement that the Logos is creator and
sustainer of all creation ex nihilo.

Philo also describes his philosophical logos as the conduit to

humanity that produces rational thought, intellect, and free will
(Quod Deus. 47) thereby bringing order to humanity. In Philo’s
view, God breathed the logos into Adam to give life to humanity
(Leg. All. 1.37) and then stepped back allowing the logos to
interact with humanity in the many forms discussed earlier. Some
may liken these tasks as remarkably similar to God’s creation and
sustaining of humanity through Adam.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 103

However, the apostle John affirms that creation is the sovereign
territory of uncreated, eternal God. The Logos created and then
breathed life into humanity. The Logos is life-giver and sustainer,
the author of humanity’s soul, eternal, and therefore there is no
need for the Logos to take on different names, forms, or functions.
Philo is using finite descriptions of forms and function to describe
the infinite, an impossible task. The unbegotten eternal Logos
subsumes all functions of the philonic logos.

Philo describes the logos placing a portion of the ‘stamped’ and

‘copied’ soul within each person. Philo describes the ‘soul [a]s
divided into seven divisions; there being five senses, and besides
them the vocal organ, and after that the generative power’ (De
Opificio Mundi 217), obviously derived from Greek Platonic
thought.

However, it is not surprising that Philo would be comfortable with

this definition as the word ‘soul’ is never used in the Old
Testament as a reference to the immortal soul but rather as a life
principle, to a particular living being (e.g. Gen 1:20–21, 24), or to
the creation of humanity (Gen 2:7) when God breathed life into
dust. For John, the Logos created each person as a unique
individual who must personally answer to God for their actions (v.
1:12) so John implicitly sees each person as possessing a God-given
unique and complete soul, not an identically ‘stamped’ portion of
soul given by the logos to every person.

The Logos implicitly incorporated free will and intellect into his
creation and Philo agrees with that assessment. However, that
motif is consistent with Scripture and their agreement on this
point is not surprising. However, for Philo, intellect is one’s ability
to exercise the wisdom ‘stamped’ onto humanity by the logos,
which is an image of God’s wisdom. Philo and John do agree that
God did the creative work, however, the Logos stands front and
centre as the creator. Philo’s logos, as second to God as his
‘Shadow,’ executed God’s plan, although from the viewpoint of
humanity the work was completed by the divine logos. For John,
the creative work of the Logos is made apparent in all of creation
and is independent of humanity’s view of the Logos.

3.4 Jesus Christ is the Source of Humanity’s Spiritual

Enlightenment
Philo’s interpretive construct of the logos is guided by his Greek
philosophical hermeneutic. For Philo, philosophy is ‘the desire to
see things accurately’, particularly God and his logos. The mind of
humanity is finite and cannot conceive of the mind of an infinite
God, so Philo’s philosophical journey is doomed from inception.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 104
 It seems that humanity’s innate need to pursue God is a possible
point of agreement between John and Philo, although this point is
debatable given the depraved sin nature of humanity. There are
wide differences between Philo and John in their understanding of
how God reveals himself to humanity. For Philo, God may only
reveal himself through an intermediary, that is, the wisdom of
God, the logos. Philo describes the spiritual enlightenment brought
by logos in the form of a simile, ‘of light to light,’ to describe how
the logos reveals God. However, Philo also believes that
philosophers have an inside track to enlightenment compared to
the remainder of humanity.

Philosophers alone seek to comprehend God, while all others are

limited to an understanding of God based on his actions, that is,
the actions of the logos. The apostle John writes of the Logos
coming to bring spiritual enlightenment to all of humanity, not to
a privileged few based on personal effort. Philo believes that
humanity desires wisdom except that it rejects the wisdom of God
(Post. 136). The apostle John writes that the Logos came incarnate
but was rejected by his own people. Rejection is a common theme,
although Philo’s view of humanity’s rejection of wisdom is a
rejection of the opportunities to come to a greater understanding of
God. The apostle John describes rejection in terms of humanity
rejecting the spiritual enlightenment that results in a personal
relationship with God in terms of becoming a child of God and
enjoying eternal life with the Logos, an incomprehensible concept
to Philo. Philo sought philosophical enlightenment rather than
spiritual enlightenment and eternal relationship.

Philo also describes the logos, a creation of God, as fundamentally

a messenger between transcendent God and immanent humanity.
After the creation of the logos, God retreated from his created and
remained distant. The logos became a vague image for humanity,
alternately playing the role of an angel, prophet, or even Yahweh.
The roles of the logos are read into scripture and Philo, often using
an allegorical hermeneutic to justify his Greek dualistic
presuppositions, identifies the work of the logos. The apostle John
views the work of the person of the Logos by his actions, such as
creation, salvation, rejection, and incarnation.

There are no disguises or interpretive legerdemain at play. The

Logos goes about his work in perfect submission and relationship
with the Father. The philonic logos is commissioned by the Father
to perform works.

The Logos, as will be described in an upcoming section, directly

touches humanity through his incarnation. The logos interacts
with humanity in various disguises.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 105

The Logos singular is worthy of the glory of humanity. In fact, the
logos steals the glory due God when humanity is fooled into
believing that the logos is God. God never countenances stealing of
his glory in scripture and he warns readers that punishment
follows. The Logos reveals God to humanity. God earnestly desires
to be revealed to humanity and he did so through the incarnation,
crucifixion, resurrection, and glorification of the Logos. The infinite
God revealed himself to the finite. The role of the created logos,
whether intended or not, was to conceal the uncreated God from
humanity. Philo assumes that a transcendent God does not desire
to directly interact with his created and never considers the
possibility.

The work of the Logos is the transcendent God reaching down, in

love, to touch humanity. For Philo, immanent humanity will not
reach out to touch God, only the logos.

3.5 John the Baptizer called for repentance, heralded the coming of
the Messiah
Philo’s view of repentance is, as we should expect, closely aligned
with the call of John the Baptizer. Philo often calls for his readers
to turn away from sinful action and redirect one’s life in
conformance with the Law (cf. Leg. All. 2.78; 3.105–106). Philo
describes the logos as God’s messenger, but does not cite a
comparable forerunner of the logos.

There are approximately 100 instances in his writings where Philo

calls for one to repent of sin. One entire section is dedicated to
repentance (Virt. 175–186) in which Philo defines repentance in a
very philosophical manner, ‘crossing over from ignorance to a
knowledge of those things to be ignorant of which is shameful;
from folly to wisdom, from intemperance to temperance, from
injustice to righteousness, from cowardice to confident
courage’ (Virt. 175–186). Each of these characteristics clearly has
Greek wisdom overtones, and they are only a shadow of the
covenantal law requirements of repentance. John the Baptizer
came to testify about the true Light of the world and preached
repentance in light of judgment (Luke 3:17). Philo’s repentance has
the purpose of accessing God’s wisdom in order to acquire divine
knowledge and a vision of God (Quod. Deus. 143), to become like
God, and to rise above the material world (Fug. 63), in order to
contemplate the divine logos (Som. 1,71; 2.249).

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 106
 The differences between Philo and John related to repentance are
clear: Philo wishes to grow in wisdom and knowledge about God
(static condition) in order to become like God, while John the
Baptizer encouraged people to make a radical change in their life
(Matt 3:11) and return to their covenantal relationship with God
(although as an individual, not in response to a collective call to
repentance) in order to avoid eternal condemnation of their sin.
John says repentance requires a response (active condition) to the
Light of the world in order to experience life change. For Philo,
humanity is passive and through the work of the logos some
amount of wisdom is ‘stamped’ into the human soul (Leg. All. 2.31–
32). Philosophically, Philo and his colleagues gain the wisdom
necessary to see and possibly to know God through personal
achievement. For John, true repentance begets a right relationship
with God and explicitly avoids eternal punishment.

3.6 A Majority of Fallen Humanity Reject Spiritual Enlightenment

Wisdom, in an Old Testament sense, is a form of knowledge that
allows humanity to have a deep understanding of something or
understand the practical significance of something (Ps 104:24;
136:5). Scripture also describes wisdom as putting knowledge to
work in a practical sense (Prov 2:2–5) or to increase in wisdom in
order to understand the person of God more fully. For Philo,
wisdom leads to a deeper philosophical understanding of
transcendent God and the universe.

Philo views the logos as the source of light for humanity although
the product of that light was that portion of wisdom embedded in
the soul of each person. Philo presents the logos as more than one
form of light but rather as one of many forms of light. For example,
the Israelites fed on manna provided by the ‘most ancient logos of
God’ (Det. 118). In addition, wisdom is provided to humanity by a
‘stream’ that injects God’s people with ‘manna’ by which God’s
people are nourished by the logos (Leg. All. 3.175–176). Philo
resorts to an allegorical interpretation to identify the provider of
the manna (the logos) and the content of the manna (wisdom).
Philo is speaking in terms of God’s covenant people, but it is best
to view this statement as collective (all humanity).

Philo also relates that not all will benefit equally with this infusion
of wisdom from the logos. Wisdom is proportioned based on, in the
view of Philo, the more perfect the person. The more perfect the
person, the more wisdom is received. Perfection, however, is
viewed as the possession of various virtues. Philo dedicates an
entire writing (On the Virtues) to defining the virtues.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 107

Generally, the virtuous few are those who have overcome the
indignities of human life by diligently pursuing virtue over
seemingly a long time and thus collecting a disproportionate share
of wisdom. Greater wisdom allows one to have greater knowledge
of the logos (which is only visible to humanity) and thus come
closer to transcendent God. For Philo, anyone can pursue wisdom
although it is relatively few Greek philosophers with a sufficient
stockpile of virtue who have success with their pursuit.

The apostle John states the unique Logos, the One and only Son of
God, brought the promise of spiritual renewal first to his own
people and then to the world. Every person that hears of the
person and work or the Logos has an opportunity to embrace the
Truth. The message is universal and the grace and truth of the
Logos is easily comprehended by the world, ‘so that all might
believe through Him’ (John 1:7b), not a select few philosophers.

3.7 A Minority of Fallen Humanity Embrace Spiritual Enlightenment

to Become Children of God
Most of the Jews who heard Jesus speak rejected Messiah Jesus,
but a few individuals, not limited to Jewish descent or nationality,
did accept Jesus’ salvific message and were adopted into the
Kingdom of God and became children of God. To be a child of God
is to live in his presence and enjoy all of the familial benefits of
that relationship. Philo’s philosophical logos is given the
responsibility of the spiritual welfare of humanity by nourishing
their souls with God’s wisdom and pastoring the flock as the Royal
Shepherd (Mut. 113–116). The logos appeared to Moses on Mount
Sinai as the giver of the Mosaic Law to the Israelite nation (Mos.
95, 253). Philo’s logos is also said to be the source of virtue (Som.
118–119) and rational thought for humanity (Det. 86–90). The
logos has many other functions, such as prophet (Deus. 182),
healer of the soul (Mos. 2.134), the source of judgment and
forgiveness for humanity (Quaest in Gen. 3.27, 28, 51) and
represents personified wisdom (specifically as presented in Prov
8:22). The philonic logos as a healer of the soul in context means
the logos delivers God’s blessings to humanity in the form of
wisdom. Philo writes that Moses calls this wisdom the ‘sight of
God’ or the ‘vision of God.’ Philo views the wisdom of Moses written
in the Pentateuch as the predecessor and foundation of all Greek
philosophies.

A common theme found in Philo’s philosophical writings is the

value of philosophy to humanity. A small portion of humanity will
pursue a virtuous life in order to increase in wisdom (provided by
the logos, Sacr. 9; Som. 1.182) as mentioned earlier.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 108
 The gift of reason was received from God (Op. 77) and those who
use reason to pursue wisdom will receive the greatest knowledge of
God. Philosophy, according to Philo, is what allows humanity to
‘live in conformity with nature’ (Prob. 160), which is Philo’s way of
saying how humanity may live a moral and virtuous life. Philo
defines the four virtues as wisdom, self-control, courage, and
justice (Leg. All. 1.63–64).

Philo views the logos as providing humanity with a path to gain

wisdom through personal effort in order to become enlightened
with knowledge of God. The philosopher represents those who
pursue this enlightenment through their personal efforts to live a
virtuous life. Philo’s philosophical logos may allow a minority to
become enlightened about God and the universe, but John’s
Christological Logos allows all of humanity to become children of
God, although only a minority will accept the offer.

The minority of respondents is a point of similarity between Philo

and John, although the object of our faith and the means by which
faith is pursued are remarkably different.

3.8 Salvation is Not the Product of Human Work

The apostle John rejected the Jewish view of their special
relationship with God that ensured their communal righteousness
based on keeping the Mosaic Law. Works righteousness, nor being
born into a particular people or ethnic group, does not produce a
relationship with God. It is only through faith in the completed
work of Christ on the cross that results in salvation and eternity in
the presence of God. Works righteousness does not replace salvific
faith.

As touched on in the previous section, Philo’s logos is the image of

God’s wisdom that was used to imprint each person with wisdom.
The logos, as the Word or Thought of God, connects the thoughts
and wisdom of God to humanity. As part of creation, individuals
remain with an imperfect understanding of the logos. Our
understanding of the logos may only be perfected through
perseverance in understanding wisdom and limited only by the
reasoning capability given to each person. For Philo, in general, it
was the philosopher who was granted the necessary quantity of the
gift of reason to allow him to pursue wisdom and thus a greater
experiential understanding of God and the universe. There is a
marked difference between John’s view of salvation through the
completed work of Christ and Philo’s philosophical pursuit of
works righteousness.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 109

3.9 Jesus Christ Arrived Incarnate in the World
The Logos incarnate, Jesus as 100% flesh and blood and 100%
divine, has no parallel in Philo’s philosophical writings or in
history for that matter. For Philo, transcendent God does not
initiate contact with finite humanity much less take on the humble
form of his created and walk on earth with immanent humanity.
Philo does speak of the Beneficent Power that performs legislative,
chastising, and correcting functions, but those functions are
carried out by the logos by directive action of Beneficent God. Philo
writes that the logos is the source of destruction on earth as well
as the source of forgiveness to humanity. The logos is also
described as guiding God’s judgment of the universe and will judge
humanity at some time in the future. Philo believes in the
immortality of the soul although only a portion of the soul is
immortal and, again, it is the logos that provides it to humanity.

In sum, Philo certainly recognizes the presence of evil in the world

and the eternality of the soul, but does not attempt to define a
means to reconcile humanity’s sin with God’s righteousness. The
limit for humanity is a deeper knowledge and understanding of
God and the universe. Philo’s metaphysical concept of the logos
placed as the mediator between God and humanity is perhaps the
only similarity with the anthropomorphic Logos described by the
apostle John. The Logos reaches down to humanity. The philonic
logos encourages a segment of humanity to reach up to the logos in
its futile attempt to understand God.

There are further, very significant differences between Philo’s

philosophical logos and the apostle John’s Christological Logos
that should be considered at this time. First, the incarnation of the
Logos certainly demonstrates God’s love for humanity and his
desire to be in an eternal, loving relationship with his created. For
Philo, the Creative Power is peaceable and gentle, but personal
interaction with humanity is impossible. God, regardless of Philo’s
functional descriptions, never reaches out to humanity because the
infinite cannot penetrate the finite (the same apologetic response
used today by many agnostics). The logos is the mediator of all
things to humanity. Philo describes the logos as a created being
(Leg. All. 2.86) that is eternal (a logical inconsistency, Deus. 47,
Cher. 1.27–28) that is humanity’s source of virtue (Som. 118–119),
humanity’s paraclete (Mos. 2.134, 135), interpreter of God’s will
(Leg. All. 2.207), and sustainer of humanity with wisdom (Leg. All.
2.175–176). The logos also appears in various forms, such as
personified wisdom (Prov 8), High Priest, chief deputy, and even as
the image of God (Leg. All. 1.43). And, as motioned earlier, the
logos appears as the messenger of God to humanity.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 110
 This is the limit to which the logos, the messenger of God, appears
to humanity in many forms. However, the logos never appears in a
form that calls humanity into a direct relationship with God.

None of the many forms in which the philonic logos appears

describes the humanity and divinity of the logos, a mark of the
Logos. The logos does the will of God in creation, for example, but
the relationship is one-sided—the logos responds to an order with
the immediate action of creation and interacts with humanity
when commanded, but never communicates back to God. The logos
was a messenger, but never returns a message. In the first century
the words of an emissary from a distant king are the words of the
king himself. Thus, the logos speaks with the authority of God.
However, this is a description of merely a functional relationship
between God and the logos, not a relationship based on the two
moving together in perfect synchronism and for the same purpose,
as is the case of God and the Logos.

Philo’s logos never addresses humanity’s sin that separates God

from humanity because God is transcendent and the separation
was forever permanent. Reconciliation of humanity with God is not
possible because there was never a relationship to begin with. In
contrast, John’s Logos walked among humanity for the sole
purpose of reconciling sinful humanity with a righteous God. The
Logos was not a messenger from God because he is God and
therefore possessed within himself the power of reconciliation. The
incarnate Logos walked on earth to facilitate his ministry of
reconciliation, as well as present to humanity an intimate picture
of God’s perfect grace, mercy, and love.

For Philo, the purpose of the logos was to bring rational thought to
humanity (Op. 146; Praem. 163; Det. 86–90), which in turn
motivates humanity’s free will and intellect (Quod Deus. 47) and
allows one to comprehend one’s environment and spiritual things
(Quis Het. 234–236; Det. 90). Humanity may have free will and the
ability to grasp spiritual things through the work of the logos but
this philosophical stance does not consider the basic sinful nature
of humanity who, left to their own devices, would not seek
deliverance from God, free will or not. Thus God reached down to
humanity by sending Logos as the means for humanity to be
reconciled to God. None of the many forms or functions of the logos
replicate this act. Nor does Philo describe the actions of the logos
as voluntary actions on behalf of humanity. Instead, the
relationship between God and the logos should be viewed as
hierarchal—God commands and the created logos obeys as his
intermediary. Humanity’s only relationship with uncreated God is
once removed through the created logos.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 111

Jesus Christ said, ‘He who has seen Me has seen the Father’ (John
14:9); this represents John’s view of the divinity of the Logos. God
has reached down to humanity through the uncreated Logos and it
is through the Logos humanity may view God. Philo views the
relationship as unidirectional. The apostle John does not view the
need of an intermediary for God’s salvific message. God sent the
incarnate Logos to humanity for the purpose of lifting up humanity
into eternal familial relationship. The nature of Philo’s God is
secretive, ‘For he has not revealed his nature to anyone’ (All. Leg.
3.206) and only the logos reveals transcendent God. God created
the logos and the logos then proceeded to carry out the plans of
God with respect to humanity. It is only through the logos as an
intermediary that humanity may have any interaction with God.
In fact, the logos, what Philo also calls the perfect man, creates
humanity based on the image of God ‘stamped’ on the logos. John’s
Logos arrives among humanity incarnate, God in flesh.

3.10 Jesus Christ is our source of grace and truth

If one can earn salvation, then one does not need grace. It is only
through the reason and wisdom provided by Philo’s logos that one
may become knowledgeable about God and the universe. God’s
grace does not play a role, because the logos does not require an
understanding of and repentance from one’s sin. Instead, one must
only strive to lead a virtuous life. In much the same way, the
standard of truth stated hundreds of times throughout scripture as
‘Thus says the Lord’ is based on the unchanging character of God.
John the Baptizer preached a message of repentance, that is,
turning away from sin and back to conformance with the Law in
preparation for the coming of the divine Logos and his message of
forgiveness and eternal life.

Grace and truth are attributes that reflect the fullness of God and
thus the Logos. Philo’s logos is the messenger that brought a
limited set of God’s characteristics to humanity. John’s Logos is
God living among humanity. The grace and truth of the Logos
bring glory to God by sharing those attributes with humanity. For
Philo, the logos is the revelator and we may only see God through
the created logos, an image of an image (Praem. 43–44; Leg. All.
1.37–38). The Logos is God thus seeing the Logos is to see God, an
unthinkable proposition to Philo. We see God through spiritual
eyes when we believe in his name and become a child of God. This
new familial relationship allows us to see and abide with our
Father. It is only through the Logos that we may properly
comprehend the Father.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 112
 As a side note, John speaks of grace and truth as the essence of the
Logos. Philo views grace and truth within the framework of four
Greek virtues (temperance, prudence, courage, and justice,
although Plato replaced prudence with wisdom is some writings)
that define good moral behaviour. The pursuit of these virtues was
supremely important to Philo’s Stoic mind. Plato argued that the
four virtues are mutually exclusive as one may act with great
courage but with injustice. Bad behaviour or poor choices stem
from a lack of wisdom possessed by the individual. The Greeks
viewed the four virtues as evidence of a moral existence, yet the
virtues are based solely on wilful personal acts. They are volitional
acts for the purpose of a person being viewed as exceptional within
Greek society. However, the presence of the four virtues in any
amount does not reflect the heart of the individual, reminiscent of
Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees as whitewashed tombs (Matt
23:27). In contrast, grace and truth are divine attributes that
describe the essence of the Logos.

For the child of God, grace and truth are to be emulated, but
cannot be replicated because these are immutable attributes of
God.

Philo describes one further action of the logos: the logos dwells in
the soul of persons whose ‘life is an object of honour’ (Post. 122).
Philo suggests that the invisible God does have an earthly
presence in the invisible soul (Cher. 101). Philo sees the presence
of an image of the invisible God present in each person by virtue of
the ‘image of an image’ motif discussed earlier. Each person is born
with this image as part of one’s soul. This is where and how God
grants the gifts of peace, ‘the highest of blessings’ (Mos. 1.304) and
‘joy’ (Som. 1.71). Once again, the gifts of peace and joy are
experienced only by the virtuous and thus represent works
righteousness. Philo’s words sound remarkably similar to the
peace and joy that comes from being a child of God. However, as is
often the case with Philo, like terms often have different
definitions.

Philo understood the Stoic ideal of apatheia (source of the English

word apathy), that is, the desire to be free from all emotions or
passions. These are not emotions or passions in the modern sense
of the terms. The Stoics classified emotions as either healthy or
unhealthy (generally presented as pairs of opposite emotions) and
that our reactions to either must remain under strict control by the
individual. Healthy emotions include joy, peace and so on. The
unhealthy emotions are part of opposite pairs, such as pain or
suffering, fear, lust, and pleasure, and so on. Stoicism was an
ethical approach to life,

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 113

the way to live a virtuous life or attainment of moral excellence,
therefore, it was the practice of the virtues that created happiness.

One who lives a virtuous life controls one’s emotional responses to

uncertain events of life, even those that are highly desirable, such
as peace and joy. Thus, the logos was the source of the virtues and
the desirable emotions of joy and peace. The apostle John
implicitly moves the frame of reference for a follower of Logos from
dealing with the daily vagaries of life to an eternal perspective.
The peace and joy that comes from the Logos is the result of
becoming a child of God and is based on the finished work of the
Logos on the cross, not through human efforts, for the reward of
eternity in the presence of God.

4. Summary and Conclusions

A detailed exegetical analysis of the Prologue produced ten
essential statements about the origins, person, and work of John’s
Christological Logos, and was compared to Philo’s description of
his mythological logos using the set of ten criteria developed in
Part One.

1. The Logos is preexistent and eternal. Philo’s logos was a

created entity possessing a necessary portion of uncreated God’s
divinity for performing the tasks given to him. Philo uses
descriptive terms reminiscent of those used to describe the person
and work of the predicted Messiah found in the Old Testament.
The logos was not present at the creation, therefore the logos is not
the Word.

2. The Logos (Jesus Christ) is divine. Philo views God as

transcendent and thus requires a mediator with humanity. The
logos does not share all the divine or eternal characteristics of the
Logos. The power of the logos is bestowed by God and is not part of
his nature. The Logos and God are both uncreated and share the
same essence and exist in perfect relationship. Therefore, the logos
is not divine.

3. The Logos is the creator of all things. Every single thing

that has ever been created was created by the Logos ex nihilo. The
Logos holds together all creation and is sovereign over creation.
For Philo, the logos was created by God to perform particular tasks
using a variety of contextual identities. The logos created all
things from the ‘four elements’ that were provided (earth, air,
water, and fire). The logos does not create ex nihilo therefore the
logos is not the Logos.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 114
 4. Jesus Christ is the source of humanity’s spiritual
enlightenment. The Logos, as part of the act of creation, placed a
divine light within humanity (wisdom), our intellect, and an
internal moral compass sufficient to discern the existence of God
and the Logos as the source of eternal salvation. For Philo, the
mind of humanity is finite and cannot conceive of an infinite God
thus the need for the unique and privileged role of the philosopher
who seeks to better understand God is required. The major point of
disagreement is centred on the incarnation of the Logos who seeks
the salvation of humanity in the form of an eternal, personal
relationship with God. These concepts were completely foreign to
Philo and do not describe the work of his description of his
mystical logos in any way.

5. John the Baptizer called for repentance, heralded the

coming of the Messiah. In context, John’s call for repentance
distinctly reflected the Old Testament action of spiritual cleaning
and personal recommitment to the Law of Moses, clearly
consistent with Philo’s beliefs.

John describes the Logos as calling for a radical change in a

person’s life so that individuals may come into an eternal personal
relationship with God. For Philo, the logos enables persons to gain
the wisdom necessary to know God better by means of virtuous
actions (works righteousness). The Logos offers salvation through
repentance and faith, unlike the logos that looks for personal
virtuous works.

6. A majority of fallen humanity reject spiritual

enlightenment. John describes the Logos as the source of
humanity’s spiritual enlightenment although many will reject the
Logos as true Light and will intentionally continue to embrace the
darkness. Spiritual enlightenment, in context, is a personal
knowledge and belief in God. Philo also describes spiritual
enlightenment as the possession of the various ‘virtues’
individually earned, for the purpose of attaining a greater
understanding of the logos, not God. The ultimate goal is that one
becomes closer to transcendent God, rather than personally
‘knowing’ God, as John teaches.

7. A minority of fallen humanity embrace spiritual

enlightenment to become children of God. John states that
the majority of Jews rejected the Logos as Messiah, yet those who
do embrace the Logos become children of God and receive all the
benefits of that familial relationship for eternity. Philo describes
his logos as having the responsibility for the spiritual welfare of
humanity.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 115

The logos appeared many times in scripture as personified wisdom,
thus delivering to humanity blessings in the form of increased
wisdom. Pursuing wisdom for the purpose of personal
enlightenment conflicts with John’s description of the Logos
pursuing humanity for eternal salvation.

8. Salvation is not the product of human work. John states

that salvation comes as a free gift from the Logos. Philo writes that
our understanding of the logos is perfected by personal
perseverance with acquiring wisdom and our success is limited
only by our capacity for reason. Humanity may pursue knowledge
of transcendent God only through increasing knowledge of the
logos. Eternal salvation for eternity is a free gift from the Logos.

9. Jesus Christ arrived incarnate in the world. The incarnate

Logos as 100% divine and 100% human has no parallel in Philo’s
writings. There is also no parallel with an immanent God reaching
down to humanity with the purpose of developing an eternal
relationship. Philo does describe the logos as guiding God’s
judgment of the universe, including humanity.

Reconciliation is not a function of Philo’s logos and, for Philo, it is

impossible for God to directly interact with humanity. The Logos
came in incarnate form into the world with a message of salvation.
The logos was commanded to be a messenger to humanity in a
functional relationship with God. Philo never speaks about the
logos and humanity’s sin nor the need for God’s grace, mercy, and
love.

10. Jesus Christ is our source of grace and truth. John uses
the terms grace and truth in the Prologue as essential elements of
our understanding of salvation and the work and person of the
Logos. To know the Logos is to know God. God is grace and truth
and therefore cares about the eternal destiny of individuals. For
Philo, the logos functionally is the revelator of God and has a
presence in our invisible soul. But since the logos is ‘an image of an
image’ of God, we see God imperfectly and dimly. The logos is all
that humanity may ‘see’ of transcendent God. Peace and joy come
only from virtuous actions (works righteousness), not as the free
gift of God’s grace.

This work concludes that there are no intersections of thought

between John’s description of the Christological Logos and Philo’s
logos philosophy. Therefore, John’s Prologue is an explicit
‘rejection’ of Philo’s logos philosophy, whether or not the apostle
John was aware of the writings of Philo of Alexandria. John’s
Prologue is also an implicit apologetic, or better,

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 116
 a polemic against Philo’s logos philosophy insofar as John’s
knowledge of Philo’s writings can be determined through
circumstantial evidence, although specific motives are impossible
to determine without direct knowledge of John’s state of mind at
the time of writing the Prologue.

These conclusions have many implications. For example, the view

held by many scholars that Philo’s mystical philosophy was an
evolutionary step into what was to become John’s Christological
view of the Logos or that John’s Logos is Philo’s logos in
abbreviated form must both be rejected because neither conclusion
is supported by the evidence presented. If there are no similarities
of thought then there can be no evolution of thought.

John’s Prologue to the fourth Gospel was written for multiple

purposes. John wrote a persuasive evangelical tract with the
purpose of attracting Greek-speaking Jews and Gentiles with the
purpose of persuading readers to accept John’s apologetic
description of the incarnate Logos as God in flesh. In doing so,
John explicitly rejects the Philonic logos as the detailed comparison
of John’s Christological Logos and Philo’s philosophical logos
demonstrates.

John chose the word ‘logos’ because it is a term recognizable to

Gentiles and Jews, living within a Hellenistic culture, as a literary
device to attract the largest possible audience as a means to
present his gospel message so that all his readers ‘... may believe
Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may
have life in His name’ (John 20:31).

Appendix 1. The Works of Philo of Alexandra

Abr De Abrahamo On Abraham

Aet. De Aeternitate Mundi On the Eternity of the World
Agr De Agricultura On Husbandry
Cher. De Cherubim On the Cherubim
Conf. De Confusione Linguarum On the Confusion of Tongues
Congr. De Congressu Eruditionisgratia On the Preliminary Studies
Decal. De Decalogo On the Decalogue
Det. Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari solet The Worse attacks the
Better
Ebr. De Ebrietate On Drunkenness
Flacc. In Flaccum Flaccus

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 117

Fug. De Fuga et Inventione On Flight and Finding
Gig. De Gigantibus On the Giants
Hyp. Hypothetica/Apologia pro ludaeis Apology for the Jews
Jos. De Josepho On Joseph
Leg. De Legatione ad Gaium On the Embassy to Gaius
Leg. All. Legum Allegoriarum Allegorical Interpretation
Mig. De Migratione Abrahami On the Migration of Abraham
Mos. De Vita Mosis On the Life of Moses
Mut. De Mutatione Nominum On the Change of Names
Op. De Opificio Mundi On the Creation
Plant. De Plantatione On Noah’s Work as a Planter
Post. De Posteritate Caini On the Posterity and Exile of Cain
Praem. De Praemiis et Poenis On Rewards and Punishments
Prov. De Providentia On Providence
Quaest in Gn. Questiones et Solutiones in Genesin Questions and
Answers on Genesis
Quaest in Ex Questiones et Solutiones in Exodum Questions and
Answers on Exodus
Quis Het. Quis rerum divinarum Heres sit Who is the Heir
Quod Deus. Quod Deussit Immutabilis On the Unchangeableness
of God
Quod Omn. Prob. Quod omnis Probus Libersit Every Good Man is
Free
Sac. De SacriNciisAbelis et Caini On the Sacrifices of Abel and
Cain
Sob. De Sobrietate On Sobriety
Som. De Somniis On Dreams
Spec. Leg. De Specialibus Legibus On the Special Laws
Virt. De Virtute On the Virtues
Vit. Cont. De Vita Contemplativa On the Contemplative Life

Reference List
Beasley-Murray GR 2002. John (2nd ed.). Word Biblical
Commentary 36. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Peltier and Lioy, Is John’s Λόγος Christology a Polemical Response to Philo’s Logos Philosophy? (Part 2) 118
 Borgen P, Fuglseth K, and Skarsten R 2005. The Works of Philo:
Greek Text with Morphology. Bellingham: Logos Bible
Software, 2005.
Danielou J 2014. Philo of Alexandria Translated by James Colbert.
Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Dodd CH 1968. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Du Toit AB 1968. The Incarnate Word—A Study of John 1:14.
Neotestametica 2:9–21.
Goodenough ER 1945. John A Primitive Gospel. JBL 64(19):145–
182.
Gunther JJ 1979. The Alexandrian Gospel and Letters of John.
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41(1):581–603.
Kleinknecht H 1964. The Logos in the Greek and Hellenistic
World. In G Kittel, GW Bromiley, and G Friedrich (eds).
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. 4), 77–91.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Liddell HG, Scott R et. al. 1996. A Greek-English Lexicon. Logos
Bible Software.
Lewy H 2004. Selected Writings: Philo of Alexandria. Mineola:
Dover Publications, Inc.
Nash RH 1982. The Word of God and the Mind of Man: The Crisis
of Revealed Truth. Contemporary Theology. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan
Parker J 1988. The Incarnational Christology of John. Criswell
Theological Review 3.1. Criswell College.
Rokeah D 2001. Justin Martyr and the Jews. Boston: Brill
Runia K 2001. The Present-Day Christological Debate. Eugene:
Wipf and StockPublishers.
Sandmel S 1979. Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction. New York:
Oxford University Press
Schnackenburg R 1968. In K Smyth (ed), The Gospel According to
St. John. Volume One: Introduction and Commentary on
Chapters 1–4. Montreal: Palm.
Thyssen HP 2006. Philosophical Christology in the New
Testament. Numen 53(2):133–176.
Yonge CD with Philo of Alexandria 2006. The Works of Philo:
Complete and Unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers
Marketing.

Conspectus, Volume 28, September 2019 119