as implying a new relation of grace, founded on a covenant relation of God and on the work of Christ ( <480405>Galatians 4:5 sq .).?
Like the word ?person?, the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not to be confined within the precise limitations of meaning, which would be required if they were applied to men.
(a) The Scriptures enlarge our conceptions of Christ?s Sonship by giving to him in his preexistent state the names of the Logos, the Image, and the Effulgence of God. The term ?Logos? combines in itself the two ideas of thought and word, of reason and expression. While the Logos as divine thought or reason is one with God, the Logos as divine word or expression is distinguishable from God. Words are the means by which personal beings express or reveal themselves. Since Jesus Christ was ?the Word? before there were any creatures to whom revelations could be made, it would seem to be only a necessary inference from this title that in Christ God must be from eternity expressed or revealed to himself; in other words, that the Logos is the principle of truth, or self-consciousness, in God. The term ?Image? suggests the ideas of copy or counterpart. Man is the image of God only relatively and derivatively. Christ is the Image of God absolutely and archetypally. As the perfect representation of the Father?s perfections, the Son would seem to be the object and principle of love in the Godhead. The term ?Effulgence,? finally, is an allusion to the sun and its radiance. As the effulgence of the sun manifests the sun?s nature, which otherwise would be unrevealed, yet is inseparable from the sun and ever one with it, so Christ reveals God, but is eternally one with God. Here is a principle of movement, of will, which seems to connect itself with the holiness, or self-asserting purity, of the divine nature.
Smyth, Introduction to Edwards? Observations on the Trinity: ?The ontological relations of the person of the Trinity are not a mere blank to human thought.? <430101>John 1:1 ? ?In the beginning was the Word? ? means more than ?in the beginning was the x, or the zero.? Godet indeed says that Logos = ?reason? only in philosophical writings, but never in the Scriptures. He calls this a Hegelian notion. But both Plato and Philo had made this signification a common one. On lo>gov as reason + speech, see Lightfoot on Colossians, 143, 144. Meyer interprets it as ?personal subsistence, the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God.? Neander, Planting and Training, 369 ? Logos = ?the
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?