On the Word and the Way, the Logos and the Tao

     I've been reading a modern translation of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. Marcus Aurelius was a Roman Emperor in the mid second century, but he was also a thoughtful Stoic philosopher who practiced what he believed, and is widely regarded as one of the best, if not the best emperor Rome ever had. There are two things which have stood out to me in my reading. 

     The first is that there is a serious disconnect between what he writes as a philosopher and the persecution of Christians under his rule. Much of what he writes would have been readily agreed with by the authors of the New Testament, and even Justin Martyr wrote nothing short of a huge book directly to him defending the tenets and precepts of Christianity point by point. If the emperor actually knew what Christian practice was, I don't believe he would have maintained the death penalty for them. The only point he would have taken issue with is their refusal to recognize the pantheon of gods, which is why they had the reputation of being "atheists" in the second century. Marcus Aurelius was both spiritual as well as a philosopher in the best sense of the word, but he was also devout where the gods were concerned, being thankful for all the divine had given him in his life, especially where "the God" was concerned (a term which Socrates also uses, presumably to reference Zeus as the supreme god of the pantheon). So, is this reputation of atheism which likely was what offended him the most. Whether or not he ever took the time or had the time to read Justin Martyr's defense, or whether or not it ever made its way into the emperor's hands may be up for debate.

     The second thing which stands out to me, is that if you want to understand what the Greco-Roman understanding of the concept of the "Logos" was in the first and second centuries, read Marcus Aurelius. The "Logos" was a well known and integral facet of Stoic belief, and the use of it to describe Jesus Christ by John was no accident or miscommunication. He knew exactly what language he was using and what his audience would have understood by this term. What's interesting is that the way the emperor describes the Logos is similar, in my opinion, to the way Lao Tzu describes the Tao, and the philosophy, while not exactly the same, shares similar features. 

     It is difficult at best to describe the concept of the Logos in Greco Roman thought, just as it is difficult to describe the concept of the Tao in Lao Tzu’s thought as he describes it in the Tao Te Ching. In fact, the latter describes it as fundamentally indescribable in his work’s first few lines, “The Tao which can be named is not the eternal Tao”. Typically, you’ll find such definitions as “the principle of order which underlies all creation,” but this doesn’t entirely do it justice. The Logos in Stoic thought is both what gives order and the order itself. Furthermore, it is both this order on a cosmic scale, and it is the order which arises within the mind of each human being, distinguishing them from other animals. The Logos in Stoic thought is both the one that plans and the plan itself. It is not a stretch to say that the Logos could be considered both a universal ordered consciousness animating the entire creation as well as the share of that ordered consciousness which resides within every human being. It is immediately identified with the Divine and Fate, and yet is also distinguished from both. A Stoic might have seen no contradiction in John’s opening to his Gospel at all when he said, “The Logos was at the start, and the Logos was with the God, and [the] God was the Logos” (brackets mine for grammatical purposes). Marcus Aurelius certainly wouldn’t have disagreed. The Jewish Philosopher Philo who lived between 20BCE and 50CE (within the lifetime of Jesus Christ) believed that

 “the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated" and that “Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the logos, but the logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the logos by Philo, who also said that the logos was God's instrument in the creation of the Universe.” (Logos, Wikipedia.com; further references to sources be found in that article)

     Similarly, the word “Tao” refers to the pattern or flow of creation and the universe and what keeps the universe balanced, but itself resists all words to accurately describe it. The Tao cannot accurately be described by human language because it in and of itself is beyond the capabilities of the human brain to fully comprehend. It can only be understood through insight. It can only be known through intuition and experience, and through the observation of the patterns found in nature. This brings to mind what Paul wrote in Romans 1 where he says, “because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity” (WEB). It also brings to mind God’s own descriptions of Himself in the Scriptures as incomprehensible to human beings, even naming Himself just “I Am” or the divine name which translates to “He Is.”

     What is also interesting is while "Logos" is generally translated "Word" (though the full meaning of the term is untranslatable by any one, or even a dozen English words), Tao is generally translated "Way" (though it is also actually untranslatable in its full meaning). One could justifiably describe Jesus Christ in Scripture, as expressed by the Scripture itself,  as both the Word and the Way, the Logos and the Tao incarnate as a human being. "And the Logos became flesh and went camping among us..." When you give these words “Word” and “Way” the full impact of Logos and Tao, the meaning of these words which John wrote expands to something the human mind simply can't wrap itself around.

     What is most telling as well is that when the Logos/Tao incarnated to display what God is like in a way for human beings to understand, His focus was not on His power, or “what” He is. His focus was on who He is as a Person, and on teaching us to follow His Way, giving Himself as the example. And so just like the Logos and the Tao, Jesus Christ was both the Way and the one practicing the Way and teaching others to practice it.