as applied to God.* Nothing more need be said of it, than that it makes the words ὁ λογος ην προς τον Θεον quite superfluous, and those which follow, perfectly absurd.† But of all the interpretations that have ever been suggested, the most far-fetched and unnatural, is that which makes 2005 synonimous with gospel. For even waving the important fact, that this meaning does not harmonize with the design of the apostle, it is no easy thing to twist the words Ev agyn nu λoyos, into the sense, that from eternity God knew the gospel, and had decreed its propogation. It is harder still, to reconcile with any rule of legitimate interpretation, the application of λoyos in the third clause of the first verse to the author of the gospel, and in what goes before and after, to the gospel itself.§ But it is superlatively hard to justify, upon any principle of grammatical construction, the arbitrary reference of aurou, in the third verse, to Eos, instead of Xoyos as its antecedent. It appears, then, that the first three verses of this gospel, cannot be interpreted simply and intelligibly, upon the supposition, that the word in question is either used abstractly to denote any attribute of God, or the exhibition of any of his attributes—or employed as a synonimous expression for the gospel. By the same process we are led to the conclusion, that the Xoyos, does not differ from the Father merely in name or in * So Hesse understood the word. See his Plan des Reichs Gottes. P. II. p. 77. † For this reason, Hesse in translating the third clause, changes the abstract to a concrete: Gott selbst war es was sich offenbarte. This is the opinion of Benjamin Dawson. See British Theologica Magazine. Vol. IV. No. 2. The ouros in verse 2, evidently refers to λoyos, the word that was God. || See note F. the mode of conception. For although the words og ¿ Ayos, teach clearly, that the λoyos is divine, and has a separate personal existence, it is no less clear from the preceding words, that between the λoyes, and the being there called Osos, and in other places Пarng, there exists an actual and real difference. It is not merely nominal: for who can read the words ὁ λογος ην προς τον Θεον and imagine that ὁ λογοs and ¿es are one and the same person? We should laugh at the absurdity of a similar expression in relation to a man; Zyuwv nv agos IIergov, Simon was with Peter! It is not merely logical; that is to say, the difference is not in exterior relations, but in the thing related; not in our mode of conception, but in the thing which we conceive. For if we admit the Xyes to be itself the very being, with whom it was in the beginning, viewed under some particular aspect-as endowed, for example, with some specific quality, or as manifested in exterior acts, or as operating in the man Christ Jesus, we cloud the apostles words in obscurity and convert them into nonsense. We must therefore conclude from the words of the apostle in the first three verses, that the distinction between esos hoyos, God the word, and esos Пarng, God the Father, is not a mere nominal or logical distinction, but a real difference. Again, it is clear, that λoyos is not used abstractly, but to denote an essence, from the terms employed in describing the true light (ro pws so aλndwov||) the identity of which with the λoyos is apparent from a collation of the first five verses with the ninth and tenth. The same inference may be drawn from the words & λoyos dagg syevero. For I see no practicable * See note G. + See note I. + See note H. See note J. | Ο κόσμος αυτόν εκ έγνω-οι ιδιοι ΑΥΤΟΝ 3 παρελαβον εδωχει εξεσίαν τέκνα Θες γενέσθαι, τοις πιστευεσιν εις το όνομα αυτε (Joh i. 10—12.) 1 See note K. D method of applying these expressions to an attribute of God without supposing a personification (a figure foreign from the apostle's style) and that, too, of the most extravagant description. That John ever dreamed of adopting Philo's notion, that the wisdom of God was literally personified, is a supposition wholly void of plausibility, though it has been advanced by some who deny the apostle's inspiration.* I conclude, then, that neither ows nor λoyos is to be considered as an abstract term, but that both are employed to denote a real essence.. That this essence or person (the name of which is Christ,) is essentially distinct from God the Father,† through the same in substance, the fourteenth and eighteenth verses explicitly declare. From the language of the latter, we learn, that ὁ μονογενης there mentioned and ὁ λογος are the same. Εθεασα μεθα την δόξαν αυτ8 δοξαν ως μονογενες. We have seen his glory (the glory of the 20yos, of the word made flesh,) as of the only begotten Son, (such glory, to wit, as becomes the only begotten Son of God.) Now in this very same verse,‡ as well as in the eighteenth, the only begotten Son, thus clothed with the glories of the Deity, is in such a way distinguished from the Father, that we cannot possibly suppose it to imply a mere metaphysical or verbal difference, with out supposing, at the same time, that the apostle uttered nonsense. T We are, therefore, really forced into the con See note L. t. See note M. Whether we suppose raga Targos to refer to doğa, or, which is tore probable, to μονογένης, a distinction between the μονογενης and the Father is plainly indicated. Where the only begotten is said to be in the bosom of the Father; that is, intimately united with him. || See note N. ¶ As sheer nonsense as if one should say "Cicero the orator in the bosom of Cicero the consul" &c. clusion, that the λoyos, though refulgent with the fulness of the majesty of God, is at the same time, really distinct from God the Father. And that the being thus proved to be distinct, is Jesus Christ himself, I infer from the declaration in the fourteenth verse, that he dwelt among men, and that they beheld his glory; as well as from the language of the 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th,* and 15th verses. Such is the testimony of the context: I now proceed to show that the sense which it leads us to attach to the word Aoyos, is not at variance with the usus loquendi of the language, II. I admit, that the term is strictly and originally abstract; but, to any one acquainted with the idioms of Hebrew and of Hebrew-Greek, the fact must be familiar, that, in both those dialects, abstract and concrete terms are freely interchangeable. Assuming this, however, the question is, what sense can be legitimately fixed upon the term thus used? The answer can only be obtained by tracing the analogies and idioms of the two dialects just mentioned. The analogy of Hebrew which was no doubt, followed by the seventy, as well as by the writers of the books of the New Testament, would justify the use of λoyos to denote either generally an intelligent or thinking nature; or in a narrower sense, one who speaks, whether in the name of another or his own;§ or, again, the author or teacher of a doctrine; or finally, Where it is said that the light (which has already been identified with the Aoyos) is the person of whom John was to bear witness, and whom his own received not. All this, it is plain, can be applied to none but Christ. † Ιωάννης μαρτυρεί περί αυτ8. ‡ See note O. See Psalm cix. 4. and Storr's observations. p. 15. See John i. 4, 5. xi. 25. xiv. 6. 1 Cor. i. 30. one who is promised or foretold.* From various expressions in the works of Philo,† it appears, that he applied the term in question, not only to the exalted being whom he calls the Word of God, the most ancient word, the first begotten, the eldest angel, the archangel, God's interpreter, &c. ; but to all intelligences, human and angelic, as having alike emanated from the intellectual power of the Deity. It seems also very probable, that the author of the book of Wisdom intended by the λoyos which he mentions, (xviii. 15,) to disignate some angel, perhaps the very same whom Philo calls the Word of God and the archangel.‡ Of all these authorized interpretations, which would be most appropriate to the passage now in question, is a point, which I do not venture to determine. I lean, however, to the sentiment of those who explain the term to mean the teacher of a doctrine,§ a messenger from heaven,|| an expounder of the will of God. I prefer this sense, because it harmonizes best with the language of the eighteenth verse; and because it enables us more clearly to account for John's choosing out this term, to denote Christ Jesus as distinguished from the Father. At the same time, I cheerfully admit, that by adopting any one whatever of the mean ings thus submitted to our choice, we may render the interpretation of the passage, intelligible, simple, and consistent with the context. Having now proved, from the authority of John, that the person called Christ, is truly different from the Father, I pro • See Storr's obs. p. 19. d Cramer's Comm. on the introd. to John's Gospel. Part. I. P. 228. † See note P. See Schleusner's Spicileg. Lexici in interpr. Gr. Vet. Test. max-, imè Apocryphos. p. 75. See Doederlein's Inst. Theol. Christ. P. I. p. 217, (first edition.) I See Storr über den Zweck &c. p. 49. |