then have been something in the linguistic usage of that period, among the Hebrews or the Hebrew Greeks, which led the apostle to employ the appellation in question, or, at all events, which led him to suppose that it might be understood. Do the Scriptures, or does the history of the Hebrew usus loquendi of that period, cast any light on this subject?

A careful examination of the Scriptures will lead us to see, that the Hebrews were accustomed to speak of the word of God in a manner which not unfrequently led to personification; and at times they expressed themselves almost as if it were a hypostasis. The foundation of this seems to be laid in Gen. 1: 3, " God said: Let there be light; and there was light." This is equivalent to a declaration that the word of God has in it a creative power. Expressly after this tenor is Ps. 23: 3 6, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." There can indeed be no reasonable ground to doubt, that all this is figurative, or (in other words) that it is a symbolical representation of God's executive power or energy. The analogy, which leads to and forms the basis of such representations, is easily explained. Words are with us the signs of internal ideas, feelings, desires, purposes, etc.; and, consequently, they are as it were the outward development or representation of the internal man, or of the energies of the soul. Words are the means or instruments by which we make our desire or will known, and cause it to be executed. Nay, so closely connected are they with us, that they become the usual medium by which we carry on the process of thinking. Carrying over now to the Godhead, (as is usual in cases of representation without number), the analogy drawn from human things, the sacred writers have represented his word as accomplishing the purposes of his will. Hence a creating power, a life-giving power, a regenerating power, an enlightening power, and the like, are ascribed to the word of God. Not unfrequently is it spoken of in such a way as would seem, at first view, to indicate that it is regarded as a being, a hypostasis, which exercises attributes of its own. It is easy to illustrate and confirm this view, from both the O. Test. and the New. Thus, in accordance with Gen. 1: 3 and Ps. 33: 6, it is said in Heb. 11: 3, that "the worlds were framed by the word of God." So in 2 Pet. 3: 5, "By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth.” This word is a life-giving power: "Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word which proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord," Deut. 8: 3. Matt. 4: 4. Luke 4: 4. It gives spiritual as well as physical life : "Thy word hath quickened me," Ps. 119: 50; and so 1 Pet 1: 23, "Born of incorruptible seed.... by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever." It has attributes or qualities ascribed to it; e. g.

possesses and

1850.]

The title, LOGOS.

19

"Forever thy word is settled in the heavens," Ps. 119: 89, i. e. thy word is established and eternal. "The word of our God shall stand forever," Isa. 40: 3 and 1 Pet. 1: 23. It is an agent in the execution of the divine commands: “He sent his word and healed them," Ps. 107: 20; "His word runneth very swiftly," Ps. 147: 15; "He sendeth out his word and melteth them," Ps. 147:18; "My word that goeth out of my mouth... it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it," Isa. 55: 11. It is a messenger, going and imparting admonition: "The word of God came unto Shemaiah, saying," 1 K. 12: 22; "The same night, the word of God came to Nathan, saying," 1 Chr. 17: 3; "This word from the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying," Jer. 27: 1; and so in Jer. 34: 8. 36: 1. To the word of God is ascribed the power of searching and discerning the most secret thoughts of men: "The word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit... and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," Heb. 4: 12.

In addition to the many vivid representations of this nature in the Scriptures, it should be specially considered, that the word of God, in the form of precept, prohibition, law, doctrinal instruction, prediction, and the like, is everywhere brought to view in both Testaments. It is the peculiar medium of all that may be called revelation in a specific sense. It is the principal instrument of all the communications that have been made from above to ignorant and erring man. Well may we exclaim, with the Psalmist: "Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."

We must not suppose, however, that an enlightened and spiritual Hebrew regarded the word of God as a real hypostasis or substantial being, notwithstanding the strong language thus employed respecting it. In a primary and literal sense, word means something spoken or uttered by means of the lungs, the tongue, and other material organs. God, who is a spirit, possesses no material organs; and the Hebrew, who well knew this, can hardly be regarded as literally interpreting descriptions of this nature. That on some occasions, when God, or his angel, assumed the form of man in order to hold converse with his servants, words audible to the outward ear may have been uttered, need not be denied. Indeed, this seems to be clear from such an account as we have in Gen. xviii, and from some others of a similar tenor. So at the giving of the law on mount Sinai, Ex. 19: 19 seq. Heb. 12: 19. But in general, when God is represented as speaking, we must, in accordance with his spiritual nature, suppose him to communicate with the internal man, speaking to the mind by the influences of his Spirit. The Hebrew who understood this, would of course regard the phrase word

of God, as simply designating for the most part the idea of a communication from him, and not as conveying by any necessity the idea of an audible word, and still less that of a real and hypostatical existence. The vivid personifications of the word of God, like those above produced, are, however, very striking and expressive; and we cannot but admit, that the high importance attached everywhere in the Scriptures to God's word, has given birth to a variety of figurative, animated, and intensive representations of it. And I may now add, that if communications of such a nature are honored with the appellation word of God in such a high sense, then it is nothing strange, that he who is the medium and the author of all saving communication between God and men, should be called the Logos of God. But of this more in the sequel.

Another important circumstance, pertaining to the usus loquendi of the Jews at the time when John wrote his Gospel, deserves to be brought distinctly into view, at the present stage of our inquiries. When the Jews returned from Babylon, the mass of them spoke the Chaldee language, modified in some degree by the ancient Hebrew. Hence it became necessary that this same mass should have the Scriptures translated into the Chaldee or Hebraeo-Chaldaic dialect. In the time of Ezra, such an interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures seems to have been made vivà voce to the people at large, who were assembled together, Neh. 8: 8. But not far from the beginning of the Christian era, the Targums or translations into Chaldee of the Hebrew Scriptures, were made and committed to writing; of the Pentateuch by Onkelos, and of most of the remaining books by Jonathan ben Uzziel. In these works, and in other Targums, a special idiom prevails, to a wide extent, respecting the use of the phrase word of the Lord; and it presents some views of the usus loquendi of the Jews of that period, which are not only remarkable but very striking. In my own apprehension, they have an important bearing upon the use of Logos in our text; and a brief statement, therefore, respecting the usage in question seems to be necessary.

The Chaldee word for Logos is 2, a noun with formative derived from 28, dixit. To this noun the Targumists subjoin the Gen. nin (abridged), which then is exactly equivalent to o Lóyos vov Oɛov. This expression is employed in the Targums, in cases almost without number, instead of the simple in or of the Hebrew text. In particular, wherever the Heb. represents the divine Being as in action, or as revealing himself by his works, or by communications to individuals, in a word, whenever God operates ad extra and thus reveals himself, it is common for the Targumists to say that his word operates, or makes the revelation. A few examples are necessary to show the manner of this.

1850.]

The title, LOGOS.

21

76

In Ex. 19:17, the Hebrew runs thus, "And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God," in the Targum, "To meet with the word of the Lord." Job 42: 9 (Heb.), "The Lord accepted Job;" in the Targum, "The word of the Lord accepted Job." Ps. 2: 4 (Heb.), "The Lord shall have them in derision;" in the Targum, "The word of the Lord shall deride them." Gen. 26: 3 (Heb.), "I will be with thee;" Targum, "My word shall be thy helper." Gen. 39: 2 (Heb.), "The Lord was with Joseph;" Targum, "The word of the Lord was with Joseph." Lightfoot, that great master of Rabbinical learning, says of these and the like cases; "So, all along, that kind of phrase is most familiar amongst them," Hor. Heb. in Johan. 1:1. Specially is this the case, when God is represented as transacting affairs of moment between himself and his people. Thus in Lev. 26: 46 (Heb.), "These are the statutes which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel;" Targum, "Between his word and the children of Israel." Deut. 5: 5 (Heb.), "I stood between you and the Lord, at that time;" Targum, "I stood between you and the word of the Lord." Deut. 20:1 (Heb.), "The Lord thy God is with thee;" Targum, "Jehovah is thy God, his word is with thee."

Such is the striking usage of the Targumists, in respect to the phrase word of God. They carry it indeed still further, and often express by

the emphatic pronouns myself, thyself, himself. Thus instead of the Heb. (Gen. 6:6), "It repented Jehovah," the Targum has it, “Jehovah repented himself," or lit. "repented in his word,” i. e., in himself. Gen. 8:21 (Heb.), " And Jehovah said in his heart;" Targum, "And Jehovah said in his word,” i. e., within himself. Strikingly is this idiom illustrated in a later Targum of 2 Chron. 16: 3, where the Hebrew runs thus, "There is a league between me and thee;" Targum, "between my word and thy word." Thus & came, by usage among the Jews, to be employed not only to designate God as acting or making some revelation of himself or of his will, but to be employed as a kind of intensive periphrastic pronoun to designate God himself. The transition was not unnatural. That which is often employed to express God revealed, may easily come at last to express the idea of God simply considered.

What now are we to say, as to the real nature and design of the idiom in question? Is it personification, or does it amount to the assertion of hypostasis? If we were to judge of this matter, only in view of the leading instances produced above, we might be ready to say, that it amounts to asserting hypostasis. But when we compare the idiom in its whole extent, we cannot view the matter in such a light. Even those cases which present word in the sense of the reciprocal

pronoun, cannot be regarded as hypostatically designating a being different from God. But if those cases first produced above do indeed imply hypostasis, they must be understood of a being distinct and separate from God. Had the ancient Hebrews any idea of this nature? The Old Testament every where ascribes creative power and other divine attributes to God alone, in distinction from all inferior and subordinate beings. If John's doctrine of the Logos was understood by the ancient Jews, it cannot be well affirmed that it is any where fairly developed in the Heb. Scriptures. Indeed it seems to be plainly asserted in John 1: 18, that Christ, the Light of the world, was the first who fully developed the Godhead: "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." In the connection in which this passage stands, the implication is, that neither Moses, nor any other Old Testament writer, has made a full disclosure of the gospel-doctrine respecting God. "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," (v. 17.)

In very late Targums, there are indeed passages which plainly imply a hypostatic use of 72, i. e. word. But in those that were extant

in the time of John, we find none which necessarily convey such a meaning. A sufficient explanation of the usus loquendi in question may be found, by resorting to personification, or (in other words) to symbolic representation. The words of men are the expressions of their desires, feelings, and wishes. They represent or symbolize the internal man. So when the word of God has efficiency, action, development ascribed to it, this ascription is made because it is the symbol or representative of the will or mind or energy of the Godhead. In this light we ought to regard the idiom of the Targums in question. A hypostasis, such as John presents, cannot well be found in them.

For what purpose, then, do we resort to them? My answer would be, that we do so in order to show how the way was already prepared for John to apply the name of Logos to Christ. The word of God in the Old Testament, and the same word in the Targums, is a symbol of God in some way revealing himself, or making himself known to men. Was it not easy and natural for the apostle to name him Word, "who alone has fully declared God," and "brought life and immortality to light?"

Still more easily may we conceive of this, in case the context in the prologue of John, and also the general tenor of his works, unite in showing that Christ is the true light of the world, and the great medium of all saving communication between God and man. Let us see if this be not the predominant idea in the introduction to John's gospel.