De Moor I:3: Biblical Uses of "Theology"; and the Personal Word

The words composing the term Theology are extant in Holy Scripture:  for example, τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεου, the oracles/sayings of God, Romans 3:2;[1] Hebrews 5:12.[2]  As is apparent, τό λόγιον, the saying, and τὰ λόγια, the sayings, with this word used substantively, is able to be reckoned as more emphatic than τό ῥῆμα, the word/utterance, or even ὁ λόγος, the word/saying:  for this term among the Greeks denotes, not just any word, but more specifically an oracle, a divine response.  The Grammarians add that they use λόγια of divine responses given in prose, but χρησμοὺς/oracles of divine responses pronounced in verse; nevertheless, this distinction is not abiding, and indeed it does not now particularly apply to our matter:  see Henri Estienne’s Thesaurus Linguæ Graecæ,[3] the Scholiast of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War on book II, chapter VIII, pages 102, 103, and the notes on these Scholia, page 624, number II.  And so the sacred Writers by this name most fittingly indicate Oracles set forth by the true God.  In passing the Attic elegance of the expression in the construction of the words in Romans 3:2, ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ, that entrusted were the oracles of God, is able to be observed:  for the expression, ἐπιστεύθησαν τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τὰ λόγια, were entrusted to the Jews the oracles, is not to be supplied here, that λόγια/oracles might be the nominative and subject of the clause; thus the word would rather have been ἐπιστεύθη, was entrusted, since among the Greeks a neuter plural readily takes a singular verb:  but οἱ Ἰουδαίοι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles, so that λόγια/oracles might be in the regular accusative, and constitute the predicate of the clause.  Indeed, among the Greeks, especially the Athenians, passive verbs elegantly imitate the signification and case of their words:  thus 1 Corinthians 9:17, οἰκονομίαν πεπίστευμαι, a dispensation is committed to me; Galatians 2:7, πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας, καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς, to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter of the circumcision; Philippians 3:8, δι᾽ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, because of whom I have suffered the loss of all those:  see the Most Illustrious PASOR’S Grammaticam Græcam sacram Novi Testamenti, page 373-375, 678, and also his Lexicon Græco-Latinum in Novum Testamentum on the word πιστεύω, to trust.

Ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the word of God, is more frequently found in the Sacred Writings, but with a twofold signification.  For sometimes ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God, is the personal name of the Son of God; which signification of this expression is especially observed in the writings of the Apostle John, John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:7; Revelation 19:13.  Indeed, undoubtedly John, in the Gospel of John 1, speaks of the personal and substantial Λόγῳ/Logos/Word, asserting that He was in the beginning, with God, and God Himself, that through Him all things were made, that in Him was life and the light of men, that for a testimony to Him John came, that He came unto His own, by His own He was not received, but to those receiving Him He gave the power τέκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι, to become the sons of God, that finally He was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth, seen in the glory of the Only-Begotten of the Father, of whose fullness we all receive grace for grace.  Add 1 John 1:1-3, where He is called ὁ λόγος τῆς ζωῆς, the Word of Life.

Concerning the reason for the denomination, when the Son of God is called ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God, there is controversy with the Socinians, who deny the true Deity of the Son[4] (see Socinus’ Explicatione initii capitis 1 Johannis, opera, tome I, page 78; Schlichting[5] in Johannem 1:1, opera, tome I, pages 3, 4; Wolzogen[6] in Johannem 1:1, opera, pages 714, 715, compared with the Prolegomenis, chapter VI, pages 706, 707; Catechesin Racoviensis “de Cognitione Personæ Christi”, chapter I, questions 80, 81, page 109, where you may read:  From this, that Christ is the Word of God, the divine nature in Christ is not able to be shown, indeed the opposite is gathered.  For, since He is the Word of that one God, it appears that He is not that one God….  But Jesus is called the Word or speech of God, because He has related the entire will of God to us, as in the same place John to a lesser degree related it, No one has seen God at any time, etc., John 1:18, just as also in the same sense He is called both the life and the truth:  but compare the Most Illustrious ARNOLDI’S[7] refutationem Catecheseos Racovianæ, on the place cited, § 1-4, pages 315, 316; SPANHEIM’S Elenchum Controversiarum, Opera, tome 3, column 813; HEINRICH ALTING’S[8] Theologiam elencticam novam, locus 3, pages 109-112; our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes XXXVI, Part VI, Exercitatio textualis § 12), with whom in this cause Hobbes is to be reckoned, who in Leviathan and its Appendix wrote:  “Word in the holy tongue is often taken for the very thing that was decreed or promised, and is thus to be understood in John 1, and aims to seek nothing further concerning the mystery of the Incarnation.  Christ is called the Word of God, because He was promised from the beginning:  in the beginning He was with God, because God had decreed from eternity that He was going to come and assume human flesh.  In the same sense, in 1 John 1, He is called the Word of life and eternal life, which was with the Father; and, in Revelation 19:13, His name is the Word of God, as if John would say, This is He, whom God had decreed from eternity, was going to come and had promised in the beginning of the world.”  See COCQUIUS’ Hobbesianismi Anatomen, locus 14, chapter 27, § 3, pages 525, 526.

It here appears that in the language of λόγου attention is to be given to the meaning of speech or word, more than of reason; since, α.  it is far more agreeable to the wordדָּבָר /word among the Hebrews, to which λόγος here corresponds; β.  this is the primary signification to the term λόγου, from the verb λέγω, I say; and γ.  in the New Testament it is by far the most frequent and almost alone.  At the same time, the Son of God is able to be called the λόγος/word, rather than the ῥῆμα/word, with a certain strong regard for the other meaning of reason, as if the Son of God should be called the Rational and Most Wise Word of God.

Now, the Son is able to be called the Word of God metonymically:  whether by metonymy of the adjunct in place of the subject, because He is the principal argument/subject of the divine Word, both the prophetic Word formerly, and also the evangelical Word afterward under the New Testament; or by metonymy of the effect in the place of the cause, because God sets forth unto men His entire Word through the Son as the supreme and divine Prophet, not only under the New Testament, Hebrews 1:1, but also under the Old, 1 Peter 1:11.

Yet far more preferably by the name of the Λόγου/Logos/Word the person of the Son and His eternal subsistence is declared to us metaphorically, as we hold against the Socinians who deny it:  for, α.  this name is attributed to the Son, when mention is made, on the one side of Jehovah or the Father, on the other side of the Spirit, as of divine persons distinguished among themselves by these names; whence the middle name of the Word shall be of the same, rather than of a different, order.  β.  This name is also substituted for the name of the Son, which is in Matthew 28:19, just as also John attributed to the incarnate Word the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, John 1:14, and he adds that God set forth to us, not the Word, but the Only Begotten Son of God, τὸν ὄντα εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, which is in the bosom of the Father, John 1:18.  γ.  This name is attributed to Christ, when there is regard, not to the Gospel, which was proclaimed after the Fall, but to the first Creation:  whence also then it is evident that it is actually applicable to Him with respect to His eternal subsistence.  Just as by this name, δ.  He is set forth to us as with God from of old and God Himself, and the cause of all things, and finally assuming flesh as another nature.  And so the Son is first and primarily called the Λόγος/Logos/Word metaphorically, because, 1.  just as a word is distinguished and goes forth from the person speaking, so also the Son by eternal Generation is distinguished and goes forth from the Father, by a comparison with Micah 5:1; 2.  just as a word expresses the interior thoughts of the mind, so also the Son perfectly relates the Father as His Image and Representation, having the same essence in a distinct subsistence, Hebrews 1:3; John 14:9.  Thus BASIL the GREAT explains the name Λόγου/Logos/Word in the case of the Son of God, Homilia in initio Euangelii Johannis, Opera, tome I, page 435, Διατί λόγος; ἵνα δειχθῇ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ προῆλθε· διατί λόγος; ὅτι ἀπαθῶς ἐγεννήθη· διατί λόγος; ὅτι εἰκῶν τοῦ γεννήσαντος, ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ δεικνὺς τὸν γεννήσαντα, οὐδὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἀπομερίσας· καὶ τέλειος ὑπάρχων καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν· ὡς καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ὅλαν ἡμῶν ἀπεικονίζει τὰν ἔννοιαν, Why the Word? so that it might be shown that He went forth from the mind.  Why the Word? so that it might be shown that He was begotten without suffering.  Why the Word? so that it might be shown that He is the image of the one having begotten, showing forth in Himself the whole of the one begetting, taking nothing away from Him; and existing of Himself complete; as also our word expresses our whole thought.  Compare the reason for the denomination Λόγου/Logos/Word given by the Most Illustrious TURRETIN[9] in his Decade Disputationum, Disputation V,[10] § 8-11; by MARCKIUS in his Exercitationibus textualibus XXXVI, Part VI, Exercitation § 2, and Judicio Ecclesiastico laudato, chapter III, § 6, page 79, § 11, pages 101, 102, in which he also denies against Roëll[11] that the name of the Word or Speech, given to the Son, has regard uniquely or primarily unto the Mediatory Utterance; but, with the relation of this name to the Office of the Mediator admitted, nevertheless it is primarily referred to the Going Out of the Son from the Father, whom He expresses in His own Person not otherwise than the speech of the mouth expresses our internal Thoughts.  Compare also the Great SPANHEIM’S Decadum theologicarum quinta, § 8, Opera, tome 3, columns 1222, 1223.

Johannes a Marck

It is asked then, whence did John draw this use of the term λόγος/Logos/Word, whether from the monuments of the Platonic Philosophy, or from the writings of Philo the Jew,[12] to which Le Clerc inclines;[13] see MARCKIUS’ Exercitationes, cited immediately after § 14.  I respond rather that the Holy Spirit dictated this term to him, consistently with the style of the Old Testament, in which, for example, in Psalm 33:6, the discussion concerns the substantial, creating Word,[14] in contradistinction to the word of commandment, concerning which verse 9.  Haggai 2:5 is able to be added, which entire passage is explained of the Son of God most truly, and far ἐμφατικοτέρως, more emphatically, than of a word προφορικῷ/uttered; see our AUTHOR’S Commentarium on this passage.  To which, moreover, our AUTHOR, in his Exercitationibus textualibus XXXVI, § 13, Part III, joins Isaiah 9:8, since this verse is to be referred, not as a beginning to what follows, but as a conclusion to those things which had preceded in verses 6 and 7; and is to be explained of the sending of the Son of God into the world, and His manifestation among the Jews.  The Dutch Annotators give it as a thing to be considered also, whether the discussion in 2 Samuel 7:21 concerns the substantial Word of God,בַּעֲב֤וּר דְּבָֽרְךָ֙ וּֽכְלִבְּךָ֔ עָשִׂ֕יתָ אֵ֥ת כָּל־הַגְּדוּלָּ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את, for thy word’s sake, and according to thine own heart, hast thou done all this greatness, which Word of God in 1 Chronicles 17:19 shall then be called the Servant of God,בַּעֲבוּר עַבְדְּךָ, for thy servant’s sake, with the title given κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν, preeminently, to Messiah in the oracles of the Prophets.[15]  BULL,[16] in his primitiva et Apostolica Traditione de Jesu Christi Divinitate, chapter V, pages 24-29, undertakes to prove that JUSTIN Martyr did not learn in the School of Plato those things that he discusses περὶ τοῦ Λόγου, concerning the Word.  But also THEODORET, in his de curatione Græcarum Affectionum, Sermon IV, opera, tome 4, page 534, shows that Plato himself learned from the Scripture of the Hebrews those things which he delivers concerning the Λόγῳ/Word as the maker of the world:  Δείκνυσι δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον τὰ πάντα δημιουργοῦντα·  ἐκ γὰρ τῆς Ἑβραίων καὶ ταῦτα ἐδιδάχθη γραφῆς, he shows to us the Logos/ Word of God fashioning all things; for out of the Scripture of the Hebrews he was taught these things.

It is asked, moreover, whether in the New Testament John alone speaks of the Son of God by this name?  Our AUTHOR thinks that this is to be denied, and rather he joins with John the Gospel of Luke 1:2, in which the greatest emphasis and propriety of the words is preserved, if the words be taken of the αὐτόπταις/eye-witnesses and ministers of the substantial Λόγου/Word, comparing 1 John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 4:1:  see our AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuales XXXVII, Part III, § 14.  One and another text from the Acts of the Apostles come near, in which either Peter or Paul speaks.  To this purpose our AUTHOR, in his Exercitationibus textualibus XXXVI, Part III, following Athanasius, relates the words of Peter in Acts 10:36, τὸν λόγον ὃν ἀπέστειλε, etc., the Word which God sent, etc.  By an Atticism the accusative here is in the place of a nominative, see PASOR’S Grammatica Græca sacra Novi Testamenti, page 667, λόγον in the place of λόγος ὃν ἀπέστειλε, clearly in a manner similar to Matthew 21:42, Λίθον[17] ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες, οὗτος ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας, the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner; 1 Corinthians 10:16, τὸν ἄρτον[18] ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν, the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?; so that thus the force of the active verb following influences not only the relative pronoun, but also the preceding substantive noun.  GLASSIUS, in Grammaticorum Sacrorum tractatu II, canon 20, page 209, says, the relative pronoun sometimes draws its antecedent unto its own case.  Now, our AUTHOR thinks that the λόγον/ word here declared is best held to be the substantial Word; if you consider, 1.  that the sending of this λόγου/word to the children best agrees with Christ, ὃν ἀπέστειλε τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ, whom He sent to the children of Israel; 2.  that the words immediately following, εὐαγγελιζόμενος εἰρήνην διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, preaching peace by Jesus Christ, thus cohere with the former word smoothly and more aptly:  For thus we shall have declared here the work of God in sending Christ, which is the preaching of peace among the children of Israel; but also through the names, proper and known, of Jesus Christ the more sublime name of the sent Preacher is explained, which was the Word; as if it were said that He then sent the Word to the Israelites, when through Jesus Christ He preached peace to this people:  3.  that the pronoun οὗτός/He at the end of the verse[19] is not able more suitably and aptly to be referred to another noun than to that of λόγου/word, which was set down at the beginning of the verse:  for the rest are read between commas; but the principal noun λόγος/word at the beginning of the verse, disconnected from the rest with respect to the construction, has nothing thus far answering to it to perfect the sense; whence, when in the manner of resumptive speech it is said, οὗτός ἐστιν πάντων Κύριος, He is Lord of all, this in the manner of a predicate is to be referred to the principal subject, ὁ λόγος, the Word:  and if it pertain unto those words most nearly preceding, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Jesus Christ, ὃς/who[20] would be read rather than οὗτός/He:[21]  but this is true of the Word preaching, not of the word preached; for He is Lord of all, not only by providence, but also by grace:  4.  that thus admirably are opposed to each other the preceding Sending of τοῦ λόγου, the Word, to the Children of Israel, and the consequent universal Dominion:  5.  that thus the words of this clause best cohere both with what immediately precedes, and with those things which follow.

In the same manner our AUTHOR, in his Exercitationibus textualibus XXXVII, Part III, § 1-3, judges of the words of Paul in Acts 13:26, ὑμῖν ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης ἀπεστάλη, to you the Word of this salvation is sent, in which place he urges, α.  this emphatic description, ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης, the Word of this salvation, as John makes mention of τὸν λόγον τῆς ζωῆς, the Word of life;[22] and perhaps in a sense ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης, the Word of this salvation, will be ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας οὗτος, this Word of salvation; which sort of description certainly agrees most precisely with the Son of God, σωτηρίῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the salvation of God, the God of our Salvation:  β.  the sending of this λόγου/Word to the Israelites, comparing this with Acts 10:36:  γ.  the context, antecedent and consequent, in which there is no express mention of the Gospel of Christ, but rather a repeated mention of Christ Jesus Himself, as raised up by God, indeed as raised up a Savior for Israel;[23] nay more, after verse 26 Paul repeatedly speaks of the person of Christ only by the pronouns οὗτος, this man, and αὐτὸς/he, which is hardly able to be referred to any other noun in our text than ὁ λόγος, the Word.  Now, in both places, Acts 10 and 13, perhaps the Apostles had regard unto the passage cited, Isaiah 9:7, 8.

Thus our AUTHOR in the place cited, Exercitation XXXVII, Part III, § 4, thinks that the words of Paul in Acts 20:32 are referred, not indeed necessarily, but nevertheless more plainly and fully, to the divine person of the Son, than to the word of the Gospel.  But it also tends to this, that Paul to Hebrews, who would be aware of this appellation out of the Old Testament, is best judged to have composed the words of Hebrews 4:12 concerning the substantial Λόγῳ/Word, unto which end he wishes to be observed, Exercitationibus textualibus XXXVII, Part III, § 5-13, 1.  both all and the individual things predicated of τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God, that are here read; and which certainly agree with the word of the Gospel in a sense far weaker, but agree with God and the Son of God with the greatest emphasis:  2.  and the context immediately following, in which by the pronoun αὐτὸς/He[24] we are directed to return to the subject of the discussion most recently named, which is not Θεὸς/God, but ὁ Λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God; just as the things predicated in verse 13 agree with those things that are said of Λόγῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, the Word of God, in verse 12, and make for the confirmation of them.  In verse 14, the Apostle proceeds to speak of the Son of God, to a certain extent drawing the language from what precedes.  And, that the entire preceding context favors, more than opposes, this exegesis, our AUTHOR most clearly demonstrates.  See GOMAR,[25] in Johannes 1, opera, part I, pages 267, 268a, who went before our AUTHOR in this observation concerning the Son of God, impressed with the name Λόγος/Word in the New Testament, not only by John, but also by Luke and Paul.

However, it is not possible for us to boast against the Jews excessively concerning this phrase, מֵימְרָא דַיוי, the Word of Jehovah,[26] or מֵימְרִי, my Word,[27] found so many times also in the Chaldean Paraphrases when God Himself speaks, as if that denomination of the Word therein also is to be referred to the second hypostasis of the Trinity.  There are certainly a fair number of places, in which this expression is able best to be explained of the Son of God.  Nevertheless, this signification of this expression is not uniform or even necessary.  On the contrary, as HACKSPAN[28] and others observe, it is a certain Chaldean form of speech, in which מימר/Word is the same as נֶפֶשׁ/breath/soul to the Hebrews, and עֶצֶם/substance/essence/self to the Rabbis, in a reciprocal sense, which the divine language is able to exhibit by no pronoun.  Thus concerning Solomon you read in Ecclesiastes 1:2, אֲמַר בְּמֵימְרֵיהּ, he said by his word, he said by himself, or under his own power, Vanity of Vanities, etc.:[29]  Genesis 17:2, I shall give my covenant, בֵּין מֵימְרִי וּבֵינָךְ, between my Word and thee,[30] that is, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ, between me and thee:[31]  Isaiah 42:1, Behold my servant, Messiah, unto whom I shall approach; mine elect, in whom מֵימְרִי, my Word, has delighted:  I shall put my Holy Spirit upon Him.[32]  In which place מֵימְרִי, my Word, most certainly corresponds to the Hebrew נַפְשִׁי, my soul:  neither is it able to be understood in any way of Messiah; since the word of the Lord is expressly said to have delighted in its servant, Messiah, and to that extent that word is distinguished from Messiah.  But also at the time of the embellished Paraphrases the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Deity of the Son was already greatly corrupted among the Jews; so that it is hardly likely that this was the mind of the Targumists, to speak of the Son of God under the name of the word of the Lord, and thus to express the divine mode of His subsisting.

See concerning this name Λόγου/Logos/Word, attributed to the Son of God, and all, which I have recalled on this occasion, besides our Most Illustrious AUTHOR’S Exercitationes textuale, Part III, Exercitations XXXVI, XXXVII, and Part VI, Exercitation XXXVI; DEYLING’S[33] Observationes Sacras, Part I, Observation XLIX; CARPZOV’S[34] Critica Sacra Veteris Testamenti, part II, chapter I, § 6, pages 479-481; SUICERUS’ Thesaurum Ecclesiasticum, tome II, on the word Λόγος/Logos; RITTANGELIUS’[35] Libram Veritatis, and especially that set before this treatise, namely, JOHANNES VAN DER WAEYEN’S[36] Dissertationem de Λόγῳ adversus Johannes Clericus.

“Some Theologians say,” says our AUTHOR, “that this is Λόγον ἐνυπόστατον, that is, the substantial Word, even ἐνδιάθετον, the imminent[37] Word; although the Greeks understand this latter word differently.”  That is, before the times of Arius,[38] the Fathers, who had passed from the Platonic to the Christian school, having been soaked in their own philosophical opinions, often spoke very unsuitably and imprudently concerning divine things and the subsistence of the persons in the Trinity, although it is evident that from another source they perceived better.  And among these harsh conceptions concerning divine things ought also to be numbered that they sometimes attribute to the Son a twofold, divine Generation, one from all eternity, by which the Λόγος ἀΐδιος, eternal Word, was internally in God, just like an infant carried in the maternal womb after conception; the other, just a little before the creation of the world, in the beginning of things, through whom God produced and, as it were, revealed that which had lain hidden in His bowels.  And in the prior Generation Theophilus[39] says that the Λόγον/Word was ἐνδιάθετον/imminent; but in the second Generation, προφορικόν/uttered:  see Doctor WILHELMIUS’ Prefationem before the Most Illustrious PAULUS HULSIUS’[40] Miscellanea Sacra ̽ ͓ ̽ ͓ ̽ ͓ ̽ ͓ I.  Now, BASIL the GREAT, in his Homilia in initio Euangelii Johannis, Opera, tome I, page 435, explains the Λόγον προφορικόν and ἐνδιάθετον, Word uttered and imminent, of human speech and cogitation:  Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ Λόγου διπλῆ τίς ἐστιν ἔννοια.  ὁ μὲν γὰρ τίς ἐστιν ὁ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς προφερόμενος·  οὗτος ὁ μετὰ τὸ προενεχθῆναι τῷ ἀέρι ἀπολλύμενος.  ὁ δὲ τίς ἐστιν ὁ ἐνδιάθετος ἐνυπάρχων ἡμῶν ταῖς καρδίαις, ὁ ἐννοηματικός, but also there is a certain twofold notion of the Word:  For the one is brought forth by the voice; this is released into the air after being uttered:  The other is imminent, existing in our hearts, notional.  And ATHANASIUS, in his Expositione Fidei, tome I, page 240, denies that the Son of God in either sense is called the λόγον/Word, λόγον δὲ οὐ προφορικόν, οὐκ ἐνδιάθετον—ἀλλὰ υἱὸν αὐτοτελῆ, nor yet the Word pronounced by elocution, or conceived in the soul by cogitation…but the Son perfect in Himself.

[1] Romans 3:2:  “Much every way:  chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God (τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ).”

[2] Hebrews 5:12:  “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God (τῶν λογίων τοῦ Θεοῦ); and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.”

[3] Henri Estienne, or Henricus Stephanus (c. 1530-1598), was the eldest son of Robert Estienne, who had printed several famous editions of the Greek New Testament.  Henri continued in the family printing business, editing, collating, and preparing many classical works for the press.  His most famous work is his Thesaurus Linguæ Graecæ, which was a standard work in Greek lexicography until the nineteenth century.

[4] Fausto Paolo Sozzini, or Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), was the father of Socinianism, a rationalistic heresy (denying the Deity of Christ, the satisfaction theory of the atonement, etc.), an aberration of the Reformation.

[5] Jonas Schlichting (1592-1661) was a theologian of the Socinian Polish Brethren.  He wrote commentaries on most of the books of the New Testament, including the Gospel of John.

[6] Johann Ludwig von Wolzogen (1599-1661) was an Austrian noble (Baron of Tarenfeldt and Freiherr of Neuhäusel), and Socinian theologian.  He also distinguished himself as an exegete by his commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, James, and Jude.

[7] Nicolaus Arnoldi (1618-1680) was Professor of Theology at Franeker (1651-1680).

[8] Heinrich Alting (1583-1644) was a German Reformed divine, specializing in Ecclesiastical History and Historical Theology.  He served as Professor of Theology at Heidelberg (1613-1622), and then Professor of Historical Theology at Groningen (1627-1644).

[9] Francis Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan Reformed theologian of Italian descent.  After studying at Geneva, Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Saumur, and Montauban, he was appointed as the pastor of the Italian refugee congregation in Geneva (1648), and later Professor of Theology at the academy (1653).  His Institutio Theologiæ Elencticæ has been heavily influential in Reformed circles, shaping Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology and Herman Bavinck’s Gereformeerde dogmatiek.

[10] That is, “De tribus testibus cœlestibus, ex 1 Joanne 5:7”.

[11] Hermann Alexander Roëll (1653-1718) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and philosopher, serving as Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Franeker (1685-1704) and Professor of Natural Theology at Utrecht (1704-1718).

[12] Philo was a first century Jewish scholar of Alexandria, Egypt.  In him, one finds a synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Hebrew exegesis and theology.

[13] Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736) was educated in Geneva, under the tutelage of Philippe Mestrezat and Francis Turretin, and ordained in circa 1680.  His sympathy for the theology of the Remonstrants made it impossible for him to continue in Geneva.  He settled as Professor of Philosophy at Amsterdam (1684-1731).  Le Clerc’s approach to Scripture was seminal in the development of what would become Higher Criticism.

[14] Psalm 33:6:  “By the word of the Lord (בִּדְבַ֣ר יְ֭הוָה) were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth (וּבְר֥וּחַ פִּ֜֗יו, Spirit of His mouth).”

[15] See, for example, Isaiah 49:6; Ezekiel 34:23, 24; Haggai 2:23; Zechariah 3:8.

[16] George Bull (1634-1710) was an Anglican theologian and Bishop of St. David’s.  He was fully orthodox with respect to his Trinitarian theology, but heterodox with respect to his assertion of the necessity of good works for justification, and therefore sometimes accused of Socinianism.

[17] The expected form is the nominative, λίθος.

[18] The expected form is the nominative, ἄρτος.

[19] Acts 10:36:  “The word which He sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ:  (he [οὗτός] is Lord of all:)…”

[20] The relative pronoun.

[21] The demonstrative pronoun.

[22] 1 John 1:1.

[23] Verse 23.

[24] Hebrews 4:13:  “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his (αὐτοῦ) sight:  but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him (αὐτοῦ) with whom we have to do.”

[25] Francis Gomar (1569-1641), as Professor of Divinity at Leiden (1594), was a colleague and opponent of Jacob Arminius.  After the Arminian conflict, he held a variety of academic posts.

[26] See, for example, Genesis 9:16:  “And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God (מֵימְרָא דַיוי, the Word of Jehovah, in Targum Onkelos) and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.”

[27] See, for example, Genesis 9:12:  “And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me (מֵימְרִי, my Word, in Targum Onkelos) and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations…”

[28] Theodoricus Hackspan (1607-1659) was a Lutheran divine and eminent Oriental scholar.  He served at Altdorf as Professor of Hebrew (1636-1654), and Professor of Theology (1654-1659).

[29] Thus the Targum.

[30] In the Targum.

[31] Thus the Hebrew.

[32] Thus the Targum.

[33] Salomon Deyling (1677-1755) was a Lutheran divine and Orientalist; he served as Professor of Theology at Leipzig (1721-1755).

[34] Johann Gottlob Carpzov (1679-1767) was a Lutheran divine and Old Testament scholar.  He served at Leipzig as Professor of Theology (1713-1719), and Professor of Hebrew (1719-1730).

[35] Johann Stephan Rittangel (1602-1652) was Professor of Oriental Languages at Königsberg, a great authority on Karaite Judaism, and ever a proponent of Jewish-Christian reconciliation.

[36] Johannes van der Waeyen (1639-1701) was a Reformed divine; he served as Professor of Hebrew and Theology at Franeker (1677-101).

[37] That is, residing in the mind.

[38] Arius (c. 250-336) was a presbyter of the church in Alexandria, Egypt.  He denied the Son to be of one substance, and co-equal Deity, with the Father.  His views precipitated the Arian controversy, and led to the calling of the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325).

[39] Theophilus (died c. 183) was Bishop of Antioch.  His only remaining writing is his Ad Autolycum, in which he presents an apology for the Christian religion and a polemic against paganism.  Ad Autolycum is the earliest extant Christian writing to use the word Trinity.

[40] Paulus Hulsius (1653-1712) was a Reformed theologian; he served as Professor of Theology at Groningen (1708-1712).