The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 25

Philo l!C&rcely pre~rves the ambiguity which it has in Pie.to and othe~ Greek wrltere, I ll has tbe mco.niug or "re&Bon," or Ao;-os l111iul.6,Tos, rather than "word," or Ao;-os "Po• .pop11cos, and when Philo referred oo the creative "Word," he used the other term ~1,µr,., or even II combination of the two, the Ao;-os-~1,µ,a. In Philo, the God who acts by the /1.o;-os is absolutely removed from all contact with the world, and thus is profoundly different from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ o.s displayed in the Fourth Gospel, and, more than this, the be.re idea of incarnation is abhorrent oo the Philonie.n metaphysics, The notions of God that Justin entertained are of the most supersensuous kind. He is unspeakable and unnamable, but he is almighty; he is "the Father of all"(' Dini.,' 10S); "the Maker of the whole" (ibid., c. 60); he is the provideutial Ruler of all (' Apo!.,' i. 15. 8), "merciful and gracious." Scrnral critics have drawn a series of contrasts between the positions of Philo Justin nnd "John," and particularly emphasized as Justin's doctrine the oriaination, c'onstitu: tinn, and begetting of the Logos in time, or at the creation of the world, rather than as a personal coexistent Deity " with God" before all worlds. The Logos (in Justin) is said to be a" second God"-" God because from God ( Verbum Deus, quia ea, Deo)." He is directly subordinate to the supreme Deity, bec..'\use derived. He is µ.o11o;-•v/is and .,,.pomwo,cos, o.nc. after the manifestation in man, after he was made man (;-l;-011•11 lb8pc,nr&s), and that then he is called i''"VflflD.. Also emphasis is laid upon the fact that, instead of the peculiar J ohannine phrase, 6 Ao,,os a-api i;-lv£To, Justin uses li116ponros instead of a-dp~ and a-ap,co.,,.01716,ls instead of a-&pi l;-l11ET0. However the idea of the incarnation of the Logos may have arisen, the mode of its expression is very closelfnllied, if not identical, in both writers. If Justin had been more alive to the teaching of Paul (whose letters must have been in general circulation long before Justin wrote), he might neither have shrunk from Paul's use of a-d.p£ in the sense of liv8ponros, nor called attention to the subordination of the Divine nature of Christ. However,'the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse alike lay emphasis upon the subordination of the Son, and seeing that the Son is the Only Begotten of the Father, and in the bosom of the Father before his incarnation, 11.oro:::E and TIO:::E are terms which, in the evangelist's mind essay to set forth the same immanent, eternal, and active relation of an hypostasis that is essen- tially one with God, though deri-;red from him. Furthermore, it is open to question whether Justin did designate the Logos as -Y•VJ/T/µa. in time. 'l'be passage to which many critics, anxious to sbnt off the influence of the Fourth Gospel from Justin refer, is 'DlaL cnm Trypho,' 62: "But this offspring (;-,11Vf1µ<1) which was put forth from the Father was with the Father before all created things (.,,.J,.,T.,,, ,,..,,, .,,.0,71µ&.n,,,)." The "offspring " was not an "attribute" of God, and Justin seeks to ahow that this Logos was the Person to whom God spake, saying, "Let us make man" (see 'Apo!.,' ii. c. 6). " His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Logos, being with God and being beaotten before his works, when in the beginning he created and set in order all things th;ougb him, is called Christ." Confused in expression, and capable of different inter-· pretations, this passage identifies the Son with the Logos, and discerus the Logos as actively accomplishing the creation of all things. He avows partially an agreement with Plato on these very lines in the 'Address oo the Greeks,' but the deviation from the great affirmations of John's prologue, in favour of Philo, cannot be proved. Dr. Davidson seeks to show that Justin's Christ is a portrait drawn from the synop- tist narrative or tradition; e.g. that Justin appears to regard our Lord's public ministry as lasting one year; that be represents Jesus as apprehended on the day of the Pass-: over; that be does not adduce passages from the prologue in proof of Christ's pre-, existence; and ignores the miracles of the Fourth Gospel, the sending of the Paraclete, and the great saying," A new commandment," etc. These observations are well worth pondering, but we might as well go through the whole Gospel with a similar string of, omission&. Take a similar rose: Because a writer of the present day quotes a poem of the commencement of the century, but does not refer 00 or appears in ignorance of many other of the same poet's productions, we are not, therefore, justified in concluding that the quotations that he does not make are proof of the non-existence of the said poetry at that date. The question here docs not turn on the accurate or scholarly use of the Fourth Gospel by Justin, but on the simple fact that be had seen it or read any portion of it.  'fllE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN'. xxbc