The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 161

clitlone, the poesibilitiee, the temptnbleneee Inclusive of his entire humn.nity. Flesh of cre11tecl finite n11t,nre nre involved in it. 1 itself is not human flesh without the human It is ne11rly equivalent to e11ying 6.v8ponro<, t/,ux..f, nor can there be a human soul without generio mo.nhood, but it is more explicit human spirit. The two terms are used tho.n such a. dictum would have been. It interolian,::eably, and their functions are not is not so.id that the Word been.me a mnn, to he regarded as different factors of humanity o.lthough " became man " is the solemn o.nd so mucn as different departments of human suggestive form in which the great truth is activity. There is a. complete humanity, further expressed in tho N icmno-Constanti • therefore, included in this term, not o. nopolit11n'Oreed.• "The LogoB became fle8h." humanity destitute of one of its most charac- Thus it answers to numerous expressions in teristic features. But the question arises- the Pauline Epistle8, which must have been What is meant by e-yevtTo, .. became," " we.a hosed in the middle of the first century on me.de" ? A considerable number of modern the direct o.nd well-preserved teachings of Lutheran divines have laid such emphasiY our Lord himself (Rom. i. 3, r,116µ,,vos 1<aTi't. on the 1<evwu«, the" emptying" of his glory ud.p,ca: viii. 3, 'Ev 6µoufJµa-r, aap1tOs ltµap-rlas; on the pnrt of him who was •· in the form of 1 Tim. iii. 16, "Os l<J>a.11,p,M11 ~,, uap1tl; cf. God," that nothing short of an absolute Phil. ii. 7: Heh. ii. 14 : o.nd above all depotentie.tion of the Logos is supposed to 1 John iv. 2, where Jesus Christ, the centre have occurred when "he WBB made flesh" of whose personality is the Logos, and is or " me.n." Gess and Godet have pressed the there used in the most transcendent sense, theory that the e-y,11ero represents a com- is there spoken of ('111 uap1tl eJ\.71,\u86rn) e.s plete transubstantiation and metamorphosis. having come in the flesh). Very early in Thus Logos had been God from eternity, the Christological discussions, even so far but now, in the greatness or his humiliation, ho.ck as Pra.xeo.s whom Tertullian sought to he we.a no longer Logos at all, nor God, but refute, and by Apolline.ris tho younger, in fie,;h : so that during the time of the Incar- the fourth century, it was said that this natic,n the Logos was absolutely concealed, passo.ge asserted that, though the Logos took potential only, e.nd that even o. consciousness or became flesh, he did not become or take of his eternity and the Divine powers were upon himself the human 11oiis or ,r11eiiµ,a., the all in absolute abeyance. This hypothesia, reasono.ble soul or spirit of man, but that the on both its Divine o.nd human side, appears Logos took the place in Jesus of the mind to us hopelessly unthinkable. If the Logos or spirit. Apollino.risexplained, in vindica- was no longer Logos, o.nd the Godhead th11S tion of hie view, the.Hhus Christ was neither ineffably trnncated, the very o.rgnment of God nor ma.n, but a blending of the two the apostle that in him wBB life and light,etc., natures into a new e.nd third nature, neither must break down. The Eources of life and one nor the other. This view we.a stoutly light must have been themselves in eclipse, resisted by Athan~siue e.nd Basil. and God himself we.s no longer God. More- 1t reappeared in the fifth century, in the form over, the hypothetical obliteration of the of Eutychie.nism, to do duty against the two- Logos would deprive the whole argument fold Christ of N estorianism. The opponents of the npostle for the Divineness nnd God- of Praxeas, Apolline.ris, and Eutyches were head of the Lord of its basis in fact. There all fa.in to show that the Gospel of John o.re many different forms in which this mean- calls mo.rked attention to the human soul of ing of the l-y<v<To is urged, but they e.11 break Jesus (eh. xii. 27) and of his humo.n spirit to pieces upon the revelation of the self. (eh. xi. 33: xiii. 21 ; xix. 30), to se.y nothing consciousness of Jesus Christ, the Divine of Heh. v. 8, where "he learned obedience," memories and awful centre of his personality, eto. The flesh of Christ is constitutive o.nd in which the nature of the Godhead and the perfect nature of manhood are blended in 1 Dr. J e.mieson, 'Profound Problems in one personality. Moreover, the J-yeveTo does Theology, Philosophy' (188-1), bas laboured not imply cmnihile.tion of the Ao-yor, or tro.n- bud, wilhout success, to identify "flesh" subst11ntie.tion of A&,,os into ud.p{. When the with "sin,'' o.nd to rego.rd this po.sso.ge 11.S wo.ter we.s me.de (-y.-ye111171µ,evov) wine, the equivalent to" He mo.de him to be sin for water we.s not obliterated, but it took up by us," eto. (cf. the Baird Lecture of Dr. Dick- the creative power of Christ other substances son on St. Paul's use of the words "flesh" into itself, constituting it wine. So when o.nd "spirit," 1883). the A&,,os bece.me "flesh," he took up 2 In the origine.l Oreed of C!llsareo., the humanity with e.11 its powers and conditions ho.sis of the Nicene Creed, we have ua.p1<0,8t11Te& into himself, constituting himself "the only; in the eo.rlier Oreed of Jerusalem Christ." The question o.rises-Wherein was J11e&1•9po,rl,ua.vTa. we.a ndded, e.nd both terms the humiliation and the kenosis, if the Loges are found in the Niceno, Constantinopolitan, throughout the inoame.te life of Christ, e.s e.nd Che.loedonian formullll (see F. Hort's a Person, poBBessed e.nd exercised e.11 his • Two Disserlo.tions,' pp. 188-150). Divine energies? The 1mswer is, that, in •onN. 0  18 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING 'l'O S'l'. JOHN. [oa. I, 1-61.