I think that when we look back on it from our time and perspective, we hugely under-appreciate this concept of "logos". It not only defines the nature and character of creation as it is expressed through the Creator's plan, or logic, but it defines the Creator's nature and character as well, as it's being expressed through creation, via this "logos". The concept of "logos" is the essence of authorship, viewed at a divine scale. The "logos" is like the mental outline a story-writer has in his head as he writes his book, and upon which all the characters in his book are created and their "lives" are acted out. But that "logos", that story outline, can be read both ways. As it will tell us as much about the author himself, as it is in turn being revealed through the story.
Also, we don't fully appreciate the power of authorship in our time as it was appreciated in the family-clan dominant culture of Jesus' day. In a family-clan dominant culture, the clan leader is viewed as all powerful within the clan, and is viewed as the ultimate spokesman for the clan among the community of other family clans. The clan leader is almost always the elder male, and the rest of the clan is his wife/wives, and his offspring and their wives. And the members of each clan were viewed by the other clans as spokesmen or representatives of the will of their clan leader. If I were to meet John, of the house of Peter, (John being a younger member of Peter's clan) I would view him as a representative of Peter, especially in case of any business agreement we might make, his word would be identical to Peter's word. And his whole clan would be held to the agreements of their leader.
So being a member of such a clan dominant society, means that a person's identity and position within the community is based hugely on the personality and intellect and reputation of his clan's leader. And that person will be seen as carrying the authority as his clan's leader. Also, his individual personality will become secondary to his position as a representative of his clan.
In such a society, we can only imagine the impact Jesus must have had when he went around referring to GOD as his father! Because in Jesus' world, to be the son of so-and-so meant having the authority of so-and-so, and meant being accorded the same deference by the community as so-and-so would be accorded. For Jesus to claim that his father is God, was to say in effect that he was from the house of God, and carried the authority and respect of God himself! In Jesus' day, to be the son of your father meant that you were a representative of your father's "logos". And I believe that is exactly what Jesus was saying: that he, and we all, are the sons and daughters of God, and that as such we are the representatives of God's divine nature: of God's "logos". And it's through Jesus that we learn what the nature of this divine logos is. It's also why Jesus speaks of himself both as if he were one and the same as God, yet not as God the father.
In Jesus' time, his speaking that way would not have been so confusing, because everyone understood the "authorship" of sons in the family-clan culture, and how it makes a son and his father one and the same in the eyes of other community members, even though they are not actually the same people.
And on a side note. When Jesus left whatever family clan he belonged to originally, and became a teacher and preacher, and began to collect "students" and followers, he was in effect creating his own clan. And this, too, was common in his day. Not all clans were based on blood relations. Some were formed though a specific religious vision, as was the case with Jesus and his disciples, and they functioned very much like the family clans did. Jesus' deciples would have viewed themselves as being representatives of his authority and ideology, as he was their leader, and the community would have treated them as such. This is why they were so frightened of being killed when Jesus was crucified. The Romans were not of such a strong family-clan culture, and so did not concern themselves with Jesus' deciples, but the Jews certainly were, it was of them they feared.
And rightly so. Because as Jesus' "clan sons", the deciples would have carried his authority and respect within the community even after Jesus was dead. And it's upon this clan-cultural theme that the early church was built. The reason the gospels are written under the disciples' names, even though it's very unlikely that any actual disciple of Jesus wrote them, is because the people who DID write them were deciples of the deciples. And in that clan-culture, it was very common that the student of a teacher was treated similarly as the son of a father; and would see himself, and be seen by others, as representing the ideas and authority of his teacher. So very often, students wrote in their teacher's names.
It all goes back to that idea of the "logos". And to seeing ourselves as manifestations of God's divine plan. And as such, we aren't just the manifestations of God's will, we are also the representations of God's will, and so are even the reflections of God, himself. I believe that Jesus believed and understood this fully, and routinely spoke of himself as such. Which is what completely freaked out his religious contemporaries. And is what eventually got him killed.
