The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 151

strongly forced upon us. The strength and and thererore, 11.e we have seen, eternally in pocnliarity of the expression precludes the rel11.tion with God. The previous state- interpretation of some who see here simply ments are thue Atringently enforcer!, anrl, some "intuition in the Divine mind," or notwithete.nrling their tendency to divcr!:!e. that" the Word wae eterne.lly in the Divine a.re once more bonnd into a new nnified, anrl ple.n." There is relation between these two, emphe.tio utterance. Thus the' ab-r6r 0f the laying the foundations of all ethic in the following eentenr,es is charged with the na.ture and subsistence of Deity. Righteous- sublime fulnese of mennina which is involved ness nnd love a.re inconceivable perfections of in the three utterances or ver. I. The flr.,t an Eterna.l Mona.d. But if within the bosom clause (1) cleclared that the Loaos preceded of God there a.re a.fflrmations, hypostases the origination of all things, wa: the eternal in rele.tion with ee.ch other, the moral ne.ture ground of the world; the second (2) asserted of the Eterne.l ia assured. Philo's concep- his unique personality, so that he stands tion of Logos a.s " the sum total of all Divine over against the eternal God, in mutual energies made it possible for him to urge communion with the Absolute and Eternal the.t God, so far as he reveals himself, is One; the thircl clause (3) maintains further called Logos, and Logos, so far as he reveala that the Logos was not a second God. nor God, is called God" (Meyer). But this falls merely Divine (Eleior) or God-like, nor is he short of the J ohannine thought. The Logos described e.s proceeding out of or from God was with the God (ToJO 0,oJO)-was in relation ( i1t Eleov or &1ro e,ou), nor is he to be called with the Supreme and Absolute One, we.a in 6 0eos, "the God absolute,'' as opposed to all eternal communion with him. The notion his manifestations; bnt the Logos is said to of " Logos" limited to the mere revelation be 0,&s, i.e. "God "-God in his nature anrl of the Divine to the universe, or the being. This second verse reasserts the Media.tor or Archangel of the Divine counsels eternal relation of such a personality "with to men, is seen to be insufficient. The 1rpos God," and prepares the way for the state- -roJO 0,&v, implies communion e.s anterior to ments of the following verses. The unity of revelation. And the (Logos) Word wa.s the Logos and Theos might easily be snp- God. Though 0eos precedes the verb, yet posed to reduce the distinction between them the disposition of the article shows that it is to subjective relations. The second verae the predicate, and not the subject, of the emphasizes the objective validity of the re- sentence, The absence of the article is im- lation. portant. If 0eos he.d been written with the Vera. 3, 4.-{2) The creation of all things article, then the sentence would he.ve identi- through the Logos, as the instrument of the fied the Ao-yos e.nd 0eos, e.nd reduced the eternal counsel and activity of God. distinction expressed in the previous clause Ver. 3.-All things (,rdvTa., not -rcl: 'll'llVTa) to one the.t is purely modal or subjective. ta.ken one by one, rather than e.11 things re- Again, he does not se.y 0e,os, Divine, which, garded in their totality-" a.II things," i.e. all seeing the lofty dignity of the Logos, would beings e.nd elements of things visible or have been a violation of the eternal unity, invisible, in heaven, earth, e.nd under the e.nd he.ve corresponded with the lieuTEpos earth (see Col. i. 16, etc.), ea.me into being 0eos which Philo attributed to the Logos; through him, through the Logos, who was in but he says 0eos simply (not 0eov, accord- the beginning with God, and we.s God. The ing to Crellius, for which there is no justi- Logos is the organ or instrument by which fice.tion)-God in his nature, essence, e.nd everything, one by one, was marle. Two kind; God, i.e., e.s distinct from man, from other words a.re used in the New Testament angel, or from the lrnsmos itself. Thus the to denote "creation"-l<'Tf(e,v, used in Rev. iv. Son is not confounded with the Father, but 11 e.nd Col. i. 16, e. word indicating the mind declared to be of the ea.me obcrla., the se.me e.nd act of the Creator; and 1ro"w, which, ,p6cr,s. Though with God when God is re- e.s in Me.rk x. 6, points generally to the thing garded in all the fulness of his eterne.l made. The parts of the verb -y,-yveu8a, indi- being, he is nevertheless of the same order cate the progress of the work, the process of and kind e.nd substance. Luther translates some creative order, the occurrence of some the passage, " Gott we.r das W ort," but this event in the evolution of Divine providence. translation jars on the sublime symmetry This word does not by one solitary expres- of the whole pe.sse.ge, which is not concerned sion dogmatically convey the creative act, with definitions of God, but with revela- but the fiµ,t of the " becoming," from, it may tions concerning the Logos. be, the region of pure thought; to that of Ver. 2.-The same Logos whom the writer existence, Ol' from non-0bserve.tion into pro- he.a just affirmed to he.ve been God himself, minence, "" from an inchoate to e. perfect was, though it might seem e.t first reading development, or from nothing to something. to be incompatible with the first or third The conte'lt must determine the fulness of clause of the first verse, nevertheless in the its meaning. :Occasione.lly, e.s in eh. viii. 58, beginning with God-" in the bc<>;inning," it is powe,.fully controsted with existence: ~ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOIIN. [err. 1. 1-51.