John 1:1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ] John makes the beginning of his Gospel parallel with that of Genesis;[61] but he rises above the historical conception of בְּרֵאשִׁית, which (Genesis 1:1) includes the beginning of time itself, to the absolute conception of anteriority to time: the creation is something subsequent, John 1:3. Proverbs 8:23, ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ ΠΡῸ ΤΟῦ ΤῊΝ ΓῆΝ ΠΟΙῆΣΑΙ, is parallel; likewise, ΠΡῸ ΤΟῦ ΤῸΝ ΚΌΜΟΝ ΕἾΝΑΙ, John 17:5; ΠΡῸ ΚΑΤΑΒΟΛῆς ΚΌΣΜΟΥ, Ephesians 1:4. Comp. Nezach Israel, f. 48, 1 : Messias erat מפני חוהו (ante Tohu). The same idea we find already in the book of Enoch 48:3 f., 48:6 f., 62:7,—a book which (against Hilgenfeld and others) dates back into the second century B.C. (Dilm., Ewald, and others). The notion, in itself negative, of anteriority to time (ἄχρονος ἦν, ἀκίχητος, ἐν ἀῤῥήτῳ λόγος ἀρχῇ, Nonnus), is in a popular way affirmatively designated by the ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ as “primeval;” the more exact dogmatic definition of the ἀρχή as “eternity” (Theodor. Mopsuest., Euthym. Zig.; comp. Theophylact) is a correct development of John’s meaning, but not strictly what he himself says. Comp. 1 John 1:1; Revelation 3:14. The Valentinian notion, that ἀρχή was a divine Hypostasis distinct from the Father and the ΛΌΓΟς (Iren. Haer. i. 8. 5), and the Patristic view, that it was the divine σοφία

[61] See Hoelemann, de evangelii Joh. introitu introitus Geneseos augustiore effigie, Leipsic 1855, p. 26 ff.

(Origen) or the everlasting Father (Cyril. Al.), rest upon speculations altogether unjustified by correct exegesis.[62]

ἦν] was present, existed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the λόγος (John 1:14). But he does not say, “In the beginning the ΛΌΓΟς came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. μονογενής) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Colossians 1:15.

Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς] the Word; for the reference to the history of the creation leaves room for no other meaning (therefore not Reason). John assumes that his readers understand the term, and, notwithstanding its great importance, regards every additional explanation of it as superfluous. Hence those interpretations fall of themselves to the ground, which are unhistorical, and imply anything of a quid pro quo, such as (1) that ὁ λόγος is the same as Ὁ ΛΕΓΌΜΕΝΟς, “the promised one” (Valla, Beza, Ernesti, Tittm., etc.); (2) that it stands for ὁ λέγων, “the speaker” (Storr, Eckerm., Justi, and others). Not less incorrect (3) is Hofmann’s interpretation (Schriftbeweis, I. 1, p. 109 f.): “ὁ λόγος is the word of God, the Gospel, the personal subject of which however, namely Christ, is here meant:” against which view it is decisive, first, that neither in Revelation 19:13, nor elsewhere in the N. T., is Christ called ὁ λόγος merely as the subject—matter of the word; secondly, that in John, ὁ λόγος, without some additional definition, never once occurs as the designation of the Gospel, though it is often so used by Mark (John 2:2, John 4:14, al.), Luke (John 1:2; Acts 11:19, al.), and Paul (Galatians 6:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:6); thirdly, that in the context, neither here (see especially John 1:14) nor in 1 John 1:1 (see especially ὃ ἑωράκαμεν … καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν) does it seem allowable to depart in Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς from the immediate designation of the personal subject,[63] while this immediate designation, i.e. of the creative Word, is in our passage, from the obvious parallelism with the history of the creation, as clear and definite as it was appropriate it should be at the very commencement of the work. These reasons also tell substantially against the turn which Luthardt has given to Hofmann’s explanation: “ὁ λόγος is the word of God, which in Christ, Hebrews 1:1, has gone forth into the world, and the theme of which was His own person.” See, on the other hand, Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 206 ff.; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeit. p. 215; Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 116; Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p. 466. The investigation of the Logos idea can only lead to a true result when pursued by the path of history. But here, above all, history points us to the O. T.,[64] and most directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking. The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the revelation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hidden, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy. A way was thus paved for the hypostatizing of the λόγος as a further step in the knowledge of the relations in the divine essence; but this advance took place gradually, and only after the captivity, so that probably the oriental doctrine of emanations, and subsequently the Pythagorean-platonic philosophy, were not without influence upon what was already given in germ in Genesis 1. Another form of the conception, however, appears,—not the original one of the Word, but one which was connected with the advanced development of ethical and teleological reflection and the needs of the Theodicy,—that of wisdom (חָבְמָה), of which the creative word was an expression, and which in the book of Job (Job 28:12 ff.) and Proverbs (Proverbs 8, 9), in Sir 1:1-10; Sir 24:8, and Bar 3:37 to Bar 4:4, is still set forth and depicted under the form of a personification, yet to such a degree that the portrayal more closely approaches that of the Hypostasis, and all the more closely the less it is able to preserve the elevation and boldness characteristic of the ancient poetry. The actual transition of the ΣΟΦΊΑ into the Hypostasis occurs in the book of Wis 7:7-11, where wisdom (manifestly under the influence of the idea of the Platonic soul of the world, perhaps also of the Stoic conception of an all-pervading world-spirit) appears as a being of light proceeding essentially from God,—the true image of God, co-occupant of the divine throne,—a real and independent principle revealing God in the world (especially in Israel), and mediating between it and Him, after it has, as His organ, created the world, in association with a spirit among whose many predicates ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΈς[65] also is named, John 7:22. The divine λόγος also appears again in the book of Wis 9:1, comp. Wis 9:2, but only in the O. T. sense of a poetically personified declaration of God’s will, either in blessing (John 16:12, comp. Psalm 107:20) or in punishing (John 18:15). See especially Grimm, in locc.; Bruch, Weisheitslehre d. Hebr, p. 347 ff. Comp. also Sir 43:33. While, then, in the Apocrypha the Logos representation retires before the development of the idea of wisdom,[66] it makes itself the more distinctly prominent in the Chaldee Paraphrasts, especially Onkelos: see Gfrörer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth. I. 1, p. 301 ff.; Winer, De Onkel. p. 44 f.; Anger, De Onkel. II. 1846. The Targums, the peculiarities of which rest on older traditions, exhibit the Word of God, מֵימְרָא or דִּבּוּרָא, as the divinely revealing Hypostasis, identical with the שְׁבִינָה which was to be revealed in the Messiah. Comp. Schoettg. Hor. II. p. 5; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 121. Thus there runs through the whole of Judaism, and represented under various forms (comp. especially the מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה in the O. T. from Genesis 16, Exodus 23 downwards, frequently named, especially in Hosea, Zechariah, and Malachi, as the representative of the self-revealing God), the idea that God never reveals Himself directly, but mediately, that is, does not reveal His hidden invisible essence, but only a manifestation of Himself (comp. especially Exodus 33:12-23); and this idea, modified however by Greek and particularly Platonic and Stoic speculation, became a main feature in the Judaeo-Alexandrine philosophy, as this is set forth in PHILO, one of the older contemporaries of Jesus. See especially Gfrörer, I. 243 ff.; Dähne, Jüdisch-Alex. Religionsphil. I. 114 ff.; Grossmann, Quaestion. Philon., Lpz. 1829; Scheffer, Quaest. Phil. Marb. 1829, 1831; Keferstein, Philo’s Lehre von dem göttl. Mittelwesen, Lpz. 1846; Ritter, Gesch. d. Philos. IV. 418 ff.; Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, III. 2; Lutterb. neut. Lehrbegr. I. 418 ff.; Müller in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. 484; Ewald, apost. Zeit. 257; Delitzsch in d. Luther. Zeitschr. 1863, ii. 219; Riehm, Hebr. Brief, p. 249; Keim, Gesch. J.I. 212. Comp. also Langen, d. Judenth. z. Zeit Christi, 1867; Röhricht as formerly quoted. According to the intellectual development, so rich in its results, which Philo gave to the received Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, the Logos is the comprehension or sum-total of all the divine energies, so far as these are either hidden in the Godhead itself, or have come forth and been disseminated in the world (λόγος σπερματικός). As immanent in God, containing within itself the archetypal world, which is conceived as the real world—ideal (ΝΟΗΤῸς ΚΌΣΜΟς), it is, while not yet outwardly existing, like the immanent reason in men, the ΛΌΓΟς ἘΝΔΙΆΘΕΤΟς; but when in creating the world it has issued forth from God, it answers to the ΛΌΓΟς ΠΡΟΦΟΡΙΚΌς, just as among men the word when spoken is the manifestation of thought. Now the ΛΌΓΟς ΠΡΟΦΟΡΙΚΌς is the comprehension or sum-total of God’s active relations to the world; so that creation, providence, the communication of all physical and moral power and gifts, of all life, light, and wisdom from God, are its work, not being essentially different in its attributes and workings from ΣΟΦΊΑ and the Divine Spirit itself. Hence it is the image of the Godhead, the eldest and first-begotten (ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΑΤΟς, ΠΡΩΤΌΓΟΝΟς) Son of God, the possessor of the entire divine fulness, the Mediator between 21 ΛΌΓΟς ΤΟΜΕΎς, ΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓΌς, ἈΡΧΙΕΡΕΎς, ἹΚΈΤΗς, ΠΡΕΣΒΕΥΤΉς, the ἈΡΧΆΓΓΕΛΟς, the ΔΕΎΤΕΡΟς ΘΕΌς, the substratum of all Theophanies, also the Messiah, though ideally apprehended only as a Theophany, not as a concrete humanized personality; for an incarnation of the Logos is foreign to Philo’s system (see Ewald, p. 284 ff.; Dorner, Entwickelungsgesch. I. 50). There is no doubt that Philo has often designated and described the Logos as a Person, although, where he views it rather as immanent in God, he applies himself more to describe a power, and to present it as an attribute. There is, however, no real ground for inferring, with some (Keferst., Zeller), from this variation in his representation, that Philo’s opinion wavered between personality and impersonality; rather, as regards the question of subsistence in its bearing upon Philo’s Logos (see especially Dorner, Entwickelungsgesch. I. 21; Niedner, de subsistentia τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ apud Philon. tribute, in the Zeitsch. f. histor. Theol. 1849, p. 337 ff.; and Hölemann, de evang. Joh. introitu, etc., p. 39 ff.), must we attribute to him no separation between the subsistence of God and the Logos, as if there came forth a Person distinct from God, whenever the Logos is described as a Person; but, “ea duo, in quibus cernitur ΤΟῦ ὌΝΤΟς ΚΑῚ ΖῶΝΤΟς ΘΕΟῦ essentia s. deitas plenum esse per suam ipsius essentiam et implere cuncta hac sua essentia, primo diserte uni substantiae tribuuntur, deinde distribuuntur, sed tantum inter essentiam et hujus actionem, quemadmodum nomina ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ et ΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΥ hujus ipsius dei” (Niedner). Accordingly, Philo’s conception of the Logos resolves itself into the sum-total and full exercise of the divine energies; so that God, so far as He reveals Himself, is called Logos, while the Logos, so far as he reveals God, is called God. That John owed his doctrine of the Logos—in which he represents the divine Messianic being as pre-existent, and entering into humanity in a human form—solely to the Alexandrine philosophy, is an assertion utterly arbitrary, especially considering the difference between Philo’s doctrine and that of John, not only in general (comp. also Godet, I. 233), but also in respect to the subsistence of the Logos in particular.[67] The form which John gave to his doctrine is understood much more naturally and historically thus, without by any means excluding the influence of the Alexandrine Gnosis upon the apostle;—that while the ancient popular wisdom of the Word of God, which (as we have above shown) carries us back to Genesis 1:1, is acknowledged to be that through which the idea of the Logos, as manifested in human form in Christ, was immediately suggested to him, and to which he appended and unfolded his own peculiar development of this idea with all clearness and spiritual depth, according to the measure of those personal testimonies of his Lord which his memory vividly retained, he at the same time allowed the widespread Alexandrine speculations, so similar in their origin and theme, to have due influence upon him, and used[68] them in an independent manner to assist his exposition of the nature and working of the divine in Christ, fully conscious of their points of difference (among which must be reckoned the cosmological dualism of Philo, which excluded any real incarnation, and made God to have created the world out of the ὕλη). Whether he adopted these speculations for the first time while dwelling in Asia Minor, need not be determined, although it is in itself very conceivable that the longer he lived in Asia, the more deeply did he penetrate into the Alexandrine theologoumenon which prevailed there, without any intermediate agency on the part of Apollos being required for that end (Tobler). The doctrine is not, however, on account of this connection with speculations beyond the pale of Christendom, by any means to be traced back to a mere fancy of the day. The main truth in it (the idea of the Son of God and His incarnation) had, long before he gave it its peculiar form, been in John’s mind the sole foundation of his faith, and the highest object of his knowledge; and this was no less the case with Paul and all the other apostles, though they did not formally adopt the Logos doctrine, because their idiosyncrasies and the conditions of their after development were different. That main truth in it is to be referred simply to Christ Himself, whose communications to His disciples, and direct influence upon them (John 1:14), as well as His further revelations and leadings by means of the Spirit of truth, furnished them with the material which was afterwards made use of in their various modes of representation. This procedure is specially apparent also in John, whose doctrine of the divine and pre-existent nature of Christ, far removed from the influences of later Gnosticism, breaks away in essential points from the Alexandrine type of doctrine, and moulds itself in a different shape, especially rejecting, in the most decided manner, all dualistic and docetic elements, and in general treating the form once chosen with the independence of an apostle. That idea of a revelation by God of His own essence, which took its rise from Genesis 1, which lived and grew under various forms and names among the Hebrews and later Jews, but was moulded in a peculiar fashion by the Alexandrine philosophy, was adopted by John for the purpose of setting forth the abstract divinity of the Son,—thus bringing to light the reality which lies at the foundation of the Logos idea. Hence, according to John,[69] by ὁ λόγος, which is throughout viewed by him (as is clear from the entire Prologue down to John 1:18)[70] under the conception of a personal[71] subsistence, we must understand nothing else than the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God (comp. Paul, Colossians 1:15John 1:1-5. The Logos described. The first five verses describe the pre-existence, the nature, the creative power of the Logos, who in the succeeding verses is spoken of as entering the world, becoming man, and revealing the Father; and this description is given in order that we may at once grasp a continuous history which runs out of an unmeasured past, and the identity of the person who is the subject of that history.1–5. The Word in His own Nature

1. In the beginning] The meaning must depend on the context. In Genesis 1:1 it is an act done ‘in the beginning;’ here it is a Being existing ‘in the beginning,’ and therefore prior to all beginning. That was the first moment of time; this is eternity, transcending time. Thus we have an intimation that the later dispensation is the confirmation and infinite extension of the first. ‘In the beginning’ here equals ‘before the world was,’ John 17:5. Compare John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; and contrast ‘the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,’ Mark 1:1, which is the historical beginning of the public ministry of the Messiah (John 6:64): ‘the beginning’ here is prior to all history. To interpret ‘Beginning’ of God as the Origin of all things is not correct, as the context shews.

was] Not ‘came into existence,’ but was already in existence before the creation of the world. The generation of the Word or Son of God is thus thrown back into eternity. Thus S. Paul calls Him (Colossians 1:15) ‘the firstborn of every creature,’ or (more accurately translated) ‘begotten before all creation,’ like ‘begotten before all worlds’ in the Nicene creed. Comp. Hebrews 1:8; Hebrews 7:3; Revelation 1:8. On these passages is based the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son: see Articles of Religion, i. and ii. The Arians maintained that there was a period when the Son was not: S. John says distinctly that the Son or Word was existing before time began, i.e. from all eternity.

the Word] As early as the second century Sermo and Verbum were rival translations of the Greek term Logos = Word. Tertullian (fl. a.d. 195–210) gives us both, but seems himself to prefer Ratio. Sermo first became unusual, and finally was disallowed in the Latin Church. The Latin versions all adopted Verbum, and from it comes our translation, ‘the Word.’

None of these translations are at all adequate: but neither Latin nor any modern language supplies anything really satisfactory. Verbum and ‘the Word’ do not give the whole of even one of the two sides of Logos: the other side, which Tertullian tried to express by Ratio, is not touched at all; for ὁ λόγος means not only ‘the spoken word,’ but ‘the thought’ expressed by the spoken word; it is the spoken word as expressive of thought. It is not found in the N.T. in the sense of ‘reason.’

The expression Logos is a remarkable one; all the more so, because S. John assumes that his readers will at once understand it. This shews that his Gospel was written in the first instance for his own disciples, who would be familiar with his teaching and phraseology.

Whence did S. John derive the expression, Logos? It has its origin in the Targums, or paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures, in use in Palestine, rather than in the mixture of Jewish and Greek philosophy prevalent at Alexandria and Ephesus, as is very commonly asserted.

(1). In the Old Testament we find the Word or Wisdom of God personified, generally as an instrument for executing the Divine Will. We have a faint trace of it in the ‘God said’ of Genesis 1:3; Genesis 1:6; Genesis 1:9; Genesis 1:11; Genesis 1:14, &c. The personification of the Word of God begins to appear in the Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 119:89; Psalm 147:15. In Proverbs 8, 9 the Wisdom of God is personified in very striking terms. This Wisdom is manifested in the power and mighty works of God; that God is love is a revelation yet to come. (2) In the Apocrypha the personification is more complete than in O.T. In Ecclesiasticus (c. b. c. 150–100) Sir 1:1-20, Sir 24:1-22, and in the Book of Wisdom (c. b. c. 100) Wis 6:22 to Wis 9:18 we have Wisdom strongly personified. In Wis 18:15 the ‘Almighty Word’ of God appears as an agent of vengeance. (3) In the Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of O.T., the development is carried still further. These, though not yet written down, were in common use among the Jews in our Lord’s time; and they were strongly influenced by the growing tendency to separate the Godhead from immediate contact with the material world. Where Scripture speaks of a direct communication from God to man, the Targums substituted the Memra, or ‘Word of God.’ Thus in Genesis 3:8-9, instead of ‘they heard the voice of the Lord God,’ the Targums have ‘they heard the voice of the Word of the Lord God;’ and instead of ‘God called unto Adam,’ they put ‘the Word of the Lord called unto Adam,’ and so on. ‘The Word of the Lord’ is said to occur 150 times in a single Targum of the Pentateuch. In the theosophy of the Alexandrine Jews, which was a compound of theology with philosophy and mysticism, we seem to come nearer to a strictly personal view of the Divine Word or Wisdom, but really move further away from it. Philo, the leading representative of this religious speculation (fl. a.d. 40–50), admitted into his philosophy very various, and not always harmonious elements. Consequently his conception of the Logos is not fixed or clear. On the whole his Logos means some intermediate agency, by means of which God created material things and communicated with them. But whether this Logos is one Being or more, whether it is personal or not, we cannot be sure; and perhaps Philo himself was undecided. Certainly his Logos is very different from that of S. John; for it is scarcely a Person, and it is not the Messiah. And when we note that of the two meanings of Λόγος, Philo dwells most on the side which is less prominent, while the Targums insist on that which is more prominent in the teaching of S. John, we cannot doubt the source of his language. The Logos of Philo is preeminently the Divine Reason. The Memra of the Targums is rather the Divine Word; i.e. the Will of God manifested in personal action; and this rather than a philosophical abstraction of the Divine Intelligence is the starting point of S. John’s expression.

To sum up:—the personification of the Divine Word in O.T. is poetical, in Philo metaphysical, in S. John historical. The Apocrypha and Targums help to fill the chasm between O.T. and Philo; history itself fills the far greater chasm which separates all from S. John. Between Jewish poetry and Alexandrine speculation on the one hand, and the Fourth Gospel on the other, lies the historical fact of the Incarnation of the Logos, the life of Jesus Christ.

The Logos of S. John, therefore, is not a mere attribute of God, but the Son of God, existing from all eternity, and manifested in space and time in the Person of Jesus Christ. In the Logos had been hidden from eternity all that God had to say to man; for the Logos was the living expression of the nature, purposes, and Will of God. (Comp. the impersonal designation of Christ in 1 John 1:1.) Human thought had been searching in vain for some means of connecting the finite with the Infinite, of making God intelligible to man and leading man up to God. S. John knew that he possessed the key to this enigma. He therefore took the phrase which human reason had lighted on in its gropings, stripped it of its misleading associations, fixed it by identifying it with the Christ, and filled it with that fulness of meaning which he himself had derived from Christ’s own teaching.

with God] i.e. with the Father. ‘With’ = apud, or the French chez: it expresses the distinct Personality of the Logos. We might render ‘face to face with God,’ or ‘at home with God.’ So, ‘His sisters, are they not all with us?’ Matthew 13:56; comp. Mark 6:3; Mark 9:19; Mark 14:49; 1 Corinthians 16:7; Galatians 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 3:4; Philemon 1:13; 1 John 1:2.

the Word was God] i.e. the Word partook of the Divine Nature, not was identical with the Divine Person. The verse may be thus paraphrased, ‘the Logos existed from all eternity, distinct from the Father, and equal to the Father.’ Comp. ‘neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.’

Chap. John 1:1-18. The Prologue or Introduction

That the first eighteen verses are introductory is universally admitted: commentators are not so unanimous as to the main divisions of this introduction. A division into three nearly equal parts has much to commend it:

1.  The Word in His own Nature (John 1:1-5).

2.  His Revelation to men and rejection by them (John 1:6-13).

3.  His Revelation of the Father (John 1:14-18).

Some throw the second and third part into one, thus:

2.  The historical manifestation of the Word (John 1:6-18).

Others again divide into two parts thus:

1.  The Word in His absolute eternal Being (John 1:1).

2.  The Word in relation to Creation (John 1:2-18).

And there are other schemes besides these. In any scheme the student can scarcely fail to feel that the first verse is unique. Throughout the prologue the three great characteristics of this Gospel, simplicity, subtlety, and sublimity, are specially conspicuous; and the majesty of the first verse surpasses all. The Gospel of the Son of Thunder opens with a peal.John 1:1. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God) This is the thunder brought down to us by a “Son of Thunder;”[2] this is a voice from heaven, which man’s conjecturing in vain starts objections against. By no reasoning of his could any orthodox believer better establish the truth of this palmary [capital] text, or more effectually refute Artemonism, than has Artemon’s[3] modern follower himself, i.e. Samuel Crellius, whilst maintaining throughout the whole of his book, which he has entitled, “The Beginning of the Gospel of John restored according to ecclesiastical antiquity,” that, instead of Θεός, there ought to be written Θεοῦ. His whole system, both in the foundation and the superstructure, is mere conjecture: and the more I call to mind the contexture of his reasonings, the more I feel confirmed in the truth, which has been assailed by this foremost veteran of Unitarianism on such trifling grounds. To avow this again and again, I regard as the part of piety. In my Introduction [‘Apparatus’], page 559, line 11, there has crept in by mistake, “if you read Θεοῦ” [si Θεοῦ legas], whereas the thing speaks for itself, that it ought to have been written, “if you read Θεός” [si Θεός legas]. The easier such a lapse is, the more ought we to follow the steady agreement of all the transcribers, who happily retain the reading Θεός. The book of Artemonius contains two parts, the first of which is more of a critical character; the second, which is furnished with four Dissertations, more refers to the subject itself. The former we have of course examined in the Critical Introduction; whereas the second is a subject for the Gnomon, in which, as we stated in the Introduction, we would discuss Artemonius’ views, independently of the mere critical point of view. For in truth the divine honour of our God and Saviour is at stake; and this citadel of the Christian faith is every day more and more assailed; and this book of Artemonius (which is pronounced in the Biblioth. Angl., T. xv., p. 539, to be one of the weightiest of this class ever published) finds more numerous readers than is desirable. We shall therefore take the five or six first verses of John 1, and we shall make on them such remarks as are applicable, not merely for the refutation of Artemonius, but also for the explanation of John.—ἐν ἀρχῇ in principio) John’s style, especially in this passage, is pre-eminent for its simplicity, nicety [acute refinement, ‘subtilitas’], and sublimity. The Beginning here means that time, when all things began to be and were created by the Word, John 1:3. Ἐν ἀρχῇ, he says; that is, In the beginning, as the Septuagint Greek version of Genesis 1:1, and Proverbs 8:23. That by The Beginning in this passage no more recent time is meant, is proved by the whole series of things in the context; for the beginning of the Gospel [which some allege is meant here] was made, when John the Baptist went forth preaching, Mark 1:1 : but the ‘Beginning,’ which is here spoken of, is more ancient than the Incarnation of the Word. In like manner, none is higher [goes further back]. In the beginning of the heaven and the earth, God created the heaven and the earth: in the same beginning of the heaven and the earth, and of the world, John 1:10, already, the Word was in existence, without any beginning or commencement of itself. The Word itself is purely eternal; for it is in the same manner that the eternity of the Word and of the Father is described. He was, at the time when first were made whatsoever things began to be. Artemonius maintained that it is the beginning of the Gospel which is meant by John; and he thus explains the verse: in the beginning of the Gospel was the Word; and the Word, through His first ascension to heaven, was, in the same beginning, with God, etc. [Socinians have invented the figment of Jesus having ascended, to heaven for instruction before entering on His prophetic office.] This explanation he attempts to give colour to, by the authority of some of the ancients, Photinus, and such like. We shall examine his arguments. He lays it down, that the first epistle of John was written before his Gospel; and that the beginning of his Epistle is vindicated from the perversions of Cerinthus, by the beginning of his Gospel. Thence he infers, that the ‘Beginning,’ 1 John 2:13, etc., is the beginning of Gospel-preaching; and accordingly, that in ch. John 1:1 of the same Ep., and in ch. John 1:1 of his Gospel, ‘beginning’ is used in the same sense.—Part ii. c. 13. First [in answer we observe], John certainly wrote the Gospel before the destruction of Jerusalem, as we show at ch. John 5:2. Even Artemonius cannot assert this of the Epistle. The Gospel teaches the truth, ch. John 20:31. The Epistle goes further and refutes errors, and indicates that a great turn in affairs had taken place. John wrote the Gospel, according to the testimony of Irenæu[4] [PROVIDENS blasphemas regulas quæ dividunt Dominum], FORESEEING the blasphemous systems which rend the Lord’s body.—B. iii. c. 18. Such at least was the system even of Cerinthus, which Irenæu[5] pronounces to be not older than the Gospel of John, when, B. iii. c. 11, he says, that in the Gospel of John is refuted THE ERROR WHICH WAS DISSEMINATED [“inseminatus erat”] AMONG MEN BY CERINTHUS, AND MUCH EARLIER BY THE NICOLAITANS [errorem, qui a Cerintho et MULTO PRIUS a Nicolaitis inseminatus erat hominibus]. For the translator, whose authority otherwise is justly entitled to support, readily made a pluperfect “inseminatus erat” out of the Greek past participle, which is found in the fragments of Irenæu[6] collected out of Greek fathers of later ages. A comparison of chapter 11 with chapter 18, both of which we have here quoted in the author’s very words, will import the force of the tense to be perfect, rather than pluperfect. Certainly Irenæu[7] has not a word as to any perversion [alleged by Artemonius] of John’s Epistle by Cerinthus: and he himself, B. iii. c. 18, has so woven together quotations of the Gospel and of the Epistle, as to imply no obscure recognition of the fact, that the Gospel was written before the Epistle. Accordingly, as Peter condemned mockers, and Paul apostates, so John in his Gospel has condemned the false teachers about to arise; and in his Epistle, when they had actually come, he more openly stigmatized them. Thus we have shown that at least the foundation on which Artemonius builds so much, viz. the theory of the Epistle having been written before the Gospel, is uncertain conjecture; though it does not much concern our side of the question which of the two works was first in point of time. Not even in the Epistle itself is ‘Beginning’ always used in one signification: nay, in the opening of the Epistle, ‘Beginning’ is used absolutely, the beginning of all things, of heaven and earth; and so also in the opening of the Gospel. This is the only difference, that in the latter it is expressed, “In the beginning;” in the former, “From the beginning.” Artemonius, P. ii. c. 18, supposes that Cerinthus, who had perverted the words, “From the beginning,” is more expressly refuted by the words, “In the beginning;” but the Valentinians perverted the words, “In the beginning,” in just the same manner. It would be a more simple explanation to say, that “In the beginning” is rather used absolutely; “From the beginning” relatively, in this sense, In the beginning and thenceforward. In that beginning was the Word, in such a way, as that also before the beginning the Word was. See Proverbs 8:22, etc., “The Lord possessed me In the beginning of His way, before His works of old: I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was;” where mem, set down [occurring] four times in the Heb., the Septuagint render, at least in the second and fourth place of its occurrence, πρό, and rightly so (although Artem. Diss. i. stoutly denies it): for in the passage there follow in parallel correspondence, באין πρό, בטרם πρό, לפני πρό, עד לא. See below, John 1:30, ch. John 3:13, John 6:62, John 8:58, John 17:5; John 17:24 [all proving His pre-existence with the Father]. Artemonius, page 76, and everywhere throughout his book, urges that Justin Martyr was the first who taught that Jesus was the Son of God, before that the world was made. But the truth is, Justin praises that doctrine as new, not that it was recently invented, but because it was unknown to Trypho, and such like persons. We will bring forward in this place the single testimony of Ignatius, who, in his Ep. to the Magnesians, § 8, says, εἷς Θεός ἐστιν ὁ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Υἰοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὅς ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ΛΟΓΟΣ ΑΙΔΙΟΣ, οὖκ ἀπὸ σιγῆς προελθών. “There is one God, who manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, Who is the Eternal Word of Himself, not having come forth from silence” [i.e. Always having been The Word]. The objections, by which Artemonius tries to turn aside the force of this passage, P. ii. ch. 36, etc., are so far-fetched, that their effect ought to be, not to carry away the reader with them, but to confirm him in the truth.—ἦν, was) Not, was made. See the difference of the words marked, John 1:10; John 1:14-15, ch. John 8:58. The Father also is called ὁ ὤν, κ.τ.λ., Revelation 1:4. The Word was before the world was made, in which He afterwards was, John 1:10.—Ὁ ΛΌΓΟς) Speech [sermo], Word [Verbum]; it is also found written in Latin, Logos: see notes on Gregor. Thaum. Paneg., § 50.[8] That Logos, of whom John 1:14 speaks. Whence is it that John calls Him The Word? From the beginning of his first Epistle, says Artemonius, P. ii. ch. 14 and 19. More rightly, as is plain from what was said above, the expression may be regarded as derived [copied] from the Gospel into the Epistle. In both writings he uses the term Logos before he comes to the appellation of Jesus Christ. But he so terms Him, not copying Philo, much less Plato; but by the same Spirit which taught the inspired authors of the Old Testament so to express themselves. See Genesis 1:3; Psalm 33:6, “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth,” where the Septuagint has τῷ λόγῳ Κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν: Psalm 107:20, “He sent His word,” ἀπέστειλε τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ. Hence the very frequent appellation, The Word of God, in the Chaldaic Paraphrase: also Wis 16:12; Wis 18:15. The one and the same mystery in the Old and in the New Testament is expressed in similar terms. God is a Spirit, or eternal Mind: the Son of God is the Logos, the inmost, and yet at the same time the most fully manifested [exsertissimum, the most fully put forth] Word of the eternal Mind. He who spiritually knows the spiritual nature of God, knows also the spiritual nature of His Word: and understands why He is also called the Word, before He is called the Light and the Life; see 1 John 1:1, etc. Hence just as often the apostles, speaking of Christ, contradistinguish flesh and spirit; So He, whom John terms Logos, the same is termed by Clemens Romanus, a father of the Apostolic age, Spirit, εἷς Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὢν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σὰρξ, κ.τ.λ.: that is, The one Lord Christ, who hath saved us, although previously He was Spirit, yet was made flesh, etc.; which passage the objections of Artemonius, P. ii. ch. 44, etc., cannot rob us of. The Logos is He, whom the Father has begotten, or spoken, as His only-begotten Son, by Whom the Father speaking makes all things; who speaks of the things of the Father to us. The reason why He is called Logos, and the actual Description of what is the Logos, is given, John 1:18. He is the only-begotten Son of God, who was in the bosom of the Father, and acted most expressively the part of His Exponent [exegetam egit, the Declarer of Him, John 1:18, ἐξηγήσατο]. The idea in this clause receives additional emphasis and clearness from the two clauses that follow in this verse.—πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, with God) Therefore distinct [in personality] from the Father. Πρός for παρά [Latin apud, French chez], as εἰς for ἐν, John 1:18, denotes a perpetual, as it were, tendency of the Son to the Father in the unity of essence. He was with God in a peculiar and unique sense [singly and exclusively, ‘unicè’], because there was then nothing outside of God. Again, John speaks in this place more absolutely than in 1 Ep. ch. John 1:2, where he says, The Eternal Life was with the FATHER, in antithesis to the manifestation of Him made to believers, in order that they might become Sons. Thus we dispose of the difference, which Artemonius, P. ii. c. 18, tries to establish between the expression in the Epistle, and that in the Gospel: He also in Diss. ii., and elsewhere throughout his book, interprets the words, to be with God, of an ascension of Christ to heaven before His baptism. But this interpretation, when once the phrase, “In the beginning,” is rightly explained, forthwith falls to the ground. If Christ, before His passion, had trodden the way to life by an ascension of this kind, He would not have had it in His power subsequently to say, “THOU HAST MADE KNOWN to Me the ways of life;” and His whole journey, from His birth to that ascension, would have been of no benefit to us: but the plans, on which our salvation rests, would only begin to come into effect simultaneously with the descent, subsequent on the supposed ascension: whereby the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke would lose all their point. The words of Ignatius, in the Ep. already quoted, § 6, are clear: Jesus Christ before all ages, πρὸ αἰώνων, was with the Father, and in the end, ἐν τέλει, appeared: also the words of Hermas, The Son of God is elder than all creation, so that He TOOK PART IN His Father’s counsels for founding creation. These words Artemonius quotes, p. 404, etc., and cannot weaken their force.—Θεός, God) Not only was He with God, but also was God. The absence of the Greek article, especially in the predicate, does not weaken its signification, as meaning the true God. The Septuagint, 1 Kings 18:24, Βασιλ. Γ. ἔσται ὁ Θεὸς, ὃς ἂν ἐπακούσῃ ἐν πυρὶ, οὗτος Θεός. Moreover, when the predicate is placed before the subject, there is an emphasis on the word, ch. John 4:24, Πνεῦμα ὁ Θεός. Further, in this passage the same signification is confirmed from the fact, that there was then no creature, in relation to which the Word could be called God [in a lower sense]; it must therefore be here meant in an absolute sense. This fact presses hard against Artemonius; and on that account the more precious in our esteem ought this reading to be, which we have defended in our Critical Introduction. In this stronghold of the faith, in this most sure centre, we stand unmoved, and we fortify ourselves against all enticements which try to draw us off in a quite contrary direction [to other and irrelevant arguments]. There is no expedient to which Artemonius docs not resort, that he may prove Christ in Scripture is nowhere called or regarded as God; and, that we may take a cursory view of the second part of his book, especially in this passage, in Chap. I. he attacks the words, John 5:17, etc., John 10:29, etc., Php 2:6, etc.: in all which passages, the sentiment [sense] is not only vindicated as worthy of the Divine majesty of Jesus Christ, by the pious zeal of competent [able] interpreters, but even is shown to be so by the weakness of the Artemonian objections. Chap. II. denies that Christ was accounted as God by His disciples before His passion. But see John 1:14, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;” 2 Peter 1:16, “We were eye-witnesses of His majesty,” etc. He denies that Jesus was accounted God after the Resurrection: but see John 20:28, “My Lord, and my God” [Thomas]; Acts 20:28, “The Church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood;”[9] Romans 9:15, “Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever;” 1 Timothy 3:16, “God manifest in the flesh;”[10] Titus 2:13, “The glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:” comp. notes, Ephesians 5:5, “The kingdom of Christ and of God;” Hebrews 1:10; Hebrews 3:4 [comp. with John 1:6, “Christ, a Son over His own house”], “He that built all things is God.” Even this one passage, John 1:1, would be enough for a soul hungering and thirsting, simple and candid. In Chap. III. he objects, that Christ is always contradistinguished from God. We reply: Not always, but for the most part, and that without compromising the Deity of the Son. The instance, 1 Timothy 1:1, “The commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ,”[11] Artemonius felt to be irresistible; for in that passage even God the Father is called Saviour, and yet the Son is not by that fact excluded. So also when the Father is called God, that is not done in contradistinction to Jesus. See the writer himself, how frigid is his reply on the passage! Chap. IV. extends too far the parallelism, John 1:1; John 20:31. Chap. V. discusses why Christ is not called God, when He is really God, inferior to the Father alone; but he produces such reasons as prove unanswerably, since Christ is really also called God, that Christ is called God, not in the sense in which the name is assigned to creatures, but in the sense in which it is assigned to the Father. Chap. VI., in order to escape the argument from the passage, Isaiah 9:5, when Christ is called by one name, compounded of twice four words, Wonderful, Counsellor, [the] Mighty GOD, [the] everlasting Father, [the] Prince [of] Peace, does open violence to the parallel passage, In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν)

With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until John 1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare John 1:3; John 17:5; 1 John 1:1; Ephesians 1:4; Proverbs 8:23; Psalm 90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή, beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν, was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί, I am, John 8:58) instead of ἐγένετο, came into being, or began to be, which is used in John 1:3, John 1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή, in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, which is common in John's writings (John 8:44; 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. "In Genesis 1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time" (Milligan and Moulton). See on Colossians 1:15. This notion of "beginning" is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation - the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was, then he belonged to the order of eternity. "The Logos was not merely existent, however, in the beginning, but was also the efficient principle, the beginning of the beginning. The ἀρχή (beginning), in itself and in its operation dark, chaotic, was, in its idea and its principle, comprised in one single luminous word, which was the Logos. And when it is said the Logos was in this beginning, His eternal existence is already expressed, and His eternal position in the Godhead already indicated thereby" (Lange). "Eight times in the narrative of creation (in Genesis) there occur, like the refrain of a hymn, the words, And God said. John gathers up all those sayings of God into a single saying, living and endowed with activity and intelligence, from which all divine orders emanate: he finds as the basis of all spoken words, the speaking Word" (Godet).

The Word (ὁ λόγος)

Logos. This expression is the keynote and theme of the entire gospel. Λόγος is from the root λεγ, appearing in λέγω, the primitive meaning of which is to lay: then, to pick out, gather, pick up: hence to gather or put words together, and so, to speak. Hence λόγος is, first of all, a collecting or collection both of things in the mind, and of words by which they are expressed. It therefore signifies both the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed, and the inward thought itself, the Latin oratio and ratio: compare the Italian ragionare, "to think" and "to speak."

As signifying the outward form it is never used in the merely grammatical sense, as simply the name of a thing or act (ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα), but means a word as the thing referred to: the material, not the formal part: a word as embodying a conception or idea. See, for instance, Matthew 22:46; 1 Corinthians 14:9, 1 Corinthians 14:19. Hence it signifies a saying, of God, or of man (Matthew 19:21, Matthew 19:22; Mark 5:35, Mark 5:36): a decree, a precept (Romans 9:28; Mark 7:13). The ten commandments are called in the Septuagint, οἱ δέκα λόγοι, "the ten words" (Exodus 34:28), and hence the familiar term decalogue. It is further used of discourse: either of the act of speaking (Acts 14:12), of skill and practice in speaking (Acts 18:15; 2 Timothy 4:15), specifically the doctrine of salvation through Christ (Matthew 13:20-23; Philippians 1:14); of narrative, both the relation and the thing related (Acts 1:1; John 21:23; Mark 1:45); of matter under discussion, an affair, a case in law (Acts 15:6; Acts 19:38).

As signifying the inward thought, it denotes the faculty of thinking and reasoning (Hebrews 4:12); regard or consideration (Acts 20:24); reckoning, account (Philippians 4:15, Philippians 4:17; Hebrews 4:13); cause or reason (Acts 10:29).

John uses the word in a peculiar sense, here, and in John 1:14; and, in this sense, in these two passages only. The nearest approach to it is in Revelation 19:13, where the conqueror is called the Word of God; and it is recalled in the phrases Word of Life, and the Life was manifested (1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2). Compare Hebrews 4:12. It was a familiar and current theological term when John wrote, and therefore he uses it without explanation.

Old Testament Usage of the Term

The word here points directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking (compare Psalm 33:6). The idea of God, who is in his own nature hidden, revealing himself in creation, is the root of the Logos-idea, in contrast with all materialistic or pantheistic conceptions of creation. This idea develops itself in the Old Testament on three lines. (1) The Word, as embodying the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry. Consequently divine attributes are predicated of it as being the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy (Psalm 3:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105). The Word is a healer in Psalm 107:20; a messenger in Psalm 147:15; the agent of the divine decrees in Isaiah 55:11.

(2) The personified wisdom (Job 28:12 sq.; Proverbs 8, 9). Here also is the idea of the revelation of that which is hidden. For wisdom is concealed from man: "he knoweth not the price thereof, neither is it found in the land of the living. The depth saith, It is not in me; and the sea saith, It is not with me. It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof. It is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air" (Job 28). Even Death, which unlocks so many secrets, and the underworld, know it only as a rumor (Job 28:22). It is only God who knows its way and its place (Job 28:23). He made the world, made the winds and the waters, made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder (Job 28:25, Job 28:26). He who possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way, before His works of old, before the earth with its depths and springs and mountains, with whom was wisdom as one brought up with Him (Proverbs 8:26-31), declared it. "It became, as it were, objective, so that He beheld it" (Job 28:27) and embodied it in His creative work. This personification, therefore, is based on the thought that wisdom is not shut up at rest in God, but is active and manifest in the world. "She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors" (Proverbs 8:2, Proverbs 8:3). She builds a palace and prepares a banquet, and issues a general invitation to the simple and to him that wanteth understanding (Proverbs 9:1-6). It is viewed as the one guide to salvation, comprehending all revelations of God, and as an attribute embracing and combining all His other attributes.

(3) The Angel of Jehovah. The messenger of God who serves as His agent in the world of sense, and is sometimes distinguished from Jehovah and sometimes identical with him (Genesis 16:7-13; Genesis 32:24-28; Hosea 12:4, Hosea 12:5; Exodus 23:20, Exodus 23:21; Malachi 3:1).

Apocryphal Usage

In the Apocryphal writings this mediative element is more distinctly apprehended, but with a tendency to pantheism. In the Wisdom of Solomon (at least 100 b.c.), where wisdom seems to be viewed as another name for the whole divine nature, while nowhere connected with the Messiah, it is described as a being of light, proceeding essentially from God; a true image of God, co-occupant of the divine throne; a real and independent principle, revealing God in the world and mediating between it and Him, after having created it as his organ - in association with a spirit which is called μονογενές, only begotten (7:22). "She is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty; therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness" (see chapter 7, throughout). Again: "Wisdom reacheth from one end to another mightily, and sweetly doth she order all things. In that she is conversant with God, she magnifieth her nobility: yea, the Lord of all things Himself loved her. For she is privy to the mysteries of the knowledge of God, and a lover of His works. Moreover, by the means of her I shall obtain immortality, and leave behind me an everlasting memorial to them that come after me" (chapter 9). In 16:12, it is said, "Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (compare Psalm 107:20); and in 18:15, 16, "Thine almighty word leaped from heaven out of thy royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, and brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and, standing up, filled all things with death; and it touched the heaven, but it stood upon the earth." See also Wisdom of Sirach, chapters 1, 24, and Baruch 3, 4:1-4.

Later Jewish Usage

continued...

John 1:1 Interlinear
John 1:1 Parallel Texts


John 1:1 NIV
John 1:1 NLT
John 1:1 ESV
John 1:1 NASB
John 1:1 KJV

John 1:1 Bible Apps
John 1:1 Parallel
John 1:1 Biblia Paralela
John 1:1 Chinese Bible
John 1:1 French Bible
John 1:1 German Bible

Bible Hub