1850.] The title, LOGOS. 23 First of all, the Logos is with God, and is God; next he is the Creator of all things; then he is the source and author of all life, specially of that which is spiritual; and lastly he communicates this higher life to men, by becoming the light of men, a light shining on the darkened world of the ungodly, although not comprehended by the mass of them. John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, is next introduced. He came, not as the great light that was needed, but to bear witness respecting it, that so he might induce men to regard it. The true light, in distinction both from all false ones and from all inadequate ones, was Christ. He who made the world came into it, but it rejected him; he came even to his own peculiar people, and they in general did not receive him. The Logos became incarnate; his glory, as of the only begotten of the Father, was seen by his disciples, and it was because he was "full of grace and truth" that his disciples wondered and admired. The Law, indeed, existed before. There was an Old Testa ment revelation respecting God and our duty. But this was only a preparatory step for the complete illumination of the world. No legislator or prophet preceding the incarnation could accomplish this in an adequate manner, for no one had penetrated the secrets of the Divine bosom. "The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," v. 18. Such is the tenor and substance of the prologue before us. It lies now upon the very face of it, that Christ, as the light of the world, is its main subject. I do not indeed consider this as indicating, that the instruction given by 'Christ was of itself the most important of all the things that he did, in order to secure our salvation, but as indicating that the light of truth must precede the conversion of men, and that without this, we should neither know the nature and extent of our malady, nor where we are to seek for adequate relief. The first thing which Christ did, was to instruct; after that he became the holy victim, the expiatory sacrifice, which was necessary to complete his work and secure the great end of all the light which he had diffused. As "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world," John has everywhere exhibited him, almost beyond any other New Testament writer. But while he exhibits this truth in all its extent and excellence, he insists, perhaps more than any other sacred writer, on the work which Christ performed in fully revealing God, and in bringing life and immortality to light. I must glance at a few passages out of his prologue, as specimens of John's views in regard to this subject. The work of the Redeemer, while on earth, was to 'make known the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent; which work he performed,' John 17:3, 4. "To his disciples did he manifest the name of God, for their salvation," 17: 6, 26. "We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true," 1 John 5:20. "I have given unto them the words that thou gavest me; and they have received them," John 17:8. "As the Father hath taught me, I speak these things," 8: 28. So 12: 49, 14: 10. "Thou hast the words of eternal life, 6: 68. "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life," 6: 63. "I am the light of the world... the light of life," 8: 12, and again in 9: 5. "Yet a little while is the light with you," 12: 35, 36. “I am come a light to the world," 12:46. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," 14: 6. "The anointing which ye have received of him ... teacheth you all things, and is truth," 1 John 2: 27. - These are only specimens, and they might be greatly enlarged. But I deem this unnecessary. The prologue itself is so replete with the idea of Christ as the light of the world, as the grand medium of communicating divine and saving knowledge, that it seems to offer a plain and ready solution of the question, why Christ is styled the Logos. Communication to men of the will of God, of the doctrines of truth, of the way of salvation the making known the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent the bringing of life and immortality to light are all significantly implied in the word Logos. That the word is an abstract and not a concrete one, is not a matter of chance or of insignificance. A concrete appellation here, e. g., ó kézwv, ó didάoxalos, or any like word, would be much tamer and less significant than the word now employed. John abounds in this kind of idiom. "I am the resurrection and the life," 11: 25. "I am the door," 10: 9. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," 14: 6. "The words that I speak, they are spirit, and they are life," 6: 63. "God is light," 1 John 1:5. "God is love," 1 John 4: 8. Can any one, who enters into the spirit of the Hebrew writers, fail to discern the intensity of expression which such an idiom presents? God is love is surely more impressive, yea more comprehensive, than God is benevolent, or God is kind. It implies not merely that he loves, but (if the expression may be allowed) that his very essence or nature comprises the element of love in itself. Christ is the way, and the truth, and the life, implies more than to say, that he points out the way, that he teaches the truth, and that he bestows life. As there is no other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we can be saved; as none can come to the Father except by him; Christ is himself most significantly named the way of salvation, not merely him who points it out. And so of the truth; for all essential and saving truth concentres in him. As to life, 1850.] The title, LOGOS. 25 he does not merely bestow it. "The Father has given the Son to have life in himself," (5:26); "In him was life," (1:4); i. e., the life-giving principle pervades him, and makes a part of his very nature. In like manner Paul: "Christ is of God made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption," 1 Cor. 1:30. Will any one say, then, that the abstract word Logos is not the most significant of all that could be chosen to designate Christ as the great medium of communication between God and man, as the revealer of the mysteries of God, as the discloser of all that pertains to our duty or our happiness? In a word, the essential meaning of Oeos Lóyos, is God revealed- God who communicates with his creatures, and discloses to them the way of salvation. What more appropriate appellation could be given, than that which John has chosen? If now this process of reasoning and illustration seems in any good degree satisfactory to the reader, it may help to augment this satisfaction, if he reflect that the principle of interpretation, which I have now endeavored to follow out, is altogether plain and of a fundamental na It is simply grammatico-historical. First of all, if possible, we must interpret a writer by the aid of his own writings. Next, when this fails, or is not entirely satisfactory, we may then resort to the usus loquendi, to the circumstances, the usages, the opinions, and the like, of the time in which the writer lived. I have, in the preceding pages, endeavored to do both. I have mainly relied on the leading views, which John's prologue and gospel present, of him who came to redeem lost man. In these I have found, as it seems to me, a good reason for choosing the appellation Logos. In resorting to the Hebrew Scriptures and the Chaldee translations of them, and the idiom which pervades these in regard to word of God, I have endeavored to show, that the way was fully prepared for John to apply the appellation in question with great significance, and (taking his own explanations of the word into view) with little danger of mistake as to his design in giving to Christ such an appellation. If the preceding view of the appellation Logos is well grounded, it follows that the solution of the question by Beza, Tittmann, and others, viz., that ó λóyos is equivalent to o heróuevos, and that this means the promised one, is not entitled to our assent. Ὁ λεγόμενος is not employed in such a sense in the Scriptures; nor does the context show that the subject-matter of the writer here is prediction or promise respecting the Messiah. We have already seen that ó λéyor cannot be substituted for ó óyos, without greatly impairing its significant emphasis. The opinion of Doederlein, Storr, and others, that λoyós stands for author of the word, is somewhat nearer to correctness than either VOL. VII. No. 25. 3 of the preceding ones. But even this view of the appellation is defective. These critics defend it by alleging, that gas applied to Christ means author of light; and (wn applied in like manner means author of life. But we have already seen that these abstract nouns mean more than this. They designate the idea, that light and life concentre in him as their source and essence. But other views different from these, and from any that have here been exhibited, have been taken by many of the later and recent critics. They compare the Logos of John with the representation of wisdom, as made in Prov. viii. and ix. 1-12. There wisdom is personified, and is represented as the first-born of God, as being with him and being his delight, as assisting in the creation of the heavens and of the earth, as rejoicing in the habitable parts of the earth and taking delight in the sons of men, as instructing and enlightening and guiding men, specially kings and princes and nobles, and in a word as opening the way, by counsel and the communication of knowledge, to all peace and prosperity and happiness. Very easy, it must be confessed, would it be to apply all this to the Logos. But it should be remembered, first, that wisdom is poetically personified here as a divine attribute. Such an attribute the Logos is not, inasmuch as it became flesh. Next, it is clear that λóyos, in scriptural usage, never means wisdom or reason. If now John meant simply to follow in the steps of Solomon, why did he change the appellation? Christ is more than once called wisdom in the New Testament, Matt. 11: 19, Luke 7: 35, 1 Cor. 1: 30. Why should John scruple to name him in the same way, specially since he has predicated so many things of the Logos which are also predicated of Wisdom? Plainly, I should reply, because wisdom in Prov. viii. is a divine attribute, and this could neither be represented as becoming incarnate, nor be called God. Lastly, John's view of the Logos is given in prose, plain historico-didactic prose, while wisdom in Prov. viii. is manifestly a poetic personification of the highest and most imaginative stamp. That John has merely, or even at all, imitated or copied this, there is no good evidence in the prologue before us. The manner and style of the composition are palpably different from that which we find in the work of Solomon. In the book of Jesus Sirach, one of the apocryphal works composed not long before the Christian era, there is a copious eulogy of Wisdom, (in chap. i. and xxiv.), which corresponds to that in the book of Proverbs, and doubtless is grounded on it. In chap. i., wisdom is declared to be "unsearchable; to have been created before all things; to be poured out over all the works of God; as given to all who fear God; 1850.] WISDOM in the apocryphal Books. 27 and the beginning of wisdom, her crown, her fulness, her root, is the fear of the Lord." Thus far there is scarcely any palpable personification; and the latter declarations respecting it, show that it is spoken of as a virtue or grace, and not as a hypostasis. But in chap. xxiv., wisdom is represented as 'proceeding from the mouth of the Most High, before time and from the beginning (vs. 3, 9); as having sought after a resting place, and found one in Israel, at Jerusalem, in Zion, among the people of God, where she flourished like the cedar of Lebanon, etc., and produced abundant fruit. In the law of Moses she developed herself in great fulness and abundance, like an unfathomable stream sending forth divine revelations, prophecies, knowledge, and love, for all generations.' All this falls far short of Prov. viii. as to boldness and lofty conception. The detail of the imagery, moreover, shows an anxiety on the part of the writer to appear ornate and imaginative, and exhibits much more of tinsel than of taste. Indeed one cannot for a moment suppose, after comparing the prologue of John with the chapters before us, that the apostle had before his mind at all, while writing the prologue, the picture drawn by the Son of Sirach. The personification even of wisdom, in the apocryphal writer, is on the whole but feebly developed; and far, very far indeed, is this author from representing wisdom either as being God, or as having become incarnate. I do not see how the probability is to be made out, indeed, that any of the New Testament writers, either John or any other of them, was familiar with the apocryphal writings. It is remarkable, that nothing in all the New Testament is built on them, either of sentiment or of style. That some of the apostolic writers may have met with those apocryphal books, and read them more or less, I would not deny. But where is the passage in all the New Testament that copies after them, or is even modified by them? At any rate, John 1:1-18 is as discrepant from what Jesus Sirach has written as we can well imagine, when we consider the kindred nature, or rather the kindred offices, of λόγος and σοφία. In the book of Baruch, 3:1-4: 4, is a similar but much more indistinct representation of σοφία or φρόνησις. But it is not sufficiently prominent to require special notice now. The so-called Wisdom of Solomon is throughout an eulogy of wisdom. Most of the book is occupied with showing how wisdom is to be sought, and what have been the fruits of it among the people of God, in securing their happiness and advancing the interests of true religion in the world, in contrast with the folly, i. e. the idolatry of the heathen. But in 6: 22-9: 18 is a particular and descriptive eulogy |