St. John

1. first, he states the divinity of Christ

1:1

[Chapter 1]

1. first, he shows the divinity of Christ

Chapter 1

1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.

9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.

10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own: and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14a And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us

1. first, he treats of the divinity of the Word (per 108) [ or the divinity of Christ (per 23) ]

Chapter 1

1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

1. (because there are two items to be considered in each thing, namely its existence and its operation or power) first, he treats of the existence of the Word as to his divine nature

Chapter 1

1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1. clauses 1 and 2: pertaining to the inquiry “whether something exists”

Chapter 1

1a-b In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God:

1. first clause: he shows when the Word was, and here three things present themselves for careful study according to the three parts of this statement, at In the beginning was the Word

1:1a

Chapter 1

1a In the beginning was the Word:

1. first, it is necessary to investigate the name Word

Chapter 1

1a the Word:

1. first, to understand the name Word we should note that according to the Philosopher, vocal sounds are signs of the affections that exist in our soul; it is customary in Scripture for the things signified to be themselves called by the names of their signs, as in the statement, and the rock was Christ (1 Cor 10:4)

1. the meaning of the name “word”

1. first, it is fitting that what is within our soul and which is signified by our external word, be called a word

2. second, but whether the name ‘word’ belongs first to the exterior vocal sound or to the conception in our mind, is not our concern at present

1. first, however, it is obvious that what is signified by the vocal sound, as existing interiorly in the soul, exists prior to the vocal expression inasmuch as it is its actual cause.

2. second, therefore if we wish to grasp the meaning of the interior word, we must first look at the meaning of that which is exteriorly expressed in words

1. first, now there are three things in our intellect

1. first, the intellectual power itself

2. second, the species of the thing understood, which is its form, and this form being to the intellect what the species of a color is to the eye

3. third, the very activity of the intellect, which is to understand

2. second, but none of these is what is signified by the exterior vocal word

1. first, for the name “stone” does not signify the substance of the intellect because this is not what the one naming intends

2. second, nor does it signify the species, which is that by which the intellect understands, since this also is not the intention of the one naming

3. third, nor does it signify the act itself of understanding since to understand is not an action proceeding to the exterior from the one understanding, but an action remaining within

3. third, therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one understanding forms when understanding

1. first, now the intellect forms two things, according to its two operations

1. first, according to its operation which is called “the understanding of indivisibles,” it forms a definition

2. second, while according to its operation by which it unites and separates, it forms an enunciation or something of that sort

2. second, hence, what is thus formed and expressed by the operation of the intellect, whether by defining or enunciating, is what the exterior vocal sound signifies

1. first, so the Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a name signifies is a definition

2. second, hence, what is thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called an interior word

1. first, consequently it is compared to the intellect, not as that by which the intellect understands

2. second, but as that in which it understands

1. first, because it is in what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the thing understood

2. second, thus we have the meaning of the name “word”

2. secondly, from what has been said we are able to understand that a word is always something that proceeds from an intellect existing in act

1. first, and furthermore, that a word is always a notion and likeness of the thing understood

1. first, so if the one understanding and the thing understood are the same, then the word is a notion and likeness of the intellect from which it proceeds

2. second, on the other hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood

1. first, then the word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding, but of the thing understood

2. second, as the conception which one has of a stone is a likeness of only the stone

3. third, but when the intellect understands itself

1. first, its word is a likeness and notion of the intellect

2. second, and so Augustine (On the Trinity IX, 5) sees a likeness of the Trinity in the soul

1. first, insofar as the mind understands itself

2. second, but not insofar as it understands other things

2. second, it is clear then, that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual nature

1. first, for it is of the very nature of understanding that the intellect in understanding should form something

2. second, now what is formed is called a word

3. third, and so it follows that in every being which understands, there must be a word

3. third, however, intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic and divine; and so there are three kinds of words

1. first, so there are three kinds of words

1. first, the human word, about which it is said in the Psalm (13:1): the fool said in his heart, there is no God

2. second, the angelic word, about which it is said in Zechariah (1:9), and in many places in Sacred Scripture, and the angel said to me

3. third, the divine word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, and God said, Let there be light

2. second, so when the Evangelist says, in the beginning was the Word, we cannot understand this as a human or angelic word

1. because both these words have been made since man and angel have a cause and principle of their existence and operation

2. and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist before they do

3. third, the word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word was not made

1. first, since all things were made by it

2. second, therefore, the word about which John speaks here is the Word of God.

3. third, we should note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways

1. first, according to Augustine, that our word is formable before being formed

1. first, for when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it by reasoning

1. first, and so it is in all other things that are understood by us

2. second, with the sole possible exception of the first principles, which, since they are known in a simple manner, are known at once without any discourse of reason

3. third, so as long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, the formation is not yet complete

2. second, it is only when it has conceived the notion of the thing perfectly that for the first time it has the notion of the complete thing and a word

1. first, thus in our mind there is both a cogitation, meaning the discourse involved in an investigation

2. second, and a word, which is formed according to a perfect contemplation of the truth

3. third, so our word is first in potency before it is in act

3. third, but the Word of God is always in act

1. first, in consequence, the term cogitation does not properly speaking apply to the Word of God

2. second, for Augustine says (On the Trinity XV): the Word of God is spoken of in such a way that cogitation is not included, lest anything changeable be supposed in God

3. third, Anselm was speaking improperly when he said: for the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at something while cogitating

2. second, that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most perfect

1. first, for since we cannot express all our conceptions in one word, we must form many imperfect words through which we separately express all that is in our

2. second, but it is not that way with God

1. first, for since he understands both himself and everything else through his essence, by one act, the single divine Word is expressive of all that is in God, not only of the persons but also of creatures; otherwise it would be imperfect

2. second, so Augustine says: if there were less in the Word than is contained in the knowledge of the one speaking it, the Word would be imperfect; but it is obvious that it is most perfect; therefore, it is only one. God speaks once (Job 33:14)

3. third, that our word is not of the same nature as we; but divine Word is of the same nature as God, and therefore it is something that subsists in the divine nature

1. first, for the understood notion which the intellect is seen to form about some thing has only an intelligible existence in our soul

1. first, now in our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature of the soul, because our soul is not its own operation

2. second, consequently, the word which our intellect forms is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it

2. second, but in God, to understand and to be are the same

1. first, and so the Word of the divine intellect is not an accident but belongs to its nature, thus it must be subsistent

2. second, because whatever is in the nature of God is God

3. third, thus Damascene says that God is a substantial word, and a hypostasis, but our words are concepts in our mind

3. third, from the above it is clear that the Word, properly speaking, is always understood as a person in the divinity, since it implies only something expressed, by the one understanding

1. first, also, that in the divinity the Word is the likeness of that from which it issues

2. second, and that it is co-eternal with that from which it issues, since it was not first formable before being formed, but was always in act

3. third, and that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of the whole being of the Father

4. fourth, and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the Father, since it is his substance

5. fifth, it is also clear that since in every nature that which issues forth and has a likeness to the nature from which it issues is called a son

1. first, and since this Word issues forth in a likeness and identity to the nature from which it issues

2. second, it is suitably and appropriately called a son, and its production is called a generation

6. sixth, so now the first point is clear, the meaning of the term Word

2. second, there are four questions on this point

1. first, from Chrysostom: why did John the Evangelist omit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying, in the beginning was the Word?

1. first, there are two answers to this; one is that the Father was known to everyone in the Old Testament, although not under the aspect of Father, but as God

1. first, but the Son was not known

2. second, and so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge of the Word, he begins with the Word or Son.

2. second, the other answer is that we are brought to know the Father though the Son

1. first, Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me (below 17:6)

2. second, and so wishing to lead the faithful to a knowledge of the Father, the Evangelist fittingly began with the Son, at once adding something about the Father when he says, and the Word was with God

2. second, from Chrysostom: why did he say Word and not Son, since as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son?

1. first, there are also two answers to this; first, because son means something begotten, and when we hear of the generation of the Son, someone might suppose that this generation is the kind he can comprehend, that is, a material and changeable generation

1. first, thus he did not say “Son,” but Word, which signifies an intelligible proceeding, so that it would not be understood as a material and changeable generation

2. second, and so in showing that the Son is born of the Father in an unchangeable way, he eliminates a faulty conjecture by using the name Word.

2. second, the Evangelist was about to consider the Word as having come to manifest the Father; but since the idea of manifesting is implied better in the name “Word” than in the name “Son,” he preferred to use the name Word.

3. third, from Augustine, in Greek, where we have Word, they have Logos; now since Logos signifies in Latin both the notion and word [i.e., ratio et verbum], why did the translators render it as word and not notion since a notion is something interior just as a word is?

1. first, I answer that “notion” [ratio], properly speaking, names a conception of the mind precisely as in the mind, even if through it nothing exterior comes to be

2. second, but “word” signifies a reference to something exterior

3. third, and so because the Evangelist, when he said Logos intended to signify not only a reference to the Son’s existence in the Father, but also the operative power of the Son, by which, through him, all things were made, our predecessors preferred to translate it Word, which implies a reference to something exterior, rather than “notion,” which implies merely a concept of the mind.

4. fourth, from Origen: in many passages, Scripture, when speaking of the Word of God, does not simply call him the Word, but adds “of God,” saying, “the Word of God,” or “of the Lord”: the Word of God on high is the foundation of wisdom (Sir 1:5); his name is the Word of God; why then did the Evangelist, when speaking here of the Word of God, not say, “In the beginning was the Word of God,” but said In the beginning was the Word?

1. first, I answer that although there are many participated truths

1. first, there is just one absolute Truth, which is Truth by its very essence, that is, the divine act of being (esse); and by this Truth all words are words

2. second, similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom elevated above all things, that is, the divine Wisdom, by participating in which all wise persons are wise

3. third, further, there is one absolute Word, by participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers

4. fourth, now this is the divine Word which of itself is the Word elevated above all words; so in order that the Evangelist might signify this supereminence of the divine Word, he pointed out this Word to us absolutely without any addition

2. second, and because the Greeks, when they wished to signify something separate and elevated above everything else did this by affixing the article to the name

1. first, just as the Platonists, wishing to signify the separated substances, such as the separated good or the separated man, called them the good per se, or man per se

2. second, so the Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and elevation of the Word above all things, affixed an article to the name “Logos,” so that if it were stated in Latin we would have “the Word.”

2. secondly, the phrase in the beginning

Chapter 1

1a In the beginning

1. since the word principium (beginning) implies a certain order of one thing to another, one can find a principium in all those things which have an order.

1. order is found in quantified things

2. order is found in time

3. order is found in learning

4. order is found in the production of a thing

2. this word can be taken in three ways

1. so that principium is understood as the Person of the Son, who is the principle of creatures by reason of his active power acting with wisdom

2. principium can be understood as the Person of the Father, who is the principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process

3. principium can be taken for the beginning of duration

3. summary of the three explanations of how the word could be taken

1. the first explanation asserts the causality of the Word

2. the second affirms the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who utters the Word

3. the third affirms the co-eternity of the Word

3. thirdly, the meaning of the Word was in the beginning

Chapter 1

1a In the beginning was

1. now we should consider that it says that the Word was (erat), which is stated in the past imperfect tense

1. this tense is most appropriate for designating eternal things if we consider the nature of time and of the things that exist in time

2. but so far as concerns the notion of the present, the best way to designate eternity is the present tense, which indicates that something is in act, and this is always the characteristic of eternal things. And so it says in Exodus (3:14): “I am who am.” And Augustine40 says: “He alone truly is whose being does not know a past and a future.”

2. we should also note that this verb was, according to the Gloss, is not understood here as indicating temporal changes, as other verbs do, but as signifying the existence of a thing. Thus it is also called a substantive verb.

3. someone may ask how the Word can be co-eternal with the Father since he is begotten by the Father: for a human son, born from a human father, is subsequent to his father

1. I answer that there are three reasons why an originative principle is prior in duration to that which derives from that principle

1. first of all, if the originative principle of anything precedes in time the action by which it produces the thing of which it is the principle; thus a man does not begin to write as soon as he exists, and so he precedes his writing in time

2. secondly, if an action is successive; consequently, even if the action should happen to begin at the same time as the agent, the termination of the action is nevertheless subsequent to the agent. Thus, as soon as fire has been generated in a lower region, it begins to ascend; but the fire exists before it has ascended, because the motion by which it tends upward requires some time

3. thirdly, by the fact that sometimes the beginning of a thing depends on the will of its principle, just as the beginning of a creature’s coming-to-be depends on the will of God, such that God existed before any creature

2. yet none of these three is found in the generation of the divine

1. to the first reason: God did not first exist and then begin to generate the Word: for since the generation of the Word is nothing other than an intelligible conception, it would follow that God would be understanding in potency before understanding in act, which is impossible

2. to the second reason: again, it is impossible that the generation of the Word involve succession: for then the divine Word would be unformed before it was formed (as happens in us who form words by “cogitating”), which is false, as was said

3. to the third reason: again, we cannot say that the Father pre-established a beginning of duration for his Son by his own will because God the Father does not generate the Son by his will, as the Arians held, but naturally: for God the Father, understanding himself, conceives the Word; and so God the Father did not exist prior to the Son

3. An example of this, to a limited degree

1. appears in fire and in the brightness issuing from it: for this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the fire

2. again, if the fire were eternal, its brightness would be coeternal with it. This is why the Son is called the brightness of the Father: “the brightness of his glory” (Heb 1:3).

3. but this example lacks an illustration of the identity of nature. And so we call him Son, although in human sonship we do not find coeternity: for we must attain our knowledge of divine things from many likenesses in material things, for one likeness is not enough

4. The Council of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with the Father

1. for “brightness” indicates his unchangeability,

2. “birth” points to the Word himself,

3. but the name “Son” suggests his consubstantiality

4. and so we give the Son various names to express his perfection, which cannot be expressed by one name

1. we call him “Son” to show that he is of the same nature as the Father

2. we call him “image” to show that he is not unlike the Father in any way;

3. we call him “brightness” to show that he is coeternal;

4. and he is called the “Word” to show that he is begotten in an immaterial manner

2. second clause: where he was, at and the Word was with God

1:1b

Chapter 1

1b and the Word was with God:

1. first, we must consider the two new words: God and with

1. God

2. with

1. contrast with against in

2. with has four meanings, and these eliminate four objections

1. the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its antecedent

2. it signifies authority in its grammatical object

3. it asserts a distinction

4. it signifies a certain union and fellowship

3. the four objections

1. a two-fold objection against the explanation in which principium means the same as before all things

1. The first of these objections is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before all things. But before all things there was nothing. So if before all things there was nothing, where then was the Word?

2. The second objection against the same explanation is this. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., before all things. But whatever exists before all things appears to proceed from no one, since that from which something proceeds seems to be prior to that which proceeds from it. Therefore, the Word does not proceed from another.

2. a two-fold objection against the explanation in which principium is understood as the Father

1. You say that In the beginning was the Word, i.e., the Son was in the Father. But that which is in something does not seem to be subsistent, as a hypostasis; just as the whiteness in a body does not subsist.

2. You say that the Word was in the beginning, i.e., in the Father. But whatever is in something is not distinct from it. So the Son is not distinct from the Father.

2. and, and the Word was with God, indicates:

1. according to Basil: the union of the Word with the Father in nature

2. according to Alcuin and Bede: their distinction in person

3. according to Chrysostom: the subsistence of the Word in the divine nature

4. according to Hilary: the authorship of the father in relation to the Word

5. according to Origen, we should also note: that the Word was with God shows that the Son has always been with the Father

1. for in the Old Testament it says that the word of the Lord “came” to Jeremiah or to someone else, as is plain in many passages of sacred Scripture

2. but it does not say that the word of the Lord was “with” Jeremiah or anyone else, because the word “comes” to those who begin to have the word after not having it

3. thus the Evangelist did not say that the Word “came” to the Father, but was “with” the Father, because, given the Father, the Word was with him

2. clauses 3 and 4: pertaining to the inquiry “what something is”

1:1c

Chapter 1

1c and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3. third clause: what he was, at and the Word was God

Chapter 1

1c and the Word was God.

1. the fittingness, in this case, of discussing what a thing is after discussing where and when it is

2. this clause also enables us to answer two objections which arise from the foregoing

1. The first is based on the name “Word,” and is this. You say that In the beginning was the Word, and that the Word was with God. Now it is obvious that “word” is generally understood to signify a vocal sound and the statement of something necessary, a manifesting of thoughts. But these words pass away and do not subsist. Accordingly, someone could think that the Evangelist was speaking of a word like these.

2. The other question comes from his saying, with God. For since “with” indicates a distinction, it could be thought that the Word was with God, i.e., the Father, as distinct from him in nature.

3. note also the special way of signifying, since he says, the Word was God

4. we should also note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the Greek manner of speaking

4. fourth clause: in what way he was, at He was in the beginning with God

1:2

Chapter 1

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1. two false interpretations could be held by those who misunderstand

1. one of these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and different gods, and say that their wills are in opposition

2. the Arians were able to draw out another error from the above: they think that the Son is less than the Father

1. again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father. This is excluded by what follows

2. for there are two attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father, that is:

1. eternity

2. omnipotence

3. so in whomever these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is greater; but the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word

4. therefore, the Word is the great God, and not inferior

1. eternity: he says the Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God, i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the beginning of creatures (as Arius held), but with God, receiving being and divinity from him

2. omnipotence: further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, Through him all things came into being

2. Origen gives a rather beautiful explanation of this clause, He was in the beginning with God, when he says that it is not separate from the first three, but is in a certain sense their epilogue

3. further observations about the first four clauses

1. if one considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy all the errors of the heretics and of the philosohpers

1. the errors of the heretics

1. Ebion and Cerinthus

2. Sabellius

3. Eunomius

2. the errors of the philosophers

1. some of the ancient philosophers, namely, the natural philosophers, maintained that the world did not come from any intellect or through some purpose, but by chance

2. Plato, however, thought that the ideas of all the things that were made were subsistent

3. other Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most eminent and first

4. Aristotle, however, thought that the ideas of all things are in God, and that in God, the intellect, the one understanding and what is understood, are the same

2. note the difference in what has been said between John and the other evangelists: how he began his gospel on a loftier plane than they

3. note also how the evangelist designedly uses the word was (erat) to show that the Word of God transcends all times: present, past, and future

2. second, of his power of operation

1:3

Chapter 1

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

1. first, he shows his power with respect to all things that come into existence, and uses three clauses

Chapter 1

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

4a In him was life:

1. first clause: all things were made through him

1:3a

Chapter 1

3a All things were made by him:

1. first, he used it to show three things concerning the Word

1. according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of the Word to the Father

2. according to Hilary, to show the coeternity of the Word with the Father

3. according to Augustine, to show the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father

2. second, here we must guard against three errors

1. first, the error of Valentinus: he understood All things were made through him to mean that the Word proffered to the Creator the cause of his creating the world; so that all things were made through the Word as if the Father’s creating the world came from the Word

2. second, the error of Origen: he said that the Holy Spirit was included among all the things made through the Word; from which it follows that he is a creature

3. third, we must avoid other of Origen’s errors: he said that all things were made through the Word as something is made by a greater through a lesser, as if the Son were inferior to, and an instrument of, the Father

3. third, if we carefully consider the words, All things were made through him, we can clearly see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude

2. second clause: and without him nothing was made

1:3b

Chapter 1

3b and without him was made nothing that was made.

1. first, this is the second clause which some have distorted, as Augustine says; they believed that he was using “nothing” in an affirmative sense; and three heresies came from this

1. first, that of Valentius; he affirmed, as Origen says, a multitude of principles, and taught that from them came thirty eras

2. second, that of Manichæus, who affirmed two opposing principles

1. first, one is the source of incorruptible things

2. second, the other the source of corruptible things

3. third, that of those who claim that by “nothing” we should understand the devil, according to Job 18:15, “may the companions of him who is not dwell in his house”

2. second, perhaps someone will object and say that it was superfluous to add this clause, if it is to be understood negatively

1. first, on the ground that the Evangelist, in stating that All things were made through him, seems to have already said adequately enough that there is not something that was not made through the Word

2. according to many expositors, the answer to this is that this clause was added in many ways for a number of reasons: one of these reasons is, according to Chrysostom, so that no one reading the Old Testament and finding only visible things listed by Moses in the creation of things, would think that these were the only things made through the Word

3. Chrysostom also gives another reason why this clause was added. For someone reading in the Gospels of the many signs and miracles worked by Christ, such as, “The blind see, the lame walk, lepers were cleansed” (Mt 11:5), might believe that in saying, All things were made through him, John meant that only the things mentioned in those Gospels, and nothing else, were made through him

4. according to Hilary, however, this clause is introduced to show that the Word has operative power from another. For since the Evangelist had said, All things were made through him, it might be supposed that the Father is excluded from all causality

5. according to Origen, we find another rather beautiful exposition; the Greek has choris where the Latin has sine (without). Now choris is the same as “outside” or “outside of.” It is as if he had said: All things were made through him in such a way that outside him nothing was made. And so he says this to show that all things are conserved through the Word and in the Word, as stated in Hebrews (1:3), “He sustains all things by his powerful word.”

6. according to Augustine, Origen, and several others: “nothing” indicates sin. Accordingly, because All things were made through him might be interpreted as including evil and sin, he added, and without him nothing, i.e., sin, was made

3. summary of the explanations for why this clause was added

1. Chrysostom: to show the universal causality of the Word

2. Hilary: his association with the Father

3. Origen: the power of the Word in the preserving of things

4. Augustine, Origen, and a number of others: the purity of his causality

3. third clause: what was made in him was life

1:4a

Chapter 1

4a In him was life:

1. here we must avoid the false interpretation of Manichaeus, who was led by this to maintain that everything that exists is alive: for example, stones, wood, men, and anything else in the world

2. there are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it without error

1. in that homily, “The spiritual voice,” we find this explanation: What was made in him, i.e., through him, was life, not in each thing itself, but in its cause

2. Augustine reads this another way, as: What was made, comma, in him was life. For things can be considered in two ways: as they are in themselves, and as they are in the Word

3. Origen, commenting on John, gives another reading, thus: That which was made in him; and then, was life. Here we should note that some things are said of the Son of God as such

4. Hilary reads the clause differently, thus: And without him was made nothing, which was made in him, and later it says, he was life

5. Chrysostom has a different reading and punctuation, thus: And without him was made nothing that was made. The reason for this is that someone might believe that the Holy Spirit was made through the Word

Chrysostom is held in such esteem by the Greeks in his explanations that they admit no other where he expounded anything in Holy Scripture. For this reason, this passage in all the Greek works is found to be punctuated exactly as Chrysostom did, namely, And without him was made nothing that was made.

2. second, with respect to man, at and that life was the light of men

1:4b

Chapter 1

4b and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

1. here he describes his power as it is related to men, saying that this Word light is a light to men

Chapter 1

4b and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

1. first, he introduces a certain light to us, at and the life was the light of men

Chapter 1

4b and the life was the light of men.

2. second, the light’s irradiation, at and the light shines in darkness

1:5a

Chapter 1

5a And the light shineth in darkness:

3. third, participation in the light, at and the darkness did not comprehend it

1:5b

Chapter 1

5b and the darkness did not comprehend it.

2. this whole section may be explained in two ways

Chapter 1

4b and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it.

1. first, according to the influx of natural knowledge

1. first, he a certain light to us, at and that light was the light of men

2. secondly, the light’s irradiation, at and the light shines in the darkness

1:5a

102

3. thirdly, the participation in the light, at and the darkness did not overcome it

1:5b

2. secondly, according to participation in grace

104

1. first, he a certain light to us, at and that light was the light of men

2. secondly, the light’s irradiation, at and the light shines in the darkness; which according to this explanation can be explained in three ways

1:5a

105

1. In one way, we can take “darkness” for punishment

2. secondly, we can take “darkness” to mean the devils, as in Ephesians (6:12), “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood

106

3. thirdly, we can take “darkness” for the error or ignorance which filled the whole world before the coming of Christ: “You were at one time darkness” (Eph 5:8)

107

3. thirdly, the participation in the light, at and the darkness did not overcome it

1:5b

2. second, of the incarnation of the Word of God

1:6

Chapter 1

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.

9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.

10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own: and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14a And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us

1. first, he treats of the witness to the incarnate Word, or the precursor

108

Chapter 1

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.

1. he describes the precursor who comes to bear witness, and he does this in four ways

Chapter 1

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

1. according to his nature, at There was a man

1:6a

109

Chapter 1

6a There was a man

2. as to his authority, at sent by God

1:6b

111

Chapter 1

6b sent from God,

3. as to his suitability for the office, at whose name was John

1:6c

114

Chapter 1

6c whose name was John.

4. as to the dignity of his office, at He came as a witness

1:7

115

Chapter 1

7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

1. his office is mentioned

1:7a

116

2. the reason for his office, at to bear witness to the light;

1:7b

118

1. and here we should understand that there are two reasons for bearing witness about something

1. one reason can be on the part of the thing which which the witness is concerned; for example, if there is some doubt or uncertainty about that thing

2. the other is on the part of those who hear it; if they are hard of heart and slow to believe

2. but if that light is adequate of itself to make known all things, and not only itself, what need does it have of any witness?

119

1. this was the objection of the Manichaeans, who wanted to destroy the Old Testament

2. consequently, the saints gave many reasons, against their opinion, why Christ wanted to have the testimony of the prophets

1. Origen gives three reasons

1. the first is that God wanted to have certain witnesses, not because he needed their testimony, but to ennoble those whom he appointed witnesses

2. a second reason is that Christ was a light to the world through his miracles. Yet, because they were performed in time, they passed away with time and did not reach everyone. But the words of the prophets, preserved in Scripture, could reach not only those present, but could also reach those to come after

3. the third reason is that not all men are in the same condition, and all are not led or disposed to a knowledge of the truth in the same way

2. Chrysostom gives a fourth reason: is that certain men of weak understanding are unable to grasp the truth and knowledge of God by themselves. And so the Lord chose to come down to them and to enlighten certain men before others about divine matters, so that these others might obtain from them in a human way the knowledge of divine things they could not reach by themselves

3. he says believe, because there are two ways of participating in the divine light

1:7c

120

1. one is the perfect participation which is present in glory, “In your light, we shall see the light” (Ps 35:10)

2. the other in imperfect and is acquired through faith, since he came as a witness

4. he says through him, to show that John is different than Christ

121

2. he shows that he was incapable of the work of our salvation, at he was not the light

1:8

122

Chapter 1

8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.

1. if John had been the light, his coming would have sufficed to save men; but he was not the light

2. there is a difficulty about his saying, he was not the light

123

1. conflicting with this is, “You were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord” (Eph 5:8); and “You are the light of the world” (Mt 5:14)

2. I answer that some say that John was not the light, because this belongs to God alone. But if “light” is taken without the article, then John and all holy men were made lights

2. second, of the coming of the Word

1:9

Chapter 1

9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.

10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.

11 He came unto his own: and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14a And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us

1. first, he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come, that is, because of the lack of divine knowledge in the world

Chapter 1

9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.

10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.

1. first, he shows that this lack does not pertain to God or the Word

124

1. first, from the efficacy of the divine light itself, because He was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world

1:9

1. first, he shows the nature of this efficiency, that is, He was the true light

125

1. first, what we must discuss at present is how he is the true light

1. to explain this, we should note that in Scripture the “true” is contrasted with three things

1. sometimes it is contrasted with the false, as in “Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak the truth” (Eph 4:25)

2. sometimes it is contrasted with what is figurative, as in “The law was given through Moses; grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ” (below 1:17), because the truth of the figures contained in the law was fulfilled by Christ

3. sometimes it is contrasted with what is something by participation, as in “that we may be in his true Son” (1 Jn 5:20), who is not his Son by participation

2. before the Word came

1. there was in the world a certain light which the philosophers prided themselves on having; but this was a false light, because as is said, “They became stultified in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened; claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Rom 1:21); “Every man is made foolish by his knowledge” (Jer 10:14)

2. there was another light from the teaching of the law which the Jews boasted of having; but this was a symbolic light: “The law has a shadow of the good things to come, not the image itself of them” (Heb 10:1)

3. there was also a certain light in the angels and in the holy men in so far as they knew God in a more special way by grace; but this was a participated light, “Upon whom does his light not shine?” (Jb 25:3), which is like saying, “Whoever shine, shine to the extent that they participate in his light, i.e., God’s light.”

3. but the Word of God was not:

1. a false light

2. nor a symbolic light

3. nor a participated light

4. but he was the true light, i.e., light by his essence; therefore he says, He was the true light

2. second, this excludes two errors

126

1. first, that of Photinus, who believed that Christ derived his beginning from the Virgin

2. this also excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said that Christ was not true God, but God by participation

2. second, its very effectiveness or efficiency, which enlightens every man

127

1. first, to understand this, we should know that “world” is taken in three ways in Scripture

128

1. sometimes, from the point of view of its creation, as when the Evangelist says here, “through him the world was made” (v. 10)

2. sometimes, from the point of view of its perfection, which it reaches through Christ, as in “God was, in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19)

3. sometimes it is taken from the point of view of its perversity, as in “The whole world lies under the power of the evil one” (1 Jn 5:19)

2. second, on the other hand, “enlightenment” or “being enlightened” by the Word is taken in two ways

1. first, in relation to the light of natural knowledge, as in “The light of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us” (Ps 4:7)

2. second, as the light of grace, “Be enlightened, O Jerusalem” (Is 60:1)

3. third, with these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to solve a difficulty which arises here

129

1. first, the difficulty: when the Evangelist says, he enlightens every man, this seems to be false, because there are still many in darkness in the world

2. second, one solution: if we bear in mind these distinctions and take “world” from the standpoint of its creation, and “enlighten” as referring to the light of natural reason, the statement of the Evangelist is beyond reproach

3. third, if we understand “enlightenment” with respect to the light of grace, then he enlightens every man may be explained in three ways

130

1. first, according to Origen: “world” is understood from the point of view of its perfection, which man attains by his reconciliation through Christ; so we have, he enlightens every man coming, by faith, into this world, i.e., this spiritual world, that is, the Church, which has been enlightened by the light of grace

2. second, according to Chrysostom: he takes “world” under the aspect of creation; then the sense is: he enlightens, i.e., the Word does, in so far as it depends on him, because he fails no one, but rather “wants all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4); every man coming, i.e., who is born into this sensible world

3. third, according to Augustine: for him, “every” has a restricted application, so that the sense is: he enlightens every man coming into this world, not every man universally, but every man who is enlightened, since no one is enlightened except by the Word

4. fourth, the above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, who think that men were created in the world from an opposing principle, i.e., the devil. For if man were a creature of the devil when coming into this world, he would not be enlightened by God or by the Word, for “Christ came into the world to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8)

131

2. second, from the presence of the divine light, because He was in the world

1:10a

132

1. first, but so you do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or absence of the true light, the Evangelist rules this out adding,

2. second, we should remark that something is said to be “in the world” in three ways

133

1. by being contained, as a thing in place exists in a place

2. as a part in a whole, for a part of the world is said to be in the world even though it is not in a place

3. the true light was in the world in a third way, i.e., as an efficient and preserving cause: “I fill heaven and earth” as said in Jeremiah (23:24); however there is a difference between the way the Word acts and causes all things and the way in which other agents act

1. for other agents act as existing externally: since they do not act except by moving and altering a thing qualitatively in some way with respect to its exterior, they work from without

2. but God acts in all things from within, because he acts by creating. Now to create is to give existence (esse) to the thing created. So, since esse is innermost in each thing, God, who by acting gives esse acts in things from within.

4. hence God was in the world as one giving esse to the world

1. it is customary to say that God is in all things by his essence, presence and power

134

1. someone is said to be by his power in all things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in the entire kingdom subject to him, by his power; he is not there, however, by presence or essence

2. someone is said to be by presence in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is said to be in his house by presence

3. someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his substance is; as a king is in one determinate place

2. now we say that God is everywhere

1. by his power, since all things are subject to his power: “If I ascend into heaven, you are there.… If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold me” (Ps 138:8–10)

2. by his presence, because “all things are bare and open to his eyes,” as is said in Hebrews (4:13)

3. by his essence, because his essence is innermost in all things. For every agent, as acting, has to be immediately joined to its effect, because mover and moved must be together. Now God is the maker and preserver of all things, with respect to the esse of each. Hence, since the esse of a thing is innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by his essence, through which he creates all things, is in all things

3. third, it should be noted that the Evangelist significantly uses the word “was,” when he says, He was in the world, showing that from the beginning of creation he was always in the world, causing and preserving all things; because if God for even a moment were to withhold his power from the things he established, all would return to nothing and cease to be

135

3. thirdly, from the obviousness of the light, because through him the world was made

1:10b

136

1. it is not due to the invisibility or concealment of the Word, because he has produced a work in which his likeness is clearly reflected, that is, the world: “For from the greatness and beauty of creatures, their creator can be seen accordingly” (Wis 13:5), and “The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made” (Rom 1:20)

2. so the Evangelist at once adds, and through him the world was made, in order that that light might be manifested in it. For as a work of art manifests the art of the artisan, so the whole world is nothing else than a certain representation of the divine wisdom conceived within the mind of the Father, “He poured her [wisdom] out upon all his works,” as is said in Sirach (1:10)

2. second, that it does pertain to men, that is, that the source of this lack is men

1:10c

137

1. the Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he says, the world did not know him; as if to say: It is not due to him, but to the world, who did not know him

1. he says in the singular, because earlier he had called the Word not only the “light of men,” but also “God”; and so when he says him, he means God

2. he uses “world” for man; for the angels knew him by their understanding, and the elements by their obeying him; but the world, i.e., man, who lives in the world, did not know him.

2. we attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the nature of man or to his guilt

138

1. first, to his nature, because although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge

1. to his nature, indeed, because although all the aforesaid aids were given to man to lead him to the knowledge of God, human reason in itself lacks this knowledge. “Man beholds him from afar” (Jb 36:25), and immediately after, “God is great beyond our knowledge

2. but if some have known him, this was not insofar as they were in the world, but above the world; and the kind for whom the world was not worthy, because the world did not know him; hence if they mentally perceived anything eternal, that was insofar as they were not of this world

2. second, if this lack is attributed to man’s guilt, then the phrase, the world did not know him, is a kind of reason why God was not known by man

1. first, in this sense world is taken for inordinate lovers of the world

1. it is as though it said, because they were lovers of the world

2. for the love of the world, as Augustine says, is what chiefly withdraws us from the knowledge of God, because “Love of the world makes one an enemy to God” (Jas 4:4); “The sensual man does not perceive the things that pertain to the Spirit of God” (1 Cor 2:14)

2. second, from this we can answer the question of the gentiles

139

1. first, they futilely ask this: If it is only recently that the Son of God is set before the world as the Savior of men, does it not seem that before that time he scorned human nature?

2. second, we should say to them that he did not scorn the world but was always in the world, and on his part is knowable by men; but it was due to their own fault that some have not known him, because they were lovers of the world

3. we should also note that the Evangelist speaks of the Incarnation of the Word to show that the incarnate Word and that which “was in the beginning with God,” and God, are the same

140

1. first, he repeats what he had said of him earlier

1. for above he had said he [the Word] “was the light of men”; here he says he was the true light

2. above, he said that “all things were made through him”; here he says that through him the world was made

3. earlier he had said, “without him nothing was made,” i.e., according to one explanation, he conserves all things; here he says, he was in the world, creating and conserving the world and all things

4. there he had said, “the darkness did not overcome it”; here he says, the world did not know him

2. second, and so, all he says after he was the true light, is an explanation of what he had said before

3. third, we can gather three reasons from the above why God willed to become incarnate

141

1. first, because of the perversity of human nature

1. because of its own malice, it had been darkened by vices and the obscurity of its own ignorance

2. so he said before, the darkness did not overcome it; therefore, God came in the flesh so that the darkness might apprehend the light, i.e., obtain a knowledge of it. “The people who walked in darkness saw a great light” (Is 9:2)

2. second, because the testimony of the prophets was not enough

1. for the prophets came and John had come; but they were not able to give sufficient enlightenment, because he was not the light

2. so, after the prophecies of the prophets and the coming of John, it was necessary that the light itself come and give the world a knowledge of itself. And this is what the Apostle says: “In past times, God spoke in many ways and degrees to our fathers through the prophets; in these days he has spoken to us in his Son” as we find in Hebrews (1:1). “We have the prophetic message, to which you do well to give attention, until the day dawns” (2 Pt 1:19)

3. third, because of the shortcomings of creatures

1. for creatures were not sufficient to lead to a knowledge of the Creator; hence he says, through him the world was made, and the world did not know him

2. thus it was necessary that the Creator himself come into the world in the flesh, and be known through himself. And this is what the Apostle says: “Since in the wisdom of God the world did not know God by its wisdom, it pleased God to save those who believe by the foolishness of our preaching” (1 Cor 1:21)

2. second, the benefit we received from the coming of the Word

1:11

142

Chapter 1

11 He came unto his own: and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

13 Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

1. he shows the coming of the light, at he came unto his own

1:11a

1. the Evangelist says, unto his own, i.e., to things that were his own, which he had made

143

1. he says this so that you do not think that when he says,, he means a local motion in the sense that he came as though ceasing to be where he previously was and newly beginning to be where he formerly had not been. He came where he already was. “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world,” as said below (16:28)

2. He came, I say, unto his own, i.e., to Judea, according to some, because it was in a special way his own. “In Judea God is known” (Ps 75:1); “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel” (Is 5:7)

3. but it is better to say, unto his own, i.e., into the world created by him. “The earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 23:1)

2. but if he was previously in the world, how could he come into the world? I answer that “coming to some place” is understood in two ways

144

1. first, that someone comes where he absolutely had not been before

2. secondly, that someone begins to be in a new way where he was before

1. for example, a king, who up to a certain time was in a city of his kingdom by his power and later visits it in person, is said to have come where he previously was: for he comes by his substance where previously he was present only by his power

2. it was in this way that the Son of God came into the world and yet was in the world; for he was there, indeed, by his essence, power and presence, but he came by assuming flesh. He was there invisibly, and he came in order to be visible

2. its reception by men, at and his own did not receive him, and here we have the reception given him by men, who reacted in different ways

1:11b

145

1. for some did receive him, but these were not his own

1. hence he says, his own did not receive him

2.“His own” are men, because they were formed by him. “The Lord God formed man” (Gen 2:7); “Know that the Lord is God: he made us” (Ps 99:3). And he made them to his own image, “Let us make man to our image” (Gen 1:26)

3. but it is better to say, his own, i.e., the Jews, did not receive him, through faith by believing, and by showing honor to him; “I have come in the name of my Father, and you do not receive me” (below 5:43), and “I honor my Father and you have dishonored me” (below 8:49)

1. the Jews are his own because they were chosen by him to be his special people. “The Lord chose you to be his special people” (Dt 26:18)

2. they are his own because related according to the flesh, “from whom is Christ, according to the flesh,” as said in Romans (9:3). They are also his own because enriched by his kindness, “I have reared and brought up sons” (Is 1:2)

3. but although the Jews were his own, they did not receive him

2. there were not lacking those who did receive him, hence he ads, but whoever received him

1:12a

146

1. the Evangelist uses this manner of speaking, saying, but whoever, to indicate that the deliverance would be more extensive than the promise, which had been made only to his own, i.e., to the Jews. “The Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us” (Is 33:22)

2. this deliverance was not only for his own, but for whoever received him, i.e., whoever believe in him. “For I say that Christ was a minister to the circumcised, for the sake of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the fathers” (Rom 15:8)

3. the Gentiles, however, [are delivered] by his mercy, because they were received through his mercy

4. he says whoever to show that God’s grace is given without distinction to all who receive Christ. “The grace of the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the Gentiles” (Acts 10:45). And not only to free men, but to slaves as well; not only to men, but to women also. “In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female, Jew or Greek, the circumcised or uncircumcised” (Gal 3:28)

147

3. the fruit brought by the coming of the light, at he gave them power to become the sons of God

148

1. he mentions the grandeur of the fruit, at he gave them power

1:12a

149

1. the fruit of the coming of the Son of God is great, because by it men are made sons of God. “God sent his Son made from a woman … so that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4–5)

2. and it was fitting that we, who are sons of God by the fact that we are made like the Son, should be reformed through the Son

3. to understand this we should remark that men become sons of God by being made like God; hence men are sons of God according to a threefold likeness to God

150

1. first, by the infusion of grace

2. secondly, we are like God by the perfection of our actions

3. thirdly, we are made like God by the attainment of glory

4. different ways of understanding the power to become the sons of God

151

1. as referring to the perfection of our actions and the attainment of glory, the statement offers no difficulty

2. but if this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then his saying, he gave them power, gives rise to a difficulty

152

1. the answer to this is that when grace is given to an adult, his justification requires an act of consent by a movement of his free will; so, because it is in the power of men to consent and not to consent, he gave them power; however, he gives this power of accepting grace in two ways

153

1. by preparing it

2. and by offering it to him

2. yet this is not sufficient since even free will, if it is to be moved to receive grace, needs the help of divine grace, not indeed habitual grace, but movent grace; for this reason, secondly, he gives power by moving the free will of man to consent to the reception of grace

154

3. one may read these words in another way: he gave them, i.e., those who received him, power to become the sons of God, i.e., the grace by which they are able to be maintained in the divine sonship

155

5. summary:

156

1. thus he gave them power to become the sons of God

1. through sanctifying grace

2. through the perfection of their action, and through the attainment of glory

2. and he did this

1. by preparing this grace

2. moving their wills

3. and preserving this grace

2. he shows to whom it is given, at to all who believe in his name

1:12b

157

1. we can understand this in two ways

1. either as explaining what was said before

1. we can regard it as explaining as the Evangelist had said, whoever received him, and now to show what it is to receive him, he adds by way of explanation, who believe in his name

2. it is as though he were saying: To receive him is to believe in him, because it is through faith that Christ dwells in your hearts, as in “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” (Eph 3:17)

2. or, according to Origen, as qualifying it

158

1. in this sense, many receive Christ, declaring that they are Christians, but they are not sons of God, because they do not truly believe in his name

2. and so the Evangelist says, as though contracting his meaning, he gave them, i.e., those who receive him by faith, power to become the sons of God, to those, however, who believe in his name, i.e., who keep the name of Christ whole, in such a way as not to lessen anything of the divinity or humanity of Christ.

3. we can also refer this to formed faith

159

4. however, the first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better

3. he indicates the way such a great fruit is given to men, at who are born not from blood

160

1. to forestall the supposition that they are born through a material generation he says, not from blood

1:13a

1. the cause moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the woman

1. nor from the desires of the flesh, referring to the woman

1:13b

2. nor from man’s willing it, as from an efficient cause

1:13c

3. but from God; it is as though he were saying: they became sons of God, nor carnally, but spiritually

1:13d

2. or we might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold

161

1. the intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the will

2. and on the other hand, the sense appetite, which is concupiscence

3. so, to indicate the material cause he says, not from blood

4. to indicate the efficient cause, in respect to concupiscence, he says, nor from the desires of the flesh [ex voluntate carnis, literally, “from the will of the flesh”], even though the concupiscence of the flesh is improperly called a “will” in the sense of Galatians (5:17), “The flesh lusts against the spirit”

5. to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, nor from man’s willing it

6. so, the generation of the sons of God is not carnal but spiritual, because they were born from God. “Every one who is born from God conquers the world” (1 Jn 5:4)

2. commentary on grammar

162

1. distinctions

1. de— this preposition de (“of,” or “from”), always signifies a material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial cause

1. thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife de ferro (“from” iron)

2. and a father generates his son de seipso (“from” himself), because something of his concurs somehow in begetting

2. a— the preposition a (“by”) always signifies a moving cause

3. ex— the preposition ex (“from,” or “by”)—[in the sense of “out of” or “by reason of”]—is taken as something common, since it implies an efficient as well as a material cause, although not a consubstantial cause

2. application

1. since only the Son of God, who is the Word, is “of” (de) the substance of the Father and indeed is one substance with the Father

2. while the saints, who are adopted sons, are not of his substance, the Evangelist uses the preposition ex, saying of others that they are born from God (ex Deo)

3. but of the natural Son, he says that he is born of the Father (de Patre)

3. in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can discern the difference between carnal and spiritual generation

163

1. since the former is from blood, it is carnal

2. but the latter, because it is not from blood, is spiritual; “what is born from flesh is itself flesh; and what is born from Spirit is itself spirit” (below 3:6)

4. but if he intends to refer his statement, he gave them power, to baptism, in virtue of which we are reborn as sons of God, we can detect in his words the order of baptism

164

1. that is, the first thing required is faith, as shown in the case of catechumens, who must first be instructed about the faith so that they may believe in his name

2. then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally from blood, but spiritually from God

3. third, the way he came

1:14a

Chapter 1

14a And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us

1. that is by an incarnation, at and the Word was made flesh

1:14

165

Chapter 1

14a1 And the Word was made flesh

1. ways this clause could be connected with the previous clauses

1. he thus resumes the thread with his earlier statement, he came unto his own

1. as if to say: the Word of God came unto his own; but lest anyone suppose that he came by changing his location, he shows the manner in which he came, that is, by an Incarnation

2. for he came in the manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent, i.e., he was made flesh. “God sent his Son made from a woman” (Gal 4:4); and Augustine says about this that “He was sent in the manner in which he was made.”

2. according to Chrysostom, however: he is here continuing the earlier statement, he gave them power to become the sons of God

1. as if to say: If you wonder how he was able to give this power to men, i.e., that they become sons of God

2. the Evangelist answers: because the Word was made flesh, he made it possible for us to be made sons of God. “God sent his Son … so that we might receive our adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5)

3. but according to Augustine: he is continuing the earlier statement, who are born from God

1. it seemed a hard saying that men be born from God

2. then, as though arguing in support of this and to produce belief in the existence of the Word, the Evangelist adds something which seems less seemly, namely, that the Word was made flesh. As if to say: do not wonder if men are born from God, because the Word was made flesh, i.e., God became man

2. it should be noted that this statement, the Word was made flesh, has been misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error

166

1. certain ones have presumed that the Word became flesh in the sense that he or something of him was turned into flesh

1. one of these was Eutyches, who postulated a mixture of natures in Christ, saying that in him the nature of God and of man was the same

2. we can clearly see that this is false because, as was said above, “the Word was God.” Now God is immutable, as is said, “I am the Lord, and I do not change” (Mal 3:6)

3. hence in no way can it be said that he was turned into another nature

4. therefore, one must say in opposition to Eutyches, the Word was made flesh, i.e., the Word assumed flesh, but not in the sense that the Word himself is that flesh. It is as if we were to say: “The man became white,” not that he is that whiteness, but that he assumed whiteness

2. there were others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh but assumed it, nevertheless said that he assumed flesh without a soul

167

1. for if he had assumed flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said, “the Word was made flesh with a soul.”

2. this was the error of Arius, who said that there was no soul in Christ, but that the Word of God was there in place of a soul

3. the falsity of this opinion is obvious

1. both because it is in conflict with Sacred Scripture, which often mentions the soul of Christ, as: “My soul is sad, even to the point of death” (Mt 26:38)

2. and because certain affections of the soul are observed in Christ which can not possibly exist in the Word of God or in flesh alone: “He began to be sorrowful and troubled” (Mt 26:37)

3. also, God cannot be the form of a body

4. nor can an angel be united to a body as its form, since an angel, according to its very nature, is separated from body, whereas a soul is united to a body as its form

5. consequently, the Word of God cannot be the form of a body

4. furthermore, it is plain that flesh does not acquire the specific nature of flesh except through its soul

1. this is shown by the fact that when the soul has withdrawn from the body of a man or a cow, the flesh of the man or the cow is called flesh only in an equivocal sense

2. so if the Word did not assume flesh with a soul, it is obvious that he did not assume flesh

3. but the Word was made flesh; therefore, he assumed flesh with a soul

3. there were others who, influenced by this, said that the Word did indeed assume flesh with a soul, but this soul was only a sensitive soul, not an intellectual one; the Word took the place of the intellectual soul in Christ’s body

168

1. this was the error of Apollinaris

1. he followed Arius for a time, but later in the face of the [scriptural] authorities cited above, was forced to admit a soul in Christ which could be the subject of these emotions

2. but he said this soul lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken by the Word

2. this too is obviously false, because it conflicts with the authority of Sacred Scripture in which certain things are said of Christ that cannot be found in his divinity, nor in a sensitive soul, nor in flesh alone

1. for example, that Christ marveled, as in Matthew (8:10)

2. for to marvel or wonder is a state which arises in a rational and intellectual soul when a desire arises to know the hidden cause of an observed effect

3. therefore, just as sadness compels one to place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marveling or amazement forces one to admit, against Apollinaris, an intellectual element in Christ

3. the same conclusion can be reached by reason

1. for as there is no flesh without a soul, so there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul

2. so if the Word assumed flesh which was animated with a merely sensitive soul to the exclusion of a rational soul, he did not assume human flesh

3. consequently, one could not say: “God became man.”

4. besides, the Word assumed human nature in order to repair it

1. he repaired what he assumed

2. but if he did not assume a rational soul, he would not have repaired it

3. consequently, no fruit would have accrued to us from the Incarnation of the Word; and this is false

4. therefore, the Word was made flesh, i.e., assumed flesh which was animated by a rational soul

3. but you might say: if the Word did assume flesh with such a soul, why did the Evangelist not mention “rational soul,” instead of only “flesh,” saying, the Word was made flesh? the Evangelist had four reasons for doing this

169

1. first, to show the truth of the Incarnation against the Manichaeans, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but only imaginary flesh

2. secondly, to show the greatness of God’s kindness to us

3. thirdly, to demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ

4. fourthly, to suggest its relevance to man’s restoration

4. a question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that the Word assumed flesh, but rather that the Word was made flesh

170

1. he did this to exclude the error of Nestorious, who said that in Christ there were two persons and two sons, [one being the Son of God] the other being the son of the Virgin; thus he did not admit that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God

2. but if this were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular suppositum cannot be predicated of another

3. accordingly, if the person or suppositum of the Word is different than the person or suppositum of the man, in Christ, then what the Evangelist says is not true, namely, the Word was made flesh

1. for a thing is made or becomes something in order to be it

2. if, then, the Word is not man, it could not be said that the Word became man

4. so the Evangelist expressly said was made, and not “assumed,” to show that the union of the Word to flesh is not such as was the “lifting up” of the prophets, who were not “taken up” into a unity of person, but for the prophetic act

5. this union is such as would truly make God man and man God, i.e., that God would be man

5. there were some too who misunderstanding the manner of the Incarnation, did indeed admit that the aforesaid assumption was terminated at a oneness of person, acknowledging in God one person of God and man; but they said that in him there were hypostases

171

1. i.e., two supposita

1. one of a human nature, created and non-eternal

2. and the other of the divine nature, non-created and eternal

2. this is the first opinion presented in the Sentences

3. according to this opinion the proposition, “God was made man and man was made God,” is not true

4. consequently, this opinion was condemned as heretical by the Fifth Council, where it is said: “If anyone shall assert one person and two hypostases in the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.”

5. so the Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at a oneness of persons, says, was made

6. if you ask, how the Word is a man

172

1. it must be said that he is man in the way that anyone is man, namely, as having human nature

2. not that the Word is human nature itself, but he is a divine suppositum united to a human nature

3. the statement, the Word was made flesh, does not indicate any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the oneness of a divine person

4. and the Word was made flesh through a union to flesh

1. now a union is a relation

2. and relations newly said of God with respect to creatures do not imply a change on the side of God, but on the side of the creature relating in a new way to God

2. now follows, and made his dwelling among us

173

Chapter 1

14a2 and dwelt among us

2. second, he sets forth the manner in which Christ’s divinity is made known to us and gives evidence for the incarnate Word

Chapter 1

14b (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

15 John beareth witness of him and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me is preferred before me: because he was before me.

16 And of his fulness we all have received: and grace for grace.

17 For the law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou?

20 And he confessed and did not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ.

21 And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered: No.

22 They said therefore unto him: Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself?

23 He said: I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias.

24 And they that were sent were of the Pharisees.

25 And they asked him and said to him: Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet?

26 John answered them, saying: I baptize with water: but there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not.

27 The same is he that shall come after me, who is preferred before me: the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose.

28 These things were done in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said: After me there cometh a man, who is preferred before me: because he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he may be made manifest in Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John gave testimony, saying: I saw the Spirit coming down, as a dove from heaven; and he remained upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me: He upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, he it is that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

34 And I saw: and I gave testimony that this is the Son of God.

35 The next day again John stood and two of his disciples.

36 And beholding Jesus walking, he saith: Behold the Lamb of God.

37 And the two disciples heard him speak: and they followed Jesus.

38 And Jesus turning and seeing them following him, saith to them: What seek you? Who said to him: Rabbi (which is to say, being interpreted, Master), where dwellest thou?

39 He saith to them: Come and see. They came and saw where he abode: and they stayed with him that day. Now it was about the tenth hour.

40 And Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who had heard of John and followed him.

41 He findeth first his brother Simon and saith to him: We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

42 And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

43 On the following day, he would go forth into Galilee: and he findeth Philip, And Jesus saith to him: follow me.

44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

45 Philip findeth Nathanael and saith to him: We have found him of whom Moses, in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus the son of Joseph of Nazareth.

46 And Nathanael said to him: Can any thing of good come from Nazareth? Philip saith to him: Come and see.

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him and he saith of him: Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile.

48 Nathanael saith to him: Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.

49 Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi: Thou art the Son of God. Thou art the King of Israel.

50 Jesus answered and said to him: Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, thou believest: greater things than these shalt thou see.

51 And he saith to him: Amen, amen, I say to you, you shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

1. first, he shows the ways in which the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles

1:14b

179

Chapter 1

14b (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

15 John beareth witness of him and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me is preferred before me: because he was before me.

1. first, they obtained knowledge of him by what they saw

Chapter 1

14b (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

1. first, the manifestation of his glory, at we have seen the glory, which can be connected in three ways with what went before

1:14b

180

Chapter 1

14b (and we saw his glory,

1. first, it can be taken as an argument for his having said, the Word was made flesh, as if to say: I hold and know that the Word of God was incarnate because I and the other apostles have seen his glory (cf. Jn. 3:11; 1 Jn. 1:1)

2. second, according to Chrysostom, the connection is made by taking this statement as expressing many benefits, as if to say: the Incarnation of the Word not only conferred on us the benefit of becoming sons of God, but also the good of seeing his glory

181

3. third, according to Augustine, however, the connection refers to the gift of grace

182

2. second, the uniqueness of his glory, at as of the Only Begotten

1:14c

184

Chapter 1

14c the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father)

1. first, concerning the uniqueness of his glory

1. first, in the testimony which the Father gave to the Son, for John was one of the three who had seen Christ transfigured on the mountain and heard the voice of the Father (cf. Mt. 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:17)

186

2. second, it is brought out by the service of the angels (cf. Mt. 4:11)

3. third, it is brought out by the submission of nature (cf. Jn. 1:3; Mt. 8:27)

4. fourth, we see it in the way he taught and acted (cf. Mt. 5:22; Mt. 7:29)

2. second, concerning him as the Only Begotten

187

1. first, Christ is called the Only Begotten of God by nature

2. second, Christ is called the First-born insofar as from his natural sonship by means of a certain likeness and participation a sonship is granted to man

3. third, the precise nature of this glory, at full of grace and truth; as if to say, his glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity, which words can be applied to Christ in three ways

1:14d

188

Chapter 1

14d full of grace and truth.

1. first, from the point of view of union; for grace is given to someone so that he might be united to God through it

2. second, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul

189

3. third, these words can be explained in relation to his dignity as head, i.e., inasmuch as Christ is the head of the Church. In this way it is his prerogative to communicate grace to others

190

2. second, by what they heard of the testimony of John the Baptist

1:15

191

Chapter 1

15 John beareth witness of him and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me is preferred before me: because he was before me.

1. first, the witness is presented, So he says: We indeed have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father. But we are not believed, perhaps because V 1, p 79 we are held in suspicion. So let his witness come forth, that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ.

1:15a

192

Chapter 1

15a John beareth witness of him

2. second, his manner of testifying is indicated, that is, it was with a cry

1:15b

193

Chapter 1

15b and crieth out, saying:

1. first, he cried out without feaar

2. second, he cried out ardently and with great ferver, which is expressive of a more interior eagerness of spirit

3. third, the use of a cry shows that the statements of the witness are not made to a few in figurative language or secretly, but that truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told not to a few but to many

3. third, his testimony is given

1:15c

194

Chapter 1

15c This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me is preferred before me: because he was before me.

1. first, he shows that his testimony was continuous

195

Chapter 1

15c This was he of whom I spoke:

1. first, his testimony was continuous because he bore witness to him not only once but many times

2. second, his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he would come, but pointed him out when he was present

2. second, he describes the person to whom he bore witness, by drawing them little by little, by preferring Christ to himself

1:15d

196

Chapter 1

15d He that shall come after me is preferred before me: because he was before me.

1. first, with regard to the order of their preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant precedes his master; and he preceded Christ for two reasons

197

Chapter 1

15d He that shall come after me

1. first, according to Chrysostom, because John was a blood relation of Christ according to the flesh

1. first, had he borne witness to Christ after knowing him, his testimony might have been open to question

2. second, accordingly, John came preaching before he was acquainted with Christ in order that his testimony might have more force

2. second, John preceded Christ because in things that pass into act from potency, the imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; accordingly, the perfect doctrine of Christ should have been preceded by the less perfect teaching of John

2. second, as to the order of dignity

1:15e

198

Chapter 1

15e is preferred before me:

3. third, as to the time of their existence

1:15f

199

Chapter 1

15f because he was before me.

2. second, he clarifies each way

1:16a

200