LOGOS
relation
of
communion
witli
Him
as
a
separate
per-sonality
—
a
personality
itself
Divine,
for
'the
Word
was
God.'
As
to
the
world,
it
was
made
by
Him
(v.^,
cf.
v.'°),
perhaps
with
the
further
suggestion
that
from
Him
it
draws
continually
the
life
by
which
it
is
sus-tained
(v.*).
But
from
Him
there
flows
also
the
higher
life
of
man
as
a
spiritual
being
possessed
of
reason
and
conscience,
for
His
hte
becomes
the
universal
light
of
human
souls
(v.',
cf.
v.').
(6)
The
second
stage
of
the
exposition
(vv.'-")
is
a
contrast
of
the
Logos
with
the
word
of
God
that
came
by
John
the
Baptist.
John
was
not
the
Light
;
he
came
only
to
bear
witness
of
it.
The
Logos
is
the
true
Light,
and
the
mediator
of
Divine
Ufe
to
all
who
beUeve
on
His
name,
(c)
Finally
(vv."-'*),
the
author
describes
the
incarnation
of
the
Logos
in
the
flesh,
and
declares
His
identity
with
the
historical
Jesus
Christ,
the
bringer
of
grace
and
truth.
In
v.''
the
whole
Prologue
is
summed
up.
Here
the
writer
returns
to
the
point
from
which
he
set
out
(cf.
v.'),
but
his
readers
now
understand
that
the
eternal
Logos
is
one
with
Jesus
Christ,
the
Son
of
God.
2.
Sources.
—
(l)
For
these
some
have
been
content
to
refer
to
the
OT
and
the
post-canonical
Jewish
writings.
And
it
is
true
that
a
connexion
is
clearly
to
be
traced.
We
can
hardly
mistake
a
reference
in
the
Prologue
(vv.i-
8-
<•
i»)
to
the
creative
word
of
God
in
Gn
1.
In
the
Psalms
and
Prophets,
again,
a
personiflcation
of
the
word
of
Jehovah
is
common
(e.g.
Ps
33',
Is
SS").
And
in
the
Wisdom
literature,
both
canonical
and
apocryphal,
this
personifying
tendency
is
carried
still
further
(Pr
S^^-si,
Sir
24),
though
it
is
God's
Wisdom,
not
His
Word,
that
becomes
His
representative,
and
a
full
personification
of
the
Word
does
not
meet
us
till
we
have
reached
a
point
in
Jewish
history
where
Greek
influences
have
begun
to
make
themselves
felt
(Wis
91
1612).
All
this,
however,
is
very
far
from
ex-plaining
the
Johannine
Logos
doctrine.
The
most
that
can
be
said
is
that
the
doctrine
of
the
Prologue
reflects
a
tendency
of
Jewish
thought,
finding
its
roots
in
the
OT,
to
conceive
of
the
Divine
self-revelation
as
mediated
by
the
personified
Wisdom
or
Word
of
Jehovah.
(2)
Some
have
held
that
John's
Logos
doctrine
was
derived
entirely
from
the
Judceo-Alexandrian
philosophy,
and
specifically
from
the
teaching
of
Philo.
From
early
times
there
had
grown
up
among
the
Greeks
a
conception
of
the
Logos
as
the
Divine
Reason
mani-fested
in
the
universe,
and
explaining
how
God
comes
into
relation
with
it.
To
this
Logos
philosophy
Plato's
doctrine
of
ideas
had
contributed,
and
afterWards
the
Stoic
view
of
the
Logos
as
the
rational
principle
of
the
universe.
In
his
efforts
to
blend
Judaism
with
Hel-lenism,
Philo
adopted
the
term
as
one
famiUar
alike
to
Jews
and
to
Greeks,
and
sought
to
show
by
means
of
allegorical
interpretations
that
the
true
philosophy
of
God
and
the
world
was
revealed
in
the
OT.
And
St.
John,
it
is
supposed,
simply
appropriated
this
teaching,
and
by
means
of
an
idealizing
treatment
of
Christ's
life
constructed
in
his
Gospel
a
philosophical
treatise
on
the
doctrine
of
Philo.
The
theory
breaks
down
on
any
examination.
To
Philo
the
Logos
was
the
principle
of
Reason;
to
St.
John
He
was
the
Divine
revealing
Word.
Philo's
Logos
is
not
really
personal;
St.
John's
certainly
is.
Philo
does
not
identify
the
Logos
with
the
Messiah;
to
St.
John
He
is
no
other
than
the
Christ,
the
Saviour
of
the
world.
Philo
sees
in
the
flesh
a
principle
opposed
to
the
Godhead;
St.
John
glories
in
the
fact
of
the
Incarnation.
With
Philo
the
antithesis
between
God
and
the
world
is
a
metaphysical
one;
with
St.
John
it
is
ethical
and
reUgious.
St.
John
cannot,
then,
have
derived
his
doctrine
of
the
Logos
from
Philo.
But
he
undoubtedly
used
the
term
because
Philo
had
made
it
familiar
to
Graeco-Jewish
thought
as
a
means
of
expressing
the
idea
of
a
mediation
between
God
and
the
universe,
and
also
because
he
himself
had
received
certain
formal
influences
from
the
Philonic
philosophy
(see,
e.g.,
the
value
he
assigns
to
knowledge;
his
crystal-
LOGOS
lizationof
the
gospel
into
such
general
terms
as
light,'
'truth,'
'life';
his
constant
antithesis
of
Ught
and
dark-ness).
Apart,
however,
from
such
formal
influences
and
the
convenience
of
a
familiar
and
suggestive
term,
the
real
source
of
the
Johannine
IiOgos
doctrine
is
still
to
seek.
(3)
That
source
is
assuredly
to
be
found
in
the
actual
historical
personality
of
Jesus
Himself
as
we
find
it
set
forth
in
the
rest
of
this
Gospel.
More
and
more
it
becomes
impossible
for
the
careful
student
of
this
book
to
treat
it
as
a
philosophical
romance
in
which
a
purely
idealizing
treatment
is
given
to
the
flgure
of
Jesus;
more
and
more
the
substantial
historical
truth
of
the
presentation
becomes
evident.
And,
assuming
the
substantial
truth
of
the
narrative,
it
seems
clear
that
St.
John
uses
his
Logos
conception,
not
'to
manu-facture
the
Light
of
the
World
out
of
the
Messiah
of
Israel,'
but
to
set
forth,
in
a
way
that
would
appeal
to
the
men
of
his
own
place
and
time,
Christ's
real
relations
to
God
and
the
universe
as
these
had
been
attested
by
His
words
and
deeds,
by
His
dying
and
rising
from
the
dead,
and
by
all
the
facts
of
His
self-revela-tion.
We
must
bear
in
mind,
moreover,
that
while
the
term
'Logos'
was
a
new
one
to
be
applied
to
Christ,
the
place
of
dignity
and
power
assigned
to
Him
by
John
was
by
no
means
new.
Both
St.
Paul
and
the
author
of
Hebrews
had
taught
the
doctrine
of
Christ's
eternal
Sonship,
and
of
His
functions
as
the
creator
of
the
universe
and
the
revealer
of
the
Father
(Ph
2'-",
Col
li'-M
29,
He
1'^),
and
the
teaching
of
both,
already
familiar
and
widely
accepted
in
the
Church,
is
subsumed
in
the
Johannine
doctrine
of
the
Logos.
3.
Place
in
the
Fourth
Gospel.
—
The
attempt
has
been
made
to
distinguish
between
the
Logos
doctrine
in
the
Prologue
as
Hellenic,
and
the
Gospel
itself
as
Palestinian;
and
it
has
been
maintained
that
the
in-fluence
of
the
Logos
idea
does
not
extend
beyond
the
Prologue,
and
that
it
was
merely
intended
to
introduce
to
Greek
readers
the
story
of
the
Jewish
Messiah
with
a
view
to
making
it
more
attractive
and
intelligible.
We
may
remind
ourselves,
however,
of
Strauss's
com-parison
of
this
Gospel
to
the
seamless
robe
of
Jesus,
a
judgment
which
has
been
verified
by
nearly
every
critical
student
of
whatever
school.
It
is
true
that
when
we
pass
beyond
the
Prologue
the
word
'Logos'
is
not
repeated.
The
author
nowhere
puts
it
into
the
mouth
of
Jesus,
—
one
evidence
surely
of
his
historical
fideUty.
But,
all
the
same,
the
doctrine
of
the
Prologue
manifestly
works
right
through
the
narrative
from
beginning
to
end
(see
such
passages
as
3's-2i
e^^-"
728.
29
gl2.
14.
16
1029ff-
12M-60
I46-U
I76.
8.
24
etC).
It
is
very
noticeable
that
in
20",
where,
before
laying
down
his
pen,
the
writer
reveals
the
motive
of
his
work,
he
really
sums
up
the
great
ideas
of
the
Prologue
as
he
declares
that
Jesus
is
the
Christ,
the
Son
of
God,
and
that
beUeving
we
may
have
life
through
His
name.
The
Logos,
then,
is
not
a
mere
catchword,
put
forth
in
order
to
seize
the
eye
and
arouse
the
interest
of
the
Greek
reader.
The
Logos
idea
underiies
the
whole
Gospel,
and
has
much
to
do
with
the
author's
selection
of
his
materials.
In
the
Prologue,
as
in
any
other
well-
written
introduction,
the
plan
of
the
work
is
set
out,
and
the
Logos
doctrine
is
stated
there
because
it
supplies
the
key
to
a
right
understanding
of
the
history
that
follows.
4.
Theological
significance.—
From
the
time
of
Justin,
and
ever
since,
the
Logos
doctrine
of
St.
John's
Pro-logue
has
served
as
the
material
of
many
a
Christian
metaphysic.
It
is
no
doubt
inevitable
that
this
should
be
the
case;
but
we
must
be
careful
not
to
make
St.
John
responsible
for
the
theological
constructions
that
have
been
woven
out
of
his
words.
It
an
injustice
is
done
him
when
his
doctrine
of
the
Logos
is
supposed
to
be
nothing
more
than
the
fruitage
of
his
study
of
Philo,
another
injustice
is
committed
when
it
is
assumed
that
he
is
setting
forth
here
either
a
metaphysic
of
the
