The difference between St. John and Philo will appear later. St. John’s doctrine therefore is not to be regarded as a philosophical speculation, nor may it ‘be rationalized into the idea that in. telligence originated the universe, or that Chris- tianity is the realization of God’s eternal thought. It is rather the careful and complete statement, in peculiar and significant Ἐς τ ΠΣ of a belief which already existed in the apostolic Church, and which was based on Christ’s own testimony as well as on later revelations and reflections.
mo what led St. John to use his peculiar phrase- ology ?
(w) Its source has been found by many in the OT and in post-eanon. Jewish literature.
In Gn creation is attributed to the command or word of God, and this led to a quasi-personification of the divine word in later poetical descriptions of creation (Ps 335) and providence (Ps 1970 14715. 18 1488). Still more emphatically was revelation called ‘the word of the Lord,’ and hence such phrases occur as “the word of the Lord came,’ or even ‘the word which Isaiah saw’ (Is 2}, so Mic 11, Am 11), which tended to represent the divine utterance as a separate and continuous object, distinguishable from the spoken and written word. With this are to be joined the OT representations of ‘the angel of J”,’ or ‘of God,’ or ‘of the covenant’ (Gn 167-13 2117 1813 compared with 2 2211 947 SLL 18 3224. 80 (Hos 128-5) 4816, Ex 32-6 1419 9550. 23 3234, Jos 514-15 with 62, Jg 21 623 611. 21.22, Zec 112 31, Mal 31), who appears now identical with and now distinguished from God; as well as the apparent personifications of the divine ‘name’ (Ex 2321, 1 K $29, Is 3027, Ps 541, Jer 108, and perhaps Dt 125. 11.21 ete.) and ‘presence’ (Ex 3314, Dt 437 [ΒΥ], Is 639) and ‘glory’ (Ex 3313 (ct. v.20] 4054, 1 K 811), Certainly, some of these passages repre- sent J” as revealing Himself through a special personal organ, whether that be identified with a divine person or regarded as a created agent employed by such (see Oehler, O7' J'heol. § 60). That Heb. thought tended to conceive of the medium of revela- tion as personal is also shown by the description of ‘wisdom’ (722) in some of the later books (Job 2812-28, and especially Pr 82231), though it is doubtful if the language amounts to more than poetical personification. Heb. belief in a living God, in immediate relation to the world and to Israel, certainly called for no intermediate being in the interest of philosophy, and the approaches made in OT toward the idea of a second divine person appear chiefly in the special theophanies and other manifestations of God recorded in the history ; yet the descrip- tion of ‘wisdom,’ even in the canon. books, may fairly be regarded as constituting a phase in the development of the idea, The post-canon. writings carry the tendency further. In Sir (1. 24) wisdom is still more boldly personified and described as premundane, though created, and manifested in the world, especially in Israel and in the law. Other expressions, however (2414-23), show that the description is still partly poetical. The “Wisdom of Solomon’ approaches more nearly to attributing hypostatical existence to wisdom (see 725-27 ‘For she is a breath of the power of God anda pure effluence from the glory of the Almighty i therefore no defiled thing falls into her. For she is an cutahining: of the eternal light (ἀπαύγασμα φωτὸς ἀϊδίου), and 4n unspotted mirror of the efficiency of Godiand image (εἰκών) of His goodness,’ etc., 83-5 94. 9.11). and also speaks of God’s Word (Logos) as His agent in creation (91 ‘who didst make all things ty λόγω gov’) and in judgment (1815 ‘ Thine almighty word leaped down from heaven from thy royal throne, as a fierce man of
LOGUS
war in a land devoted to destruction, bearing thins unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword’). The influence of Alex- andrianism on this book is probable, and its conceptions move in a different direction from St. John's; but in the Targums a similar tendency appears in phraseology more akin to the apostle’s, This is shown in their frequent use of ‘Word’ πὰ Χο] in connexion with the name of God to express His agency (¢.g. Onkelos, Gn 38 ΝΣ a9an> ὈΠῸΝ TAI D Sem ayeyr ‘They heard the voice of the Word of the Lorp God walking in the garden’); Targum on Ps 24 pap FIT 1 Nw (‘The Word of the Lord shall have them in derision’). Other like expressions are also used,—3"7 NPI, NT NIP, 377 NDjDY,—the last of which was commonly applied to the visible presence of J” in the tabernacle (e.g. Onkelos, Ex 25 ‘I will make my Shechinah to dwell among them"). The Targums do not ip to have eae these epithets to the Messiah, though the application not lie far distant (6.5. Jerus. Targ. explains Gn 49)" of deliverance, ‘not through Samson or Gideon, but of the re- demption through thy Word’). Their usage perhaps arose from an unwillingness, which the canon. writers did not feel, to bring the Aoly God into immediate contact with men, and, therefore, easily allied itself with the felt need of a Mediator; while the terms employed lent themselves more readily to Johannean doctrine ian those of the Wisdom literature did.*