BlBLlOTHECA SACRA 160 (January-March 2003): 48-64

THE ETERNALITY AND DEITY OF

THE WORD: JOHN 1:1-2*
David J. MacLeod

I N THE FIRST EIGHTEEN VERSES of the Gospel of John, tradition-

ally called the prologue,1 the apostle John set forth major
themes—the principal one being the Incarnation—that he de-
veloped later in the Gospel.2 This portion of Scripture has immense
apologetic value.3 Dodd has written, "We may regard the Prologue
as giving, in the barest skeleton outline, a philosophy of life, or
Weltanschauung y which is to be filled in with concrete detail out of
the gospel as a whole."4
The history of philosophy and theology is the history of world-
views, in which people take some aspect of reality as they see it
and deify it (the religious approach) or make it the cardinal point of
an interpretive principle (the philosophical approach). John wrote

David J. MacLeod is Chairman of the Division of Biblical Studies, Emmaus Bible

College, Dubuque, Iowa, and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.
* This is article one in a six-part series on "The Living Word in John 1:1-18."
1
The prologue has been called a microcosm (Simon Ross Valentine, "The Johan-
nine Prologue—A Microcosm of the Gospel," Evangelical Quarterly 68 [October
19961: 291-304); an adumbration (Kimberley D. Booser, "The Literary Structure of
John 1:1-18: An Examination of Its Theological Implications concerning God's Sav-
ing Plan through Jesus Christ," Evangelical Journal 16 [spring 1998]: 13); and a
"proleptic quintessence" (Adolf von Harnack, "Über das Verhältnis des Prologs des
vierten Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk," Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 2
[1892]: 191).
2
Important themes in the prologue that are developed later in the Gospel include
life (1:4), light and darkness (w. 5, 7-9), witness (w. 7-8, 15), world (v. 10), belief
and unbelief (w. 11-12), glory (v. 14), and grace and truth (w. 14,17).
3
Ron Rhodes, The Counterfeit Christ of the New Age Movement (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1990), 213-20. The author of John "lived in a region in which many false
doctrines had already arisen in the bosom of the Church" (Frederick Louis Godet,
Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. Timothy Dwight, 3d. ed. [New York:
Funk & Wagnalls, 1893; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970], 1:213 [italics
his]).
4
C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1953), 285.
 The Etemality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 49

his Gospel when many such worldviews were prevalent. 5 Today, as

well, a wide variety of worldviews exist, and John's prologue is an
antidote to all of them. The Gospel of John presents a true under­
standing of who Jesus Christ is, so that readers may have the
proper framework with which to interpret life and reality—that
they may know God and walk in the light of His truth.
Many scholars have argued that John's majestic prologue em­
ploys an early Christian hymn. 6 A number of questions relate to

5
H. Brash Bonsall lists the following: (1) Polytheism, the worship of gods, was
countered in John by the Christian worldview and its doctrines of monotheism and
the Incarnation. (2) The state cultus, the worship of the emperor, was countered by
the truth of God, who became man and whose kingdom was not derived from the
earthly realm (1:14; 18:36-37). (3) Hellenistic philosophy, with its esteem for reason
and lofty ethics—but with no pardon for sinners—was countered by John's doctrine
of the λόγος, the Word of God, which meets the need of the heart as well as the head.
(4) The mystery religions, with their fellowship secrets, cultic meals, water bap­
tisms, and communion rituals with their deities or lords, were countered by the
truth of God incarnate, who offers people the right to become children of God. (5)
Occultism, with its superstition, spiritism, witchcraft, astrology, black magic, and
necromancy, was countered by Christ, who brings light to these dark corners of the
human psyche and confronts the power of Satan in whatever form it arises. (6) In­
cipient Gnosticism, with its belief in the evil of matter and its Docetic denial of
Christ's humanity, was countered by John's assertion that the Son of God Himself
became a man with a physical body. (7) Unbelieving Judaism, with its rejection of
the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, was countered by John's assertion that all who
believe in Christ are made children of God. (8) Proto-Mandaism, with its reverence
for John the Baptist as Messiah, was countered by John's assertion that he was not
the Light from God but was a witness to that Light (1:8, 20, 29, 34) {The Son and
the Word [London: Christian Literature Crusade, 1972], 51-57).
The view that says John was countering a form of proto-Mandaism should be
treated with caution. J. A. T. Robinson rejects the notion that the followers of John
the Baptist ever formed a distinct sect ("Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detec­
tion," New Testament Studies 4 [July 1958]: 278-79). But see Godet, Commentary on
the Gospel of John, 1:214; and Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John, New
International Commentary on the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1995), 77-78 nn. 47-48.
6
Charles Augustus Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles (New York: Scribner's,
1895), 495-518; J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. John, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1928),
l:cxliv-cxlv; Joachim Jeremías, The Central Message of the New Testament (New
York: Scribner's, 1965), 71-90; Ernst Käsemann, T h e Prologue to John's Gospel," in
New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 138-67; Jack T.
Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1971), 20-25, 29-57; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, trans.
George R. Beasley-Murray, R. W. N. Hoare, and J. K. Riches (Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1971), 13-15; Ernst Haenchen, John, Hermeneia, trans. Robert W. Funk
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1:101, 125; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel ac-
cording to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth (New York: Crossroad, 1987), 1:224-26;
George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word,
1987), 3-4; and James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2d ed. (London: SCM,
1989), 239-40.
50 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

the hymn thesis, 7 on which students of the Gospel differ.8 What is

the literary genre of the passage, that is, is it poetry or prose?
What kind of literary structure is employed?9 Is it an original com-
position by John, 10 or did he integrate the work of another into his

7
Scholars generally agree that the verses of the prologue do not reflect the struc-
ture and rhythm of Greek poetry (D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John
[Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1991], 112). However, the prologue does use the paral-
lelism of Hebrew poetry (Mathias Rissi, "John 1:1-18 (The Eternal Word)," Exposi-
tory Times 31 [1977]: 394; Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, 496; and Bernard,
The Gospel according to St. John, l:cxlv). Jeremías, for example, points to the cli-
mactic parallelism (step parallelism) in verses 4-5, in which each line takes up a
word of the preceding line {The Central Message of the New Testament, 73): "In Him
was life, And the life was the Light of men, The Light shines in the darkness, And
the darkness did not comprehend it." Cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according
to John, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1966), 1:19.
8
Not all are convinced that John used an earlier "original hymn." Herman Rid-
derbos wrote, "If this hypothesis can be maintained only if one contents oneself with
a fragmented and vaguely contoured picture of this hypothetical hymn and is pre-
pared to involve oneself in a maze of adaptations and interpretations of this hymn,
then the question arises whether this hypothesis does not sink under its own
weight. . . . For a long time now . . . forceful arguments have been advanced t h a t . . .
maintain the original unity of the prologue" {The Gospel of John: A Theological
Commentary, trans. John Vriend [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997], 21). C. K. Bar-
rett wrote, "The Prologue stands before us as a prose introduction which has not
been submitted to interpolation and was specially written . . . to introduce the gos-
pel—and, it may be added, to sum it up" {The Gospel according to St. John, 2d ed.
[Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978], 151). Barrett also wrote, "The Prologue is not a jig-
saw puzzle but one piece of solid theological writing. The evangelist wrote it all"
{The Prologue of St. John's Gospel [London: Athlone, 1971], 27). Peder Borgen
agreed. "The structure of the prologue of John must primarily be understood on the
basis that it is meant to be an exposition of Gen. 1:1 ff. The question of poetry or
prose is therefore of subordinate significance" ("Logos Was the True Light," Novum
Testamentum 14 [April 1972]: 129).
9
Herman Ridderbos, "The Structure and Scope of the Prologue to the Gospel of
John," Novum Testamentum 8 (April 1966): 180-201; Charles Homer Giblin, "Two
Complementary Literary Structures in John 1:1-18," Journal of Biblical Literature
104 (1985): 87-103; Jeff Staley, "The Structure of John's Prologue: Its Implications
for the Gospel's Narrative Structure," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (April 1986):
241-64; Mary Coloe, "The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1," Aus-
tralian Biblical Review 45 (1997): 40-55. On the possible chiastic structure of the
prologue see R. Alan Culpepper, "The Pivot of John's Prologue," New Testament
Studies 27 (1980-81), 1-31. See the criticisms by Beasley-Murray, John, 4. Jan G.
van der Watt says the prologue has a number of complementary structures ("The
Composition of the Prologue of John's Gospel: The Historical Jesus Introducing
Divine Grace," Westminster Theological Journal 57 [1995]: 311-32).
10
Various attempts have been made to explain the origin of the theological con-
cepts in the prologue. First, in 1923 Bultmann sought to show that the essence and
function of the λόγος was the same as the essence and function of Jewish wisdom,
sophia. The origin of the hymn of the prologue lay in the identification of John the
Baptist as the incarnate, sophia-like Logos. When this concept was applied to Jesus,
the hymn was correspondingly Christianized.
Second (later, in 1971), Bultmann argued that the λόγος of John 1 is not to be
 The Etemality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 51

understood from the Old Testament, because God's Word did not become a "hypos­
tasis" (i.e., a personified force which exists autonomously as a divine being) in the
Old Testament. Nor may the λόγος be simply traced to sophia. Rather, both sophia
and the Hellenistic λόγος go back to the same source, namely, the redeemer myth of
Gnosticism. As later scholars have noted, however, Bultmann's pre-Christian Gnos­
tic redeemer is constructed from Gnostic texts that are later than the New Testa­
ment period and John's Gospel. Furthermore the Gnostic redeemer was only a re-
vealer and became a redeemer only when it was Christian Gnosticism. Also his as­
sertion that the Word of God is never a hypostasis in the Old Testament is incorrect.
In addition the contexts in which Gnosticism and John's prologue speak of redemp­
tion contradict each other. In Gnosticism God and the world are dualistic opposi tes.
In the Johannine prologue, on the other hand, all things have been made by the
λόγος, who was with God and is God. The idea that a Gnostic "redeemer myth" is
the starting point of Johannine Christology is today largely discredited.
Third, Dodd argued that the prologue is to be understood against the back­
ground of various layers of Hellenistic syncretism. John did not write for Christians
who needed a deeper theology but for non-Christians who were concerned about
eternal life and the way to it and who might be ready to follow the Christian way if
it were presented to them in terms that were intelligibly related to their previous
interests and experience. Dodd saw the origin of the λόγος and other ideas in the
prologue as being Judaism, but found the language to convey these ideas in Helle­
nistic thought, including Philo and the Hermetic literature (second and third centu­
ries A.D., written in Greek in Egypt and attributed to Hermes Trismegistus) (Dodd,
The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 8-9, 53, 73, 278). Dodd's emphasis on Cor­
pus Hermeticum founders on the shoals of anachronism because the documents
postdate Christianity, because the vocabulary John shared with the Hermética oc-
curs in the Septuagint, and because John wrote at a time when Christianity was
invading paganism, and paganism was not invading Christianity (G. D. Kilpatrick,
"The Religious Background of the Fourth Gospel," in Studies in the Fourth Gospel,
ed. F. L. Cross [London: Mowbray, 1957], 43).
Fourth, Rudolf Schnackenburg argued that John 1:14 was part of the original
hymn and showed an anti-Gnostic tendency. The "Logos hymn stemmed from the
very beginning of Christian circles" which knew nothing of a mythical redeemer, but
only of "the eternal Son of God, who at one time became man—a real, flesh and
blood man—in the person of Jesus of Nazareth" ("Logos-Hymns und johannischer
Prolog," Biblische ZeitschschrifH1951]: 94-95).
Fifth, Lorenz Dürr concluded, after a survey of Sumerian, Babylonian, and
Egyptian literature, that the hynrn in John 1 was the end result of the process of
hypostatization that moved from Genesis 1 to the Wisdom of Solomon 18:14-16. The
author of the Gospel was influenced not by the figure of Hermes/Logos or the Stoic
Logos, but by an idea that grew naturally out of the Old Testament and Jewish
wisdom literature. John took up the Logos concept because it best expressed the
essence and activity of Christ, the Son of God {Die Wertung des göttlichen Wortes im
alten Testament und im antiken Orient [Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1938], 158-67).
Sixth, Helmer Ringgren built on Dürr and argued that there was a progressive
hypostatization of the Word in Judaism, constantly under the influence of foreign
religions where the concept of a hypostasis was widespread. The prologue of John
was merely the next stage in the process. It has been objected, however, that the
Old Testament passages in which wisdom is personified can hardly be characterized
as anything but poetic {Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine
Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East [Lund: Ohlssons, 1947], 150,
157-59, 171).
Seventh, Jack T. Sanders saw elements of the Logos hymn (e.g., the hypostati-
zation of divine qualities) in the heterodox Jewish Odes of Solomon and the Gnostic
literature from Nag Hammadi, which, he argued, provided a matrix for the ideas
found in John's prologue. Increasingly scholars are finding such views untenable
52 BiBLlOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

Gospel?11 If the prologue employs a hymn, 12 which verses are the

hymn, and which are John's own composition?13 The answers to
these questions are somewhat speculative. 14 Scholars classify the
prologue as poetry,15 "rhythmical prose,"16 or "hymnic prose." 17

{The New Testament Christological Hymns, 29-57, 101-39). The Odes of Solomon
postdate John and have Christian additions. The Nag Hammadi documents post­
date John and could not have influenced the Fourth Gospel. Sanders, typical of the
History of Religions school, seems driven by the view that no religious language or
religious ideas contained in the New Testament are originally and authentically
Christian (ibid., 42 η. 1). His approach to New Testament Christological hymns is
naturalistic.
Eighth, Leon Morris, representing historic, supernatural Christianity, acknowl­
edged that when John used the term λόγος he was using a term widely recognized
in the Greek-speaking world. The term would also resonate with readers familiar
with the concept of the personification of wisdom. "Whatever their background they
would not find John's thought identical with their own. His idea of the Logos is es­
sentially new" {The Gospel according to John, 102-11). As Ridderbos rightly asks,
How could the pagan and syncretistic philosophy of the ancient world be the back­
ground for the concrete person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as He is
depicted in the Fourth Gospel? {The Gospel of John, 28). See also Rudolf Bultmann,
"The History of Religious Background of the Prologue to the Gospel of John," in The
Interpretation of John, ed. John Ashton (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 18-35; and
idem, The Gospel of John, 20-31.
11
Carson pointedly observed, "The tightness of the connection between the pro­
logue and the Gospel render unlikely the view that the Prologue was composed by
someone other than the Evangelist" {The Gospel according to John, 111-12). If John
used earlier material, possibly an early Christian hymn, he thoroughly integrated
his own thought into it. From the literary point of view it seems that the prologue is
a part of the structure of the Gospel and not merely an "introduction" added to an
already fully thought-out Gospel (cf. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St.
John, 1:221).
12
Several reasons suggest that John made use of a hymn. First, literary critics
agree on the existence of rhythmical sentences and strophes (stanzas), though not
exactly definable by meter and stress. Second, the structure reveals breaks and
sudden switches, which are particularly clear in the two interruptions to include
material about John the Baptist. Third, certain theological concepts are not found
elsewhere in the Gospel, including the title λόγος, used in a Christological sense; the
dwelling of the Logos among men (v. 14); His "fullness"; and His communication of
grace (v. 16). See Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, 225-26.
13
Scholarly opinion is divided over which verses belong to what Jeremías termed
the Urprolog, "original prologue" {The Central Message of the New Testament, 74).
See Brown, The Gospel according to John, 1:3-4; and J. A. T. Robinson, "The Relation
of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John," New Testament Studies 9 (1962-63): 126.
14
Commenting on the analysis of Bultmann, Käsemann remarked, "The solution
is built up on a wealth of hypotheses and thus vulnerable on several different
fronts" ("The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel," 140).
15
For example, Jeremías, The Central Message of the New Testament, 72; Brown,
The Gospel according to John, 1:18-19; Bultmann, John, 15; and Frank Kermode,
"St. John as Poet," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28 (1986): 3-16.
16
J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St.
John, Harper New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 67.
 The Etemality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 53

THE WORD'S STRIKING DESIGNATION

18
In his prologue John began with a clear allusion to Genesis 1. "In
the beginning" ( Έν αρχή) corresponds to ΓΡΙΟΚΊ3 ("In the beginning")
of Genesis 1:1.19 John referred to the Word, who was in existence at
the time of Creation. John did not refer to Him as "Messiah," "Son
of Man," or even "Son of God." 20 Instead, in seeking to draw his
readers, both Gentiles 21 and Jews, 22 to faith in Christ, he began

See also Barrett, The Prologue of St. John's Gospel, 13-14; F. F. Bruce, The Gospel
of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 28; Haenchen, John, 1:125; and Carson,
The Gospel according to John, 112.
17
Ernst Haenchen, "Probleme des johanneischen Prologs," Zeitschrift für Theologie
und Kirche 60 (1963): 309, 333-34.
18
The literature on John's prologue is extensive. In addition to the works cited in
the previous notes, other works include M. E. Boismard, St. John's Prologue, trans.
Carisbrooke Dominicans (London: Aquin, 1957); Reginald H. Fuller, The Founda-
tions of New Testament Christology (New York: Scribner's, 1965), 222-27; Joachim
Jeremías, The Central Message of the New Testament (New York: Scribner's, 1965),
71-90; Elson Jay Epp, "Wisdom, Torah, Word: The Johannine Prologue and the
Purpose of the Fourth Gospel," in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpre-
tation, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 128-46; Craig A.
Evans, "On the Prologue of John and the Trimorphic Protennoia," New Testament
Studies 27 (1980-81): 395-401; James M. Bulman, "The Only Begotten Son," Calvin
Theological Journal 16 (1981): 56-79; Ed. L. Miller, "The Logic of the Logos Hymn:
A New View," New Testament Studies 29 (1983): 552-61; John V. Dahms, "The Jo-
hannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered," New Testament Studies 29 (1983):
222-32; D. A. Fennema, "John 1:18: 'God the Only Son,' "New Testament Studies 31
(1985): 124-35; Frank Kermode, "St. John as Poet," Journal for the Study of the
New Testament 28 (1986): 3-16; James Parker, "The Incarnational Christology of
John," Criswell Theological Review 3 (fall 1988): 31-48; Thomas L. Brodie, The Gos-
pel according to John (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 133-35; and
Gerard Pendrick, "ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΗΣ" New Testament Studies 41 (1995): 587-600.
19
Peder Borgen notes that other central terms of John 1:1-5 {θεός, φως, σκοτία) are
also used in the Septuagint of Genesis 1:1-5. He notes a parallel to John's exposi­
tion in the Jerusalem Targum on Genesis 3:24 ("Observations of the Targumic
Character of the Prologue of John," New; Testament Studies 16 [1970]: 288-95, esp.
293-95).
20
Haenchen, John, 1:109-10. "The Evangelist uses the title λόγος and not υιός
here, because he wishes to carry his readers to the most absolute conceptions"
(Brooke Foss Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with In­
troduction and Notes [London: John Murray, 1908; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker,
1980], 1:6).
21
Merrill C. Tenney argues that John's audience was Gentile. If "believe" in 20:31
is a present tense {πιστβύητέ), then the readers were possibly believers who needed
strengthening. If it is an aorist {πιστεύσητε), then this would suggest that the Gos­
pel was addressed, at least in part, to a pagan constituency. John's habit of ex­
plaining Jewish usages (e.g., "rabbi" in 1:38 and "Passover" in 6:4), translating
Jewish names (1:41-42), and identifying the location of Palestinian sites (4:5; 5:2;
6:1) would suggest a Gentile audience ("The Gospel of John," in The Expositor's Bi­
ble Commentary, vol. 9 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 10).
54 BiBLlOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

with a term that would spark their interest.

"Word" is an inadequate rendering of λόγος, but as Bruce
wrote, "it would be difficult to find one less inadequate." 2 3 The
meaning of λόγος in John's prologue has been at the center of con­
troversy for many years. 2 4 One of the writer's teachers said that
people writing about the λόγος have probably written over one
hundred thousand pages on what John meant by "word."25 Older
Latin writers translated λόγος by verbum (i.e., the spoken word) or
ratio (i.e., thought). 26 A word is a means of communication, an ex­
pression of what is in one's mind. Phillips paraphrased the clause,
"At the beginning God expressed Himself."27 Phillips agreed that
his rendering was not fully accurate, but he said that a number of
his readers found it more meaningful than "word."28 Bruce felt that
"word in action" came close to doing λόγος justice. 29
Even today for many people in the Middle East a word is more
than a mere sound. It is an independent, power-filled existence.
Decades ago Sir George Adam Smith, noted British Old Testament
scholar, was traveling in the desert when he met a group of Mus­
lims. They offered him their customary greeting, "Peace be upon
you." When they discovered he was a Christian, they hurried to
return and ask him to give the blessing back! A word was some-

22
John's primary purpose was to evangelize both Jews and proselytes. John's con­
centration on the questioning of the Jews might suggest that he was targeting Jew­
ish readers along with Gentiles (Bruce, The Gospel of John, 13; and Carson, The
Gospel according to John, 94).
23
Bruce, The Gospel of John, 29.
2 4
See the discussions by Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 19-31, and Dodd, The
Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 263-85.
2 5
Edwin A. Blum, "The Gospel of John, 1: The Christian World Life View, part 1"
(cassette tape, Dallas, TX: Believers Chapel, 1973). For further discussion see
Gerhard Kittel and A. Debrunner, "λέγω, λόγος," in Theological Dictionary of the
New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 4 (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 69-143, esp. 128-36; B. Klappert and Colin Brown,
"Word," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin
Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 3:1081-1119, esp. 1114-17); Bernard, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John,
l:cxxxviii-cxliv; Beasley-Murray, John, 6-10; and Morris, The Gospel according to
John, 102-11.
2 6
Bonsall, The Son and the Word, 64-65.
2 7
J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English (New York: Macmillan,
1962), 186.
2 8
Bruce, The Gospel of John, 29.
2 9
Ibid.
 The Eternality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 55

thing that could be sent out to do something and then brought back
again. 30
Among the Greeks the term λόγος had an interesting history. 31
It could be thought of as being within a person, that is, a thought
or reason. Or it could refer to a thought as going forth from a per­
son as speech. Among their philosophers it denoted something like
the soul of the universe. It was creative energy. They spoke of λόγος
σπερματικός, "seminal reason," the creative force in nature. Hera-
clitus, sixth-century B.C. Greek philosopher, equated fire, God, and
λόγος, seeing them as omnipresent, pantheistic wisdom that guided
and controlled all things. The Stoics saw the λόγος as the supreme
principle of the universe, the force that originated, permeated, and
directed all things.
Greek philosophical usage, however, was not the background
of John's use of the term λόγος. Yet because of that usage it consti­
tuted a bridge word by which some unbelievers schooled in Greek
philosophy became interested in Christianity. The average person
might not have known the precise significance that philosophers
attached to the λόγος any more than people today know all the de­
tails of nuclear fission or the theory of evolution. Yet they talked
about it, and John's teaching would captivate the interest of indi­
viduals reading John 1:1 and 14. The λόγος of God—the controlling
power of the universe—became a man. 3 2
After a long search for truth in the pagan philosophies, Justin
Martyr (A.D. 100-165), one of the first Christian apologists, became
a believer in Christ when he saw that Christ was the λόγος whom
33
the philosophers were talking about.
In any case the background of John's thought and language is
not found in Greek philosophy but in the Old Testament, as John's
quotation of Genesis 1 ("In the beginning") makes clear. Repeatedly
Genesis 1 has the words, "Then God said" (w. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24,
26, 29). The "word of God" in the Old Testament denotes God in
action, especially in creation (Ps. 33:6), revelation (Isa. 38:4), and

d0
William Barclay, The Gospel of John, Daily Study Bible, rev. ed. (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1975), 1:28.
31
Morris, The Gospel according to John, 102-3.
32
Ibid., 103; cf. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to St. John, lxxlii; and James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John: An
Expositional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 1:39-40.
33
Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin 5, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1,
ed. Alexander Robers and James Donaldson (1867; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerd­
mans, 1973), 164.
56 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

deliverance (Ps. 107:20).34 The term "CTI ("word") was sometimes

personified and viewed as God's agent or messenger, as in "The
word of the Lord came ['was,' TP]] to Isaiah, saying," Isa. 38:4).
When people were suffering a terrible illness and cried to the Lord
for help, the psalmist likewise wrote, "He sent His word and healed
them, and delivered them from their destructions" (Ps. 107:20).35
The Old Testament writers used literary personification in de­
scribing the word of God. However, John had something new to
say, though he used familiar words to say it. The Word of God by
whom the universe was made is a person. 36
John's prologue, then, is an introduction designed to arrest the
attention of his readers, whether they were Palestinian or Helle­
nist, Greek or Roman. Noting the familiar word λόγος, the readers
would think of a principle or divine power, or both, according to
their background, but they would then be brought up short in
amazement because it would soon be obvious that John was
speaking about a person who is both God and man. For John the
source of life was not a principle or a power, but a living being, a
person—a divine person who became man. 3 7

THE WORD'S ETERNAL EXISTENCE

"Mark begins his story of Jesus at Jordan, Matthew and Luke start
at Bethlehem. But John goes back to the very beginning of history,
even beyond it, as if to say, 'There is only one true perspective in
which to see the story—you must see it in the light of eternity.' " 3 8
Verse 1 has three clauses, each of which tells the reader some­
thing about the λόγος. First, the λόγος is eternal in existence: "In

d4
Bruce, The Gospel of John, 29; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 104, n.
142.
35
Bruce, The Gospel of John, 30; cf. W. H. Schmidt, "ΊΤ}," in Theological Diction­
ary of the Old Testament, éd. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringren, trans.
John T. Willis, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 120-25. In the inter-
testamental period this personification (or hypostatization) is even more detailed
(Book of Wisdom 18:15). The angel of death who destroyed the firstborn in Egypt on
the first Passover is called God's "all-powerful word": "Thy all-powerful word leaped
from heaven, from the royal throne, into the midst of the land that was doomed."
36
"In my opinion all these personifications of Wisdom have a poetic character that
can in no way be equated with the mode of existence of the Logos in John 1" (Rid-
derbos, The Gospel of John, 34).
37
Paul O. Wright, "Except through Me" (unpublished ms., 1982), 45.
38
A. M. Hunter, The Gospel according to John, Cambridge Bible Commentary
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), 15.
 The Eternality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 57

the beginning was the Word" ( Έν άρχη ην ó λόγος).39 As Morris

noted, "There never was a time when the Word was not." 4 0
Whereas Genesis 1:1 takes the reader back to the beginning of
creation, John "lifts our thoughts beyond the beginning and dwells
on that which 'was' when time, and with time, finite being began
its course." 41 Calvin says, "The Evangelist sends us to the eternal
sanctuary of God and teaches us that the Word was, as it were,
hidden there before He revealed Himself in the outward workman­
ship of the world."42

THE WORD'S DISTINCT PERSONALITY

In the second line of verse 1 John wrote, "The Word was with God"
(ό λόγος ην προς τον θβόν). The preposition "with" {προς) carries
the two ideas of accompaniment and relationship. 43 Literally the
phrase means "face to face with God."44 It expresses personal com­
panionship, that is, the presence of one person with another. 45
The Word, then, was "with God." He was distinct from God, He
had a personal relationship with God, and He was at home with

dy
William Temple notes that eu άρχη combines two meanings: "at the beginning of
history" and "at the root of the universe" {Readings in St. John's Gospel, 1st and 2d
series [London: Macmillan, 1952], 3). Similarly Karl Barth wrote, "This Word, un­
like all other words, was not a created human word only relating to God and only
speaking of God and about God. As word it was spoken where God is, namely iu
άρχη, in principio of all that is, προς τον 6eóu, belonging to God, therefore itself θεός,
God by nature" {Church Dogmatics 1.1, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 2d. ed. [Edin­
burgh: Clark, 1975], 401).
40
Morris, The Gospel according to John, 65.
41
Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:4 (italics his).
John Calvin, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 1:8.
43
Morris, The Gospel according to John, 67.
44
* A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Histori­
cal Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 623.
45
Marcus Dods, "The Gospel of St. John," in The Expositor's Greek Testament
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970),
1:684. Bernard, however, denies that προς with the accusative differs much from
παρά with the dative, meaning no more than "existence along side of" (A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, 1:2). Boismard states
that John was seeking to convey the idea of distinction from God and not closeness
to God {St. John's Prologue, 8). Also Carson argues that Dods and others claim too
much in suggesting that John was trying to express a peculiar intimacy with προς
{The Gospel according to John, 116). Carson does concede, however, that προς nor­
mally means "with" in the sense of one's being with another, usually in some inti­
mate relationship.
58 BiBLlOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

God. All of this would be startling and new for John's listeners and
readers. They had thought of earlier descriptions of the Word as
personifications, that is, no more than a literary device. Now they
must recognize that John was asserting the actual personal exis­
tence of the Word. John rejected any idea that the Word became a
person only at the time of Jesus' birth. 4 6

THE WORD'S ESSENTIAL DEITY

John's third clause affirms the deity of the λόγος: "And the Word
was God" (και θεός ην ό λόγος).41 John's statement must not be
watered down as in Moffatt's translation, "the Logos was divine." 48
One problem with that translation is that "divine" is an adjective,
but the Greek text uses a noun ("God").49 Had John wanted to say
"divine," he could have used the Greek adjective θείος, a word that
was available and is found elsewhere in the New Testament in Acts
17:29 and 2 Peter l:3-4. 5 0 Another problem with the translation
"divine" is that it demotes the λόγος to the state of a quasi-divinity,
a condition between God and the creatures. This would conflict

4 b
However, Dunn argues that there is no thought of the λόγος being a personal
divine being until verse 14 {Christology in the Making, 243). Until then the λόγος
was viewed as a personified action of God. See also J. A. T. Robinson, The Human
Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 10, 113-14, 180-85, 209-10, 213-14,
218; and idem, "Dunn on John," Theology 85 (1982): 334. More accurately Westcott
asserted that in this passage the "economic" Trinity is shown to correspond to the
"essential" Trinity {The Gospel according to St. John, 1:5).
47
Two features of John's use of θεός in verses 1-18 should be noted: (1) The term is
anarthrous more often than in the rest of the Gospel. Throughout the Gospel θεός is
articular six times out of seven, but here the ratio is reversed, with six of its eight
occurrences lacking the article (1:1b, 6, 12, 13, 18 [twice]). (2) The first and last oc­
currences of the anarthrous θεός in these verses describe the λόγος, but the four
intervening examples all signify God the Father (1:6, 12, 13, 18a). This forms an
inclusio in which the anarthrous θεός is used first of the λόγος, then four times of
God the Father, and then again of the λόγος. How does the deity of the λόγος com­
pare with the deity of God Himself? John answered this question by using precisely
the same term—the anarthrous θεός—to represent God four times in succession. He
closed the inclusio by using the term once more to reaffirm the deity of the λόγος. In
this way he vividly equated the deity of the λόγος with that of God the Father (Fen-
nema, "John 1:18: 'God the Only Son/ " 129).
4 8
James Moffatt, The New Testament: A New Translation (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, n.d.), 136. See also Haenchen, John, 1:110-11.
4 9
Murray J. Harris rejects "divine" for two reasons: (1) Since θεός is bounded on
either side by a use of τον θεόν (1:1b, 2) which clearly refers to "God" the Father,
θεός most naturally is taken as substantival in verse lc. (2) Linguistically, if 1:1 and
20:28 form the two Christological "bookends" of the Fourth Gospel, θεός in 1:1c, as in
20:28, is likely to be titular {Jesus as God [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 68).
50
Morris, The Gospel according to John, 68, n. 15.
 The Etemality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 59

with the strict monotheism of the Scriptures. 51

Also θεός cannot be watered down as in the Jehovah's Wit­
nesses translation "and the Word was a god."52 Members of that
cult note that the word "God" is anarthrous (lacking the article) in
the Greek text. Since John did not write "the God," they conclude
he meant "a god." This translation, however, is erroneous for four
reasons, as Harris points out. 53 First, a theological reason: If they
took their own translation seriously, the Jehovah's Witnesses
would believe in polytheism (i.e., more than one God). 54 John's
monotheism makes this rendering impossible. The Bible teaches
there is one God (Deut. 6:4). A monotheist could apply the singular
θεός ("God") only to the Supreme Being and not to an inferior di­
vine being. 55
Second, a literary reason: Elsewhere in John Jesus is called
"God," and in one of those verses (John 20:28, "My Lord and my
God") the article is used. The argument that John does not call Je­
sus "God" is therefore baseless.
Third, a grammatical reason: In their discussion of John 1:1
the Jehovah's Witnesses betray their lack of understanding of
Greek grammar. In the clause και θεός ην ó λόγος the subject, al­
though it follows the verb, is "the Word" (ό λόγος) because it has
the article. The word "God" (θεός), which precedes the copulative
verb ην, is an anarthrous predicate nominative. In his analysis of
predicate nouns in Mark and John, Harner concluded that
"anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb may be primarily
qualitative in force yet may also have some connotation of
definiteness."56 Harner's paraphrase is to the point: "the Word had

5
Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 1:246.
5
New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (New York: Watch-
tower Bible and Tract Society, 1950), 282, 773-77; cf. Bruce M. Metzger, "The Jeho­
vah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today 10 (April 1953): 74-76.
53
Cf. Harris, Jesus as God, 57-71.
5
Metzger, "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," 75; and Harris, Jesus as
God, 60.
55
The plural θεοί is used in John 10:34 of mortals who received God's Word (Har­
ris, Jesus as God, 44, n. 99).
5 6
Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,"
87. James Hope Moulton wrote, "For exegesis, there are few of the finer points of
Greek which need more constant attention than this omission of the article when
the writer would lay stress on the quality or character of the object" {Prolegomena,
vol. 1 of Λ Grammar of New Testament Greek, 3d ed. [Edinburgh: Clark, 1908], 83).
Cf. E. C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Tes­
tament," Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 12-21. For a well-reasoned
60 BlBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

the same nature as God."57

Fourth, a grammatical-theological reason: If John had used
the article before θεός in this clause he would have been writing,
"The Son was the Father." But this would contradict the second
clause of verse 1 in which he distinguished the λόγος from the Fa­
ther. Sabellius, an early third-century A.D. heretic, denied the
Trinity, the doctrine that three eternal persons coexist in the God­
head. Arguing that the Godhead has only one person, he said that
"Father," "Son," and "Spirit" are different "modes" that the one per­
son used in different eras. If John followed the view of the Jeho­
vah's Witnesses, he would have been saying, like Sabellius, that
the Son is the Father. 5 8
With this carefully crafted sentence John said that the Word is
deity. Yet he did not say, "God is the Word," that is, he did not say
that all of deity is the Word. There is more to God than the Word.
There is also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. So, while the
λόγος is not the Father, He has all the qualities that add up to the
fact that He too is God. "The absence of the article indicates that
the Word is God, but [He] is not the only being of whom this is
true." 5 9 "The Word has [His] whole being within deity, but [He]
does not exhaust the being of deity." 60 He was "essentially [God],
though not He alone [God]."61
As Barrett wrote, "John intends that the whole of his gospel
shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Je­
sus are the deeds and words of God; if this be not true the book is
62
blasphemous."
John 1:1 is packed with theology, yet it is very practical. Boice
63
suggested four reasons why it matters that Jesus Christ is God.

warning against the misapplication of Colwell's rule to John 1:1 see Daniel B.
Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996),
256-62. In arguing that θεός in John 1:1c is definite some scholars "have jumped
out of the frying pan of Arianism into the fire of Sabellianism'' (ibid., 258).
57
Harner, "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,"
87. Harris paraphrases the clause, "The Word was identical with God the Father in
nature" (Jesus as God, 70).
5 8
Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:6; and Harris, Jesus as God, 64.
5 9
Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 156.
6 0
Temple, Readings in St. John's Gospel, 5.
61
William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of John (1898; reprint, Denver: Wil­
son Foundation, 1966), 12.
62
Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 156.
63
Boice, The Gospel of John, 1:24-27.
 The Etemality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 61

First, it means that believers know what God is like. Is He the god
of the philosophers like Plato and Immanuel Kant, the god of the
mystics, or the god of new-age pantheism or panentheism? Or is He
the God of the Bible? If Jesus Christ is God, then people can know
what God is like. To know Jesus Christ is to know God, for Jesus
said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). If one
wants to know what God is like, he should study the life and
teachings of Christ in the Bible.
Second, it means that God was always like Jesus. Many have
concluded that there is a great difference between the Lord Jesus
and the God of the Old Testament. A little girl who was raised un-
der the preaching of a liberal pastor was reading in the Old Testa-
ment a bloody story of the defeat of Israel's enemies. Surely it was
wrong for God to order that, she surmised. "Well," she concluded,
"that happened before God became a Christian!"
If the Word was with God before time began and if God's Word
is part of the eternal scheme of things, it means that God was al-
ways like Jesus. Sometimes people tend to think of God as stern
and avenging and that Jesus changed God's anger into love and
altered His attitude toward the human race. The New Testament
knows nothing of that idea. Does God the Father hate sin? Yes!
Christ has always hated sin also. Does God the Father love sin-
ners? Yes! Therefore Christ loves them also.64
Third, the truth that Jesus Christ is God means that His death
for sin is of infinite value. His death is the only acceptable and suf-
ficient sacrifice for sin. Because He is human and sinless, His sacri-
fice is appropriate and acceptable, and because He is God, His sac-
rifice is infinite in value.
Fourth, because Jesus Christ is God, it means that He is able
to satisfy all the needs of the human heart. In Ephesians 3:18-19
Paul prayed that believers "may be able to comprehend with all the
saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to
know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge." During the
Napoleonic wars in Europe some of the emperor's soldiers opened a
prison that had been used by the Spanish Inquisition. In one of the
many dungeons they found the skeleton of a prisoner chained to
the wall. On the wall, carved into the stone with a sharp piece of
metal was a crude cross. And around the cross were the Spanish
words for the four dimensions in Ephesians 3:18-19. On one side
was the word "breadth," and on the other side was the word
"length," above was the word "height," and below was the word

Ibid., 1:25-26.
62 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

"depth." Left to rot away in chains, this persecuted believer com­

forted himself with the thought that God was able to satisfy every
spiritual need of his heart. 6 5

THE WORD'S SAPIENTIAL IDENTITY

Most commentators assume that verse 2 ("He was in the beginning

with God") merely repeats verse l, 6 6 stressing that the Word is
eternal. However, it is likely that John meant more than that. 6 7 In
this verse John answered a question prompted by certain mysteri­
ous elements of the Old Testament revelation. The Old Testament
personified divine wisdom, that is, it sometimes spoke of wisdom as
if it were a person. For example in Proverbs 8:22-31 wisdom
speaks as the master craftsman through whom God created the
earth. "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before
His works of old. From everlasting I was established, from the be­
ginning, from the earliest times of the earth . . . then I was beside
Him" (w. 22, 30). The λόγος of which John wrote is the wisdom de­
scribed in Old Testament times. 6 8 Λόγος and wisdom alike became
incarnate in Jesus Christ.
John 1:2 also answers the Creator's rhetorical question in
Isaiah 44:24: "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched

6 5
Ibid., 1:26-27.
66
For example Godet, The Gospel of John, 1:248; Westcott, The Gospel according
to St. John, 1:7; Bernard, A Criticai and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel ac­
cording to St. John, 1:3; Beasley-Murray, John, 11; Carson, The Gospel according to
John, 117-18; and Morris, The Gospel according to John, 70.
67
Bruce, The Gospel of John, 31-32, 64, n. 8.
6 8
Karl Barth protested against applying Proverbs 8:22 to Christ {Church Dogmat­
ics 2.2.95). The Word, he argued, must be distinguished from wisdom and all other
created realities. His argument seems to assume something like the Revised Stan­
dard Version translation, "The Lord created me at the beginning of His work." The
translation "possessed me" (NASB), of which Barth was aware, is to be preferred.
The translation "created Me" (a) reflects the low Christological presuppositions of
the Arian heresy, which Barth abhorred; (b) runs counter to the general meaning of
the verb Γφ, which is "get," "acquire," or "possess," and not "create" (Francis Brown,
S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Tes­
tament [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953], 888-89); (c) ignores the context,
which separates Wisdom from the Creation; and (d) fails to apply the New Testa­
ment analogy of Christ as the One who is the only begotten of the Father, and not
made. The teaching of the rest of the New Testament must not be ignored here.
Jesus used the phrase "the wisdom of God" as interchangeable with a simple refer­
ence to Himself (Matt. 23:34; Luke 11:49). And Paul said that all wisdom is in Him
(Col. 2:3) and that He is "the wisdom of God" (1 Cor. 1:24, 30). See J. Barton Payne,
The Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 171, n. 18.
 The Etemality and Deity of the Word: John 1:1-2 63

out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth—Who was with
me?" (RSV). John answered, in essence, "He—the λόγος, Christ—was
with God the Father!" The Greek text uses a pronoun to emphasize
the point: "This one (ούτος) i.e., the λόγος, was with God."69
When God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let Us make man," to whom
was He speaking? John answered, "This One, i.e., the λόγος, who
was in the beginning with God!" And then there is Agur's question
about the transcendence of God: "Who has established all the ends
of the earth? What is His name or His son's name?" (Prov. 30:4).70
Interpreters have puzzled over the identity of this figure.71 In
Agur's words "the NT doctrine of the Son of God [was] announcing
itself from afar."72 This one, the λόγος, according to John, is the Son
of whom Agur spoke.

CONCLUSION

In the first stanza of his λόγος hymn John affirmed three truths
about the λόγος. First, He existed eternally before the creation of
the universe. Second, He coexisted eternally with God. Third, He is
Himself of the same nature as God. In His nature He is essential
deity.
John 1:1-2 focuses in several ways on the person and work of
Christ as central to the Christian worldview. First, these verses
proclaim "the finality of Jesus Christ." 73 He alone is God come to
earth. No other can stand alongside Him or take His place.
Second, these verses proclaim "the mystery of Jesus Christ." 74
Since He is one with God in His being, He shares in the infinity
and limitlessness of God. This does not mean that people cannot
know Him, but it does mean they cannot have exhaustive knowl-

69
Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John, 1:7.
70
With perhaps a satirical tone Agur implied in Proverbs 30:2-3 that some people
profess to know God perfectly and can give a full explanation of all that He does—"I
am not one of these wise men" (Crawford H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Com­
mentary on the Book of Proverbs, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh:
Clark, 1899], 521).
71
The "son" in Proverbs 30:4 has been identified as Israel, the demiurge, the Mes­
siah, the Alexandrian logos, or the Son of God (ibid., 522).
72
J. D. Michaelis, quoted in Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Proverbs
of Solomon, trans. M. G. Easton (1872; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.),
2:276-77.
73
Bruce Milne, The Message of John (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994), 35.
74
Ibid.
64 BiBLiOTHECA SACRA / January-March 2003

edge of Him. Believers know Him, and yet there is always more to
know. That is why worship is fundamental to understanding
Christ.
Third, John 1:1-2 proclaims "the centrality of Jesus Christ."75
Because Jesus Christ is God incarnate, He must always be in the
center of the believer's approach to God, his thinking about God,
and his relating to God (14:6). The French mathematician and
theologian Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), said that the two leading
principles of the Christian faith are that "Jesus Christ [is] the ob-
ject of all, the center to which everything tends. Whoever knows
Him understands all things."76
Fourth, John 1:1-2 proclaim "the supremacy of Jesus Christ."
Since Jesus Christ shares the nature of God, believers "worship
Him without cessation, obey Him without hesitation, love Him
without reservation, and serve Him without interruption."77

Ibid., 35-36.
Blaise Pascal, Pensées 12, trans. H. F. Stewart (New York: Pantheon, 1950), 6-7.
Milne, The Message of John, 36.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.