In the beginning was the Word,— "In the beginning, before the foundation of the world, or the first production of any created being, a glorious Person existed, who may properly be called the Word of God, not only because God the Father at first created, and still governs, all things by him, but because, as men discover their sentiments and designs to one another by the intervention of words, speech, or discourse, so God, by his Son, discovers his gracious designs in the fullest and clearest manner to men. All the various manifestations which he makes of himself, whether in the works of creation, providence, or redemption; all the revelations that he has been pleased to give of his will, are conveyed to us through him, and therefore he is, by way of eminence, fitly stiled the Word of God." The evangelist seems here to allude to the first word of Genesis, Berashith, translated by the LXX, εν Αρχη, in the beginning. See on Genesis 1:1. As this divine Word existed at the time when all things were created, (see John 1:3-10.) he existed, consequently, from all eternity. This verse therefore is a direct contradiction of the tenets of Cerinthus, as represented in article 2, 3, and 8, of the foregoingargument. Λογος [Logos,] the name which St.
John applies to the eternal Son of God, signifies, according to the Greek etymology, both discourse and reason. Le Clerc, in his notes on this passage, takes it in the latter sense, when applied to the Son, because, long before St. John wrote, the Platonists, and after them several learned Jews, particularly Philo, had used it in the same sense, to signify the Creator of the world. The Stoics too seem to have affixed a similar idea to the word Logos, when they affirmed that all divine things were formed by reason, or the divine wisdom, in opposition to the Epicurean system, which taught that the world came into being by chance, or was made without reason. Induced by these particulars, Le Clerc fancies, that as the name Logos was familiar to the philosophers and learned Jews, who had imbibed Plato's principles, such Christians as admired the writings of Plato and his followers, must very early have adopted, not the name of Logos only, but all the phrases which the Platonists used in speaking of the person to whom they gave that name, and consequently were in danger of corrupting Christianitywith the errors of Platonism. At the same time he imagines, that though the notions of these philosophers concerning the second person of the Godhead were in general very confused, they had derived certain true ideas of him from tradition; and that the evangelist St. John, for this reason, in speaking of the same Person, made use of the term Logos, to shew in what sense, and how far, it might be used with safety byChristians. But as it is very uncertain whether the primitive Christians studied the writings of Plato and Philo, it is not probable that St. John would think it necessary, in composing his gospel, to adopt the terms and phrases of these philosophers. Accordingly, the generality of commentators have rejected Le Clerc's suppositions, believing that St. John, under the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit, borrowed the name Logos, either from the Mosaic history of the creation, or from Psalms 33:6 where, in allusion to that history, it is said, the heavens were created by the word of God; or from the Jewish Targums, particularly the Chaldee Paraphrases, where the word of God is often substituted for what in the text is Jehovah. Nay, the term is used in such a manner, as to have personal attributes, even the attributes of the Godhead, ascribed to it; and is introduced in all or most of those places where the Hebrew mentions the face, the hands, or the eyes of God. St. John asserts that this Word was with God; namely, before any created being had existed. This perhaps is spoken in allusion to what the Wisdom of God says of himself, Proverbs 8:30. Our version of the Greek particle προς, rendered with, is supported by the best classical writers among the Greeks. This sentence is in opposition to the following verses, wherein we are told, that the Word was made flesh, that he dwelt among us, and was seen, which intimates his pre-existence before these circumstances. It is added, and the Word was God; upon which some have remarked, that as there is no article before the word Θεος, God, it should be read, and God was the Word: but this manner of expression is made use of by this same apostolic writer, Ch. John 4:24.; and several of the purest writers among the Greeks have frequently sentences wherein the substantive with an article, though placed after the verb, is to be construed first, and as the nominative to the verb. Many have eagerly contended, that the word God is used here in an inferior sense; the necessary consequence of which is, as they affirm, that this clause should be rendered the Word was a God, that is, a kind of inferior Deity, as governors are called gods: but it is impossible he should here be so called merely as a governor, because he is spoken of as existing before the production of any creatures whom he could govern; and it is most incredible, that when the Jews were so exceedingly averse to idolatry, and the Gentiles sounhappily prone to it, such a plain writer as this apostle should lay so dangerous a stumbling-block at the threshold of his work, and represent it as the Christian doctrine, that in the beginning of all things there were two Gods, one supreme, and the other subordinate; a difficulty which, if possible, would be yet further increased, by recollecting what has been mentioned in the argument, that this gospel was written with a particular view of opposing Cerinthus and the Ebionites; on which account a greater accuracy of expression must have been necessary. There are so many instances in the writings of this apostle, and even in this chapter, (see John 1:6; John 1:12-13; John 1:18.) where the word Θεος, without the article, is used to signify God, in the highest sense of the word, that it is surprising any stress should be laid on the want of that article as a proof that it is used in a subordinate sense. But indeed St. Paul has fully determined this point; for he evidently insinuates that no being can be God, who is not God by nature. Galatians 4:8. It is observable, that St. John's discourse here rises by degrees: he tells us, first, that the Word in the beginning of the world existed; thus asserting his eternity: next, that he existed with God, thus asserting his co-eternity: and then, that he was God, and made all things; thus asserting his co-equality. I cannot conclude my annotation on this important passage in propererwords than those with which Dr. Doddridge closes his note: "I am deeply sensible of the sublime and mysterious nature ofthe doctrine of Christ's Deity as here declared; but it would be quite foreign to my purpose to enter into a large discussion of that great foundation of our faith. It has often been done by much abler hands: it was, however, matter of conscience with me, thus strongly to declare my belief of it; and I shall only add, with Bishop Burnet, that had not St. John and the other apostles thought it a doctrine of great importance in the gospel scheme, they would rather have waved than inserted and insisted upon it, considering the critical circumstances in which they wrote."