alesce or be kept quite apart; Son of David, Son of Abraham, might at
times take the place of Son of God, and all these phrases might appear in
popular intercourse to express only what others called the Messiah or
Christ. In any case, all these were the highest expressions which could be
applied to man or to the son of man. To the ordinary understanding, still
permeated with heathen ideas, it was certainly monstrous to elevate a man
to Olympus, to transform him into a son of God. But what was there for man
higher than man? Intermediate beings, such as demons, heroes, or angels,
had never been seen, nor did they answer the purpose. One step, however
small, above the human, could only lead to the divine, or bring into
consciousness the divine in man. What seemed blasphemy to the Jewish
consciousness was just that truth which Christ proclaimed, the truth for
which he laid down his human life. If we enter into this thought, we shall
understand not only the occasional expressions of the Synoptics, but the
Fourth Gospel especially in all its depth. How it was possible to make
this last Gospel intelligible without these ideas, is almost
incomprehensible.

What, then, did the readers think of the Word, that was in the beginning,
that was with God, that even was God, of the Word, by which all things
were made? And what was understood when Jesus was called the Word, that
was in the world, without the world knowing him, while those who
recognised and acknowledged him as the Word, thereby became like him sons
of God? We must ascribe some meaning to these words, and what can we
ascribe if we do not take the philosophic term "Logos" in its historic
sense? One need only attempt to translate the beginning of the Fourth
Gospel into a non-Christian language, and we shall realise that without
its heathen antecedents the words remain absolutely unintelligible. We
find translations that mean simply, "In the beginning was the
substantive." That may seem incredible to us; but what better idea has a
poor old peasant woman in reading the first chapter of the Fourth Gospel,
and what better idea can the village preacher give her if she asks for an
explanation?

For us the greatest difficulty remains in verse 14, "The Word became
flesh, and dwelt among us." But what grounds have we for setting our
opinion against the unhesitating acceptance of contemporaries, and later
even of the Alexandrian philosophers? They must have felt the same
difficultie