1850.]

Examination of John 1: 1—18.

Christianity to the sharpest tests without any fear.

13

They will come out unimpaired from the severest cross questioning. After all the efforts of the most sagacious and clear sighted critics of the present day, the life and works of our Saviour, as recorded by four independent witnesses, appear in beautiful harmony. After the fiery ordeal which the Gospels have gone through at the hands of many of the later critics; and after the strenuous efforts of a number of able scholars to break up and reärrange the earlier portions of the Old Testament, it is delightful to find that the integrity and historical value both of the Gospels and the Pentateuch are, in various forms, receiving fresh confirmation and support. The monuments of Egypt, the disentombed cities of Assyria, the searching investigations of accomplished travellers in Palestine, the voice of profane history, the last and severest critical inquiries, all testify that "the foundation of God standeth sure."

ARTICLE II.

EXEGETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF JOHN

1:1-18.

By M. Stuart, late Prof. of Sac. Lit. in the Theol. Sem. at Andover.

[THE title which is given above to the disquisition that follows, is not perhaps exactly descriptive of it. My design is not simply that of a philologist or interpreter, nor merely that of a theologian. My ultimate object is indeed to develop, if I can, the sentiments which the words of John were intended to convey; and these, if they can be made manifest, ought, in my apprehension, to be regarded as truths deeply concerned with theology. But this development I do not undertake to bring about by theological argument and reasoning, except in quite a subordinate manner. When the inquiry is made: What has John taught? I know of no satisfactory way of answering this question, except by a resort to the fundamental and well established principles of exegesis. In the present disquisition it is my aim, on all occasions where it is feasible, to pursue this method.

I need make no apology to the well informed reader, for an endeavor to cast some light on John's introduction to his Gospel. It has been hitherto regarded, by most interpreters and many theologians, as one VOL. VII. No. 25.

2

of the most difficult portions of the New Testament; perhaps I might even say, as the greatest problem in it which yet remains to be fully solved. Certain it is, that there are many readers who still find doubts springing up, and meet with difficulties, which they feel unable to solve. May I not venture to believe, without any assumption on my part, that these will be ready to welcome any serious attempt to aid them in the removal of their embarrassments? Having in a great measure satisfied my own mind, it is natural for me to hope, that I may do something in the way of assisting others to satisfy their minds.

That I have been wholly impartial in my investigations and decisions, and have never dogmatized, is not for me to assert. I can only say, that I have aimed to be what the first requires, and not to do the last. So far as partiality or dogmatism may cleave to my performance, so far I can reasonably expect nothing but injury to the efforts I have made in order to convince others. With such views, I could not well aim to admit the one or practise the other. It is however for the reader to say, after all, whether I have in fact admitted or done what is contrary to my intention. If he shall acquit me in both respects, I would hope that he will lend me a listening ear, and weigh seriously what is advanced, like one who feels that he must give an account, before he comes to conclusions opposite to those which seem to me at least to be deducible, in a fair and direct manner, from the teachings of the beloved apostle.

The nature of my undertaking has led me to indulge in various remarks on several topics, which rigid order in exegesis or scientific theology might be bound to exclude. But if these are not irrelevant, nor unmeaning, the reader I hope will cheerfully concede me the privilege of such an indulgence. I may perhaps reasonably ask, that, with such objects as I have in view, I may not be confined within the stricter rules of mere philological or theological discussion.

The closing part of the present disquisition may be regarded, by some, as uncalled for and inapposite. I can only say, for the purpose of vindicating it, that its design is to point out what connection, in my view, the great truths which John teaches have, with the Christian's highest spiritual experience and his most pressing wants. The number of those who will assent to the views there expressed, I am confident is very great. From those who may dissent, I would solicit an indulgent lenity toward me, in regard to the expression of feelings which I could not well suppress. My earnest hope and wishes are, that it may not, in their minds, impair in any measure the force of what is said in the pages that precede the close.]

1850.]

First clause in v. 1.

15

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

'Ev doxy is an exact translation of in Gen. 1: 1; and this last verse is plainly the prototype and exemplar of John 1: 1-3, with the exception that a new personage, viz. the Logos, is introduced by the apostle. Strictly speaking, the word designates the exact point when time began. But in John the assertion is, that at that point the Logos was already in existence, v. In the sequel we have the assertion, that the Logos created all things without any exception, which have been created. Of course the Logos himself is assumed to be an uncreated being. In effect, therefore, v doxy in such a construction is equivalent to the phrase πρὸ τοῦ τὴν γῆν ποιῆσαι, Ρτον. 8: 22, which there is parallel to and explains év doxy. It is also equivalent to πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, in John 17: 5 ; to πρὸ καταβολῆς xógov, in John 17: 24 and Eph. 1: 4; also to noò rov aiwvos in Prov. 8: 23. And although in strictness of speech v doxy does not of itself directly indicate eternity, yet in consequence of its connection here, and by implication, it necessarily designates, or rather implies, this idea. What is uncreated must be eternal; that which existed before all things, or (to use the language of John) before any one created thing, must be eternal; the author of all created things, must of course be self-existent.

The affirmation that der here means the beginning of the Gospeldispensation (Crellius), is so plainly against the tenor of the context, that scarcely any critics have been found to patronize it. The creation of all things is said (v. 3) to have been accomplished by the Logos; and in v. 10 it is affirmed that the world was created by him. In neither case can the Christian church be meant, (as Crellius would have it). Not in the first, for závra never has such a meaning; not in the second, because the assertion is made by John, that this same world which the Logos created did not know him, while the special characteristic of Christians is, that "they know the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent."

In a grammatical respect, the word doxy, as here employed, would seem to demand the article. So our version: "In the beginning;" and so in most languages that have the article. But in Greek, this word is one of those which by usage and special license frequently omit the article, even when (as in the present case) they have a meaning that is monadic and specific. Accordingly, ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, ἐξ ἀρχῆς

and iv dex (all without the article), are frequent both in the N. Test., the Sept., and in the Greek classics. (See Win. N. T. Gram. § 18.) It should be noted, moreover, that our idiom would employ a mode of expression somewhat different from that of the text. We should say: "At the beginning," (not in). But in has become familiar to us, by reason of the biblical mode of expression.

, was, i. e. existed; or, to translate more exactly according to the Imperfect tense, was existing. This is the nearest we can come to giving the relative sense of the Greek Imperf. in our language. The relative sense in this case has respect to something else in the past, which existed or was done. This is designated in v. 9 and the sequel, which exhibit the Logos in his incarnate condition. His antecedent condition is contrasted with his incarnate one; and as both belong to the past time, the Imperf. v is employed in its proper sense, viz. that of denoting action or being in the past, antecedent to something else that was or was done in the past. To say, as some have said, that of itself denotes timeless existence (like έorí in Oɛòs έorí), seems not to be well founded in the laws of grammatical usage. The assertion of the eternity of the Logos depends not on the use of v, but on the nature of the declarations respecting him. Our simple English preterite (was) fails to give here the relative sense of the Greek, as already remarked; nor can we easily remedy this difficulty in our language, for the expression was existing would seem to be in a measure unusual and cumbrous.

'O Aoyos, the Word. According to the general usage of the Greek language, óyos may designate either word or wisdom (reason). But in the language of the O. Test. and of the New, 2óyos never has the meaning of reason, understanding, or wisdom, in God. The usual form, in relation to God, is ó hóros zou Oɛou. But with such a limitation, the meaning of Loyos is quite diverse from that in our text, (Rev.13: 19 only excepted). God's word means, in both Testaments, something spoken by him, or some communication or message from him. But in what possible sense could it be said, that such a word was ❝ with him," or that it "became flesh and dwelt amongst us?"

Equally remote from the sense of 2óyos, here in John, is that of wisdom or reason; for (1), such a meaning of λóyos is without any example in the Scriptures, which usually express it by σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ, and sometimes by καρδία, νοῦς, or πνεῦμα. It cannot well be supposed that John has here departed from the elsewhere universal usage of the Scriptures. But (2), if this could be supposed, then in what possible sense can it be said of wisdom or reason, that it "became incarnate and dwelt among us?" (v. 14.)

From whatever source the appellation now in question may have

1850.]

The title, LOGOS.

17

been derived, it is plain that the word is not employed in any of its ordinary senses. If it could be shown that John meant to employ it merely in the way of personification, then, whether we give the meaning of word or wisdom to it, we might easily interpret it in reference to merely a creating or enlightening and saving power; for we have parallels in the O. Test. of the like nature, e. g. Ps. 33: 6. Prov. 8: 22 seq., where, to the word of God and to wisdom, creative power and saving influence are ascribed. But the assertion of the incarnation of the Logos (v.14) forbids us to regard it as a personification here either of word or wisdom. A hypostasis it must be. Even the very first assertion respecting it, viz. that it was with God, indicates this; for what could be the design of the writer in asserting here, that God's wisdom (as an attribute) was with him? Did any one ever doubt, or need to be informed, whether the wisdom of any being is with him? And even if information of this kind were intended to be given, would not the writer have said: iv avro, and not açòs aúróv? As to word, such an assertion would be unintelligible and unmeaning. Besides, to this Logos is ascribed both life and light (v. 4), where the form of expression (iv avro indicates more than that the Logos was merely the instrumental cause of life and light, for it fully expresses the idea that he was the source of both. John even goes farther than this in the strength of his expression. In 1 John 1: 1, 2, he calls him, first, the Logos of life; and then he declares that "the Life... the eternal Life that was with the Father (zoos ròv nariga), was exhibited to us in a visible and tangible shape." So in John 1: 9 he is called the true Light of men, and in 8: 12, the Light of the world.

If now we compare these and the like expressions together, and give them their proper force, how can they be supposed to indicate less, than that they are intended to designate attributives which belong to a hypostasis? And in this, indeed, nearly all classes of interpreters appear at present to be united. But in respect to the nature and rank of this hypostasis, there is, as there long has been, a great diversity of sentiBut our present concern is merely with the appellation Logos, and not with the rank which the being so named holds. In accordance with this we ask: Why did John so name him? And in giving him such a name, what was the special signification which he attached to it? One thing, at least, seems to be quite probable, if not certain, in respect to this matter. Every rational and sober writer wishes and expects to be understood by his readers. Consequently he employs language which he supposes will be intelligible to them. On this ground we must suppose, that John employed the word Logos here in a sense which his contemporary readers would be able to understand. There must