Geerhardus Vos: Christ As The Logos Part 1

Page 1

THE RANGE OF THE LOGOS-NAME IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL

The four points in dispute in connection with the Logos title are : i ) its ontological reference to the immanent life of the Godhead; 2) its functional reference to the creation of the world; 3) its functional reference to the continued supply of life and light to the world in the sphere of providence; 4) its functional reference to the revealing and redemptive work of the Old Testament dispensation. When we compare these four questions as to their exegetical status, it appears that in regard to the first and the second it is not the presence of the idea in the text that is called in question, but only the association of the Logos-name with this idea, whereas in regard to the third and fourth points the presence of the idea itself is denied by certain exegetes. That the words: “In the beginning was the Logos and towards God was the Logos, and God was the Logos” are intended to convey information touching the internal life of the preexistent Christ as related to God is recognized by all, and the difference of opinion concerns merely the question whether the truths expressed are analytically contained in the Logos-name or not. Similarly, there is no dispute about the fact that ver. 3 (of John. i.) makes the preexistent Christ the mediator of creation. The words : “All things were made through Him” admit of no other understanding.^ What remains subject to doubt is again merely the question whether the preexistent Christ bears the Logos- name on account of this function. In regard to the third and fourth points the situation is quite different. That the writer in vs. 4, 5, 9, 10 means to refer to a continued operation of the Logos in supplying life and light to the natural world is by no means admitted on all hands. Many exegetes here refer what used to be thus understood to the

PAGE 2

THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW |

activity of the incarnate Christ in the sphere of redemption. ! Consequently, there here lies back of the problem whether the Logos-name connotes such a function, the more fundamental exegetical problem whether such a function existed in the mind of the writer or at least has found expression in his words. And even more common is the opinion that the alleged Old Testament activity of the preexistent Christ found by some in vs. 11-13 has no real place in these verses, the reference here also being to the incarnate appearance and activity of the Savior, so that with the whole idea of I a function of Christ under the Old Covenant the inclusion of such a function in the Logos-title also disappears. It follows from the foregoing, that in the second step of our inquiry, as in the first, the exegetical basis of fact may be taken for granted, and our attention concentrated upon I the question whether the function affirmed of Christ is to the writer’s mind a specific Logos-function. It is necessary to remember here the strong vantage-ground offered by ver. 14, in defense of the position that before the incarnation Christ not merely pre-existed but preexisted as Logos. The statement “the Logos became flesh” to our view absolutely requires the assumption that He of whom it is made was the Logos previously to His becoming flesh. Either in His previous mode of existence or in His previous mode of activity there must have been something that entitled Him to this designation. Zahn escapes from this conclusion only through a most artificial rendering of the clause in question. ‘ He translates: “The Logos became in this fashion, that as flesh He entered into existence.” This rendering judges

FOOTNOTE

Page 3

RANGE OF LOGOS-NAME IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 559

itself. From Zahn’s own point of view a more simple escape from the difficulty would have lain through finding here in ver. 14, after the manner assumed by many exegetes in ver. i, a proleptic introduction of the Logos-name. But this, while relatively preferable to the other translation, has its own difficulties. A proleptic use of the Logos-name in the very sentence which describes the origin of the Logos is after all something quite different from what is found in ver. I, and cannot in point of plausibility be even remotely placed on a line with it. The fact, therefore, remains that on the only natural and practically universal understanding of ver. 14, a previous existence or functioning of the Saviour in a Logos-capacity is implied. This previous reality of the Logos-character must have lain either in the intra-divine life or in the cosmical activity of the preexistent Christ. The writer of the Prologue may have been unacquainted with either the one or the other of these two ideas ; he cannot have been unfamiliar with both. Those, therefore, who refuse to follow the church-theology in its trinitarian understanding of the clauses of ver. i, are by reason of this very refusal all the more bound to find in the sequel some reference to that pre-incarnate display of the Logos-character which the opening words of ver. 14 imply. On the other hand, recognition of the ontological signifi- cance as implied in ver. i does not preclude further recog-

FOOTNOTE

Page 4

560 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

nition of the functional significance as expressed in the sequel. The wording of ver. 14 involves the idea that the subject of the incarnation bore the Logos-name significantly before, but this may be true in two or three capacities as well as in a single one. What reasons, then, have we to assume that the Evangelist not merely ascribes a mediatorial agency in creation to the Logos-subject, but finds in this agency a manifestation of the Logos-character? We cannot a priori refuse to consider the proleptic interpretation ; All things were made through Him who afterwards was to appear as the Logos. The possibility of this must be reckoned with, because we have already granted the same possibility in regard to ver. I. The very respectable body of exegetical opinion which stands back of the proleptic interpretation there, shows that it lies well within the range of the debatable. If we recognize as a possible paraphrase of ver. i : In the beginning was He who was afterwards to appear as the Logos, etc., we are bound to bring the same open mind to the para[1]phrasing of ver. 3 on the same principle. From a purely exegetical point of view the two cases are precisely alike. On the other hand, a certain degree of implausibility at- taches to the view which in ver. i takes the name proleptically, and then in ver. 3 finds it necessary to insist upon inherent appropriateness with reference to the function affirmed. One cannot help feeling that some allowance must be made for the likelihood of the author’s introducing the title in both cases for the same reason. The exegesis which finds prolepsis in the former verse and excludes it from the latter, is weaker than that which treats both verses alike, either on the principle of prolepsis or otherwise. As a matter of fact, the case for prolepsis is slightly more favorable in ver. 3 than in ver. i, because the word Logos occurs explicitly in the great opening sentences of the Prologue, whereas in ver. 3 it appears only by implication as the ante- cedent of the pronoun in (THROUGH HIM). To say, through Him (= the Logos) all things were made, calls less attention to

PAGE 5

RANGE OF LOGOS-NAME IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 561

the Logos-character of the subject than to say, in the beginning was the Logos. If therefore it should appear that even in the statement which less accentuates the name Logos, the author nevertheless has clearly the inherent significance of the title before his mind, then this cannot fail to have some retroactive effect upon our understanding of the great opening sentences of the Gospel. The two questions, as to whether the Logos-character enters into the ontological mode of existence of Christ, and whether it enters into His creative activity, are to this extent interlinked. There are weighty reasons for believing that in ver. 3 the author introduces the creative works of Christ as a Logos function in the strictest sense of the word. The preponderance of exegetical opinion to this effect among the very class of writers who hold back in ver. i and refuse to entertain the ontological exegesis there, sufficiently proves how cogent these reasons are. If it were not for them, the same shrinking from the speculative, which seeks to keep the Logos-name and the trinitarian ontology apart, would also operate to keep the Logos-name and the doctrine of creation apart. But the facts speak too plainly in the latter case to allow of this. In the first place one must reckon with the obvious allusions in vs. 1-5 to the Genesis-account of the creation. These allusions render it necessary to assume that the author finds the Logos-name reminiscent of the part played in that account by the creative speech of God.^ It is one thing to believe that the whole Logos-doctrine as presupposed and further developed in the Prologue can be without residue explained from Genesis i, and quite another thing to say that, once the creation-story stood clearly before the writer’s mind, he could not possibly have represented the

FOOTNOTE

PAGE 6

562 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

Logos as mediating in the creation of the world, without observing that this fitted in admirably with the Scripture[1]account according to which God called all things into being through His word. The same suggestive force of the com[1]bination that has obtruded itself upon so many exegetes can hardly have escaped the notice of the Evangelist. That the Evangelist not merely intends to ascribe to Christ a part in the creation of all things in general, but specifically means to represent Him as performing that part in the capacity of Logos, follows also from the preposition employed. The statement is not-…(PLEASE SEE FOOTNOTE A). For the general thought that Christ participated in the creation of all things the former would have been the natural expression ; for conveying the specific idea that His role was the role played by the divine word in Genesis, the construction with was the one peculiarly fitted.^ Weight must further be attached to the standing as- sociation everywhere else between the Logos-name and the creative function of the subject so designated. No matter where the Logos meets us, whether it be in Philo or in the Hermetic writings or in the Jewish theology, the mediation in the making of things is a specific and prominent part of His office. The constant recurrence of this feature indicates of itself that no mere accident can account for this; the name and the function belong naturally together. Whatever be the ultimate sources of the doctrine, sufficient acquaintance with and reference to the contemporaneous Logos-belief and speculations may safely be credited to the Evangelist, to render it certain that in speaking of the Logos in connection with the creation he would expect to be understood in the current sense. Still further, the obvious progress of thought between ver. 3 and ver. 4 speaks likewise in favor of this conclusion. It is not necessary here to prejudge the question, whether ver. 4 (“In Him was life, and the life was the light of

FOOTNOTE A

FOOTNOTE B

PAGE 7

RANGE OF LOGOS-NAME IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 563

men”) relates to the preincarnate or to the incarnate Christ. In either case a connection will have to be assumed between the task of the Logos in creation and the presence in the same Logos of the subsequent supply of life and light for the world. Because of the fact that all things were made through Him, and in harmony with this fact, it is affirmed that in Him was life, and that this life was the light of men. By universal consent the furnishing of life and light to the world belongs to the very essence of the Logos-task. Consequently, that which forms either the basis for or the prelude to the quickening and enlightening of the world cannot have been something wholly detached from the Logos-character. If Christ gives life and light qua Logos, and if His mediatorial agency in the creation was but the beginning of this line of activity, then He must appear to the Evangelist at the former stage the same as He does in the latter, i.e., as the Logos. Finally, the obvious parallelism between the work of Christ in nature and in redemption, traced by the Prologue, renders it more than probable that it is precisely the Logos- name in which the writer finds the two members of this parallelism reduced to their higher unity. It is through the Logos that all things were made; it is also through the Logos, become flesh, that all things in redemption were accomplished. In the former case the connection between name and work can hardly be different from that in the latter. That in the latter case it is of the most intimate and organic character is recognized on every hand, most of all by the advocates of the restriction of the Logos-title to the incarnate stage of the Saviour’s work. The coordinates of the two activities, both of them alike coupled with the Logos-name, carries with it a high degree of probability that the inherent meaning of the name extends not simply to one but to both. Of course, this agreement would be still stronger, if it were to be urged in connection with the chronologically progressive interpretation of the Prologue. If the Evangelist meant to affirm of the Logos-Person

PAGE 8

564 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

that in succession He operated in creation, in providence, under the Old Covenant and since the incarnation, then the presumption in favor of a significance of the Logos-title equally distributed with reference to each of these four stages would grow in proportion to the care and deliberate- ness with which we should have to credit the Evangelist in building up this harmonious scheme of a progressive Christological function. Since, however, the chronological structure of the Prologue is subject to serious doubt, we prefer not to present the argument in this particular form. In view of the above considerations we continue to believe that ver. 3 not merely records an important fact about Him who subsequently was to act as the Logos, but also rep- resents this fact as an integral part of the specific Logos task. In the creation of the world the Logos-character of the Preexistent One finds expression. Even if we were to ascribe to the writer no conscious etymological reflection upon the way in which the Logos-name and the Logos function hang together, this would still have to be maintained. The link between the two might be one of mere conventional association, the Logos-name calling up the thought of creating and vice versa, but it would work none the less with necessity. And this, even in its unconscious associational form, would be something far different from the view according to which in the mind of the writer the name Logos as applied to Jesus and His creative function were originally quite foreign to each other, the name having been given Him in the first place for a totally different, purely redemptive reason, and then afterwards, without reflection upon His name, mediation in the making of all things having been affirmed of this redemptive Logos. If this were the correct view, then the Logos-name would have inherently no more to do with the creation of the world than the name Christ or Kyrios. As Paul could say that through Christ or through the Lord all things were made, so John would have said that through the Logos all things were called into being. In both cases the two things

PAGE 9

RANGE OF LOGOS-NAME IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 565

would be linked together after a purely external fashion. It is precisely in regard to this that we believe the use of the name Logos differs in such a connection from the name Christ or Kyrios. It is the name appropriate to the occasion. A mere conventional association, as stated above, would be sufficient to uphold this view. But there is reason to assume that to the Evangelist the connection was a thoroughly intelligent one. The first element entering into it is undoubtedly that of the instrumentality of divine omni[1]potence. That God acts in general, and in particular creates by His word, is a common Old Testament expression for describing the omnipotent mode of His activity. This was the case in the first creation of all things, when God spake and by His mere speaking the effect was accomplished. Now if the Evangelist identifies the preexistent Christ with this omnipotent creative word, his first thought will have been that through Christ the divine omnipotence asserted itself, that Christ entered into the creation as the Logos of God because God made Him the Mediator of His al- mighty power. That this thought was actually present to the writer’s mind follows not merely from the obvious dependence of the representation on the account in Genesis, but also from the mention of “life” in ver. 4 as the first thing present in the Logos in consequence of his Logos-relation to the world. He is the Logos because in Him is life; the connecting link that holds these two ideas together is none other than that of His being the organ of omnipotence. As in the divine word there is in general the unique potency of producing life wherever it is uttered, so in Him as the personal Word the same potency inheres.

FOOTNOTE

PAGE 10

566 THE PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

This interpretation of the use made of the Logos-concept in ver. 3 in the light of ver. 4 holds good, no matter whether the statements of the latter verse relate to the preexistent or to the incarnate Christ. It makes no difference whether the life spoken of was the life of nature or the life of redemption; in either case the possession of it by Christ is in accordance with and the result of His Logos-character; in either case the underlying thought of the connection is: to be the Logos of God means to be the organ for the production of life. It is of the highest importance to mark sharply at this point that the first thing associated with the Logos-name by the writer does not lie in the sphere of knowledge but in the sphere of power; the first characteristic Logos product is life, not light. This is all the more significant, since the sequence of the creative acts of God in the Genesis account places the production of light before that of life, so that the reversed sequence of the Prologue : “In Him was life, and the life (that was in Him) was the light of men”, obtains a pointed significance. Here it plainly appears al- ready that the equation. Logos = Revealer, fails to do justice to the pregnancy of the title as employed by the Evangelist. Before this is thought of, the other more fundamental equation. Logos = Omnipotent Source of Life, should be called to mind. The clear recognition of this at the very root-point where the Logos-idea bifurcates is of the utmost importance for a correct understanding of the subsequent teaching of the Gospel as a whole. It places at the outset the life-giving and the illuminating aspects of Christ’s activity, or, to speak soteriologically, the redemptive and revelatory functions of His work as Saviour, in their proper relation to each other. It saves the Gospel from the

FOOTNOTE

PAGE 11

RANGE OF LOGOS-NAME IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL 567

charge of intellectualism, which has so often been brought against it, and which its characterization as the Logos[1]Gospel seemed to justify. If Christ as Logos has a wider task than that of imparting light and knowledge, if He fulfills His Logos-nature in the production of life, then the Gospel can be truly a Logos-Gospel, without lying open to the charge of a one-sided intellectualism. The new-creation of all things in the sphere of redemption becomes, on this wider and more correct view, as truly a part of the Logos[1]function as the communication of supernatural knowledge. On the other hand, starting with this wider and more adequate appreciation of what the Logos-name covers, it will be far easier to show that the Logos-concept actually underlies and shapes the teaching in the body of the Gospel, and is not due to a mere idiosyncrasy of the mental state out of which the Prologue was written. All that the Gospel teaches concerning salvation, the whole circle of ideas connected with life and regeneration and resurrection, will on this view naturally range itself with the interpretation of Christ’s Person and work from the Logos-point of view. How easy it was for the Evangelist to subsume these ideas under the rubric of creative omnipotence, operating as such by means of the word, may be seen from JOHN. v. 25, 28, where the resurrection is represented as taking place through the utterance of the voice of the Son of God, and where there is the same close association between the ideas of the omnipotent word and the idea of life as in the Prologue ; “The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in Himself, even so gave He to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

FOOTNOTE