manifesting forth the glory of his nature and the fulness of his grace, and revealing and interpreting to men the truth. of the invisible God (vv. 15–18).

If the Logos-doctrine of John be compared with that of Philo, the comparison will show that while the two have points of contact, they are radically different in character and rest upon different presuppositions. Both, indeed, introduce the Logos as a mediator between God and the world; but with Philo this mediation is part of a metaphysical theory of the universe, while with John it is a method of revelation and salvation which is grounded in the selfimparting love of God. For Philo the world is inherently evil, and God is wholly separate from it. The Logos is a means of resolving the resulting dualism. The apostle takes up the term whose use had become common, as a convenient means of emphasizing the truth that Jesus Christ is the true agent of God's self-revelation and the true Mediator between God and man. The motives of

his doctrine are historical, rather than speculative. The starting-point of his thought concerning "the Word of life" is the fact that he had been manifested in human form: "That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled concerning the Word of life" (I. i. 1).1 The term "Logos" as applied

in question must be explained in the light of the Johannine phrases: “to tabernacle among us" (i. 14) and "to come in the flesh" (I. iv. 2; II. 7), whose meaning it epitomizes, as denoting the consummation of the mysterious union of divinity with humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Cf. Clement, 2 Cor. ix: ὢν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα ἐγένετο σάρξ, " though he (Christ) was at first a spirit, he became flesh." Holtzmann, HandComm., in loco: "Er kam im Fleisch, oder wurde Fleisch." If the phrase in question necessarily meant what Beyschlag says it must mean (in case Logos denotes a person), it would not only be "simply absurd" but would be quite contrary to everything which the apostle has elsewhere written of the nature of the Logos or the eternal Son.

1 Some commentators, indeed, understand the Word of life"(¿ Xóyos Ts wns) in this passage to mean: the message of life or the gospel. So De Wette and Westcott. But the great majority regard it as a designation of the personal Logos or eternal Son. So Huther, Haupt, Weiss, Dwight, Briggs, and Plummer. In what is said above I take this view of its meaning.

to Christ, was especially adapted to express both his agency in creation and revelation and his personal preëxistence and essential unity with the Father.

In John we have what we do not find in Philo-a clear and consistent personification of the Logos. Philo's conception of the Logos is wavering and unclear. Now the term denotes immanent reason, and now the uttered word; now he seems to be only a poetic figure, and again appears as a distinct hypostasis. Various synonymous titles are used, such as the Wisdom of God, the Son of God, the Archangel, and the Man of God. But in John the title has one clear meaning. It is a name for the eternal Son of God, who came into the world in the historical person, Jesus Christ. The apostle's doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos is radically opposed to the dualistic principles of Philo. The assertion: ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο (i. 14), would have been abhorrent to the Jewish philosopher. The Logos of John is the Christ of his own experience in that eternal existence and activity which the apostle knew that his Master had claimed for himself. The historical interest dominates the prologue not less than the rest of the fourth Gospel. If the book opens with words which have a vague and abstract sound, the writer at once translates them into concrete and historical terms. If he begins with eternity, it is only to obtain a starting-point from which the revelation of God in Christ can be adequately accounted for. The Logos-idea was fundamental for the apostle. He grounded the whole gospel in the essential nature of God and the eternal being of Christ. But this was because the historical facts known to him and the testimony of Christ concerning himself required these presuppositions, not because he had taken them up as abstract principles in order to deduce from them his interpretation of Christ and his teaching. The Logos-doctrine of the apostle is a reading in terms of current philosophical language of that great conclusion respecting the nature of Christ to which he had been led by the facts of his teaching and work.

CHAPTER IV

THE WAY OF SALVATION

SALVATION is from sin unto righteousness. Sin is described by our author as lawlessness (avopía, I. iii. 4), a violation of the divine order and a state of disharmony with it. He also describes it as moral darkness in contrast to light, which is the symbol of goodness, love, and life. The sinful man "walks" and "abides in darkness (I. i. 6). The apostle describes sin, now as an act and now as a state. Accordingly, ápapтáveiv sometimes means, to commit an act of sin, as in I. i. 10: "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." Again, the word means to sin habitually, to lead a sinful life, as in I. iii. 9: "Whosoever is begotten of God does not commit sin (apapтíav où πоiεî), because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin (áμaptáveιv), because he is begotten of God." The phrase toleîv tηv ȧμapτíav regularly means, to lead an habitually sinful life. It is important to bear this in mind for the right understanding of the statement that the Christian "does not" and "cannot sin" (I. iii. 6, 9). The meaning is that the Christian life and sin are, in principle, contrary to each other, and that the true disciple of Christ cannot, in the nature of the case, lead a life characteristically sinful, although he still commits acts of sin (I. i. 9, 10).

Apart from the salvation wrought through Christ the world is sinful. "The whole world lieth in the evil one" (I. v. 19). In its moral blindness it did not apprehend the light of the divine Logos which was always seeking to penetrate its darkness (i. 5). In the world the impulses which prevail are "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vainglory of life" (I. ii. 16). The world

is the sphere in which Satan rules. Wicked men are "of the devil," "children of the devil" (I. iii. 10), that is, kindred in their disposition and actions to him who "sinneth from the beginning" (I. iii. 8).1 So far as the sinful world assumes the attitude of direct hostility to Christ and his saving work, it is designated as "Antifchrist." "The spirit of Antichrist" (I. iv. 3) is found in the denial of the messiahship of Jesus; more specifi(cally, in the denial of Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh (I. ii. 22; II. 7). It is probable that, though John speaks of "many Antichrists" as being already in the world (I. ii. 18), he looked for the appearance of some individual who should embody in a preeminent degree the spirit of antichristian denial and opposition. Still, the essence of his doctrine, when all the expressions of it are compared, is that "Antichrist" denotes a principle, tendency, or spirit in which many men share. The apostle looked for no individual" Antichrist," who should be such to the exclusion of many other Antichrists, or who should wholly sum up in himself the spirit of hostility to the Messiah.2 This sinful hostility to Christ and his work may prove to be "sin unto death (I. v. 16, 17) - the utter desertion and repudiation of Christ, to which the speculations of Gnosticism, on the one hand, and the fanaticism of Judaism, on the other, were in danger of leading some of the apostle's readers.3

Now, Jesus Christ "was manifested to take away the sins" of men (I. iii. 5), and to "destroy the works of the devil" (v. 8). This saving work is described by John in various terms. Although a process of judgment is inseparable from the Messiah's mission, yet "God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him" (iii. 17; cf. I. iv. 14). He saves men by cleansing them from sin. If we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus "cleanseth us from all sin"

1 On the author's doctrine of Satan, see The Johannine Theology, pp. 140-145.

2 On this subject, cf. The Johannine Theology, pp. 145-149.

3 Cf. The Johannine Theology, pp. 149-155.

(I. i. 7). Here it is evidently the cleansing of the Christian from the sin which still cleaves to him, which is referred to. The saving significance of Christ's death is certainly implied in the reference to the "blood of Jesus." (That his death is regarded by the apostle as a means of taking away sin is also evident from the exclamation of the Baptist, which he reports: "Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away (ó aipov) the sin of the world!" (i. 29). The use of alpev, alike in the Septuagint and in the writings of John, favors the view that it here means to bear away, rather than to bear as a sacrifice (cf. I. iii. 5). Now, whether the phrase "the Lamb of God" be an allusion to the paschal lamb, or a reminiscence of Isaiah liii. 7, or a reference to a sacrificial victim, as seems more probable, the idea that a saving significance attaches to his sufferings and death is involved in it. None of these phrases, however, are definite enough to yield us any conception of the way in which his death is held to avail for the salvation of men.

Christ is also called an Advocate with or before the Father (παράκλητος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, I. ii. 1). These terms describe him as one who is summoned to the side of the Christian to aid him in the matter of deliverance from his sins and who represents him in relation to (πρós) the Father. The Christian may rest assured of the perfect [sympathy and help of the sinless Saviour, who having himself passed through a career of moral trial, is able to deal gently with the erring and to plead their cause before God. Of course, the term waрákληтos is a figure drawn from human relations, and does not carry us beyond the general expressions already noticed, in the direction of a definite doctrine. In I. iii. 16 we seem to find a more explicit reference to salvation through Christ's death: "Hereby know we love, because he laid down his life on our behalf” (vπèρ ỷμŵv); but the apostle continues: "and we ought to lay down our lives on behalf of (vπép) the brethren." Undoubtedly the death of Christ is here said to be for the benefit of men, but it is defined in no different terms from those which are also used to express