St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on John
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Prologue p 21
PROLOGUE
TO THE
GOSPEL OF SAINT JOHN
St. Thomas Aquinas
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue p 23
I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, and the whole house was full of
his majesty, and the things that were under him filled the temple. (Is 6:1)
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 1
p 23
1 These are
the words of a contemplative, and if we regard them as spoken by John the
Evangelist they apply quite well to showing the nature of this Gospel. For as
Augustine says in his work, On the Agreement of the Evangelists: "The
other Evangelists instruct us in their Gospels on the active life; but John in
his Gospel instructs us also on the contemplative life."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 1
p 23
The
contemplation of John is described above in three ways, in keeping with the
threefold manner in which he contemplated the Lord Jesus. It is described as
high, full, and perfect. It is high: I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty
throne; it is full: and the whole house was full of his majesty; and it was
perfect: and the things that were under him filled the temple.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 2
p 23
2 As to the
first, we must understand that the height and sublimity of contemplation
consists most of all in the contemplation and knowledge of God. "Lift up
your eyes on high, and see who has created these things" (Is 40:26). A man
lifts up his eyes on high when he sees and contemplates the Creator of all
things. Now since John rose above whatever had been created--mountains,
heavens, angels--and reached the Creator of all, as Augustine says, it is clear
that his contemplation was most high. Thus, I saw the Lord. And because, as
John himself says below (12:41), "Isaiah said this because he had seen his
glory," that is, the glory of Christ, "and spoke of him," the
Lord seated on a high and lofty throne is Christ.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 2
p 23
Now a
fourfold height is indicated in this contemplation of John. A height of
authority; hence he says, I saw the Lord. A height of eternity; when he says, seated.
One of dignity, or nobility of nature; so he says, on a high throne. And a
height of incomprehensible truth; when he says, lofty. It is in these four ways
that the early philosophers arrived at the knowledge of God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 3
p 23
3 Some
attained to a knowledge of God through his authority, and this is the most
efficacious way. For we see the things in nature acting for an end, and
attaining to ends which are both useful and certain. And since they lack
intelligence, they are unable to direct themselves, but must be directed and
moved by one directing them, and who possesses an intellect. Thus it is that
the movement of the things of nature toward a certain end indicates the
existence of something higher by which the things of nature are directed to an end
and governed. And so, since the whole course of nature advances to an end in an
orderly way and is directed, we have to posit something higher which directs
and governs them as Lord; and this is God. This authority in governing is shown
to be in the Word of God when he says, Lord. Thus the Psalm (88:10) says:
"You rule the power of the sea, and you still the swelling of its
waves," as though saying: You are the Lord and govern all things. John
shows that he knows this about the Word when he says below (1:11), "He
came unto his own," i.e., to the world, since the whole universe is his
own.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 4
p 24
4 Others
came to a knowledge of God from his eternity. They saw that whatever was in
things was changeable, and that the more noble something is in the grades of
being, so much the less it has of mutability. For example, the lower bodies are
mutable both as to their substance and to place, while the heavenly bodies,
which are more noble, are immutable in substance and change only with respect
to place. We can clearly conclude from this that the first principle of all
things, which is supreme and more noble, is changeless and eternal. The prophet
suggests this eternity of the Word when he says, seated, i.e., presiding
without any change and eternally. "Your throne, O God, is forever and
ever" (Ps 44:7); "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and
forever" (Heb 13:8). John points to this eternity when he says below
(1:1), "In the beginning was the Word."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 5
p 24
5 Still
others came to a knowledge of God from the dignity of God; and these were the
Platonists. They noted that everything which is something by participation is
reduced to what is the same thing by essence, as to the first and highest.
Thus, all things which are fiery by participation are reduced to fire, which is
such by its essence. And so since all things which exist participate in
existence (esse) and are beings by participation, there must necessarily be at
the summit of all things something which is existence (esse) by its essence,
i.e., whose essence is its existence. And this is God, who is the most
sufficient, the most eminent, and the most perfect cause of the whole of existence,
from whom all things that are participate existence (esse). This dignity is
shown in the words, on a high throne, which, according to Denis, refer to the
divine nature. "The Lord is high above all nations" (Ps 112:4). John
shows us this dignity when he says below (1:1), "the Word was God,"
with "Word" as subject and "God" as the predicate.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 6
p 24
6 Yet others
arrived at a knowledge of God from the incomprehensibility of truth. All the truth
which our intellect is able to grasp is finite, since according to Augustine,
"everything that is known is bounded by the comprehension of the one
knowing"; and if it is bounded, it is determined and particularized.
Therefore, the first and supreme Truth, which surpasses every intellect, must
necessarily be incomprehensible and infinite; and this is God. Hence the Psalm
(8:2) says, "Your greatness is above the heavens," i.e., above every
created intellect, angelic and human. The Apostle says this in the words,
"He dwells in unapproachable light" (1 Tim 6:16). This
incomprehensibility of Truth is shown to us in the word, lofty, that is, above
all the knowledge of the created intellect. John implies this
incomprehensibility to us when he says below (1:18), "No one has ever seen
God."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 6
p 25
Thus, the
contemplation of John was high as regards authority, eternity, dignity, and the
incomprehensibility of the Word. And John has passed on this contemplation to
us in his Gospel.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 7
p 25
7 John's
contemplation was also full. Now contemplation is full when someone is able to
consider all the effects of a cause in the cause itself, that is, when he knows
not only the essence of the cause, but also its power, according as it can
extend out to many things. Of this flowing outward we read, "It overflows
with wisdom, like the Pishon, and like the Tigris in the days of the new
fruits" (Sir 25:35); "The river of God is full with water,"
since the divine wisdom has depth in relation to its knowledge of all things
(Ps 65:9). "With you from the beginning is wisdom, who knows your
works" (Wis 9:9).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 7 p
25
Since John
the Evangelist was raised up to the contemplation of the nature of the divine
Word and of his essence when he said, "In the beginning was the Word; and
the Word was with God," he immediately tells us of the power of the Word
as it extends to all things, saying, "Through him all things came into
being." Thus his contemplation was full. And so after the prophet had
said, I saw the Lord seated, he added something about his power, and the whole
house was full of his majesty, that is, the whole fullness of things and of the
universe is from the majesty and power of God, through whom all things were
made, and by whose light all the men coming into this world are enlightened.
"The earth and its fullness are the Lord's" (Ps 23:1).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 8
p 25
8 The
contemplation of John was also perfect. For contemplation is perfect when the
one contemplating is led and raised to the height of the thing contemplated.
Should he remain at a lower level, then no matter how high the things which he
might contemplate, the contemplation would not be perfect. So in order that it
be perfect it is necessary that it rise and attain the end of the thing
contemplated, adhering and assenting by affection and understanding to the
truth contemplated. Job (37:16) says, "Do you not know the path of the
clouds," that is, the contemplation of those preaching, "how perfect
they are?" inasmuch as they adhere firmly by affection and understanding
to contemplating the highest truth.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 8
p 25
Since John
not only taught how Christ Jesus, the Word of God, is God, raised above all
things, and how all things were made through him, but also that we are
sanctified by him, and adhere to him by the grace which he pours into us, he
says below (1:16), "Of his fullness we have all received--indeed, grace in
return for grace." It is therefore apparent that his contemplation is
perfect. This perfection is shown in the addition, and the things that were
under him filled the temple. For "the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor
11:3). The things that are under Christ are the sacraments of his humanity,
through which the faithful are filled with the fullness of grace. In this way,
then, the things that were under him filled the temple, i.e., the faithful, who
are the holy temple of God (1 Cor 3:17) insofar as through the sacraments of
his humanity all the faithful of Christ receive from the fullness of his grace.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 8
p 26
The
contemplation of John was thus full, high, and perfect.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 9
p 26
9 We should
note, however, that these three characteristics of contemplation belong to the
different sciences in different ways. The perfection of contemplation is found
in Moral Science, which is concerned with the ultimate end. The fullness of
contemplation is possessed by Natural Science, which considers things as
proceeding from God. Among the physical [natural] sciences, the height of
contemplation is found in Metaphysics. But the Gospel of John contains all
together what the above sciences have in a divided way, and so it is most
perfect.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 10
p 26
10 In this
way then, from what has been said, we can understand the matter of this Gospel.
For while the other Evangelists treat principally of the mysteries of the
humanity of Christ, John, especially and above all, makes known the divinity of
Christ in his Gospel, as we saw above. Still, he does not ignore the mysteries
of his humanity. He did this because, after the other Evangelists had written
their Gospels, heresies had arisen concerning the divinity of Christ, to the effect
that Christ was purely and simply a man, as Ebion and Cerinthus falsely
thought. And so John the Evangelist, who had drawn the truth about the divinity
of the Word from the very fountain-head of the divine breast, wrote this Gospel
at the request of the faithful. And in it he gives us the doctrine of the
divinity of Christ and refutes all heresies.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 10
p 26
The order of
this Gospel is clear from the above. For John first shows us the Lord seated on
a high and lofty throne, when he says below (1:1), "In the beginning was
the Word." He shows secondly how the house was full of his majesty, when
he says, "through him all things came into being" (1:3). Thirdly, he
shows how the things that were under him filled the temple, when he says,
"the Word was made flesh" (1:14). The end of this Gospel is also
clear, and it is that the faithful become the temple of God, and become filled
with the majesty of God; and so John says below (20:31), "These things are
written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 10
p 27
The matter
of this Gospel, the knowledge of the divinity of the Word, is clear, as well as
its order and end.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 11
p 27
11 Then
follows the condition of the author, who is described above in four ways: as to
his name, his virtue, his symbol, and his privilege. He is described as to name
as John, the author of this Gospel. "John" is interpreted as "in
whom is grace," since the secrets of the divinity cannot be seen except by
those who have the grace of God within themselves. "No one knows the deep
things of God but the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 11
p 27
As concerns
his virtue, John saw the Lord seated, because he was a virgin; for it is
fitting that such persons see the Lord: "Blessed are the pure in
heart" (Mt 5:8).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 11
p 27
He is
described as to his symbol, for John is symbolized by an eagle. The other three
Evangelists, concerned with those things which Christ did in his flesh, are
symbolized by animals which walk on the earth, namely, by a man, a bull calf,
and a lion. But John flies like an eagle above the cloud of human weakness and
looks upon the light of unchanging truth with the most lofty and firm eyes of
the heart. And gazing on the very deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which he
is equal to the Father, he has striven in this Gospel to confide this above
all, to the extent that he believed was sufficient for all. Concerning this
flight of John it says in Job (39:27): "Will the eagle," that is, John,
"fly up at your command?" And further on it says, "His eyes look
far away," because the Word of God is seen in the bosom of the Father by
the eye of the mind.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 11
p 27
John is
described as to privilege since, among the other disciples of the Lord, John
was more loved by Christ. Without mentioning his own name John refers to
himself below (21:20) as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." And because
secrets are revealed to friends, "I have called you friends because
everything I have heard from my father I have made known to you" (below
15:15), Jesus confided his secrets in a special way to that disciple who was
specially loved. Thus it says in Job (36:32): "From the savage," that
is, the proud, "he hides his light," that is, Christ hides the truth
of his divinity, "and shows his friend," that is, John, "that it
belongs to him," since it is John who sees the light of the Incarnate Word
more excellently and expresses it to us, saying "He was the true light"
(below 1:19).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Prologue Sct 11
p 27
Now the
matter, order, end and author of this Gospel of the blessed John are clear.
Chapter 1
Lecture 1
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 V 1-2 p 29
1
LECTURE 1
1 In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
23 p 31
23 John the
Evangelist, as already indicated, makes it his principal object to show the
divinity of the Incarnate Word. Accordingly, his Gospel is divided into two
parts. In the first he states the divinity of Christ; in the second he shows it
by the things Christ did in the flesh (2:1). In regard to the first, he does
two things. First he shows the divinity of Christ; secondly he sets forth the
manner in which Christ's divinity is made known to us (1:14). Concerning the
first he does two things. First he treats of the divinity of Christ; secondly of
the incarnation of the Word of God (1:6).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
23 p 31
Because
there are two items to be considered in each thing, namely, its existence and
its operation or power, first he treats the existence of the Word as to his
divine nature; secondly of his power or operation (1:3). In regard to the first
he does four things. First he shows when the Word was: In the beginning was the
Word; secondly where he was: and the Word was with God; thirdly what he was: and
the Word was God; fourthly, in what way he was: He was in the beginning with
God. The first two pertain to the inquiry "whether something exists";
the second two pertain to the inquiry "what something is."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
24 p 31
24 With
respect to the first of these four we must examine the meaning of the
statement, In the beginning was the Word. And here three things present
themselves for careful study according to the three parts of this statement.
First it is necessary to investigate the name Word; secondly the phrase in the
beginning; thirdly the meaning of the Word was in the beginning.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
25 p 31
25 To
understand the name Word we should note that according to the Philosopher [On
Interpretation 16a3] 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). It is fitting that what is within our soul, and
which is signified by our external word, be called a "word." 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. 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. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
25 p 32
Now there
are three things in our intellect: the intellectual power itself, the species
of the thing understood (and this species is its form, being to the intellect
what the species of a color is to the eye), and thirdly the very activity of
the intellect, which is to understand. But none of these is what is signified
by the exterior vocal word: for the name "stone" does not signify the
substance of the intellect because this is not what the one naming intends; 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; 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.
Therefore, that is properly called an interior word which the one understanding
forms when understanding.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
25 p 32
Now the
intellect forms two things, according to its two operations. According to its
operation which is called "the understanding of indivisibles,"
it forms a definition; while according to its operation by which it unites and
separates, it forms an enunciation or something of that sort. 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. So the
Philosopher says that the notion (ratio) which a name signifies is a
definition. Hence, what is thus expressed, i.e., formed in the soul, is called
an interior word. Consequently it is compared to the intellect, not as that by
which the intellect understands, but as that in which it understands, because
it is in what is thus expressed and formed that it sees the nature of the thing
understood. Thus we have the meaning of the name "word."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
25 p 32
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; and furthermore,
that a word is always a notion (ratio) and likeness of the thing understood. 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. On the other
hand, if the one understanding is other than the thing understood, then the
word is not a likeness and notion of the one understanding but of the thing
understood, as the conception which one has of a stone is a likeness of only
the stone. But when the intellect understands itself, its word is a likeness
and notion of the intellect. And so Augustine (On the Trinity IX, 5) sees a
likeness of the Trinity in the soul insofar as the mind understands itself, but
not insofar as it understands other things.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
25 p 33
It is clear
then that it is necessary to have a word in any intellectual nature, for it is
of the very nature of understanding that the intellect in understanding should
form something. Now what is formed is called a word, and so it follows that in
every being which understands there must be a word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
25 p 33
However,
intellectual natures are of three kinds: human, angelic and divine; and so
there are three kinds of words. The human word, about which it is said in the
Psalm (13:1): "The fool said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" 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." The third is the divine
word, of which Genesis (1:3) says, "And God said, 'Let there be
light.'" So when the Evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word, we
cannot understand this as a human or angelic word, because both these words
have been made since man and angel have a cause and principle of their
existence and operation, and the word of a man or an angel cannot exist before
they do. The word the Evangelist had in mind he shows by saying that this word
was not made, since all things were made by it. Therefore, the word about which
John speaks here is the Word of God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
26 p 33
26 We should
note that this Word differs from our own word in three ways. The first
difference, according to Augustine, is that our word is formable before being
formed, for when I wish to conceive the notion of a stone, I must arrive at it
by reasoning. And so it is in all other things that are understood by us, 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. So as
long as the intellect, in so reasoning, casts about this way and that, the
formation is not yet complete. 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. Thus in our mind there is both a "cogitation,"
meaning the discourse involved in an investigation, and a word, which is formed
according to a perfect contemplation of the truth. So our word is first in
potency before it is in act. But the Word of God is always in act. In
consequence, the term "cogitation" does not properly speaking apply
to the Word of God. 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." Anselm was speaking improperly
when he said: "For the supreme Spirit to speak is for him to look at
something while cogitating."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
27 p 34
27 The
second difference is that our word is imperfect, but the divine Word is most
perfect. 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 knowledge. But it is not that way with God. 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. 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" (Jb 33:14).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
28 p 34
28 The third
difference is that our word is not of the same nature as we; but the divine
Word is of the same nature as God. And therefore it is something that subsists
in the divine nature. For the understood notion which the intellect is seen to
form about some thing has only an intelligible existence in our soul. Now in
our soul, to understand is not the same as the nature of the soul, because our
soul is not its own operation. Consequently, the word which our intellect forms
is not of the essence of our soul, but is an accident of it. But in God, to
understand and to be are the same; and so the Word of the divine intellect is
not an accident but belongs to its nature. Thus it must be subsistent, because
whatever is in the nature of God is God. Thus Damascene says that God is a
substantial Word, and a hypostasis, but our words are concepts in our mind.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
29 p 34
29 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; also, that in the Divinity the Word is the likeness of that from
which it issues; 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; and
that it is equal to the Father, since it is perfect and expressive of the whole
being of the Father; and that it is co-essential and consubstantial with the
Father, since it is his substance.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
29 p 34
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, and since this Word issues
forth in a likeness and identity to the nature from which it issues, it is
suitably and appropriately called a "Son," and its production is
called a generation.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
29 p 34
So now the
first point is clear, the meaning of the term Word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
30 p 34
30 There are
four questions on this point, two of them from Chrysostom. The first is: Why
did John the Evangelist omit the Father and begin at once with the Son, saying,
In the beginning was the Word?
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
30 p 35
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; but the Son was
not known. And so in the New Testament, which is concerned with our knowledge
of the Word, he begins with the Word or Son.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
30 p 35
The other
answer is that we are brought to know the Father through the Son: "Father,
I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me" (below
17:6). 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
31 p 35
31 The
second question is also from Chrysostom. Why did he say Word and not
"Son," since, as we have said, the Word proceeds as Son?
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
31 p 35
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. 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. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
31 p 35
The second
answer is this. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
32 p 35
32 The third
question is raised by Augustine in his book Eighty-three Questions; and it is
this. In Greek, where we have "Word," they have "Logos";
now since "Logos" signifies in Latin both "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?
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
32 p 35
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;
but "word" signifies a reference to something exterior. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
33 p 36
33 The
fourth question is from Origen, and is this. 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" (Rv 19:13). 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?
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
33 p 36
I answer
that although there are many participated truths, 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. Similarly, there is one absolute Wisdom
elevated above all things, that is, the divine Wisdom, by participating in
which all wise persons are wise. Further, there is one absolute Word, by
participating in which all persons having a word are called speakers. 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 super-eminence of the divine Word,
he pointed out this Word to us absolutely without any addition.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct 33
p 36
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 (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), so the
Evangelist, wishing to signify the separation and elevation of that Word above
all things, affixed an article to the name "Logos," so that if it
were stated in Latin we would have "the Word."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
34 p 36
34 Secondly,
we must consider the meaning of the phrase, In the beginning. We must note that
according to Origen, the word principium has many meanings [such as "principle,"
"source," or "beginning"]. Since the word principium
implies a certain order of one thing to another, one can find a principium in
all those things which have an order. First of all, order is found in
quantified things; and so there is a principle of number and lengths, as for
example, a line. Second, order is found in time; and so we speak of a
"beginning" of time, or of duration. Third, order is found in
learning; and this in two ways: as to nature, and as to ourselves, and in both
cases we can speak of a "beginning": "By this time you ought to
be teachers" (Heb 5:12). As to nature, in Christian doctrine the beginning
and principle of our wisdom is Christ, inasmuch as he is the Wisdom and Word of
God, i.e., in his divinity. But as to ourselves, the beginning is Christ
himself inasmuch as the Word has become flesh, i.e., by his incarnation.
Fourth, an order is found in the production of a thing. In this perspective
there can be a principium on the part of the thing generated, that is, the
first part of the thing generated or made; as we say that the foundation is the
beginning of a house. Another principium is on the part of the generator, and
in this perspective there are three "principles": of intention, which
is the purpose, which motivates the agent; of reason, which is the idea in the
mind of the maker; and of execution, which is the operative faculty.
Considering these various ways of using the term, we now ask how principium is
used here when it says, In the beginning was the Word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
35 p 37
35 We should
note that this word can be taken in three ways. In one way 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, which is the conception of the
things that are brought into existence. Hence we read: "Christ the power
of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24). And so the Lord said about
himself: "I am the principium who also speaks to you" (below 8:25).
Taking principium in this way, we should understand the statement, In the
beginning was the Word, as though he were saying, "The Word was in the
Son," so that the sense would be: The Word himself is the principium,
principle, in the sense in which life is said to be "in" God, when
this life is not something other than God. And this is the explanation of
Origen. And so the Evangelist says In the beginning here in order, as
Chrysostom says, to show at the very outset the divinity of the Word by asserting
that he is a principle because, as determining all, a principle is most
honored.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
36 p 37
36 In a
second way principium can be understood as the Person of the Father, who is the
principle not only of creatures, but of every divine process. It is taken this
way in, "Yours is princely power (principium) in the day of your
birth" (Ps 110:3). In this second way one reads In the beginning was the
Word as though it means, "The Son was in the Father." This is
Augustine's understanding of it, as well as Origen's. The Son, however, is said
to be in the Father because both have the same essence. Since the Son is his
own essence, then the Son is in whomsoever the Son's essence is. Since, therefore,
the essence of the Son is in the Father by consubstantiality, it is fitting
that the Son be in the Father. Hence it says below (14:10): "I am in the
Father and the Father is in me."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
37 p 37
37 In a
third way, principium can be taken for the beginning of duration, so that the
sense of In the beginning was the Word is that the Word was before all things,
as Augustine explains it. According to Basil and Hilary, this phrase shows the
eternity of the Word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
37 p 37
The phrase In
the beginning was the Word shows that no matter which beginning of duration is
taken, whether of temporal things which is time, or of aeviternal things which
is the aeon, or of the whole world or any imagined span of time reaching back
for many ages, at that beginning the Word already was. Hence Hilary says (On
the Trinity VII): "Go back season by season, skip over the centuries, take
away ages. Set down whatever you want as the beginning in your opinion: the
Word already was." And this is what Proverbs (8:23) says: "The Lord
possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything." But
what is prior to the beginning of duration is eternal.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
38 p 38
38 And thus
the first explanation asserts the causality of the Word; the second explanation
affirms the consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, who utters the Word;
and the third explanation affirms the co-eternity of the Word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
39 p 38
39 Now we
should consider that it says that the Word was (erat), which is stated in the
past imperfect tense. This tense is most appropriate for designating eternal
things if we consider the nature of time and of the things that exist in time.
For what is future is not yet in act; but what is at present is in act, and by
the fact that it is in act what is present is not described as having been. Now
the past perfect tense indicates that something has existed, has already come
to an end, and has now ceased to be. The past imperfect tense, on the other
hand, indicates that something has been, has not yet come to an end, nor has
ceased to be, but still endures. Thus, whenever John mentions eternal things he
expressly says "was" (erat, past imperfect tense), but when he refers
to anything temporal he says "has been" (fuit, past perfect tense),
as will be clear later.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
39 p 38
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 Augustine says: "He alone truly is whose being does
not know a past and a future."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
40 p 38
40 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
41 p 38
41 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
41 p 38
I answer that
there are three reasons why an originative principle is prior in duration to
that which derives from that principle. 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. 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. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
41 p 39
Yet none of
these three is found in the generation of the divine Word. 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. 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. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
41 p 39
An example
of this, to a limited degree, appears in fire and in the brightness issuing
from it: for this brightness issues naturally and without succession from the
fire. 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). 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. The Council
of Ephesus says that the Son always coexists with the Father: for
"brightness" indicates his unchangeability, "birth" points
to the Word himself, but the name "Son" suggests his consubstantiality.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
42 p 39
42 And so we
give the Son various names to express his perfection, which cannot be expressed
by one name. We call him "Son" to show that he is of the same nature
as the Father; we call him "image" to show that he is not unlike the
Father in any way; we call him "brightness" to show that he is
coeternal; and he is called the "Word" to show that he is begotten in
an immaterial manner.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
43 p 40
43 Then the
Evangelist says, and the Word was with God, which is the second clause in his
account. The first thing to consider is the meaning of the two words which did
not appear in the first clause, that is, God, and with; for we have already
explained the meanings of "Word," and "beginning."Let us
continue carefully by examining these two new words, and to better understand
the explanation of this second clause, we must say something about the meaning
of each so far as it is relevant to our purpose.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
44 p 40
44 At the
outset, we should note that the name "God" signifies the divinity
concretely and as inherent in a subject, while the name "deity"
signifies the divinity in the abstract and absolutely. Thus the name
"deity" cannot naturally and by its mode of signifying stand for a
[divine] person, but only for the [divine] nature. But the name "God"
can, by its natural mode of signifying, stand for any one of the [divine]
persons, just as the name "man" stands for any individual (suppositum)
possessing humanity. Therefore, whenever the truth of a statement or its
predicate require that the name "God" stand for the person, then it
stands for the person, as when we say, "God begets God." Thus, when
it says here that the Word was with God, it is necessary that God stand for the
person of the Father, because the preposition with signifies the distinction of
the Word, which is said to be with God. And although this preposition signifies
a distinction in person, it does not signify a distinction in nature, since the
nature of the Father and of the Son is the same. Consequently, the Evangelist
wished to signify the person of the Father when he said God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
45 p 40
45 Here we
should note that the preposition with signifies a certain union of the thing
signified by its grammatical antecedent to the thing signified by its
grammatical object, just as the preposition "in" does. However, there
is a difference, because the preposition "in" signifies a certain
intrinsic union, whereas the preposition with implies in a certain way an
extrinsic union. And we state both in divine matters, namely, that the Son is in
the Father and with the Father. Here the intrinsic union pertains to
consubstantiality, but the extrinsic union (if we may use such an expression,
since "extrinsic" is improperly employed in divine matters) refers
only to a personal distinction, because the Son is distinguished from the
Father by origin alone. And so these two words designate both a
consubstantiality in nature and distinction in person: consubstantiality
inasmuch as a certain union is implied; but distinction, inasmuch as a certain
otherness is signified as was said above.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
45 p 41
The
preposition "in," as was said, principally signifies
consubstantiality, as implying an intrinsic union and, by way of consequence, a
distinction of persons, inasmuch as every preposition is transitive. The
preposition "with" principally signifies a personal distinction, but
also a consubstantiality inasmuch as it signifies a certain extrinsic, so to
speak, union. For these reasons the Evangelist specifically used here the
preposition "with" in order to express the distinction of the person
of the Son from the Father, saying, and the Word was with God, that is, the Son
was with the Father as one person with another.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
46 p 41
46 We should
note further that this preposition with has four meanings, and these eliminate
four objections. First, the preposition with signifies the subsistence of its
antecedent, because things that do not subsist of themselves are not properly
said to be "with" another; thus we do not say that a color is with a
body, and the same applies to other things that do not subsist of themselves.
But things that do subsist of themselves are properly said to be
"with" another; thus we say that a man is with a man, and a stone
with a stone.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
46 p 41
Secondly, it
signifies authority in its grammatical object. For we do not, properly
speaking, say that a king is with a soldier, but that the soldier is with the
king. Thirdly, it asserts a distinction. For it is not proper to say that a
person is with himself, but rather that one man is with another. Fourthly, it
signifies a certain union and fellowship. For when some person is said to be
with another, it suggests to us that there is some social union between them.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
46 p 41
Considering
these four conditions implied in the meaning of this preposition with, the
Evangelist quite appropriately joins to the first clause, In the beginning was
the Word, this second clause, and the Word was with God. For if we omit one of
the three explanations of, In the beginning was the Word (namely, the one in
which principium was understood as the Son), certain heretics make a twofold
objection against each of the other explanations (namely, the one in which principium
means the same as "before all things," and the one in which it is
understood as the Father). Thus there are four objections, and we can answer
these by the four conditions indicated by this preposition with.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
47 p 41
47 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? This objection arises due to
the imaginings of those who think that whatever exists is somewhere and in some
place. But this is rejected by John when he says, with God, which indicates the
union mentioned in the last of the four conditions. So, according to Basil, the
meaning is this: Where was the Word? The answer is: with God; not in some
place, since he is unsurroundable, but he is with the Father, who is not
enclosed by any place.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
48 p 42
48 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. This objection is rejected when he says, the Word was
with God, taking "with" according to its second condition, as
implying authority in what is causing. So the meaning, according to Hilary, is
this: From whom is the Word if he exists before all things? The Evangelist
answers: the Word was with God, i.e., although the Word has no beginning of
duration, still he does not lack a principium or author, for he was with God as
his author.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
49 p 42
49 The third
objection, directed to the explanation in which principium is understood as the
Father, is this. 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. This
objection is solved by the statement, the Word was with God, taking
"with" in its first condition, as implying the subsistence of its
grammatical antecedent. So according to Chrysostom, the meaning is this: In the
beginning was the Word, not as an accident, but he was with God, as subsisting,
and a divine hypostasis.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
50 p 42
50 The
fourth objection, against the same explanation, is this. 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. This objection is
answered by the statement, and the Word was with God, taking "with"
in its third condition, as indicating distinction. Thus the meaning, according
to Alcuin and Bede, is this: The Word was with God, and he was "in"
the Father by a consubstantiality of nature, while still being "with"
him through a distinction in person.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
51 p 42
51 And so, and
the Word was with God, indicates: the union of the Word with the Father in
nature, according to Basil; their distinction in person, according to Alcuin
and Bede; the subsistence of the Word in the divine nature, according to
Chrysostom; and the authorship of the Father in relation to the Word, according
to Hilary.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
52 p 42
52 We should
also note, according to Origen, that the Word was with God shows that the Son
has always been with the Father. 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. 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. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
53 p 43
53 Then he
says, and the Word was God. This is the third clause in John's account, and it
follows most appropriately considering the order of teaching. For since John
had said both when and where the Word was, it remained to inquire what the Word
was, that is, the Word was God, taking "Word" as the subject, and
"God" as the predicate.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
54 p 43
54 But since
one should first inquire what a thing is before investigating where and when it
is, it seems that John violated this order by discussing these latter first.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
54 p 43
Origen answers
this by saying that the Word of God is with man and with God in different ways.
The Word is with man as perfecting him, because it is through him that man
becomes wise and good: "She makes friends of God and prophets" (Wis
7:27). But the Word is not with God as though the Father were perfected and
enlightened by him. Rather, the Word is with God as receiving natural divinity
from him, who utters the Word, and from whom he has it that he is the same God
with him. And so, since the Word was with God by origin, it was necessary to
show first that the Word was in the Father and with the Father before showing
that the Word was God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
55 p 43
55 This
clause also enables us to answer two objections which arise from the foregoing.
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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
55 p 43
According to
Hilary and Augustine, this question is sufficiently answered by the above
account. Augustine says (Homily 1 On John) that it is obvious that in this
passage "Word" cannot be understood as a statement because, since a
statement is in motion and passes away, it could not be said that In the
beginning was the Word, if this Word were something passing away and in motion.
The same thing is clear from and the Word was with God: for to be
"in" another is not the same as to be "with" another. Our
word, since it does not subsist, is not "with" us, but "in"
us; but the Word of God is subsistent, and therefore "with" God. And
so the Evangelist expressly says, and the Word was with God. To entirely remove
the ground of the objection, he adds the nature and being of the Word, saying, and
the Word was God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
56 p 44
56 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. So to exclude this he adds at once the
consubstantiality of the Word with the Father, saying, and the Word was God. As
if to say: the Word is not separated from the Father by a diversity of nature,
because the Word itself is God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
57 p 44
57 Note also
the special way of signifying, since he says, the Word was God, using
"God" absolutely to show that he is not God in the same way in which
the name of the deity is given to a creature in Sacred Scripture. For a
creature sometimes shares this name with some added qualification, as when it
says, "I have appointed you the God of Pharaoh" (Ex 7:1), in order to
indicate that he was not God absolutely or by nature, because he was appointed
the god of someone in a qualified sense. Again, it says in the Psalm (81:6):
"I said, 'You are gods.'"--as if to say: in my opinion, but not in
reality. Thus the Word is called God absolutely because he is God by his own
essence, and not by participation, as men and angels are.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
58 p 44
58 We should
note that Origen disgracefully misunderstood this clause, led astray by the
Greek manner of speaking. It is the custom among the Greeks to put the article
before every name in order to indicate a distinction. In the Greek version of
John's Gospel the name "Word" in the statement, In the beginning was
the Word, and also the name "God" in the statement, and the Word was
with God, are prefixed by the article, so as to read "the Word" and
"the God," in order to indicate the eminence and distinction of the
Word from other words, and the principality of the Father in the divinity. But
in the statement, the Word was God, the article is not prefixed to the noun
"God," which stands for the person of the Son. Because of this Origen
blasphemed that the Word, although he was Word by essence, was not God by
essence, but is called God by participation; while the Father alone is God by
essence. And so he held that the Son is inferior to the Father.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
59 p 44
59
Chrysostom proves that this is not true, because if the article used with the
name "God" implied the superiority of the Father in respect to the
Son, it would never be used with the name "God" when it is used as a
predicate of another, but only when it is predicated of the Father. Further, whenever
said of the Father, it would be accompanied by the article. However, we find
the opposite to be the case in two statements of the Apostle, who calls Christ
"God," using the article. For in Titus (2:13) he says, "the
coming of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ," where
"God" stands for the Son, and in the Greek the article is used.
Therefore, Christ is the great God. Again he says (Rom 9:5): "Christ, who
is God over all things, blessed forever," and again the article is used with
"God" in the Greek. Further, in 1 John (5:20) it says: "That we
may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ; he is the true God and eternal
life." Thus, Christ is not God by participation, but truly God. And so the
theory of Origen is clearly false.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
59 p 45
Chrysostom
gives us the reason why the Evangelist did not use the article with the name
"God," namely, because he had already mentioned God twice using the
article, and so it was not necessary to repeat it a third time, but it was
implied. Or, a better reason would be that "God" is used here as the
predicate and is taken formally. And it is not the custom for the article to
accompany names used as predicates, since the article indicates separation. But
if "God" were used here as the subject, it could stand for any of the
persons, as the Son or the Holy Spirit; then, no doubt, the article would be
used in the Greek.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
60 p 45
60 Then he
says, He was in the beginning with God. This is the fourth clause and is
introduced because of the preceding clause. For from the Evangelist's statement
that the Word was God, two false interpretations could be held by those who
misunderstand. One of these is by the pagans, who acknowledge many and
different gods, and say that their wills are in opposition. For example, those
who put out the fable of Jupiter fighting with Saturn; or as the Manicheans,
who have two contrary principles of nature. The Lord said against this error
(Dt 6:4): "Hear O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
60 p 45
Since the
Evangelist had said, the Word was with God; and the Word was God, they could
adduce this in support of their error by understanding the God with whom the
Word is to be one [God], and the Word to be another, having another, or
contrary, will to the former; and this is against the law of the Gospel. And so
to exclude this he says, He was in the beginning with God, as if to say,
according to Hilary: I say that the Word is God, not as if he has a distinct
divinity, but he is with God, that is, in the one same nature in which he is.
Further, lest his statement, and the Word was God, be taken to mean that the
Word has an opposed will, he added that the Word was in the beginning with God,
namely, the Father; not as divided from him or opposed, but having an identity
of nature with him and a harmony of will. This union comes about by the sharing
of the divine nature in the three persons, and by the bond of the natural love
of the Father and the Son.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
61 p 46
61 The
Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They think that the
Son is less than the Father because it says below (14:28): "The Father is
greater than I." And they say the Father is greater than the Son both as
to eternity and as to divinity of nature. And so to exclude this the Evangelist
added: He was in the beginning with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In
the beginning was the Word, but he will not admit that principium should be
taken for the Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says
that the Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no
sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to Chrysostom,
by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures, but in the beginning
with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the Father was never alone without
the Son or Word, but He, that is, the Word, was always with God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
62 p 46
62 Again,
Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior to the Father.
This is excluded by what follows. For there are two attributes proper to the
great God which Arius attributed solely to God the Father, that is, eternity
and omnipotence. 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. Therefore, the Word is the great God, and not inferior. 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. Further, he
attributes omnipotence to the Word when he adds, Through him all things came
into being.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
63 p 46
63 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. For the Evangelist, after he had indicated that
truth was the Son's and was about to describe his power, in a way gathers
together in a summary form, in this fourth clause, what he had said in the
first three. For in saying He, he understands the third clause; by adding was
in the beginning, he recalls the first clause; and by adding with God, he
recalls the second, so that we do not think that the Word which was in the
beginning is different than the Word which was God; but this Word which was God
was in the beginning with God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
64 p 46
64 If one
considers these four propositions well, he will find that they clearly destroy
all the errors of the heretics and of the philosophers. For some heretics, as
Ebion and Cerinthus, said that Christ did not exist before the Blessed Virgin,
but took from her the beginning of his being and duration; for they held that
he was a mere man, who had merited divinity by his good works. Photinus and
Paul of Samosata, following them, said the same thing. But the Evangelist
excludes their errors saying, In the beginning was the Word, i.e., before all
things, and in the Father from eternity. Thus he did not derive his beginning
from the Virgin.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
64 p 47
Sabellius,
on the other hand, although he admitted that the God who took flesh did not
receive his beginning from the Virgin, but existed from eternity, still said
that the person of the Father, who existed from eternity, was not distinct from
the person of the Son, who took flesh from the Virgin. He maintained that the
Father and Son were the same person; and so he failed to distinguish the
trinity of persons in the deity. The Evangelist says against this error, and
the Word was with God, i.e., the Son was with the Father, as one person with another.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
64 p 47
Eunomius
declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The Evangelist rejects
this when he says, and the Word was God. Finally, Arius said that the Son was
less than the Father. The Evangelist excludes this by saying, He was in the
beginning with God, as was explained above.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
65 p 47
65 These
words also exclude the errors of the philosophers. For 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.
Consequently, they did not place at the beginning as the cause of things a
reason or intellect, but only matter in flux; for example, atoms, as Democritus
thought, or other material principles of this kind as different philosophers
maintained. Against these the Evangelist says, In the beginning was the Word,
from whom, and not from chance, things derive their beginning.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
65 p 47
Plato,
however, thought that the Ideas of all the things that were made were
subsistent, i.e., existing separately in their own natures; and material things
exist by participating in these. For example, he thought men existed through
the separated Idea of man, which he called Man per se. So lest you suppose, as
did Plato, that this Idea through which all things were made be Ideas separated
from God, the Evangelist adds, and the Word was with God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
65 p 47
Other
Platonists, as Chrysostom relates, maintained that God the Father was most
eminent and first, but under him they placed a certain mind in which there were
the likenesses and ideas of all things. So lest you think that the Word was
with the Father in such a way as to be under him and less than he, the
Evangelist adds, and the Word was God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
65 p 47
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.
Nevertheless, he thought that the world is coeternal with him. Against this the
Evangelist says, He, the Word alone, was in the beginning with God, in such a
way that He does not exclude another person, but only another coeternal nature.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
66 p 48
66 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. They announced Christ the Son of
God born in time: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem" (Mt 2:1); but
John presents him existing from eternity: In the beginning was the Word. They
show him suddenly appearing among men: "Now you dismiss your servant, O
Lord, in peace, according to your word; because my eyes have seen your
salvation" (Lk 2:29); but John says that he always existed with the
Father: and the Word was with God. The others show him as a man: "They
gave glory to God who had given such authority to men" (Mt 9:8); but John
says that he is God: and the Word was God. The others say he lives with men:
"While living in Galilee, Jesus said to them" (Mt 17:21); but John
says that he has always been with the Father: He was in the beginning with God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 1 Sct
67 p 48
67 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. It is as though he were
saying: He was beyond time: present, past and future, as the Gloss says.
Lecture 2
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 V 3 p 48
LECTURE 2
3 All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made. What was made 4a in him was life.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
68 p 48
68 After the
Evangelist has told of the existence and nature of the Divine Word, so far as
it can be told by man, he then shows the might of his power. First, he shows
his power with respect to all things that come into existence. Secondly, with
respect to man. As to the first, he uses three clauses; and we will not
distinguish these at present because they will be distinguished in different
ways according to the different explanations given by the saints.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
69 p 48
69 The first
clause, All things were made through him, is used to show three things
concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to show the equality of
the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier, the error of Arius was rejected
by the Evangelist when he showed the coeternity of the Son with the Father by
saying, "He was in the beginning with God." Here he excludes the same
error when he shows the omnipotence of the Son, saying, All things were made
through him. For to be the principle of all the things that are made is proper
to the great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, "Whatever the Lord
wills he does, in heaven and on earth."Thus the Word, through whom all
things were made, is God, great and coequal to the Father.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
70 p 49
70 Secondly,
according to Hilary, this clause is used to show the coeternity of the Word
with the Father. For since someone might understand the earlier statement,
"In the beginning was the Word," as referring to the beginning of
creatures, i.e., that before there were any creatures there was a time in which
the Word did not exist, the Evangelist rejects this by saying, All things were
made through him. For if all things were made through the Word, then time was
also. From this we can form the following argument: If all time was made
through him, there was no time before him or with him, because before all
these, he was. Therefore they [the Son and the Father] are eternally coeternal.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
71 p 49
71 Thirdly,
according to Augustine, this clause is used to show the consubstantiality of
the Word with the Father. For if all things were made through the Word, the
Word himself cannot be said to have been made; because, if made, he was made
through some Word, since all things were made through the Word. Consequently,
there would have been another Word through whom was made the Word of whom the
Evangelist is speaking. This Word, through whom all things are made, we call
the only begotten Son of God, because he is neither made nor is he a creature.
And if he is not a creature, it is necessary to say that he is of the same
substance with the Father, since every substance other than the divine essence
is made. But a substance that is not a creature is God. And so the Word,
through whom all things were made, is consubstantial with the Father, since he
is neither made, nor is he a creature.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
72 p 49
72 And so in
saying All things were made through him, you have, according to Chrysostom, the
equality of the Word with the Father; the coeternity of the Word with the
Father, according to Hilary; and the consubstantiality of the Word with the
Father, according to Augustine.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
73 p 49
73 Here we
must guard against three errors. First, the error of Valentine. He understood All
things were made through him to mean that the Word proferred 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. This leads to the
position of those who said that God created the world because of some exterior
cause; and this is contrary to Proverbs (16:4), "The Lord made all things
for himself." The reason this is an error is that, as Origen says, if the
Word had been a cause to the Creator by offering him the material for making
things, he would not have said, All things were made through him, but on the
contrary, that all things were made through the Creator by the Word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
74 p 50
74 Secondly,
we must avoid 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. And this is what Origen thought. This is heretical and blasphemous,
since the Holy Spirit has the same glory and substance and dignity as the
Father and the Son, according to the words of Matthew (28:19), "Make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And, "There are three who give
testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three
are one" (1 Jn 5:7). Thus when the Evangelist says, All things were made
through him, one should not understand "all things" absolutely, but
in the realm of creatures and of things made. As if to say: All things that
were made, were made through him. Otherwise, if "all things" were
taken absolutely, it would follow that the Father and the Holy Spirit were made
through him; and this is blasphemous. Consequently, neither the Father nor
anything substantial with the Father was made through the Word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
75 p 50
75 Thirdly,
we must avoid another of Origen's errors. For 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. But it is clear from
many places in Scripture that the preposition "through" (per) does
not signify inferiority in the thing which is its grammatical object, i.e., in
the Son or Word. For the Apostle says, "God is faithful, through whom you
were called into the fellowship of his Son" (1 Cor 1:9). If he
"through" whom something is done has a superior, then the Father has
a superior. But this is false. Therefore, the preposition "through"
does not signify any inferiority in the Son when all things are said to have
been made through him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
76 p 50
76 To
explain this point further, we should note that when something is said to be
made through someone, the preposition "through" (per) denotes some
sort of causality in its object with respect to an operation; but not always
the same kind of causality. For since an operation, according to our manner of
signifying, is considered to be medial between the one acting and the thing
produced, the operation itself can be regarded in two ways. In one way, as
issuing from the one operating, who is the cause of the action itself; in
another way, as terminated in the thing produced. Accordingly, the preposition
"through" sometimes signifies the cause of the operation insofar as
it issues from the one operating; but sometimes as terminated in the thing
which is produced. It signifies the cause of the operation as issuing from the
one operating when the object of the preposition is either the efficient or
formal cause why the one operating is operating. For example, we have a formal
cause when fire is heating through heat; for heat is the formal cause of the
fire's heating. We have a movent or efficient cause in cases where secondary
agents act through primary agents; as when I say that the bailiff acts through
the king, because the king is the efficient cause of the bailiff's acting. This
is the way Valentine understood that all things were made through the Word: as
though the Word were the cause of the maker's production of all things. The
preposition "through" implies the causality of the operation as
terminated in the thing produced when what is signified through that causality
is not the cause which operates, but the cause of the operation precisely as
terminated in the thing produced. So when I say, "The carpenter is making
a bench through [by means of] a hatchet," the hatchet is not the cause of
the carpenter's operating; but we do say that it is the cause of the bench's
being made by the one acting.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
76 p 51
And so when
it says that All things were made through him, if the "through"
denotes the efficient or movent cause, causing the Father to act, then in this
sense the Father does nothing through the Son, but he does all things through
himself, as has been said. But if the "through" denotes a formal
cause, as when the Father operates through his wisdom, which is his essence, he
operates through his wisdom as he operates through his essence. And because the
wisdom and power of the Father are attributed to the Son, as when we say,
"Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24), then
by appropriation we say that the Father does all things through the Son, i.e.,
through his wisdom. And so Augustine says that the phrase "from whom all
things," is appropriated to the Father; "through whom all
things," is appropriated to the Son; and "in whom all things,"
is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. But if the "through" denotes
causality from the standpoint of the thing produced, then the statement,
"The Father does all things through the Son," is not [mere]
appropriation but proper to the Word, because the fact that he is a cause of
creatures is had from someone else, namely the Father, from whom he has being.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
76 p 51
However, it
does not follow from this that the Word is the instrument of the Father,
although whatever is moved by another to effect something partakes of the
nature of an instrument. For when I say that someone works through a power
received from another, this can be understood in two ways. In one way, as
meaning that the power of the giver and of the receiver is numerically one and
the same power; and in this way the one operating through a power received from
another is not inferior but equal to the one from whom he receives it.
Therefore, since the same power which the Father has he gives to the Son,
through which the Son works, when it is said that "the Father works
through the Son," one should not on that account say that the Son is
inferior to the Father or is his instrument. This would be the case, rather, in
those who receive from another not the same power, but another and created one.
And so it is plain that neither the Holy Spirit nor the Son are causes of the
Father's working, and that neither is the minister or instrument of the Father,
as Origen raved.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
77 p 52
77 If we
carefully consider the words, All things were made through him, we can clearly
see that the Evangelist spoke with the utmost exactitude. For whoever makes
something must preconceive it in his wisdom, which is the form and pattern of
the thing made: as the form preconceived in the mind of an artisan is the
pattern of the cabinet to be made. So, God makes nothing except through the
conception of his intellect, which is an eternally conceived wisdom, that is,
the Word of God, and the Son of God. Accordingly, it is impossible that he
should make anything except through the Son. And so Augustine says, in The
Trinity, that the Word is the art full of the living patterns of all things.
Thus it is clear that all things which the Father makes, he makes through him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
78 p 52
78 It should
be remarked that, according to Chrysostom, all the things which Moses
enumerates individually in God's production of things, saying, "And God
said, 'Let there be light'" (Gn 1:3) and so forth, all these the
Evangelist transcends and embraces in one phrase, saying, All things were made
through him. The reason is that Moses wished to teach the emanation of
creatures from God; hence he enumerated them one by one. But John, hastening
toward loftier things, intends in this book to lead us specifically to a
knowledge of the Creator himself.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
79 p 52
79 Then he
says, and without him nothing was made. This is the second clause which some
have distorted, as Augustine says in his work, The Nature of the Good. Because
of John's manner of speaking here, they believed that he was using
"nothing" in an affirmative sense; as though nothing was something
which was made without the Word. And so they claimed that this clause was added
by the Evangelist in order to exclude something which was not made by the Word.
They say that the Evangelist, having said that All things were made through him,
added and without him nothing was made. It was as if to say: I say that all
things were made through him in such a way that still something was made
without him, that is, the "nothing."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
80 p 53
80 Three
heresies came from this. First, that of Valentine. He affirmed, as Origen says,
a multitude of principles, and taught that from them came thirty eras. The
first principles he postulates are two: the Deep, which he calls God the
Father, and Silence. And from these proceed ten eras. But from the Deep and
from Silence, he says, there are two other principles, Mind and Truth; and from
these issued eight eras. Then from Mind and Truth, there are two other
principles, Word and Life; and from these issued twelve eras; thus making a
total of thirty. Finally, from the Word and Life there proceeded in time, the
man Christ and the Church. In this way Valentine affirmed many eras previous to
the issuing forth of the Word. And so he said that because the Evangelist had
stated that all things were made through him, hen, lest anyone think that those
previous eras had been effected through the Word, he added, and without him
nothing was made, i.e., all the preceding eras and all that had existed in
them. All of these John calls "nothing," because they transcend human
reason and cannot be grasped by the mind.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
81 p 53
81 The
second error to arise from this was that of Manichaeus, who affirmed two
opposing principles: one is the source of incorruptible things, and the other
of corruptible things. He said that after John had stated that All things were
made through him, then, lest it be thought that the Word is the cause of
corruptible things, he immediately added, and without him nothing was made,
i.e., things subject to corruption, which are called "nothing"
because their being consists in being continually transformed into nothing.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
82 p 53
82 The third
error is 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." And so they say that all things except the
devil were made through the Word. In this way they explain, without him nothing
was made, that is, the devil.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
83 p 53
83 All these
three errors, arising as they do from the same source, namely, taking
"nothing" in a positive sense, are excluded by the fact that
"nothing" in not used here in an affirmative, but in a merely
negative sense: the sense being that all things were made through the Word in
such a way that there is nothing participating in existence that was not made
through him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
84 p 53
84 Perhaps
someone will object and say that it was superfluous to add this clause, if it
is to be understood negatively, 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
84 p 53
The answer
to this is that, according to many expositors, 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. And so after he had said, All things were made through
him, namely, those that Moses listed, the Evangelist then added, and without
him nothing was made, as though he were saying: None of the things which exist,
whether visible or invisible, was made without the Word. Indeed, the Apostle
also speaks in this way (Col 1:16), saying that all things, visible and
invisible, were created in Christ; and here the Apostle makes specific mention
of invisible things because Moses had made no express mention of them on
account of the lack of erudition of that people, who could not be raised above
the things of sense.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
84 p 54
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 are 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. So
lest anyone suspect this, the Evangelist adds, and without him nothing was made.
As if to say: Not only all the things contained in the Gospels were made
through him, but none of the things that were made, was made without him. And
so, according to Chrysostom, this clause is added to bring out his total
causality, and serves, as it were, to complete his previous statement.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
85 p 54
85 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. For that reason he added, and without him nothing was made. As
if to say: All things were made through him, but in such a way that the Father
made all things with him. For "without him" is equivalent to saying,
"not alone," so that the meaning is: It is not he alone through whom
all things were made, but he is the other one without whom nothing was made. It
is as if he said: Without him, with another working, i.e., with the Father, nothing
was made, as it says, "I was with him forming all things" (Prv 8:30).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
86 p 54
86 In a
certain homily attributed to Origen, and which begins, "The spiritual
voice of the eagle," we find another rather beautiful exposition. It says
there that the Greek has thoris where the Latin has sine (without). Now thoris
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." Now there are certain things that do not need their
producer except to bring them into existence, since after they have been
produced they are able to subsist without any further activity on the part of
the producer. For example, a house needs a builder if it is to come into
existence, but it continues to exist without any further action on the part of
the builder. So lest anyone suppose that all things were made through the Word
in such a way that he is merely the cause of their production and not of their
continuation in existence, the Evangelist added, and without him nothing was
made, i.e., nothing was made outside of him, because he encompasses all things,
preserving them.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
87 p 55
87 This
clause is also explained by Augustine and Origen and several others in such a
way that "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. For just as art is not the
principle or cause of the defects in its products, but is through itself the
cause of their perfection and form, so the Word, who is the art of the Father,
full of living archetypes, is not the cause of any evil or disarrangement in
things, particularly of the evil of sin, which carries the full notion of evil.
The per se cause of this evil is the will of the creature, either a man or an
angel, freely declining from the end to which it is ordained by its nature. One
who can act in virtue of his art but purposely violates it, is the cause of the
defects occurring in his works, not by reason of his art, but by reason of his
will. So in such cases, his art is not the source or cause of the defects, but
his will is. Consequently, evil is a defect of the will and not of any art. And
so to the extent that it is such [i.e., a defect], it is nothing.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
88 p 55
88 So then,
this clause is added to show the universal causality of the Word, according to
Chrysostom; his association with the Father, according to Hilary; the power of
the Word in the preserving of things, according to Origen; and finally, the
purity of his causality, because he is so the cause of good as not to be the
cause of sin, according to Augustine, Origen, and a number of others.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
89 p 55
89 Then he
says, What was made in him was life; and this is the third clause. 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. He understood the clause this way: What was made in
him, comma, was life. But it was not life unless alive. Therefore, whatever was
made in him is alive. He also claimed that in him is the same as saying
"through him," since very often in Scripture "in him" and
"through him" are interchangeable, as in "In him and through him
all things were created" (Col 1:16). However, our present explanation
shows that this interpretation is false.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
90 p 56
90 There
are, nevertheless, a number of ways to explain it without error. 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. For in the case of all things that are caused, it is always true that
effects, whether produced by nature or by will, exist in their causes, not
according to their own existence, but according to the power of their appropriate
cause. Thus, lower effects are in the sun as in their cause, not according to
their respective existences but according to the power of the sun. Therefore,
since the cause of all effects produced by God is a certain life and an art
full of living archetypes, for this reason What was made in him, i.e., through
him, was life, in its cause, i.e., in God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
91 p 56
91 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. If they are considered as they are in themselves, then it is not true
that all things are life or even alive, but some lack life and some are alive.
For example, the earth was made and metals were made, but none is life, none is
living; animals and men were made, and these, considered in themselves, are not
life, but merely living. Yet considered as they are in the Word, they are not
merely living, but also life. For the archetypes which exist spiritually in the
wisdom of God, and through which things were made by the Word, are life, just
as a chest made by an artisan is in itself neither alive nor life, yet the
exemplar of the chest in the artisan's mind prior to the existence of the chest
is in some sense living, insofar as it has an intellectual existence in the
mind of the artisan. Nevertheless it is not life, because it is neither in his
essence nor is it his existence through the act of understanding of the
artisan. But in God, his act of understanding is his life and his essence. And
so whatever is in God is not only living, but is life itself, because whatever
is in God is his essence. Hence the creature in God is the creating essence.
Thus, if things are considered as they are in the Word, they are life. This is
explained in another place.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
92 p 56
92 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; for example, that he is God, omnipotent, and the like. And some
things are said of him in relation to ourselves; for example, we say he is
Savior and Redeemer. Some things are said in both ways, such as wisdom and
justice. Now in all things said absolutely and of the Son as such, it is not
said that he was "made"; for example, we do not say that the Son was
made God or omnipotent. But in things said in reference to us, or in both ways,
the notion of being made can be used, as in, "God made him [Jesus Christ]
our wisdom, our justice, our sanctification and redemption" (1 Cor 1:30).
And so, although he was always wisdom and justice in himself, yet it can be
said that he was newly made justice and wisdom for us.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
92 p 57
And so
Origen, explaining it along these lines, says that although in himself the Son
is life, yet he was made life for us by the fact that he gave us life, as is
said, "Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will come to life"
(1 Cor 15:22). And so he says "the Word that was made" life for us in
himself was life, so that after a time he could become life for us; and so he
immediately adds, and that life was the light of men.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
93 p 57
93 Hilary
reads the clause differently, thus: And without him was made nothing, which was
made in him, and later it says, he was life. For he says (The Trinity II) that
when the Evangelist says without him nothing was made, one might be perplexed
and ask whether there are still other things made by him that were not made
through him, although not without him, but with respect to which he was
associated with the maker; and this clause is added to correct the aforesaid
error. Therefore lest this be so understood, when the Evangelist says, All
things were made through him, he adds, and without him nothing was made, which
was made, in him, that is, through him; and the reason for this is that he was
life.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
93 p 57
For it is
plain that all things are said to have been made through the Word inasmuch as
the Word, who proceeds from the Father, is God. But let us suppose that some
father has a son who does not perfectly exercise the operations of a man, but
reaches such a state gradually. In that case the father will do many things,
not through the son, yet not without [having] him. Since, therefore, the Son of
God has from all eternity the same life that the Father has--"Just as the
Father possesses life in himself, so has he granted it to the Son to have life
in himself" (below 5:26)--one cannot say that God the Father, although he
made nothing without the Son, nevertheless made some things not through him,
because he was life. For in living things which participate life, it can happen
that imperfect life precedes perfect life; but in per se life, which does not
participate life but is simply and absolutely life, there can be no
imperfection at all. Accordingly, because the Word is per se life, there was
never imperfect life in him, but always perfect life. And so in such a way that
nothing was made without him that was not also made in him, i.e., through him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
94 p 57
94
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. So to exclude this, the
Evangelist says, that was made, because the Holy Spirit is not something that
is made. And afterward follows, In him was life, which is introduced for two
reasons. First, to show that after the creation of all things his causality was
indefectible not only with respect to the things already produced, but also
with respect to things yet to be produced. As if to say: In him was life, by
which he could not only produce all things, but which has an unfailing flow and
a causality for producing things continually without undergoing any change,
being a living fountain which is not diminished in spite of its continuous
outflow; whereas collected water, that is not living [i.e., running] water, is
diminished when it flows out, and is used up. So the Psalm (35:10) says,
"With you is the fountain of life." The second reason is to show that
things are governed by the Word. For since In him was life, this shows that he
produced things by his intellect and will, not by a necessity of his nature,
and that he governs the things he made. "The Word of God is living"
(Heb 4:12).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 2 Sct
94 p 58
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.
Lecture 3
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 V 4-5 p 58
LECTURE 3
4b And that life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
95 p 58
95 Above,
the Evangelist described the power of the Word insofar as he brought all things
into existence; here he describes his power as it is related to men, saying
that this Word is a light to men. First, he introduces a certain light to us (v
4b); secondly, the light's irradiation (v 5a); thirdly, participation in the
light (v 5b). This whole section may be explained in two ways: first, according
to the influx of natural knowledge; secondly, according to participation in
grace.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
95 p 58
As to the
first point he says, And that life was the light of men.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
96 p 58
96 Here we
should note first that, according to Augustine and many others, light is more
properly said of spiritual things than of sensible things. Ambrose, however,
thinks that brightness is said metaphorically of God. But this is not a great
issue, for in whatever way the name "light" is used, it implies a manifestation,
whether that manifesting concerns intelligible or sensible things. If we
compare sensible and intelligible manifestation, then, according to the nature
of things, light is found first in spiritual things. But for us, who give names
to things on the basis of their properties as known to us, light is discovered
first in sensible things, because we first used this name to signify sensible
light before intelligible light; although as to power, light belongs to
spiritual things in a prior and truer way than to sensible things.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
97 p 59
97 To
clarify the statement, And that life was the light of men, e should remark that
there are many grades of life. For some things live, but do so without light, because
they have no knowledge; for example, plants. Hence their life is not light.
Other things both live and know, but their knowledge, since it is on the sense
level, is concerned only with individual and material things, as is the case
with the brutes. So they have both life and a certain light. But they do not
have the light of men, who live, and know, not only truths, but also the very
nature of truth itself. Such are rational creatures, to whom not only this or
that are made manifest, but truth itself, which can be manifested and is
manifestive to all.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
97 p 59
And so the
Evangelist, speaking of the Word, not only says that he is life but also light,
lest anyone suppose he means life without knowledge. And he says that he is the
light of men, lest anyone suppose he meant only sensible knowledge, such as
exists in the brutes.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
98 p 59
98 But since
he is also the light of angels, why did he say, of men? Two answers have been
given to this. Chrysostom says that the Evangelist intended in this Gospel to
give us a knowledge of the Word precisely as directed to the salvation of men,
and therefore refers, in keeping with his aim, more to men than to angels.
Origen, however, says that participation in this light pertains to men insofar
as they have a rational nature; accordingly, when the Evangelist says, the
light of men, he wants us to understand every rational nature.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
99 p 59
99 We also
see from this the perfection and dignity of this life, because it is
intellectual or rational. For whereas all things that in some way move
themselves are called living, only those that perfectly move themselves are
said to have perfect life; and among lower creatures only man moves himself,
properly speaking, and perfectly. For although other things are moved by
themselves by some inner principle, that inner principle is nevertheless not
open to opposite alternatives; hence they are not moved freely but from
necessity. As a result, those things that are moved by such a principle are
more truly made to act than act themselves. But man, since he is master of his
act, moves himself freely to all that he wills. Consequently, man has perfect
life, as does every intellectual nature. And so the life of the Word, which is
the light of men, is perfect life.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
100 p 60
100 We find
a fitting order in the above. For in the natural order of things, existence is
first; and the Evangelist implies this in his first statement, In the beginning
was the Word. Secondly, comes life; and this is mentioned next, In him was life.
Thirdly comes understanding; and that is mentioned next; And that life was the
light of men. And, according to Origen, he fittingly attributes light to life
because light can be attributed only to the living.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
101 p 60
101 We
should note that light can be related in two ways to what is living: as an
object and as something in which they participate, as is clear in external
sight. For the eyes know external light as an object, but if they are to see
it, they must participate in an inner light by which the eyes are adapted and
disposed for seeing the external light. And so his statement, And that life was
the light of men, can be understood in two ways. First, that the light of men is
taken as an object that man alone can look upon, because the rational creature
alone can see it, since he alone is capable of the vision of God who
"teaches us more than the beasts of the earth, and enlightens us more than
the birds of the air" (Jb 35:11); for although other animals may know
certain things that are true, nevertheless, man alone knows the nature itself
of truth.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
101 p 60
The light of
men can also be taken as a light in which we participate. For we would never be
able to look upon the Word and light itself except through a participation in
it; and this participation is in man and is the superior part of our soul,
i.e., the intellectual light, about which the Psalm (4:7) says, "The light
of your countenance, O Lord, is marked upon us," i.e., of your Son, who is
your face, by whom you are manifested.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
102 p 60
102 Having
introduced a certain light, the Evangelist now considers its irradiation, saying,
And the light shines in the darkness. This can be explained in two ways,
according to the two meanings of "darkness."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
102 p 60
First, we
might take "darkness" as a natural defect, that of the created mind.
For the mind is to that light of which the Evangelist speaks here as air is to
the light of the sun; because, although air is receptive of the light of the
sun, considered in itself it is a darkness. According to this the meaning is: the
light, i.e., that life which is the light of men, shines in the darkness, i.e.,
in created souls and minds, by always shedding its light on all. "On a man
from whom the light is hidden" (Jb 3:23).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
102 p 60
And the
darkness did not overcome it, i.e., enclose it [i.e., intellectually]. For to
overcome something [comprehendere, to overcome, to comprehend, to seize or
apprehend, and so forth], is to enclose and understand its boundaries. As Augustine
says, to reach God with the mind is a great happiness; but to overcome
[comprehend] him is impossible. And so, the darkness did not overcome it.
"Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge" (Jb 36:26);
"Great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought" as Jeremiah (32:19)
says. This explanation is found in that homily which begins, "The
spiritual voice of the eagle."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
103 p 61
103 We can
explain this passage in another way by taking "darkness" as Augustine
does, for the natural lack of wisdom in man, which is called a darkness.
"And I saw that wisdom excells folly as much as light excells
knowledge" (Ecc 2:13). Someone is without wisdom, therefore, because he
lacks the light of divine wisdom. Consequently, just as the minds of the wise
are lucid by reason of a participation in that divine light and wisdom, so by
the lack of it they are darkness. Now the fact that some are darkness is not
due to a defect in that light, since on its part it shines in the darkness and
radiates upon all. Rather, the foolish are without that light because the
darkness did not overcome it, i.e., they did not apprehend it, not being able
to attain a participation in it due to their foolishness; after having been
lifted up, they did not persevere. "From the savage," i.e., from the
proud, "he hides his light," i.e., the light of wisdom, "and
shows his friend that it belongs to him, and that he may approach it" (Jb
36:32); "They did not know the way to wisdom, nor did they remember her
paths" (Bar 3:23).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
103 p 61
Although
some minds are darkness, i.e., they lack savory and lucid wisdom, nevertheless
no man is in such darkness as to be completely devoid of divine light, because
whatever truth is know by anyone is due to a participation in that light which
shines in the darkness; for every truth, no matter by whom it is spoken, comes
from the Holy Spirit. Yet the darkness, i.e., men in darkness, did not overcome
it, apprehend it in truth. This is the way, [i.e., with respect to the natural
influx of knowledge] that Origen and Augustine explain this clause.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
104 p 61
104 Starting
from And that life was the light of men, we can explain this in another way,
according to the influx of grace, since we are illuminated by Christ.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
104 p 61
After he had
considered the creation of things through the Word, the Evangelist considers
here the restoration of the rational creature through Christ, saying, And that
life, of the Word, was the light of men, i.e., of all men in general, and not only
of the Jews. For the Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world to
illumine all men with grace and truth. "I came into the world for this, to
testify to the truth" (below 18:37); "As long as I am in the world I
am the light of the world" (below 9:5). So he does not say, "the
light of the Jews," because although previously he had been known only in
Judea, he later became known to the world. "I have given you as a light to
the nations, that you might be my salvation to the ends of the earth" (Is
49:6).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
104 p 62
It was
fitting to join light and life by saying, And that life was the light of men,
in order to show that these two have come to us through Christ: life, through a
participation in grace, "Grace and truth have come through Jesus
Christ" (below 1:17); and light, by a knowledge of truth and wisdom.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
105 p 62
105
According to this explanation, the light shines in the darkness, can be
expounded in three ways, in the light of the three meanings of
"darkness."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
105 p 62
In one way,
we can take "darkness" for punishment. For any sadness and suffering
of heart can be called a darkness, just as any joy can be called a light.
"When I sit in darkness and in suffering the Lord is my light," i.e.,
my joy and consolation (Mi 7:8). And so Origen says: In this explanation, the
light shines in the darkness, is Christ coming into the world, having a body
capable of suffering and without sin, but "in the likeness of sinful
flesh" (Rom 8:3). The light is in the flesh, that is, the flesh of Christ,
which is called a darkness insofar as it has a likeness to sinful flesh. As if
to say: The light, i.e., the Word of God, veiled about by the darkness of the
flesh, shines on the world; "I will cover the sun with a cloud" (Ez
32:7).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
106 p 62
106
Secondly, we can take "darkness" to mean the devils, as in Ephesians
(6:12), "Our struggle is not against flesh and blood; but against
principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this
darkness." Looked at this way he says, the light, i.e., the Son of God, shines
in the darkness, i.e., has descended into the world where darkness, i.e., the
devils, hold sway: "Now the prince of this world will be cast out"
(below 12:31). And the darkness, i.e., the devils, did not overcome it, i.e.,
were unable to obscure him by their temptations, as is plain in Matthew (c 4).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
107 p 62
107 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). And so he says that the light, i.e., the incarnate
Word of God, shines in the darkness, i.e., upon the men of the world, who are
blinded by the darkness or error and ignorance. "To enlighten those who
sit in darkness and in the shadow of death" (Lk 1:79); "The people
who were sitting in darkness saw a great light" (Is 9:2).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 3 Sct
107 p 62
And the
darkness did not overcome it, i.e., did not overcome him. For in spite of the
number of men darkened by sin, blinded by envy, shadowed over by pride, who
have struggled against Christ (as is plain from the Gospel) by upbraiding him,
heaping insults and calumnies upon him, and finally killing him, nevertheless
they did not overcome it, i.e., gain the victory of so obscuring him that his
brightness would not shine throughout the whole world. Wisdom (7:30) says,
"Compared to light, she takes precedence, for night supplants it, but
wisdom," that is, the incarnate Son of God, "is not overcome by
wickedness," that is, of the Jews and of heretics, because it says,
"She gave him the prize for his stern struggle that he might know that
wisdom is mightier than all else" (Wis 10:12).
Lecture 4
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 V 6-8 p 63
LECTURE 4
6 There was a man sent by God, whose name was John 7 He came as a witness, that he might bear witness to the light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He was not the light, but [he came] in order to bear witness to the light.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
108 p 63
108 Above,
the Evangelist considered the divinity of the Word; here he begins to consider
the incarnation of the Word. And he does two things concerning this: first, he
treats of the witness to the incarnate Word, or the precursor; secondly, of the
coming of the Word (1:9). As to the first, he does two things: first, he
describes the precursor who comes to bear witness; secondly, he shows that he
was incapable of the work of our salvation (1:8).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
108 p 63
He describes
the precursor in four ways. First, according to his nature, There was a man.
Secondly, as to his authority, sent by God. Thirdly, as to his suitability for
the office, whose name was John. Fourthly, as to the dignity of his office, He
came as a witness.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
109 p 63
109 We
should note with respect to the first that, as soon as the Evangelist begins
speaking of something temporal, he changes his manner of speech. When speaking
above of eternal things, he used the word "was" (erat), which is the
past imperfect tense; and this indicates that eternal things are without end.
But now, when he is speaking of temporal things, he uses "was" (fuit,
i.e., "has been"); this indicates temporal things as having taken
place in the past and coming to an end there.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
110 p 63
110 And so
he says, There was a man (Fuit homo). This excludes at the very start the
incorrect opinion of certain heretics who were in error on the condition or
nature of John. They believed that John was an angel in nature, basing
themselves on the words of the Lord, "I send my messenger [in Greek, angelos]
before you, who will prepare your way" (Mt 11:10); and the same thing is
found in Mark (1:2). But the Evangelist rejects this, saying, There was a man
by nature, not an angel. "The nature of man is known, and that he cannot
contend in judgment with one who is stronger than himself" (Ecc 6:10).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
110 p 64
Now it is
fitting that a man be sent to men, for men are more easily drawn to a man,
since he is like themselves. So in Hebrews (7:28) it says, "The law
appoints men, who have weakness, priests." God could have governed men
through angels, but he preferred men so that we could be more instructed by
their example. And so John was a man, and not an angel.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
111 p 64
111 John is
described by his authority when it says, sent by God. Indeed, although John was
not an angel in nature, he was so by his office, because he was sent by God.
For the distinctive office of angels is that they are sent by God and are
messengers of God. "All are ministering spirits, sent to serve" (Heb
1:14). Hence it is that "angel" means "messenger." And so
men who are sent by God to announce something can be called angels. "Haggai
the messenger of the Lord" (Hg 1:13).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
111 p 64
If someone
is to bear witness to God, it is necessary that he be sent by God. "How
can they preach unless they are sent?" as is said in Romans (10:15). And
since they are sent by God, they seek the things of Jesus Christ, not their
own. "We do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 4:5). On
the other hand, one who sends himself, and is not sent by God, seeks his own
things or those of man, and not the things of Christ. And so he says here, There
was a man sent by God, so that we would understand that John proclaimed
something divine, not human.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
112 p 64
112 Note
that there are three ways in which we see men sent by God. First, by an inward
inspiration. "And now the Lord God has sent me, and his spirit" (Is
48:16). As if to say: I have been sent by God through an inward inspiration of
the spirit. Secondly, by an expressed and clear command, perceived by the
bodily senses or the imagination. Isaiah was also sent in this way; and so he
says, "And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send, and
who will go for us?' Then I said, 'Here I am! Send me'" (Is 6:8). Thirdly,
by the order of a prelate, who acts in the place of God in this matter. "I
have pardoned in the person of Christ for your sake" as it says in 2
Corinthians (2:10). This is why those who are sent by a prelate are sent by
God, as Barnabas and Timothy were sent by the Apostle.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
112 p 64
When it is
said here, There was a man sent by God, we should understand that he was sent
by God through an inward inspiration, or perhaps even by an outward command.
"He who sent me to baptize with water had said to me: 'The man on whom you
see the Spirit come down and rest is the one who is to baptize with the Holy
Spirit'" (below 1:33).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
113 p 65
113 We
should not understand, There was a man sent by God, as some heretics did, who
believed that from the very beginning human souls were created without bodies
along with the angels, and that one's soul is sent into the body when he is
born, and that John was sent to life, i.e., his soul was sent to a body.
Rather, we should understand that he was sent by God to baptize and preach.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
114 p 65
114 John's
fitness is given when he says, whose name was John. One must be qualified for
the office of bearing witness, because unless a witness is qualified, then no
matter in what way he is sent by another, his testimony is not acceptable. Now
a man becomes qualified by the grace of God. "By the grace of God I am
what I am" (1 Cor 15:10); "who has made us fit ministers of a new
covenant" (2 Cor 3:6). So, the Evangelist appropriately implies the
precursor's fitness from his name when he says, whose name was John, which is
interpreted, "in whom is grace."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
114 p 65
This name
was not given to him meaninglessly, but by divine preordination and before he
was born, as is clear from Luke (1:13), "You will name him John," as
the angel said to Zechariah. Hence he can say what is said in Isaiah (49:1),
"The Lord called me from the womb"; "He who will be, his name is
already called" (Ecc 6:10). The Evangelist also indicates this from his
manner of speaking, when he says was, as to God's preordination.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
115 p 65
115 Then he
is described by the dignity of his office. First, his office is mentioned.
Secondly, the reason for his office, to bear witness to the light.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
116 p 65
116 Now his
office is to bear witness; hence he says, He came as a witness.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
116 p 65
Here it
should be remarked that God makes men, and everything else he makes, for
himself. "The Lord made all things for himself" (Prv 16:4). Not,
indeed, to add anything to himself, since he has no need of our good, but so
that his goodness might be made manifest in all of the things made by him, in
that "his eternal power and divinity are clearly seen, being understood
through the things that are made" (Rom 1:20). Thus, each creature is made
as a witness to God in so far as each creature is a certain witness of the
divine goodness. So, the vastness of creation is a witness to God's power and
omnipotence; and its beauty is a witness to the divine wisdom. But certain men
are ordained by God in a special way, so that they bear witness to God not only
naturally by their existence, but also spiritually by their good works. Hence
all holy men are witnesses to God inasmuch as God is glorified among men by
their good works. "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see
your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven" (Mt 5:16). But
those who not only share in God's gifts in themselves by acting well through
the grace of God, but also spread them to others by their teaching, influencing
and encouraging others, are in a more special way witnesses to God.
"Everyone who calls upon my name, I have created for my glory" (Is
43:7). And so John came as a witness in order to spread to others the gifts of
God and to proclaim his praise.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
117 p 66
117 This
office of John, that of bearing witness, is very great, because no one can
testify about something except in the manner in which he has shared in it.
"We know of what we speak, and we bear witness of what we see" (below
3:11). Hence, to bear witness to divine truth indicates a knowledge of that
truth. So Christ also had this office: "I have come into the world for
this, to testify to the truth" (below 18:37). But Christ testifies in one
way and John in another. Christ bears witness as the light who comprehends all
things, indeed, as the existing light itself. John bears witness only as
participating in that light. And so Christ gives testimony in a perfect manner
and perfectly manifests the truth, while John and other holy men give testimony
in so far as they have a share of divine truth. John's office, therefore, is
great both because of his participation in the divine light and because of a
likeness to Christ, who carried out this office. "I made him a witness to
the peoples, a leader and a commander of the nations" (Is 55:4).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
118 p 66
118 The
purpose of this office is given when he says, that he might bear witness to the
light. Here we should understand that there are two reasons for bearing witness
about something. One reason can be on the part of the thing with which the
witness is concerned; for example, if there is some doubt or uncertainty about
that thing. The other is on the part of those who hear it; if they are hard of
heart and slow to believe. John came as a witness, not because of the thing
about which he bore witness, for it was light. Hence he says, bear witness to
the light, i.e., not to something obscure, but to something clear. He came,
therefore, to bear witness on account of those to whom he testified, so that
through him (i.e., John) all men might believe. For as light is not only
visible in itself and of itself, but through it all else can be seen, so the
Word of God is not only light in himself, but he makes known all things that
are known. For since a thing is made known and understood through its form, and
all forms exist through the Word, who is the art full of living forms, the Word
is light not only in himself, but as making known all things; "all that
appears is light" (Eph 5:13).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
118 p 67
And so it
was fitting for the Evangelist to call the Son "light," because he
came as "a revealing light to the Gentiles" (Lk 2:32). Above, he
called the Son of God the Word, by which the Father expresses himself and every
creature. Now since he is, properly speaking, the light of men, and the
Evangelist is considering him here as coming to accomplish the salvation of
men, he fittingly interrupts the use of the name "Word" when speaking
of the Son, and says, "light."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
119 p 67
119 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? This was the objection of the
Manichaeans, who wanted to destroy the Old Testament. Consequently, the saints
gave many reasons, against their opinion, why Christ wanted to have the
testimony of the prophets.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
119 p 67
Origen gives
three reasons. The first is that God wanted to have certain witnesses, not
because he needed their testimony, but to ennoble those whom he appointed
witnesses. Thus we see in the order of the universe that God produces certain
effects by means of intermediate causes, not because he himself is unable to
produce them without these intermediaries, but he deigns to confer on them the
dignity of causality because he wishes to ennoble these intermediate causes.
Similarly, even though God could have enlightened all men by himself and lead
them to a knowledge of himself, yet to preserve due order in things and to
ennoble certain men, he willed that divine knowledge reach men through certain
other men. "'You are my witnesses,' says the Lord" (Is 43:10).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
119 p 67
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. Hence
the Lord willed that men come to a knowledge of the Word through the testimony
of the prophets, in order that not only those present, but also men yet to
come, might be enlightened about him. So it says expressly, so that through him
all men might believe, i.e., not only those present, but also future
generations.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
119 p 67
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. For some are brought to a
knowledge of the truth by signs and miracles; others are brought more by wisdom.
"The Jews require signs, and the Greeks seek wisdom" (1 Cor 1:22).
And so the Lord, in order to show the path of salvation to all, willed both
ways to be open, i.e., the way of signs and the way of wisdom, so that those
who would not be brought to the path of salvation by the miracles of the Old
and New Testaments, might be brought to a knowledge of the truth by the path of
wisdom, as in the prophets and other books of Sacred Scripture.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
119 p 68
A fourth
reason, given by Chrysostom, 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. And so he says, that
through him all men might believe. As if to say: he came as a witness, not for
the sake of the light, but for the sake of men, so that through him all men
might believe. And so it is plain that the testimonies of the prophets are
fitting and proper, and should be received as something needed by us for the
knowledge of the truth.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
120 p 68
120 He says believe,
because there are two ways of participating in the divine light. One is the
perfect participation which is present in glory, "In your light, we shall
see the light" (Ps 35:10). The other in imperfect and is acquired through
faith, since he came as a witness. Of these two ways it is said, "Now we
see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then we shall see face to
face" (1 Cor 13:12). And in the same place we find, "Now I know in part,
but then I shall know even as I am known." Among these two ways, the first
is the way of participation through faith, because through it we are brought to
vision. So in Isaiah (7:9) where our version has, "If you do not believe,
you will not persist," another version has, "If you do not believe,
you will not understand." "All of us, gazing on the Lord's glory with
unveiled faces, are being transformed from glory to glory into his very
image," which we have lost (2 Cor 3:18). "From the glory of faith to the
glory of vision," as a Gloss says.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
120 p 68
And so he
says, that through him all men might believe, not as though all would see him
perfectly at once, but first they would believe through faith, and later enjoy
him through vision in heaven.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
121 p 68
121 He says through
him, to show that John is different than Christ. For Christ came so that all
might believe in him. "He who believes in me, as Scripture says, 'Out of
his heart shall flow rivers of living water'" (below 7:38). John, on the
other hand, came that all men might believe, not in him, but in Christ through
him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
121 p 68
One may
object that not all have believed. So if John came to that all might believe
through him, he failed. I answer that both on the part of God, who sent John,
and of John, who came, the method used is adequate to bring all to the truth.
But on the part of those "who have fixed their eyes on the ground"
(Ps 16:11), and refused to see the light, there was a failure, because all did
not believe.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
122 p 69
122 Now
although John, of whom so much has been said, even including that he was sent
by God, is an eminent person, his coming is not sufficient to save men, because
the salvation of man lies in participating in the light. If John had been the
light, his coming would have sufficed to save men; but he was not the light. So
he says, he was not the light. Consequently, a light was needed that would
suffice to save men.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
122 p 69
Or, we could
look at it another way. John came to bear witness to the light. Now it is the
custom that the one who testifies is of greater authority than the one for whom
he bears witness. So, lest John be considered to have greater authority than
Christ, the Evangelist says, he was not the light, but he came in order to bear
witness to the light. For he bears witness not because he is greater, but
because he is better known, even though he is not as great.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
123 p 69
123 There is
a difficulty about his saying, he was not the light. 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). Therefore,
John and the apostles and all good men are a light.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 4 Sct
123 p 69
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. The meaning is this: the Son of God is light by his very
essence; but John and all the saints are light by participation. So, because
John participated in the true light, it was fitting that he bear witness to the
light; for fire is better exhibited by something afire than by anything else,
and color by something colored.
Lecture 5
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 V 9 p 69
LECTURE 5
9 He [the Word] was the true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world. 10 He was in the world, and through him the world was made, and the world did not know him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
124 p 69
124 Above,
the Evangelist considered the precursor and his witness to the incarnate Word;
in the present section he considers the incarnate Word himself. As to this he
does three things. First, he shows why it was necessary for the Word to come.
Secondly, the benefit we received from the coming of the Word (1:11). And
thirdly, the way he came (1:14).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
124 p 69
The
necessity for the Word's coming is seen to be the lack of divine knowledge in
the world. He points out this need for his coming when he says, "For this
was I born, and I came into the world for this, to testify to the truth"
(below 18:37). To indicate this lack of divine knowledge, the Evangelist does
two things. First, he shows that this lack does not pertain to God or the Word.
Secondly, that it does pertain to men (v 10b).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
124 p 70
He shows in
three ways that there was no defect in God or in the Word that prevented men
from knowing God and from being enlightened by the Word. First, from the
efficacy of the divine light itself, because He was the true light, which
enlightens every man coming into this world. Secondly, from the presence of the
divine light, because He was in the world. Thirdly, from the obviousness of the
light, because through him the world was made. So the lack of divine knowledge
in the world was not due to the Word, because it is sufficient. First, he shows
the nature of this efficiency, that is, He was the true light. Secondly, its
very efficiency, which enlightens every man.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
125 p 70
125 The
divine Word is efficacious in enlightening because He was the true light. How
the Word is light, and how he is the light of men need not be discussed again,
because it was sufficiently explained above. What we must discuss at present is
how he is the true light. To explain this, we should note that in Scripture the
"true" is contrasted with three things. Sometimes it is contrasted
with the false, as in "Put an end to lying, and let everyone speak the
truth" (Eph 4:25). 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. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
125 p 70
Before the
Word came 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). 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). There was also a certain
light in the angels and in 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
125 p 71
But the Word
of God was not a false light, nor a symbolic light, nor a participated light,
but the true light, i.e., light by his essence. Therefore he says, He was the
true light.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
126 p 71
126 This
excludes two errors. First, that of Photinus, who believed that Christ derived
his beginning from the Virgin. So, lest anyone suppose this, the Evangelist,
speaking of the incarnation of the Word, says, He was the true light, i.e.,
eternally, not only before the Virgin, but before every creature. This also
excludes the error of Arius and Origen; they said that Christ was not true God,
but God by participation. If this were so, he could not be the true light, as
the Evangelist says here, and as in "God is light" (1 Jn 1:5), i.e.,
not by participation, but the true light. So if the Word was the true light, it
is plain that he is true God. Now it is clear how the divine Word is effective
in causing divine knowledge.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
127 p 71
127 The
effectiveness or efficiency of the Word lies in the fact that he enlightens
every man coming into this world. For everything which is what it is by
participation is derived from that which is such by its essence; just as
everything afire is so by participation in fire, which is fire by its very
essence. Then since the Word is the true light by his very essence, then
everything that shines must do so through him, insofar as it participates in
him. And so he enlightens every man coming into this world.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
128 p 71
128 To
understand this, we should know that "world" is taken in three ways
in Scripture. Sometimes, from the point of view of its creation, as when the
Evangelist says here, "through him the world was made" (v 10).
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). And 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
128 p 71
On the other
hand, "enlightenment" or "being enlightened" by the Word is
taken in two ways. 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).
Secondly, as the light of grace, "Be enlightened, O Jerusalem" (Is
60:1).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
129 p 71
129 With
these two sets of distinctions in mind, it is easy to solve a difficulty which
arises here. For when the Evangelist says, he enlightens every man, this seems
to be false, because there are still many in darkness in the world. However, 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. For all
men coming into this visible world are enlightened by the light of natural
knowledge through participating in this true light, which is the source of all
the light of natural knowledge participated in by men.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
129 p 72
When the
Evangelist speaks of man coming into this world, he does not mean that men had
lived for a certain time outside the world and then came into the world, since
this is contrary to the teaching of the Apostle in Romans (9:11), "When
the children were not yet born nor had they done anything good or evil."
Therefore, since they had done nothing before they were born, it is plain that
the soul does not exist prior to its union with the body. He refers to every
man coming into this world, to show that men are enlightened by God with
respect to that according to which they came into the world, i.e., with respect
to the intellect, which is something external [to the world]. For man is
constituted of a twofold nature, bodily and intellectual. According to his
bodily or sensible nature, man is enlightened by a bodily and sensible light;
but according to his soul and intellectual nature, he is enlightened by an
intellectual and spiritual light. Now man does not come into this world according
to his bodily nature, but under this aspect, he is from the world. His
intellectual nature is derived from a source external to the world, as has been
said, i.e., from God through creation; as in "Until all flesh returns to
its origin, and the spirit is directed to God, who made it" (Ecc 12:7).
For these reasons, when the Evangelist speaks of every man coming into this
world, he is showing that this enlightenment refers to what is from without,
that is, the intellect.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
130 p 72
130 If we
understand "enlightenment" with respect to the light of grace, then
he enlightens every man may be explained in three ways. The first way is by
Origen in his homily, "The great eagle," and is this.
"World" is understood from the point of view of its perfection, which
man attains by his reconciliation through Christ. And 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
130 p 72
Chrysostom
explains it another way. 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. If anyone is not
enlightened, it is due to himself, because he turns from the light that
enlightens.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
130 p 72
Augustine
explains it a third way. 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. According to Augustine, the Evangelist
says, coming into this world, in order to give the reason why man needs to be
enlightened, and he is taking "world" from the point of view of its
perversity and defect. It is as though he were saying: Man needs to be
enlightened because he is coming into this world which is darkened by
perversity and defects and is full of ignorance. (This followed the spiritual
world of the first man.) As Luke says (1:79), "To enlighten those who sit
in darkness and in the shadow of death."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
131 p 73
131 The
above statement refutes the error of the Manichaeans, who think than 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
132 p 73
132 So it is
clear, from the efficacy of the divine Word, that the lack of knowledge in men
is not due to the Word, because he is effective in enlightening all, being the
true light, which enlightens every man coming into this world.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
132 p 73
But so you
do not suppose this lack arose from the withdrawal or absence of the true
light, the Evangelist rules this out adding, He was in the world. A comparable
statement is found in "He is not far from any one of us," that is,
God, "for in him we live, and move, and are" (Acts 17:28). It is as
though the Evangelist were saying: The divine Word is effective and is at hand
in order to enlighten us.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
133 p 73
133 We
should remark that something is said to be "in the world" in three
ways. In one way, by being contained, as a thing in place exists in a place:
"They are in the world" (below 17:11). In another way, 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. For example, supernatural substances, although not in the world as
in a place, are nevertheless in it as parts: "God ... who made heaven and
earth, the sea, and all things that are in them" (Ps 145:6). But the true
light was not in the world in either of these ways, because that light is
neither localized nor is it a part of the universe. Indeed, if we can speak
this way, the entire universe is in a certain sense a part, since it
participates in a partial way in his goodness.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
133 p 73
Accordingly,
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. 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. 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. Hence God was in the world as one giving esse to the world.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
134 p 74
134 It is
customary to say that God is in all things by his essence, presence and power.
To understand what this means, we should know that someone is said to be by his
power in all the 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. 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. And someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his
substance is; as a king is in one determinate place.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
134 p 74
Now we say
that God is everywhere 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). He is also
everywhere by his presence, because "all things are bare and open to his
eyes," as is said in Hebrews (4:13). He is present everywhere 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
135 p 74
135 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 withold his power from the
things he established, all would return to nothing and cease to be. Hence
Origen uses an apt example to show this, when he says that as a human vocal
sound is to a human word conceived in the mind, so is the creature to the
divine Word; for as our vocal sound is the effect of the word conceived in our
mind, so the creature is the effect of the Word conceived in the divine mind.
"For he spoke, and they were created" (Ps 148:5). Hence, just as we
notice that as soon as our inner word vanishes, the sensible vocal sound also
ceases, so, if the power of the divine Word were withdrawn from things, all of
them would immediately cease to be at that moment. And this is because he is
"sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Heb 1:3).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
136 p 74
136 So it is
plain that a lack of divine knowledge in minds is not due to the absence of the
Word, because He was in the world; or is it 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). And 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
136 p 75
Now it is
clear that the lack of divine knowledge is not due to the Word, because he is
efficacious, being the true light; and he is at hand, since he was in the world;
and he is knowable, since through him the world was made.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
137 p 75
137 The
Evangelist indicates the source of this lack when he says, and 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
137 p 75
He says him
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. Again, 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
138 p 75
138 We
attribute this lack of divine knowledge either to the nature of man or to his
guilt. 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." 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
138 p 75
But 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; in this sense world is taken
for inordinate lovers of the world. It is as though it said, The world did not
know him, because they were lovers of the world. 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
139 p 75
139 From
this we can answer the question of the Gentiles who 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? 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
140 p 76
140 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. He repeats what he had said of him earlier.
For above he had said he [the Word] "was the light of men"; here he
says he was the true light. Above, he said that "all things were made
through him"; here he says that through him the world was made. 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. There he had said, "the
darkness did not overcome it"; here he says, the world did not know him.
And so, all he says after he was the true light, is an explanation of what he
had said before.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
141 p 76
141 We can
gather three reasons from the above why God willed to become incarnate. One is
because of the perversity of human nature which, because of its own malice, had
been darkened by vices and the obscurity of its own ignorance. And 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
141 p 76
The second
reason is that the testimony of the prophets was not enough. For the prophets
came and John had come; but they were not able to give sufficient
enlightenment, because he was not the light. And 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 5 Sct
141 p 76
The third
reason is because of the shortcomings of creatures. 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. 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).
Lecture 6
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 V 11-13 p 77
LECTURE 6
11 He came unto his own, and his own did not receive him; 12 but whoever received him, he gave them power to become the sons of God, to all who believe in his name, 13 who are born not from blood, nor from the desires of the flesh, nor from man's willing it, but from God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
142 p 77
142 Having
given the necessity for the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then shows
the advantage men gained from that incarnation. First, he shows the coming of
the light (v 11); secondly, its reception by men (v 11b); thirdly, the fruit
brought by the coming of the light (v 12).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
143 p 77
143 He shows
that the light which was present in the world and evident, i.e., disclosed by
its effect, was nevertheless not known by the world. Hence, he came unto his
own, in order to be known. The Evangelist says, unto his own, i.e., to things
that were his own, which he had made. And he says this so that you do not think
that when he says, he came, 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
143 p 77
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). 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
144 p 77
144 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. First, that someone
comes where he absolutely had not been before. Or, secondly, that someone
begins to be in a new way where he was before. 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. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
145 p 77
145 Then
when he says, and his own did not receive him, we have the reception given him
by men, who reacted in different ways. For some did receive him, but these were
not his own; hence he says, his own did not receive him. "His own"
are men, because they were formed by him. "The Lord God formed man"
(Gn 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" (Gn 1:26).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
145 p 78
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). Now 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). 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). But
although the Jews were his own, they did not receive him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
146 p 78
146 However,
there were not lacking those who did receive him. Hence he adds, but whoever
received him. 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
law giver, the Lord is our king; he will save us" (Is 33:22). But 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). The Gentiles, however, [are delivered] by his mercy,
because they were received through his mercy.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
147 p 78
147 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
148 p 78
148 Then
when he says, he gave them power to become the sons of God, we have the fruit
of his coming. First, he mentions the grandeur of the fruit, for he gave them
power. Secondly, he shows to whom it is given, to all who believe. Thirdly, he
indicates the way it is given, not from blood, and so forth.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
149 p 78
149 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 4:5). 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
150 p 79
150 So he
says, he gave them power to become the sons of God. 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. First, by the infusion of
grace; hence anyone having sanctifying grace is made a son of God. "You
did not receive the spirit of slavery ... but the spirit of adoption as
sons," as said in Romans (8:15). "Because you are sons of God, God
sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts" (Gal 4:6).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
150 p 79
Secondly, we
are like God by the perfection of our actions, because one who acts justly is a
son: "Love your enemies ... so that you may be the children of your
Father" (Mt 5:44).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
150 p 79
Thirdly, we
are made like God by the attainment of glory. The glory of the soul by the
light of glory, "When he appears we shall be like him" (1 Jn 3:2);
and the glory of the body, "He will reform our lowly body" (Phil
3:21). Of these two it is said in Romans (8:23), "We are waiting for our
adoption as sons of God."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
151 p 79
151 If we
take the power to become the sons of God as referring to the perfection of our
actions and the attainment of glory, the statement offers no difficulty. For
then when he says, he gave them power, he is referring to the power of grace;
and when a man possesses this, he can perform works of perfection and attain
glory, since "The grace of God is eternal life" (Rom 6:23). According
to this way we have, he gave them, to those who received him, power, i.e., the
infusion of grace, to become the sons of God, by acting well and acquiring
glory.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
152 p 79
152 But if
this statement refers to the infusion of grace, then his saying, he gave them
power, gives rise to a difficulty. And this is because it is not in our power
to be made sons of God, since it is not in our power to possess grace. We can
understand, he gave them power, as a power of nature; but this does not seem to
be true since the infusion of grace is above our nature. Or we can understand
it as the power of grace, and then to have grace is to have power to become the
sons of God. And in this sense he did not give them power to become sons of
God, but to be sons of God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
153 p 79
153 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: by preparing it, and by
offering it to him. For just as one who writes a book and offers it to a man to
read is said to give the power to read it, so Christ, through whom grace was
produced (as will be said below), and who "accomplished salvation on the
earth" (Ps 73:12), gave us power to become the sons of God by offering
grace.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
154 p 80
154 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, as in "Convert us to yourself, O
Lord," by moving our will to your love, "and we will be
converted" (Lam 5:21). And in this sense we speak of an interior call, of
which it is said, "Those whom he called," by inwardly moving the will
to consent to grace, "he justified," by infusing grace (Rom 8:3).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
155 p 80
155 Since by
this grace man has the power of maintaining himself in the divine sonship, one
may read these words in another way. He gave them, i.e., those who receive him,
power to become the sons of God, i.e., the grace by which they are able to be
maintained in the divine sonship. "Every one who is born from God does not
sin, but the grace of God," through which we are reborn as children of
God, "preserves him" (1 Jn 5:18).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
156 p 80
156 Thus, he
gave them power to become the sons of God, through sanctifying grace, through
the perfection of their actions, and through the attainment of glory; and he
did this by preparing this grace, moving their wills, and preserving this
grace.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
157 p 80
157 Then
when he says, to all who believe in his name, he shows those on whom the fruit
of his coming is conferred. We can understand this in two ways: either as
explaining what was said before, or as qualifying it. 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. 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). Therefore, they
received him, who believe in his name.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
158 p 80
158 Origen
regards this as a qualifying statement, in his homily, "The spiritual
voice." 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; for they propose false dogmas about Christ by taking away something
from his divinity or humanity, as in "Every spirit that denies Christ is
not from God" (1 Jn 4:3). 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
159 p 80
159 We can
also refer this to formed faith, in the sense that to all, that is, he gave
power to become the sons of God, who believe in his name, i.e., those who do
the works of salvation through a faith formed by charity. For those who have
only an unformed faith do not believe in his name because they do not work unto
salvation.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
159 p 81
However, the
first exposition, which is taken as explaining what preceded, is better.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
160 p 81
160 Then
when he says, who are born not from blood, he shows the way in which so great a
fruit is conferred on men. For since he had said that the fruit of the light's
coming is the power given to men to become the sons of God, then to forestall
the supposition that they are born through a material generation he says, not
from blood. And although the word "blood" (sanguis) has no plural in
Latin, but does in Greek, the translator [from Greek into Latin] ignored a rule
of grammar in order to teach the truth more perfectly. So he does not say,
"from blood," in the Latin manner, but "from bloods" (ex
sanguinibus). This indicates whatever is generated from blood, serving as the
matter in carnal generation. According to the Philosopher [On the Generation of
Animals, I, c 18, 726a26-8], "semen is a residue derived from useful
nourishment in its final form." So "blood" indicates either the
seed of the male or the menses of the female.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
160 p 81
The cause
moving to the carnal act is the will of those coming together, the man and the
woman. For although the act of the generative power as such is not subject to
the will, the preliminaries to it are subject to the will. So he says, nor from
the desires of the flesh, referring to the woman; nor from man's willing it, as
from an efficient cause; but from God. It is as though he were saying: They
became sons of God, not carnally, but spiritually.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
160 p 81
According to
Augustine, "flesh" is taken here for the woman, because as the flesh
obeys the spirit, so woman should obey man. Adam (Gn 2:23) said of the woman,
"This, at last, is bone of my bones." And note, according to
Augustine, that just as the possessions of a household are wasted away if the
woman rules and the man is subject, so a man is wasted away when the flesh
rules the spirit. For this reason the Apostle says, "We are not debtors to
the flesh, so that we should live according to the flesh" (Rom 8:12).
Concerning the manner of this carnal generation, we read, "In the womb of
my mother I was molded into flesh" (Wis 7:1).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
161 p 81
161 Or, we
might say that the moving force to carnal generation is twofold: the
intellectual appetite on the one hand, that is, the will; and on the other
hand, the sense appetite, which is concupiscence. So, to indicate the material
cause he says, not from blood. 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." Finally,
to indicate the intellectual appetite he says, nor from man's willing it. 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
162 p 82
162 Note,
however, that this preposition de ("of," or "from"), always
signifies a material cause as well as an efficient and even a consubstantial
cause. Thus we say a blacksmith makes a knife de ferro ("from" iron),
and a father generates his son de seipso ("from" himself), because
something of his concurs somehow in begetting. But the preposition a
("by") always signifies a moving cause. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
162 p 82
Consequently, 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, 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), but
of the natural Son, he says that he is born of the Father (de Patre).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
163 p 82
163 Note
also that in the light of our last exposition of carnal generation, we can
discern the difference between carnal and spiritual generation. For since the
former is from blood, it is carnal; 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). Again, because material
generation is from the desires of the flesh, i.e., from concupiscence, it is
unclean and begets children who are sinners: "We were by nature children
of wrath" as it says in Ephesians (2:3). Again, because the former is from
man's willing it, that is, from man, it makes children of men; but the latter,
because it is from God, makes children of God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 6 Sct
164 p 82
164 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: 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; then through baptism they are reborn, not carnally from
blood, but spiritually from God.
Lecture 7
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 V 14 p 83
LECTURE 7
14a And the Word was made flesh, and made his dwelling among us.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
165 p 83
165 Having
explained the necessity for the Word's coming in the flesh as well as the
benefits this conferred, the Evangelist now shows the way he came (v 14a). He
thus resumes the thread with his earlier statement, he came unto his own. 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. 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."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
165 p 83
According to
Chrysostom, however, he is here continuing the earlier statement, he gave them
power to become the sons of God. 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, 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).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
165 p 83
But
according to Augustine, he is continuing the earlier statement, who are born
from God. For since it seemed a hard saying that men be born from God, 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
166 p 83
166 It
should be noted that this statement, the Word was made flesh, has been
misinterpreted by some and made the occasion of error. For certain ones have
presumed that the Word became flesh in the sense that he or something of him
was turned into flesh, as when flour is made into bread, and air becomes fire.
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. 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). Hence in no way can it be said that he was turned into
another nature. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
167 p 84
167 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;
for if he had assumed flesh with a soul, the Evangelist would have said,
"the Word was made flesh with a soul." 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
167 p 84
The falsity
of this opinion is obvious, 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), 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). Also, God cannot be the form of a body. 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. Consequently, the
Word of God cannot be the form of a body.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
167 p 84
Furthermore,
it is plain that flesh does not acquire the specific nature of flesh except
through its soul. 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. So if the Word did not assume flesh with a
soul, it is obvious that he did not assume flesh. But the Word was made flesh;
therefore, he assumed flesh with a soul.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
168 p 84
168 And
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. This
was the error of Apollinaris. 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. But he said this soul
lacked reason and intellect, and that in the man Christ their place was taken
by the Word.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
168 p 84
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; for example, that Christ
marvelled, as in Matthew (8:10). 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. Therefore, just as sadness compels one to
place a sensitive element in the soul of Christ, against Arius, so marvelling
or amazement forces one to admit, against Apollinaris, an intellectual element
in Christ.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
168 p 84
The same
conclusion can be reached by reason. For as there is no flesh without a soul,
so there is no human flesh without a human soul, which is an intellectual soul.
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; consequently,
one could not say: "God became man."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
168 p 85
Besides, the
Word assumed human nature in order to repair it. Therefore, he repaired what he
assumed. But if he did not assume a rational soul, he would not have repaired
it. Consequently, no fruit would have accrued to us from the incarnation of the
Word; and this is false. Therefore, the Word was made flesh, i.e., assumed
flesh which was animated by a rational soul.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
169 p 85
169 But you
may 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? I answer that the Evangelist had four reasons
for doing this.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
169 p 85
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, since it would not
have been becoming for the Word of the good God to assume flesh, which they
regarded as a creature of the devil. And so to exclude this the Evangelist made
special mention of the flesh, just as Christ showed the truth of the
resurrection to the disciples when they took him for a spirit, saying: "A
spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have" (Lk 24:39).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
169 p 85
Secondly, to
show the greatness of God's kindness to us. For it is evident that the rational
soul has a greater conformity to God than does flesh, and that it would have
been a great sign of compassion if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being
conformed to himself. But to assume flesh too, which is something far removed
from the simplicity of his nature, was a sign of a much greater, indeed, of an
incomprehensible compassion. As the Apostle says (1 Tim 3:16): "Obviously
great is the mystery of godliness which appeared in the flesh." And so to
indicate this, the Evangelist mentioned only flesh.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
169 p 85
Thirdly, to
demonstrate the truth and uniqueness of the union in Christ. For God is indeed
united to other holy men, but only with respect to their soul; so it is said:
"She [wisdom] passes into holy souls, making them friends of God and
prophets" (Wis 7:27). But that the Word of God is united to flesh is
unique to Christ, according to the Psalmist: "I am alone until I
pass" (Ps 140:10). "Gold cannot equal it" (Jb 28:17). So the
Evangelist, wishing to show the uniqueness of the union in Christ, mentioned
only the flesh, saying, the Word was made flesh.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
169 p 85
Fourthly, to
suggest its relevance to man's restoration For man was weak because of the
flesh. And thus the Evangelist, wishing to suggest that the coming of the Word
was suited to the task of our restoration, made special mention of the flesh in
order to show that the weak flesh was repaired by the flesh of the Word. And
this is what the Apostle says: "The law was powerless because it was
weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and
in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh" (Rom 8:3).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
170 p 86
170 A
question arises as to why the Evangelist did not say that the Word assumed
flesh, but rather that the Word was made flesh. answer that he did this
to exclude the error of Nestorius. He 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
170 p 86
But if this
were so, it would mean that God did not become man, for one particular suppositum
cannot be predicated of another. 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. For a
thing is made or becomes something in order to be it; if, then, the Word is not
man, it could not be said that the Word became man. And 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. This union is such as would truly make God man and man God,
i.e., that God would be man.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
171 p 86
171 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 two hypostases, i.e., two supposita; one of a human nature, created and
non-eternal, and the other of the divine nature, non-created and eternal. This
is the first opinion presented in the Sentences (III, d6).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
171 p 86
According to
this opinion the proposition, "God was made man and man was made God,"
is not true. 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." And so the
Evangelist, to exclude any assumption not terminated at a oneness of person,
says, was made.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
172 p 86
172 If you
ask how the Word is man, it must be said that he is man in the way that anyone
is man, namely, as having human nature. Not that the Word is human nature
itself, but he is a divine suppositum united to a human nature. 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. And the Word was made
flesh through a union to flesh. Now a union is a relation. 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.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
173 p 87
173 Now
follows, and made his dwelling among us. This is distinguished in two ways from
what went before. The first consists in stating that above the Evangelist dealt
with the incarnation of the Word when he said, the Word was made flesh; ut now
he touches on the manner of the incarnation, saying, and made his dwelling
among us. For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, by the Evangelist saying the
Word was made flesh, someone might think that he was converted into flesh and
that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one nature
compounded from the human and divine natures. And so the Evangelist, excluding
this, added, and made his dwelling among us, i.e., in our nature, yet so as to
remain distinct in his own. For what is converted into something does not
remain distinct in its nature from that into which it is converted.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
173 p 87
Furthermore,
something which is not distinct from another does not dwell in it, because to
dwell implies a distinction between the dweller and that in which it dwells.
But the Word dwelt in our nature; therefore, he is distinct in nature from it.
And so, inasmuch as human nature was distinct from the nature of the Word in
Christ, the former is called the dwelling place and temple of the divinity,
according to John (2:21): "But he spoke of the temple of his body."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
174 p 87
174 Now
although what is said here by these holy men is orthodox, care must be taken to
avoid the reproach which some receive for this. For the early doctors and
saints were so intent upon refuting the emerging errors concerning the faith
that they seemed meanwhile to fall into the opposite ones. For example,
Augustine, speaking against the Manichaeans, who destroyed the freedom of the
will, disputed in such terms that he seemed to have fallen into the heresy of
Pelagius. Along these lines, John the Evangelist added, and made his dwelling
among us, so that we would not think there was a mingling or transformation of
natures in Christ because he had said, the Word was made flesh.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
174 p 87
Nestorius
misunderstood this phrase, and made his dwelling among us, and said that the
Son of God was united to man in such a way that there was not one person of God
and of man. For he held that the Word was united to human nature only by an
indwelling through grace. From this, however, it follows that the Son of God is
not man.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
175 p 87
175 To
clarify this we should know that we can consider two things in Christ: his
nature and person. In Christ there is a distinction in nature, but not in
person, which is one and the same in the two natures, since the human nature in
Christ was assumed into a oneness of person. Therefore, the indwelling which
the saints speak of must be referred to the nature, so as to say, he made his
dwelling among us, i.e., the nature of the Word inhabited our nature; not
according to the hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in
Christ.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
176 p 88
176 The
blasphemy of Nestorius is further refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture.
For the Apostle calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son
of God: "He, being in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form
of a servant" (Phil 2:6). Clearly, God is not said to empty himself
insofar as he dwells in the rational creature by grace, because then the Father
and the Holy Spirit would be emptying themselves, since they too are said to
dwell in man through grace: for Christ, speaking of himself and of the Father
says, "We will come to him and make our home with him" (below 14:23);
and of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says: "The Spirit of God dwells in
us" (1 Cor 3:16).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
176 p 88
Furthermore,
if Christ was not God as to his person, he would have been most presumptuous to
say: "I and the Father are one" (below 10:30), and "Before
Abraham came to be, I am," as is said below (8:58). Now "I"
refers to the person of the speaker. And the one who was speaking was a man,
who, as one with the Father, existed before Abraham.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
177 p 88
177 However,
another connection [besides that given in 173] with what went before is
possible, by saying that above he dealt with the incarnation of the Word, but
that now he is treating the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, he made
his dwelling among us, i.e., he lived on familiar terms with us apostles. Peter
alludes to this when he says, "During all the time that the Lord Jesus
came and went among us" (Acts 1:21). "Afterwards, he was seen on
earth" (Bar 3:38).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
178 p 88
178 The
Evangelist added this for two reasons. First, to show the marvelous likeness of
the Word to men, among whom he lived in such a way as to seem one of them. For
he not only willed to be like men in nature, but also in living with them on close
terms without sin, in order to draw to himself men won over by the charm of his
way of life.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 7 Sct
178 p 88
Secondly, to
show the truthfulness of his [the Evangelist's] statements. For the Evangelist
had already said many great things about the Word, and was yet to mention more
wonderful things about him; and so that his testimony would be more credible he
took as a proof of his truthfulness the fact that he had lived with Christ,
saying, he made his dwelling among us. As if to say: I can well bear witness to
him, because I lived on close terms with him. "We tell you ... what we
have heard, what we have seen with our eyes" (1 Jn 1:1); "God raised
him up on the third day, and granted that he be seen, not by all the people,
but by witnesses preordained by God," that is, "to us who ate and
drank with him" (Acts 10:40).
Lecture 8
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 V 14 p 89
LECTURE 8
14b And we have seen his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
179 p 89
179 Having
set forth the incarnation of the Word, the Evangelist then begins to give the
evidence for the incarnate Word. He does two things about this. First, he shows
the ways in which the incarnate Word was made known. Secondly, he clarifies
each way, below (1:16). Now the incarnate Word was made known to the apostles
in two ways: first of all, they obtained knowledge of him by what they saw;
secondly, by what they heard of the testimony of John the Baptist. So first, he
states what they saw about the Word; secondly, what they heard from John (v
15).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
179 p 89
He states
three things about the Word. First, the manifestation of his glory; hence he
says, we have seen his glory. Secondly, the uniqueness of his glory, when he
adds, as of the Only Begotten. Thirdly, the precise nature of this glory,
because full of grace and truth.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
180 p 89
180 And we
have seen his glory, can be connected in three ways with what went before.
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. "We know of what we speak,
and we bear witness of what we see" (below 3:11). "We tell you ...
what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes" (1 Jn 1:1).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
181 p 89
181
Secondly, 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. For dull and feeble eyes cannot see the light of the
sun; but they can see it when it shines in a cloud or on some opaque body. Now
before the incarnation of the Word, human minds were incapable of seeing the
divine light in itself, the light which enlightens every rational nature. And
so, in order that it might be more easily seen and contemplated by us, he
covered it with the cloud of our flesh: "They looked towards the desert,
and saw the glory of the Lord in a cloud" (Ex 16:10), i.e., the Word of
God in the flesh.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
182 p 90
182
According to Augustine, however, the connection refers to the gift of grace.
For the failure of the spiritual eyes of men to contemplate the divine light is
due not only to their natural limitations but also to the defects incurred by
sin: "Fire," that is, of concupiscence, "fell on them, and they
did not see the sun," of justice (Ps 57:9). Hence in order that the divine
light might be seen by us, he healed our eyes, making an eye salve of his
flesh, so that with the salve of his flesh the Word might heal our eyes,
weakened by the concupiscence of the flesh. And this is why just after saying, the
Word was made flesh, he says, we have seen his glory. To indicate this the Lord
made clay from his saliva and spread the clay upon the eyes of the man born
blind (below 9:6). For clay is from the earth, but saliva comes from the head.
Similarly, in the person of Christ, his human nature was assumed from the
earth; but the incarnate Word is from the head, i.e., from God the Father. So,
when this clay was spread on the eyes of men, we saw his glory.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
183 p 90
183 This is
the glory of the Word Moses longed to see, saying, "Show me your
glory" (Ex 32:18). But he did not deserve to see it; indeed, he was
answered by the Lord: "You shall see my back" (Ex 33:23), i.e.,
shadows and figures. But the apostles saw his brightness: "All of us,
gazing on the Lord's glory with unveiled faces, are being transformed from
glory to glory into his very image" (2 Cor 3:18). For Moses and the other
prophets saw in an obscure manner and in figures the glory of the Word that was
to be manifested to the world at the end of their times; hence the Apostle
says: "Now we see through a mirror, in an obscure manner, but then face to
face" in 1 Corinthians (13:12); and below (12:41), "Isaiah said this
when he saw his glory." But the apostles saw the very brilliance of the
Word through his bodily presence: "All of us, gazing on the Lord's
glory," and so forth (2 Cor 3:18); "Blessed are the eyes which see
what you see. For many kings and prophets desired to see what you see, and did
not see it" (Lk 10:23).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
184 p 90
184 Then
when he says, the glory as of the Only Begotten, he shows the uniqueness of his
glory. For since it is written of certain men that they were in glory, as of
Moses it says that "his face shone" (Ex 34:29), or was
"horned," according to another text, someone might say that from the
fact that they saw him [Jesus] in glory, it should not be said that the Word of
God was made flesh. But the Evangelist excludes this when he says, the glory as
of the Only Begotten of the Father. As if to say: His glory is not like the
glory of an angel, or of Moses, or Elijah, or Elisha, or anything like that;
but the glory as of the Only Begotten; for as it is said, "He [Jesus] was
counted worthy of more glory than Moses" (Heb 3:3); "Who among the
sons of God is like God?" (Ps 88:7).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
185 p 91
185 The word
as, according to Gregory, is used to express the fact. But according to
Chrysostom, it expresses the manner of the fact: as if someone were to see a
king approaching in great glory and being asked by another to describe the king
he saw, he could, if he wanted to be brief, express the grandeur of his glory
in one word, and say that he approached "as" a king, i.e., as became
a king. So too, here, the Evangelist, as though asked by someone to describe
the glory of the Word which he had seen, and being unable to fully express it,
said that it was "as" of the Only Begotten of the Father, i.e., such
as became the Only Begotten of God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
186 p 91
186 The
uniqueness of the glory of the Word is brought out in four ways. 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
saying: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased" (Mt
17:5). Of this glory it is said, "He received honor and glory from God the
Father ... 'This is my beloved Son'" (2 Pt 1:17)
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
186 p 91
Secondly, it
is brought out by the service of the angels. For prior to the incarnation of
Christ, men were subject to the angels. But after it, angels ministered, as
subjects, to Christ. "Angels came and ministered to him" (Mt 4:11).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
186 p 91
Thirdly, it
is brought out by the submission of nature. For all nature obeyed Christ and
heeded his slightest command, as something established by him, because
"All things were made through him" (above 1:3). This is something
granted neither to angels nor to any creature, but to the incarnate Word alone.
And this is what we read, "What kind of man is this, for the winds and the
sea obey him?" (Mt 8:27).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
186 p 91
Fourthly, we
see it in the way he taught and acted. For Moses and the other prophets gave
commands to men and taught them not on their own authority, but on the
authority of God. So they said: "The Lord says this"; and "The
Lord spoke to Moses." But Christ speaks as the Lord, and as one having
power, i.e., by reason of his own power. Hence he says, "I say to
you" (Mt 5:22). This is the reason why, at the end of the Sermon on the
Mountain, it is said that he taught as one "having authority" (Mt
7:29). Furthermore, other holy men worked miracles, but not by their own power.
But Christ worked them by his own power. In these ways, then, the glory of the
Word is unique.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
187 p 91
187 Note
that sometimes in Scripture we call Christ the Only Begotten, as here, and
below (1:18): "It is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, who has made him known." At other times we call him the
First-born: "When he brings the Firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let
all the angels of God adore him'" (Heb 1:6). The reason for this is that
just as it belongs to the whole Blessed Trinity to be God, so it belongs to the
Word of God to be God Begotten. Sometimes, too, he is called God according to
what he is in himself; and in this way he alone is uniquely God by his own
essence. It is in this way that we say there is but one God: "Hear, O
Israel: the Lord your God is one" (Dt 6:4). At times, we even apply the
name of deity to others, insofar as a certain likeness of the divinity is given
to men; in this sense we speak of many gods: "Indeed, there are many gods
and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
187 p 92
Along these
lines, if we consider what is proper to the Son as Begotten, and consider the
way in which this sonship is attributed to him, that is, through nature, we say
that he is the Only Begotten of God: because, since he alone is naturally
begotten by the Father, the Begotten of the Father is one only. But if we
consider the Son, insofar as sonship is conferred on others through a likeness
to him, then there are many sons of God through participation. And because they
are called sons of God by a likeness to him, he is called the First-born of
all. "Those whom he foreknew, he predestined to become conformed to the
image of his Son, so that he might be the First-born of many brothers"
(Rom 8:29).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
187 p 92
So, Christ
is called the Only Begotten of God by nature; but he is called the First-born
insofar as from his natural sonship, by means of a certain likeness and
participation, a sonship is granted to many.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
188 p 92
188 Then
when he says, full of grace and truth, he determines the glory of the Word. As
if to say: His glory is such that he is full of grace and divinity. Now these
words can be applied to Christ in three ways.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
188 p 92
First, from
the point of view of union. For grace is given to someone so that he might be
united to God through it. So he who is most perfectly united to God is full of
grace. Now some are joined to God by participating in a natural likeness:
"Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gn 1:26). Some are
joined by faith: "That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith"
(Eph 3:17). And others are united by charity, because "He who abides in
love abides in God" (1 Jn 4:16). But all these ways are partial: because
one is not perfectly united to God by participating a natural likeness; nor is
God seen as he is by faith; nor is he loved to the extent that he is lovable by
charity--for since he is the infinite Good, his lovableness is infinite, and
the love of no creature is able to love this infinitely. And so these unions
are not full.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
188 p 93
But in
Christ, in whom human nature is united to the divinity in the unity of a suppositum,
we find a full and perfect union with God. The reason for this is that this
union was such that all the acts not only of his divine but also of his human
nature were acts of the suppositum [or person]. So he was full of grace insofar
as he did not receive any special gratuitous gift from God, but that he should
be God himself. "He gave him," i.e., God the Father gave to the Son,
"a name which is above every name" (Phil 2:9). "He was
foreordained to be the Son of God in power" (Rom 1:4). He was also full of
truth, because the human nature in Christ attained to the divine truth itself,
that is, that this man should be the divine Truth itself. In other men we find
many participated truths, insofar as the First Truth gleams back into their
minds through many likenesses; but Christ is Truth itself. Thus it is said:
"In whom all the treasures of wisdom are hidden" (Col 2:3).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
189 p 93
189
Secondly, these words can be applied in relation to the perfection of his soul.
Then he is said to be full of grace and truth inasmuch as in his soul there was
the fulness of all graces without measure: "God does not bestow the Spirit
in fractions," as we read below (3:34). Yet it was given in fractions to
all rational creatures, both angels and men. For according to Augustine, just
as there is one sense common to all the parts of the body, namely, the sense of
touch, while all the senses are found in the head, so in Christ, who is the
head of every rational creature (and in a special way of the saints who are
united to him by faith and charity), all virtues and graces and gifts are found
superabundantly; but in others, i.e., the saints, we find participations of the
graces and gifts, although there is a gift common to all the saints, and that
is charity. We read about this fulness of Christ's grace: "There shall
come forth a shoot out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up out
of his root. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom
and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of
knowledge and of piety" (Is 11:1).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
189 p 93
Further,
Christ was also full of truth because his precious and blessed soul knew every
truth, human and divine, from the instant of his conception. And so Peter said
to him, "You know all things" (below 21:17). And the Psalm (88:25)
says: "My truth," i.e., the knowledge of every truth, "and my
mercy," i.e., the fulness of all graces, "shall be with him."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
190 p 93
190 In a
third way 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, both by producing virtue in the
minds of men through the inpouring of grace and by meriting, through his
teaching and works and the sufferings of his death, superabundant grace for an
infinite number of worlds, if there were such. Therefore, he is full of grace
insofar as he conferred perfect justice upon us. We could not acquire this
perfect justice through the law, which was infirm and could make no one just or
bring anyone to perfection. As we read: "The law was powerless because it
was weakened by the flesh. God, sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh
and in reparation for sin, condemned sin in his flesh" (Rom 8:3).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
190 p 94
Again, he
was full of truth insofar as he fulfilled the figures of the Old Law and the
promises made to the fathers. "Christ was a minister to the circumcised to
confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Rom 15:8); "All the
promises of God are fulfilled in him" (2 Cor 1:20).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 8 Sct
190 p 94
Further, he
is said to be full of grace because his teaching and manner of life were most gracious.
"Grace is poured out upon your lips" (Ps 44:3). And so it is said,
"All the people came to him early in the morning," i.e., in the
morning they were eager to come (Lk 21:38). He was full of truth, because he
did not teach in enigmas and figures, nor gloss over the vices of men, but
preached the truth to all, openly and without deception. As it says below:
"Now you are speaking plainly" (16:29).
Lecture 9
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 V 15 p 94
LECTURE 9
15 John bore witness to him, and he cried out saying: "This is the one of whom I said: 'He who comes after me, ranks ahead of me, because he existed before me.'"
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
191 p 94
191 Having
given the evidence by which the Word was made known to the apostles by sight,
the Evangelist then presents the evidence by which the Word was made known to
persons other than the apostles by their hearing the testimony of John. He does
three things about this. First, the witness is presented. Secondly, his manner
of testifying is indicated. Thirdly, his testimony is given.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
192 p 94
192 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 we are held in suspicion. So let his
witness come forth, that is, John the Baptist, who bears witness to Christ. He
is a faithful witness who will not lie: "A faithful witness will not
lie" (Prv 14:5); "You sent [messengers] to John; and he bore witness
to the truth" (below 5:33). John gives his testimony here and fulfills his
office with perseverance because he came as a witness. As Proverbs (12:19)
says, "Truthful lips endure forever."
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
193 p 95
193 Then
when he says, John bore witness to him, and he cried out, he describes the way
he bore witness, that is, it was with a cry. So he says, he cried out, i.e.,
freely without fear. "Cry out in a loud voice . . . . Say to the cities of
Judah: Here is your God" (Is 40:9). He cried out ardently and with great
fervor, because it is said, "His word burned like a torch" (Si 48:1);
"Seraphim cried one to another" (Is 6:3), which is expressive of a
more interior eagerness of spirit. 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 a truth is being declared openly and publicly, and told not to a few but
to many. "Cry out, and do not stop" (Is 58:1).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
194 p 95
194 Then he
adds his testimony. And he does two things. First, he shows that his testimony
was continuous. Secondly, he describes the person to whom he bore witness.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
195 p 95
195 The
testimony of the Baptist was continuous because he bore witness to him not only
once but many times, and even before Christ had come to him. And so he says, This
is the one of whom I said, i.e., before I saw him in the flesh I bore witness
to him. "And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most
High" (Lk 1:76). He pointed him out both as present and when about to
come. And his testimony is certain because he not only predicted that he would
come, but pointed him out when he was present, saying, Look! There is the Lamb
of God. This implies that Christ was physically present to John; for he had
often come to John before being baptized.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
196 p 95
196 Then he
describes the one to whom he bore witness, saying, He who comes after me, ranks
ahead of me. Here we should note that John does not at once preach to his
disciples that Christ is the Son of God, but he draws them little by little to
higher things: first, by preferring Christ to himself, even though John had
such a great reputation and authority as to be considered the Christ or one of
the great prophets. Now he compares Christ to himself: first, with regard to
the order of their preaching; secondly, as to the order of dignity; and
thirdly, as to the time of their existence.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
197 p 95
197 With
respect to the order of their preaching, John preceded Christ as a servant
precedes his master, and as a soldier his king, or as the morning star the sun:
"See, I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare the way before
me" (Mal 3:1). So, He comes after me, in being known to men, through my
preaching. Observe that comes is in the present tense, because in Greek the
present participle is used.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
197 p 96
Now John
preceded Christ for two reasons. First, according to Chrysostom, because John
was a blood relation of Christ according to the flesh: "your relative,
Elizabeth" (Lk 1:36). Therefore, had he borne witness to Christ after
knowing him, his testimony might have been open to question; accordingly, John
came preaching before he was acquainted with Christ, in order that his
testimony might have more force. Hence he says, "And I did not know him!
And yet it was to reveal him to Israel that I came baptizing with water"
(below 1:31).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
197 p 96
Secondly,
John preceded Christ because in things that pass into act from potency, the
imperfect is naturally prior to the perfect; hence it is said in 1 Corinthians
(15:46): "The spiritual is not first, but the animal." Accordingly,
the perfect doctrine of Christ should have been preceded by the less perfect
teaching of John, which was in a certain manner midway between the doctrine of
the law and the prophets (which announced the coming of Christ from afar), and
the doctrine of Christ, which was clear and plainly made Christ known.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
198 p 96
198 He
[John] compares him to himself with respect to dignity when he says, he ranks
ahead of me [ante me factus est, literally, he "was made before me"].
It should be noted that it is from this text that the Arians took occasion for
their error. For they said that "He who comes after me," is to be
understood of Christ as to the flesh he assumed, but what follows, "was
made before me," can only be understood of the Word of God, who existed
before the flesh; and for this reason Christ as the Word was made, and was not
coeternal with the Father.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
198 p 96
According to
Chrysostom, however, this exposition is stupid, because if it were true, the
Baptist would not have said, he "was made before me, because he existed
before me," since no one is unaware that if he was before him, he was made
before him. He rather would have said the opposite: "He was before me,
because he was made before me." And so, according to Chrysostom, these
words should be taken as referring to his [Christ's] dignity, that is, he was
preferred to me and placed ahead of me. It is as though he said: Although Jesus
came to preach after me, he was made more worthy than I both in eminence of
authority and in the repute of men: "Gold will not be equal to it"
(Jb 28:17). Or alternatively: he is preferred ahead of me, that is, before my
eyes, as the Gloss says and as the Greek text reads. As if to say: Before my
eyes, i.e., in my sight, because he came into my view and was recognized.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
199 p 96
199 He
compares him to himself with respect to their duration, saying, because he
existed before me. As if to say: He was God from all eternity, I am a frail man
of time. And therefore, even though I came to preach ahead of him, yet it was
fitting that he rank before me in the reputation and opinion of men, because he
preceded all things by his eternity: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today, and forever" (Heb 13:8). "Before Abraham came to be, I
am," as we read below (8:58).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 9 Sct
199 p 97
If we understand
this passage as saying that he "was made before me," it can be
explained as referring to the order of time according to the flesh. For in the
instant of his conception Christ was perfect God and perfect man, having a
rational soul perfected by the virtues, and a body possessed of all its
distinctive features, except that it lacked perfect size: "A woman shall
enclose a man," i.e., a perfect man (Jer 31:22). Now it is evident that
Christ was conceived as a perfect man before John was born; consequently he
says that he "was made before me," because he was a perfect man
before I came forth from the womb.
Lecture 10
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 V 16-17 p 97
LECTURE 10
16 Of his fullness we have all received--indeed, grace upon grace; 17 because, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
200 p 97
200 He
follows with, Of his fullness we have all received. These words and those that
follow to (v 19), "This is the testimony of John," are taken in two
ways. According to Origen, these are the words of John the Baptist and are
added by him to support what he had said previously. It is as though he said:
Truly, he existed before me, because of his fullness, i.e., of his grace, not
only I but all, including the prophets and patriarchs, have received, because
all had the grace they possessed by faith in the incarnate Word. According to
this explanation, John the Baptist began weaving the story of the incarnation
at, "John bore witness to him" (v 15).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
200 p 97
But
according to Augustine and Chrysostom, the words from "John bore witness to
him" (v 15), are those of John the Evangelist. And they are connected with
the previous words, "full of grace and truth," as though he were
saying: Above, the Evangelist gave the evidence for the Word which was learned
through sight and by hearing; but here he explains each. First, how he was made
known to the apostles through sight, which was tantamount to receiving the
evidence from Christ. Secondly, how John bore witness to him, at "This is
the testimony of John" (v 19). As to the first he does two things. First,
he shows that Christ is the origin, as a fountain, of every spiritual grace.
Secondly, he shows that grace is dispensed to us through him and from him.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
201 p 98
201 He says
first of all: We know from our own experience that we have seen him full of
grace and truth, because of his fullness we have all received. Now one fullness
is that of sufficiency, by which one is able to perform acts that are
meritorious and excellent, as in the case of Stephen. Again, there is a
fullness of superabundance, by which the Blessed Virgin excels all the saints
because of the eminence and abundance of her merits. Further, there is a
fullness of efficiency and overflow, which belongs only to the man Christ as
the author of grace. For although the Blessed Virgin super-abounds her grace
into us, it is never as authoress of grace. But grace flowed over from her soul
into her body: for through the grace of the Holy Spirit, not only was the mind
of the Virgin perfectly united to God by love, but her womb was supernaturally
impregnated by the Holy Spirit. And so after Gabriel said, "Hail, full of
grace," he refers at once to the fullness of her womb, adding, "the
Lord is with you" (Lk 1:28). And so the Evangelist, in order to show this
unique fullness of efficiency and overflow in Christ, said, Of his fullness we
have all received, i.e., all the apostles and patriarchs and prophets and just
men who have existed, do now exist, and will exist, and even all the angels.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
202 p 98
202 Note
that the preposition de [of, from] sometimes signifies efficiency, i.e., an
originative cause, as when it is said that a ray is or proceeds
"from" the sun. In this way it signifies the efficiency of grace in
Christ, i.e., authorship, because the fullness of grace in Christ is the cause
of all graces that are in intellectual creatures. "Come to me, all you who
desire me, and be filled with my fruits," that is to say, share in the
fullness of those fruits which come from me (Si 24:26).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
202 p 98
But
sometimes this preposition de signifies consubstantiality, as when it is said
that the Son is "of" the Father [de Patre]. In this usage, the
fullness of Christ is the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from him, consubstantial
with him in nature, in power and in majesty. For although the habitual gifts in
the soul of Christ are other than those in us, nevertheless it is one and the
same Holy Spirit who is in him and who fills all those to be sanctified.
"One and the same Spirit produces all these" (1 Cor 12:11); "I
will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Jl 2:28); "If anyone does
not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him" (Rom 8:9). For
the unity of the Holy Spirit produces unity in the Church: "The Spirit of
the Lord filled the whole world" (Wis 1:7).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
202 p 98
In a third
way, the preposition de [of, from] can signify a portion, as when we say
"take 'from' this bread or wine [de hoc pane, vel vino]," i.e., take
a portion and not the whole. Taken in this way it signifies that those who take
a part derive it from the fullness. For he [Christ] received all the gifts of
the Holy Spirit without measure, according to a perfect fullness; but we
participate through him some portion of his fullness; and this is according to
the measure which God grants to each. "Grace has been given to each of us
according to the degree to which Christ gives it" (Eph 4:7).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
203 p 99
203 Then
when he says, grace upon grace, he shows the distribution of graces into us
through Christ. Here he does two things. First, he shows that we receive grace
from Christ, as its author. Secondly, that we receive wisdom from him (1:18).
As to the first he does two things. First, he shows that we have received of
his fullness. Secondly, our need to receive it.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
204 p 99
204 First,
he says that we have received of the fullness of Christ what is described as grace
upon grace. In the light of what is said, we are forced to understand that of
his fullness we have received grace, and that upon that grace we have received
another. Accordingly, we must see what that first grace is upon which we have
received a second one, and also what that second grace is.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
204 p 99
According to
Chrysostom, the first grace, which was received by the whole human race, was
the grace of the Old Testament received in the law. And this was indeed a great
grace: "I will give you a good gift" (Prv 4:2). For it was a great
benefit for idolatrous men to receive precepts from God, and a true knowledge
of the one true God. "What is the advantage of being a Jew, or the benefit
of circumcision? It is great in every way. First indeed, because the words of
God were entrusted to them" (Rom 3:1). Upon that grace, then, which was
first, we have received a second far better. "He will follow grace with
grace" (Zec 4:7).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
204 p 99
But was not
the first grace sufficient? I answer that it was not, because the law gives
only a knowledge of sin, but does not take it away. "The law brought
nothing to perfection" (Heb 7:19). Hence it was necessary that another
grace come that would take away sin and reconcile one with God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
205 p 99
205 And so
he says, because, while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth have
come through Jesus Christ. Here the Evangelist ranks Christ above Moses the
lawgiver, whom the Baptist ranked above himself. Now Moses was regarded as the
greatest of the prophets: "There did not arise again in Israel a prophet
like Moses" (Dt 34:10). But he ranks Christ above Moses in excellence and
in dignity of works, because the law was given through Moses; and between these
two, the One excels the other as the reality excels the symbol and the truth
the shadow: "The law had a shadow of the good things to come" (Heb
10:1). Further, Christ excels him in the way he works, because the law was
given by Moses as by one proclaiming it, but not originating it; for "The
Lord alone is our lawgiver" (Is 33:22). But grace and truth have come
through Jesus Christ, as through the Lord and Author of truth and grace, as was
explained above.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
206 p 100
206
According to Augustine, however, the first grace is justifying and prevenient
grace, which is not given to us because of our works: "If it is by grace,
it is not now by works" (Rom 11:6). Upon that grace, then, which is
imperfect, we have received another grace which is perfect, i.e., the grace of
eternal life. And although eternal life is in some way acquired by merits,
nevertheless, because the principle of meriting in everyone is prevenient grace,
eternal life is called a grace: "The grace of God is eternal life"
(Rom 6:23). To be brief, whatever grace is added to prevenient grace, the whole
is called grace upon grace.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
206 p 100
The need for
this second grace arises from the insufficiency of the law, which showed what
was to be done and what avoided; but it gave no help to fulfill what was
commanded. Indeed, what seemed to have been directed to life was the occasion
for producing death. Hence the Apostle says that the law was a minister of
death: "If the ministry that condemned had glory, the ministry that
justifies has much more glory" (2 Cor 3:9). Also, it promised the help of
grace but did not fulfill, because "The law brought nothing to
perfection" (Heb 7:19). Again, it prefigured the truth of the new grace by
its sacrifices and ceremonies; indeed, its very rites proclaimed that it was a
figure. Hence is was necessary that Christ come, who by his own death would
destroy other deaths and grant the help of new grace, in order that we might
both fulfill his precepts with ease and joy, and die to our sins and our old
way of life: "Our old self was crucified with him" (Rom 6:6), and in
order that the truth of the figures contained in the law might be revealed and
the promises made to the fathers be fulfilled.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
206 p 100
This can be
explained in another way: truth has come through Jesus Christ, as to the wisdom
and truth which was hidden for centuries, and which he openly taught when he
came into the world: "I came into the world for this, to testify to the
truth," as we read below (18:37).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 10 Sct
207 p 100
207 But if
Christ is the Truth, as it says below (14:6), how did truth come [i.e., come to
be, be made] through him, because nothing can make itself? I answer that by his
essence he is the uncreated Truth, which is eternal and not made, but is
begotten of the Father; but all created truths were made through him, and these
are certain participations and reflections of the first Truth, which shines out
in those souls who are holy.
Lecture 11
Commentary on the Gospel of
Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 V 18 p 101
LECTURE 11
18 No one has ever seen God; it is the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, who has made him known.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
208 p 101
208 Above,
the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ as its
author; here he shows how they received it from him as a teacher. About this he
does three things. First, he shows the need for this teaching. Secondly, the
competency of the teacher. Thirdly, the teaching itself.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
209 p 101
209 The need
for this teaching arose from the lack of wisdom among men, which the Evangelist
implies by alluding to the ignorance concerning God which prevailed among men,
saying: No one has ever seen God. And he does this fittingly, for wisdom
consists properly in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Hence Augustine
says that wisdom is the knowledge of divine things, as science is the knowledge
of human things.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
210 p 101
210 But this
statement of the Evangelist, No one has ever seen God, seems to contradict many
passages of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah (6:1): "I saw the
Lord seated on a high and lofty throne." And about the same is found in 2
Samuel (6:2). Again in Matthew (5:8), the Lord says: "Blessed are the pure
in heart, for they shall see God."If someone were to answer this last
statement by saying that it is true that in the past no one has seen God, but
will see him in the future, as the Lord promises, the Apostle would exclude
this, saying, "He dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or
can see" (1 Tim 6:16).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
210 p 101
Because the
Apostle says, "no man has seen," someone might say that if he cannot
be seen by men, then at least he can be seen by angels; especially since God
says, "Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father" (Mt
18:10). But it cannot be taken in this way either, because it is said,
"The sons of the resurrection will be like the angels of God in
heaven" (Mt 22:30). If, therefore, the angels see God in heaven, then it
is plain that the sons of the resurrection also see him: "When he appears
we shall be like him, and we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
211 p 101
211 How then
are we to understand what the Evangelist says: No one has ever seen God? To
understand it we must know that God is said to be seen in three ways. First,
through a created substitute presented to the bodily sight; as Abraham is
believed to have seen God when he saw three [men] and adored one (Gn 1). He
adored one because he recognized the mystery of the Trinity in the three, whom
he first thought to be men, and later believed to be angels. In a second way,
through a representation in the imagination; and in this way Isaiah saw the
Lord seated on a high and lofty throne. Many visions of this sort are recorded
in the Scriptures. In a third way, he is seen through an intelligible species
abstracted from material things; and in this way he is seen by those who,
considering the greatness of creatures, see with their intellect the greatness
of the Creator, as it is said: "From the greatness and beauty of
creatures, their Creator can be seen accordingly" (Wis 13:5); "The
invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood through the things
that are made," as found in Romans (1:20). In another way, God is seen
through a certain spiritual light infused by God into spiritual minds during
contemplation; and this is the way Jacob saw God face to face, as it says in
Genesis (32:30). According to Gregory, this vision came about through his lofty
contemplation.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
211 p 102
But the
vision of the divine essence is not attained by any of the above visions: for
no created species, whether it be that by which an external sense is informed,
or by which the imagination is informed, or by which the intellect is informed,
is representative of the divine essence as it is. Now man knows as to its
essence only what the species he has in his intellect represents as it is.
Therefore, the vision of the divine essence is not attained through any
species.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
211 p 102
The reason
why no created species can represent the divine essence is plain: for nothing
finite can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is
finite; therefore [it cannot represent the infinite as it is]. Further, God is
his own esse; and therefore his wisdom and greatness and anything else are the
same. But all those cannot be represented through one created thing. Therefore,
the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not a knowledge of his
essence, but a knowledge that is dark and mirrored, and from afar.
"Everyone sees him," in one of the above ways, "from afar"
(Jb 36:25), because we do not know what God is by all these acts of knowing,
but what he is not, or that he is. Hence Denis says, in his Mystical Theology,
that the perfect way in which God is known in this present life is by taking
away all creatures and every thing understood by us.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
212 p 102
212 There
have been some who said that the divine essence will never by seen by any
created intellect, and that it is seen neither by the angels nor by the
blessed. But this statement is shown to be false and heretical in three ways.
First, because it is contrary to the authority of divine Scripture: "We
shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2); "This is eternal life, that they
know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (below
17:3). Secondly, because the brightness of God is the same as his substance;
for he does not give forth light by participating in light, but through
himself. And thirdly, because it is impossible for anyone to attain perfect
happiness except in the vision of the divine essence. This is because the
natural desire of the intellect is to understand and know the causes of all the
effects that it knows; but this desire cannot be fulfilled unless it
understands and knows the first universal cause of all things, which is a cause
that is not composed of cause and effect, as second causes are. Therefore, to
take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence by man is to take
away happiness itself. Therefore, in order for the created intellect to be
happy, it is necessary that the divine essence be seen. "Blessed are the
pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Mt 5:8).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
213 p 103
213 Three things
should be noted about the vision of the divine essence. First, it will never be
seen with a bodily eye, either by sense or imagination, since only sensate
bodily things are perceived by the senses, and God is not bodily: "God is
spirit" (below 4:24). Secondly, that as long as the human intellect is in
the body it cannot see God, because it is weighed down by the body so that it
cannot attain the summit of contemplation. So it is that the more a soul is
free of passions and is purged from affections for earthly things, the higher
it rises in the contemplation of truth and tastes how sweet the Lord is. Now
the highest degree of contemplation is to see God through his essence; and so
as long as a man lives in a body which is necessarily subject to many passions,
he cannot see God through his essence. "Man will not see me and live"
(Ex 33:20). Therefore, if the human intellect is to see the divine essence it
must wholly depart from the body: either by death, as the Apostle says,
"We would prefer to be absent from the body and present with the
Lord" (2 Cor 5:8); or by being wholly abstracted by rapture from the
senses of the body, as is mentioned of Paul in 2 Corinthians (12:3).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
213 p 103
Thirdly, no
created intellect (however abstracted, either by death, or separated from the
body) which does see the divine essence, can comprehend it in any way. And so
it is commonly said that although the whole divine essence is seen by the
blessed, since it is most simple and has no parts, yet it is not wholly seen,
because this would be to comprehend it. For "wholly" implies a
certain mode. But any mode of God is the divine essence. Hence one who does not
see him wholly does not comprehend him. For one is properly said to comprehend
a thing through knowledge when he knows that thing to the extent that it is
knowable in itself; otherwise, although he may know it, he does not comprehend
it. For example, one who knows this proposition, "A triangle has three
angles equal to two right angles," by a dialectical syllogism, does not
know it as well as it is knowable in itself; thus he does not know it wholly.
But one who knows this by a demonstrative syllogism does know it wholly. For
each thing is knowable to the extent that it has being and truth; while one is
a knower according to his amount of cognitive power. Now a created intellectual
substance is finite; hence it knows in a finite way. And since God is infinite
in power and being, and as a consequence is infinitely knowable, he cannot be
known by any created intellect to the degree that he is knowable. And thus he
remains incomprehensible to every created intellect. "Behold, God is
great, exceeding our knowledge" (Jb 36:26). He alone contemplates himself
comprehensively, because his power to know is as great as his entity in being.
"O most mighty, great, powerful, your name is Lord of hosts, great in
counsel, incomprehensible in thought" (Jer 32:18).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
214 p 104
214 Using
the above explanations, we can understand, No one has ever seen God. First, No
one, i.e, no man, has seen God, that is, the divine essence, with the eye of
the body of or the imagination. Secondly, No one, living in this mortal life,
has seen the divine essence in itself. Thirdly, No one, man or angel, has seen
God by a vision of comprehension. So when it is said that certain ones have
seen God with their eyes or while living in the body, he is not seen through
his essence, but through a creature acting as a substitute, as was said.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
214 p 104
And thus it
was necessary for us to receive wisdom, because No one has ever seen God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
215 p 104
215 The
Evangelist mentions the competent teacher of this wisdom when he adds, it is
the Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. He shows the
competence of this teacher in three ways: by a natural likeness, by a singular
excellence, and by a most perfect consubstantiality.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
216 p 104
216 By
natural likeness, because a son is naturally like his father. Wherefore it also
follows that one is called a son of God insofar as he shares in the likeness of
his natural son; and one knows him insofar he has a likeness to him, since
knowledge is attained through assimilation [or "likeness to"]. Hence
1 John (3:2) says, "Now we are sons of God," and he immediately adds,
"when he comes, we will be like him, and we will see him as he is."
Therefore, when the Evangelist says Son, he implies a likeness as well as an
aptitude for knowing God.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
217 p 105
217 Because
this teacher knows God in a more special way than other sons do, the Evangelist
suggests this by his singular excellence, saying, the Only Begotten. As if to
say: He knows God more than other sons do. Hence, because he is the natural Son,
having the same nature and knowledge as the Father, he is called the Only
Begotten. "The Lord said to me: 'You are my Son'" (Ps 2:7).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
218 p 105
218 Although
he may know in a unique way, he would be lacking the ability to teach if he
were not to know wholly. Hence he adds a third point, namely, his
consubstantiality to the Father, when he says, who is in the bosom of the
Father. "Bosom" is not to be taken here as referring to men in their garments,
but it indicates the secret things of the Father. For what we carry in our
bosom we do in secret. The secret things of the Father refer to his unsurpassed
power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. Therefore, in that
bosom, i.e., in the most secret things of the paternal nature and essence,
which transcends all the power of the creature, is the Only Begotten Son; and
so he is consubstantial with the Father.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
218 p 105
What the
Evangelist signifies by "bosom," David expressed by "womb,"
saying: "From the womb, before the daystar," i.e., from the inmost
secret things of my essence, incomprehensible to every created intellect,
"I begot you" (Ps 109:3), consubstantial with me, and of the same
nature and power, and virtue and knowledge. "What man knows the things of
a man except the spirit of the man that is in him? So also, no one knows the
things of God except the Spirit of God" (1 Cor 2:11). Therefore, he comprehends
the divine essence, which is his own.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
219 p 105
219 But the
soul of Christ, which knows God, does not comprehend him, because this is
attributed only to the Only Begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father. So
the Lord also says: "No one knows the Father except the Son, and any to
whom the Son wishes to reveal him" (Mt 11:27); we should understand this
as referring to the knowledge of comprehension, about which the Evangelist seems
to be speaking here. For no one comprehends the divine essence except the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so we have shown the competence of
the teacher.
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
220 p 105
220 We
should note that the phrase, who is in the bosom of the Father, rejects the
error of those who say that the Father is invisible, but the Son is visible,
though he was not seen in the Old Testament. For from the fact that he is among
the hidden things of the Father, it is plain that he is naturally invisible, as
is the Father. So it is said of him: "Truly, you are a hidden God"
(Is 45:15). And so Scripture mentions the incomprehensibility of the Son:
"No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father
except the Son" (Mt 11:27), "What is the name of his son, if you
know?" as we read in Proverbs (30:4).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
221 p 106
221 Then the
Evangelist indicates the way in which this teaching is handed down, saying that
it is the Only Begotten Son who has made him known. For in the past, the Only
Begotten Son revealed knowledge of God through the prophets, who made him known
to the extent that they shared in the eternal Word. Hence they said things
like, "The Word of the Lord came to me." But now the Only Begotten
Son has made him known to the faithful: "It is I who spoke; here I
am" (Is 52:6); "God, who in many and varied ways, spoke to the
fathers in past times through the prophets, has spoken to us in these days in
his Son" (Heb 1:1).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
221 p 106
And this
teaching surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness,
because it was handed on immediately by the Only Begotten Son, who is the first
Wisdom. "It was first announced by the Lord, and confirmed to us by those
who heard him" (Heb 2:3).
Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John Ch 1 Lec 11 Sct
222 p 106
222 But what
did he make known except the one God? And even Moses did this: "Hear, O
Israel: the Lord your God is one" (Dt 6:4). What did this add to Moses? It
added the mystery of the Trinity, and many other things that neither Moses nor
any of the prophets made known.